In addition to the 4 Ps model, I plan to use "whole product" and "jobs-based" approaches to Product Development, Channel (Place) Selection, Pricing Considerations, and Promotional Strategy.
The Whole Product Concept
This Whole Product approach to product development is the brainchild of technology marketing guru Regis McKenna.
Recall the days when personal computers were little more than glorified word processors. That core product - the PC - remains today much as it was back then, albeit with increased and accelerated processing capabilities.
The early PC was disruptive technology insofar as it effectively eliminated the market for electric typewriters. Some suspected that handheld calculators might also be threatened. But that, really, was it.
Connectivity proved to be far more disruptive. Networked PCs provide a good example of a whole product. They would not be possible if not for the core product, the personal computer. But they are much more than mere word processors and calculators.
Connected PCs have disrupted myriad industries: travel agents, television networks, newspapers, bookstores, photo film manufacturers, and many more. Networked PCs continue to disrupt new and diverse markets because they afford consumers and businesses an ever expanding range of attributes and capabilities.
The whole product is the sum of all of those product attributes that increase the value that accrues to customers.
Product "Jobs"
This concept originated with Professor Clayton Christensen of Harvard Business School. It is the subject of my IndyCar Maxim #4. Let us again use the PC as our example.
Previously, we recalled that early PCs were little more than word processors and calculators. Think of all of the "jobs" that we can "get done" today, thanks to the whole product that is the networked personal computer. Think of the various industries that have been disrupted - music and video retailers, photo finishers, pornography publishers, the U.S. Post Office - because a better alternative is now available via the PC.
The PC whole product empowers users to get lots of jobs done.
IndyCar: Trade offs RequiredSelecting the optimal combination of attributes for incorporation into the IndyCar racing whole product is paramount to our task. It is also likely to be a challenging and, at times, frustrating proposition.
The PC is fairly thought to be a Utopian whole product because it is capable of doing different jobs for different users at different times. For example, it is entirely conceivable that one PC might be used as a substitute for both Hustler magazine and the land line phone that the kids used to call Grandma. However, that PC is unlikely to be used for both "jobs" at the same time. Personal computers offer users a flexible, either/or job orientation.
The IRL is not so fortunate. Racing is temporal - it must occur at specific times and in specific places. Years ago, one might not have been surprised to see Grandma sitting next to a guy reading Hustler at the Indianapolis 500. But those days have gradually faded away as consumers of all types have been afforded more and better alternatives. Such is the nature of market competition in the digital age.
Therefore, we must: 1) identify an attractive market, 2) determine the jobs that individuals in that market want to get done and 3) develop an IndyCar whole product that is unequaled with regards to helping customers get those jobs done.
Market selection is Job #1. Our target market will have little to do with demographic categories. Instead, we shall seek individuals who are looking to get the similar "jobs" done.
Roggespierre
Hi "R."
ReplyDeleteHmm...I think you have to work on the "ask" here a bit. I still contend you need to better state your terms and distinguish the core product from the whole.
I also think jumping into four Ps before product definition is a big swallow.
I'm gathering that you want to define "jobs," which to me, is all about servicing needs...and that will work.
Perhaps you could suggest something more specific, like what are all the jobs we want this product to perform? We might even go so far as to tie the jobs to constituents/customers you wish to serve.
Or maybe I'm just dense and should shut up?
TC
TC,
ReplyDeleteThe next post should clarify. I just wanted to introduce broad concepts here.
Best,
Roggespierre
I don't think you can try to sell the 500 to merely one audience and get away with it. You can't market purely upscale: ALMS has that covered. You can't pretend to just be gritty with a bunch of international ridebuyers and super high tech cars. The series has to be sold on the personality of the drivers as much as the cars themselves, but until you get the cars and the racing fine tuned to where you need it cost and competition wise, you'll never get the support of the hardcore fans (and the leverage they can provide to push the series forward). Its like when you hear people talk about trying to breathe life into boxing - No matter what fights are made, the same tired arguments are drug out and the dead horses of corruption and bad matchmaking beaten again.
