Copying Emotion and Amazement in Brands and Products

Every so often I go into Apple’s App Store (primarily for the iPad) and look for new apps to try. I’m typically looking for new games – time killers – that I can enjoy and relax with, and maybe share with the kids as well. App discovery isn’t great, and I usually don’t end up downloading anything.

Last week I found a game that I’m completely in love with: Silversword RPG.

It’s very reminiscent of The Bard’s Tale, which came out in 1985 on the Apple II. I started playing The Bard’s Tale on the PC (so must have been 1986 or 1987). There were a couple sequels as well. I loved The Bard’s Tale, along with the Ultima and Might & Magic series.

I always assumed there’d be a similar game made available on the iPad at some point, and I found it with Silversword.

silversword screenshot

Sure, games like Infinity Blade that push the iOS hardware and have ridiculously amazing graphics are fun too (Infinity Blade was also hugely successful), but beautiful graphics don’t automatically make a game fun. It’s the same with movies that have lots of special effects, they can still fall short.

Game designers (and startups in other areas too) have long been “copying” what works in an effort to capture the same level of success as predecessors. But cloning or copying something isn’t easy. You can copy what you see – the features, gameplay, graphics – but you can’t easily capture the essence of a game and replicate that. Copying the emotional connection someone feels to something is extremely difficult. In Silversword’s case, the game developer Mario Gaida has done a fantastic job. He clearly understands why people were such huge fans of The Bard’s Tale and other predecessors. There are homages to those games inside Silversword, both acknowledging the lineage and his appreciation for them.

Copying the learning a startup has done is basically impossible. You can’t know what someone else knows unless you’ve gone through it already and in the same way. So you might see something that looks good, seems to be getting traction and decide it’s working well, but those that are ahead and learning (if they’re doing it properly!) have already moved on.

Some brands have incredible staying power. Mario Brothers for example. My kids are playing Mario Brothers now on Flash websites. They love Mario, even though they have no clue where he came from or when he started. Every generation discovers The Beatles right?

Copying what makes a brand special is damn near impossible. There’s so much more that goes into it than mechanics, gameplay and graphics. Even successful brands have to re-invent themselves, while still trying to maintain the level of emotion and connection people felt to the originals. Nostalgia plays a big role; many of us like re-connecting to our past. I think that’s a big part of human nature, we like looking backwards and feeling good. In games this makes complete sense, because we remember how much we enjoyed them as kids. We get that same emotional high we got when we first put a floppy disk into a computer and were amazed.


Performance vs. Features — Which is More Important?

It’s fairly well understood at this point that performance is a critical aspect of building for the web. Better performance typically means better results (for whatever you’re trying to get people to do.) E-commerce transactions go up. Sign-up conversions go up. And so on.

The same holds true with B2B / enterprise software. People will overlook all kinds of product and feature limitations if performance is amazing. Part of the reason is that they’re able to more quickly create & discover workarounds that they’re willing to live with, in exchange for top notch performance. I’m more willing to change my behaviour, adjust how I work, or lower my product expectations if performance is fantastic. When performance is bad, every workaround or product limitation is magnified many times over.

Recently I was involved in a product purchasing decision. I won’t name names (it doesn’t matter.) One product had limited features for what I was looking to do (in part because it’s a “generalist” product and not a “specialized” product — perhaps a debate for another time), while the other was specialized for my needs (vertically-focused). We first went to the specialized product, but then moved to the generalist product (because the product breadth was wider.) As we used the generalist product, we talked through and experimented with different workarounds to address the product’s limitations. It wasn’t a big deal initially, every product has limitations and fitting them into your existing processes and workflow requires some massaging. But after a couple days, we went back to the specialized product.

Why?

Performance.

The specialized product provides more functionality as well – which is handy – but more importantly, it’s fast. Working within the product is a joy vs. frustration, and it makes it easier for me to encourage use of the product amongst other team members as well. At one point someone suggested using Google Spreadsheets. Why? It’s fast. We knew Google Spreadsheets wouldn’t scale, and we didn’t really want to use it, but it’s easy, convenient and fast.

It’s also important to note that the specialized product is more expensive than the one we abandoned (~5x more expensive). Cost was never part of our decision-making process, except initially when we thought we could use the generalized product for more things (instead of going vertical.) And we would have, if performance had been there.

The importance of performance for B2B software and enterprise applications is only going to increase.

With a bigger move to mobile devices (especially in the enterprise), people want all the power and functionality in the palm of their hand. Performance has a huge impact on uptake (which is always challenging in the enterprise) and long-term adoption. People will “suffer” a lack of features if they can still get things done quickly.


Always Be Pitching

Build, measure, learn.

That’s the Lean Startup mantra. It sounds simple, but it’s surprisingly tough to do well. And while it’s designed to eliminate waste and provide a speedier path through product development and validation, it can still lead to silos in how we think about startup progress. It’s so easy to spend an inordinate amount of time in the build phase, ignoring everything else, even if we know we’re really supposed to focus on “measure & learn.”

The solution is to always be pitching.

Never stop pitching your solution to prospects. Even when you’re in build mode, you can still be pitching, doing demos, showing off your solution (even in its half-baked, prototype stage). Think about two cycles through “build-measure-learn” – one is focused on the product and what you will deliver to customers; the second is focused on the pitch, and how you’ll sell to customers. Ultimately they’re both about understanding what problem you’re solving (and how painful it is) and whether or not your solution solves the problem well enough. But they’re different too. There’s a lot of learning to be done in the second cycle. The cycles aren’t completely in synch, but they definitely overlap – you’re building product while you’re pitching product and learning.

build - measure - learn

Always be pitching breaks you out of build mode faster. It keeps you in touch with customers, keeps your pitch fresh, and allows you to learn much more – on a constant basis – about what resonates with people. You can experiment with how you pitch, how you demo, what value propositions you emphasize, etc. This process isn’t about collecting feedback for development in order to tell them what to build. It’s about understanding your customers, learning about their pain, crafting the pitch and getting comfortable interfacing with the outside world. You can’t run a business in a vacuum. You have to get out there and pitch.

I’m making a point not to say “always be closing” or even “always be selling”, although this is definitely close to selling. But the goal isn’t revenue at this point, the goal is to learn what works and what doesn’t. Pitching is a more appropriate way of thinking about it.

Failed pitches are as good as successful ones. You want to be extremely selective about your beta customers; you’re not looking to open the floodgates. But practicing and refining your pitch will be extremely valuable when you put your product in customers’ hands in order to get to the measure and learn phase of the process.


About Ben Yoskovitz
I recently joined GoInstant as VP Product. GoInstant changes how we use the web, making it shareable like never before.

I'm also a Founding Partner at Year One Labs, an early stage accelerator in Montreal. Previously I founded Standout Jobs (and sold it). I'm a hands-on startup guy, helping companies grow successfully from the idea forward. You can reach me at byosko at gmail dot com.

Follow Ben on TwitterFollow this blog via email
Startup Tools
Find Stuff
Please Check Out:
NextMontreal.com I Spy Montreal
Disclaimer
The opinions and commentary on this site are mine and mine alone. They do not necessarily reflect the opinions or positions of my employer, GoInstant.