ReplyDeleteIndy can't promote itself at that level until it can create for itself a perception that its drivers are great (or perhaps the best), because otherwise, as boxing sees, the critics will pan it as being "second rate" and you'll never spark interest among the casuals. For that here in the US, you need some stock car guys at Indy and to convert totally that aren't stuntmen.
“R”
ReplyDeleteI like your PC thoughts and I think it works well for us.
The first PC’s were not only very limited in application, but they were EXPENSIVE when considered against what he have today.
Our basic product is the CAR---our PC if you wish.
Until we know that our product is saleable, (that means both desirable and AFFORDABLE), able to be developed, and will be platform on which our finished product, (an enjoyable racing event). will have been built.
Before I tear off into my “rant’ about the car---do you agree it is the BEST place to start?
If not , oh great leader, please tell what you think is our PC.
osca
Maybe I am off-base here, but isn't our core product the Indianapolis 500 with a great Indy Racing Series as the finished product? was that not our Vision Statement? Any number of different types of cars can go into a good race, but it is the race we are selling and not the type of car. Right? Otherwise we could just have a cool car show.
ReplyDelete-indyian
Wait on it, osca... I know I am.
ReplyDeleteMy two cents here. I agree with indyian that our core product is the Indy 500.The finished product is a grat IndyCar Series. But that finished product must appeal to both the oval fans and the road/street fans. I will grant that within the fans of the IRL road/street fans are a minor amoount. But within the ChampCar fans there is a great deal of dislike of the current series because they see this series as second rate. Granted Champcar in it's final incarnation was not much better. TV ratings and track attendance will increase if the new product is an improvement over the current product and is considered to be a winner by both factions. As I pointed out in an earlier post we CANNOT AFFORD to disenfranchise a significant portion of the total fan base. Let us be wary of becoming an oval centric or ovals only series or we are just repeating the "vision" of Tony George.We need to look at what it was about CART in the late 80's to early-mid 90's that resonated with the fans. This is what our final "product" must strive for.
ReplyDeleteGM
ReplyDeleteAre we sure we want to go back to that era? Wasn't this the beginning of the end for our series? The formation of CART after Tony Hullman died was what got us HERE. I agree that road races/street courses should be a part of the series, but American Open-Wheel racing was built on ovals. You yourself say that "within the fans of the IRL road/street fans are a minor amoount". Later you say "we CANNOT AFFORD to disenfranchise a significant portion of the total fan base". I know you meant road-race fans, but they are a minor amount and one that I think we CAN afford to disenfranchise for the sake of the really significant fan base...Indy 500 fans. I think we should aim for the feel of the 1970s if we decide to emulate past glories and I am sure that many would prefer we aim for the 1950s or 1960s over that. Soory to call you out for the contradiction, but I care about this race and this series and don't want it ruined by another CART mentality.
-indyian
1) identify an attractive market - people who have watched/attended at least one race within the last year.
ReplyDelete2) determine the jobs that individuals in that market want to get done - a few hours of entertainment.
-John
Hi "R"
ReplyDeleteA few questions.
What in your opinion, is the core product? (high level)
Again, high level, what, in your opinion is the whole product?
Referencing Regis McKenna, what is the market infrastructure? From the base business (IMS/IRL) through suppliers, consultants, media, influencers, sponsors, fan club types, passive customers. Use whatever labels you choose, but don't you think it would be helpful to spell this out?
What jobs need solutions IndyCar can provide?
Or...maybe you want to direct discussion around "jobs" of the series. To do this, though, I think spelling out the market infrastructure would be helpful to distinguish customers, supplier, partners and the appropriate "job" to address with/for each.
Bottom line, I think more structure is needed because I am unconvinced there is a shared understanding among those you are collaborating with in this forum.
TC
First off, I would suggest that McKenna's model is not particularly the best one. Whether one is talking a new IndyCar series or the 500, the end product, that purchased by the paying/viewing customers, is not technology - unless one argues that the car owners are the paying customers.
ReplyDeleteLet's take Dr. Christensen's model. (BTW his Innovator's Dilemma book is available in full on line @ http://books.google.com/books?id=SIexi_qgq2gC&lpg=PP1&dq=Clayton%20M%20Christensen&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q=&f=false )
Target nonconsumption – Identify the barriers to consumption
Leverage the low performance hurdle: i.e. Sell low-tech solar panels in the third world to establish your product in the unserved market.
Make it “foolproof”: Anyone can use the product.
Lock in and take over: It's so useful that the inevitable disruptive growth dominates the market to dissuade competition.
As Christensen suggests, let's first target IndyCar's nonconsumption... and the barriers to consumption.
It isn't that the general American public isn't interested in auto racing – NASCAR is proof there. It isn't that the Indianapolis 500 isn't known or that the product there is deficient. It annually draws 200k-plus live spectators and a respectable television audience on a key holiday weekend afternoon. It isn't access to the IndyCar product – live events and television provide that.
I would suggest a prime barrier is plain public disinterest in IndyCar.
If that is an accurate assessment, the initial answer is to create public interest.
So, why aren't folks interested in IndyCar.
ReplyDeleteHere are a few basic facts:
From 1990 thru '08, the Indianapolis 500 was won 14 times by a non-American. Since 1990, of 31 CART/CCWS/IRL championships awarded, 19 were taken by non-American drivers. Of the last eleven, ten were won by non-Americans. Five of the last six IRL championships have been won by non-Americans.
Of the Americans who have won the 500 since 1985, only two grew from the traditional ladder through USAC. Al Unser, Sr. ('87) and Junior '92/'94.
Other American winners:
Sullivan – Formula (Euro-trained) '85
Rayhal – SCCA '86
Unser, Sr. - '87
Mears – off-road to USAC '88/91
Unser, Jr. - Sprints @ age 11.('92/94)
Cheever – karts, formula (Euro-trained) '98
Rice – hot rods, karting, formula '04
Hornish – karts, formula '06
I would suggest that IndyCar racing is just not interesting for either natural fan base in the game's primary market: American short track fans, or American formula and karting fans.
For American short track fans, IndyCar drivers aren't from there. The cars aren't from there. Nothing is from there, except the "Greatest Spectacle" traditions remain familiar to many.
And oval racing apparently doesn't attract "sophisticated" formula racing or karting fans.
Now what?
Indyian.: I suggest you go to Crapwatgon.com. Once you get past the invective, there is still a significant number of open wheel fans that do like road/street courses. These are the people that WILL NOT watch IRL races until and unless the new car is a success.These are the significant fan base I was refering to. Within the "IRL fan-base" the road/street fans are a minority.
ReplyDeleteAs for the 70's what was the average purse for a champcar race.. I think it was around $10K dollars for the whole field.Is it any wonder the drivers towed their own race cars and stayed in fleabag motels. Because USAC kept the prizes low and did a horrible job of leveraging fan interest in to TV viewership. Back then we had sponsors like Domino's, Valvoline, Texaco-Havoline, Budweiser, Hardee's, Red Roof Inn, and others. Where are they now? CART in the early 80's to early 90's produced some of the greatest racing we have seen IndyCar history. What was it about that racing that resonated with the fans?
Let me say jusf for the record if anyone hasn't figured it out by now. I grew up watching and listening to the Indy 500 and reading about and watching sports car and F1 racing. I like both, and if you insist on making this an oval centric or worse ovals only series, I will lose interest in the Indy Series. I will still watch the 500 simply because it is "The Greatest Spectacle in Racing".
And there is historical precedent for fan interest in road roacing. A good many of the early racing events were held on public roads. In fact most of the first decade of autoracing in the US and abroad was street courses/public roads.
Rocketman's last three paragraphs in the post above says it all.
GreyMouser asked:
ReplyDeleteCART in the early 80's to early 90's produced some of the greatest racing we have seen IndyCar history. What was it about that racing that resonated with the fans?
Really, it's not hard to figure:
You had a grid into the late-80s that included Unsers, Andrettis, Foyt, etc. maintining the connection with traditional fans. Americans won the 500 from '67 to '88.
Little Al and Michael established themselves as legitimate heirs, WDCs Emmo and Mansell came to enhance the level of competition.
You had drivers with names that meant something, men who had won important races. Today, if one removes the 500 from IndyCar resumes, what has anyone won? For example, what is Kanaan's career signature victory? These guys are either nobodies, or are heavily discounted by racing the Milka Dunos and Marty Roths of the world.
What about a split series with an oval champion, a road/street course champion, and an overall champion?
ReplyDeleteYou had a grid into the late-80s that included Unsers, Andrettis, Foyt, etc. maintining the connection with traditional fans. Americans won the 500 from '67 to '88.
ReplyDeleteLittle Al and Michael established themselves as legitimate heirs, WDCs Emmo and Mansell came to enhance the level of competition.
Which brings us to the modern IRL: The current "new generation" has been too badly damaged by the split and the resulting schisms of talent that they are not relevant to most race fans. Contrary to Robin Miller's beliefs, Unsers, Andrettis, and Rahals will not fix Indycar racing unless they are the best drivers. They will not gain significant fanbases until fans see them as being legitimately elite talents behind the wheel. Racing the current IRL roster, this will not happen. They might as well be JR Hildebrand or John Edwards.
This is one of the reasons why I consistently state that for Indycar to thrive, the general public must believe that its stars are elite, great race car drivers. NASCAR fans, in general, are not going to say that the greatest racer of all time was Tazio Nuvolari or Jim Clark instead of Dale Earnhardt or Richard Petty. Is that an accurate assessment of skills? Perhaps not, but it doesn't matter. Perception is key. Indycar's drivers lost the perception of being major league the second TG sent CART packing. Somehow, they need to rebuild that image. Only way to do it is with money.
VirtualBalboa,
ReplyDeleteYou have it right, perception is everything. Unless and until we have American drivers in the series that are considered to be the "best drivers" anywhere, we'll be fighting a losing battle.
But may I add that Jim Clark came to Indy because Colin Chapman saw a chance to bring a different race car (Lotus),one with a rear engine in a little green chassis. He did it because the rules allowed for "innovation".
Today's IRL rules are "exclusive". We need rules that are "inclusive".
The perception of the current car is that it is a "crapwagon".
NOTHING WILL CHANGE THAT PERCEPTION, even if they tweak the wings, change paint schemes, add a "push to pass" button, or change the tire compound!
What we need is for it, the IRL (or the new series) to be open to a varied chassis and engine combination.
A better product, driven by great drivers, to make our Vision for the Indy 500 attainable.
osca
osca suggested:
ReplyDeleteA better product, driven by great drivers, to make our Vision for the Indy 500 attainable.
To get "great drivers" you need a "great resaon" for them to appear. Today's 500-mile race itself is not enough. And if one is talking about a series...keep talking.
The web of contracts today makes it nearly impossible for the kinds of crossover that occurred years ago among the headliners. So don't expect Tony Stewart or Jeff Gordon to jump into a Foyt ride next year, regardless of start time.
But let's get back to the original concept of "disruptive technology". I would suggest that the "500" as run until '96 was nothing but competition between disruptive technologies. That was its appeal, from the Marmon Wasp to the Mercedes "pushrod", continual innovation focused to win the richest race in the world, and the response of other competitors.
Disruptive technology for the 500-Mile International Sweepstakes is a "green" alternative: It's $25 million on the table.
More money than Daytona, more interesting entries than today's, an event worthy of promotion regardless of who drives, and immediately afterwards something to talk about for next year.
Rocketman:
ReplyDeleteI'm intrigued...and I am seeking to understand, not necessarily suggest that you are off base. Disruptive tech, as defined in Christensen's "Innovator's Dilemma" book, suggests that an emerging technology disrupts your market as a vendor of a traditional tech. Digital photography was disruptive if you are a producer of film. How is how a disruptive technology affecting the popularity of IndyCar or the Indy 500? If you are saying that what is needed in the sport is a disruptive technology akin to what roadster designers such as Watson found Chapman popularized the march to the rear, that's a different order of logic.
I must also say that McKenna's models are a good framework. Applying the basic concept of core and whole product to IndyCar product offerings would be outstanding. What are we selling and who are we selling it to? The core product is essential, but you can't win unless the whole product is defined with all of its attributes.
Again, I am afraid we are swimming in it here. A structure for operating - with a shared understanding of that structure - is critical or we will have a cacophony of singers using different song sheets.
"R" has demonstrated terrific leadership in establishing this forum as a collaboration point and an oasis of idea exchange. I am in awe of the investment he has made in presenting a wealth of interpretation and applying his advance business analytical skills to suggest new approaches for the business of IndyCar. For the participants here to offer something meaningful - dare I say actionable - we need a structure. I have read Christensen, Kotler, Drucker and have worked with senior people at McKenna. The core-whole product and market infrastructure concepts would provide an excellent structure to shape up a productive discussion.
The Maxims demonstrated by Roggespierre serve as excellent guidelines for the refinement of abstract ideals. I will again thank him for exposure to the education.
ReplyDeleteThe difficulty in applying these concepts is insurmountable when the core product has been misidentified.
My view differs from most all I have read here. The core product is not innovation, race cars, drivers, racetracks, giveaways et al.
The core product is not even a product, it is a service. Entertainment.
How you choose to appreciate that goal, and what methods you select to construct a path toward its realization, is the business of members here. I'll resume a posture of minding my own, and apologize for the interrution.
Andrew Bernstein
AB,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you - the comments here have obviously gotten ahead of the game, it would appear. The "core product" is sort of nebulous, in this case - can we define a basic "unit" of IndyCar?
And as TC said:
"For the participants here to offer something meaningful - dare I say actionable - we need a structure."
I think Roggespierre has a pretty good handle on the way he wants to structure this discussion. I think it will be much more efficient to let his approach develop a little bit before pressing for modifications...
Instead, we shall seek individuals who are looking to get the similar "jobs" done.
ReplyDeleteSo....would these be examples of potential Indy-associated jobs?
1. Root for a competitor.
2. Feel like part of a tradition.
3. Feel a sense of patriotism.
4. Watch closely contested racing.
5. Watch high-speed racing.
6. Witness all-time records.
7. Observe product evolution.
And so on. I'm just imagining sitting up yonder in Turn 1 and ticking off the "jobs" that I might hope to get done as I watch the ideal IndyCar series (obviously, I can't get some of them done with the current product).
Is this the kind of thing we're talking about?
Hi BC.
ReplyDeleteI think your idea is the big breakthrough in this thread. Your list is quite good. Sure, it can be augmented, but it moves the yardsticks forward.
I have a couple of thoughts.
One, I wonder if we shouldn't split the Indy 500 off from the IndyCar series as two related, but distinct products. In essence, this is what IMS Corp has done by their organization. I see ICS and Indy 500 as distinct brands with some overlapping attributes, but others that are wholly unique. If it were my call, I'd assess them as two different products.
Second, your list of jobs, as I see it, apply to the end consumer - the fan. There are other customers/constituents in the infrastructure. Such as...sponsors and suppliers (not always distinct). For example, sponsor jobs could include targeted, scale exposure and B2B sales. The suppliers could be interested in jobs such as tech development and promotion.
That's why I think identifying the market infrastructure is important. The jobs then line up under each of those constituencies.