Venture capitalist Stu Phillips of Ridgelift Ventures writes about companies needing to “eat their own dog food” when it comes to using their products. He makes the point that they’ll understand product issues and fix them faster if they do.
While I agree, I think it’s especially important that companies eat the competitors’ dog food too! Most of our clients are involved in crowded markets where customers have a multitude of choice. And yet, I see technology companies using ONLY their own products internally.
Does HP use Sun servers with Solaris? Does Apple use Nokia phones? Does Cisco use Juniper switches? Does Oracle use SAP? Does Microsoft use web-based office productivity software?
Imagine if they did. Imagine what the marketing and engineering people would learn. They would learn the good, the bad and the ugly, not just about their competitors’ products, but more importantly, they’d learn the good, the bad and the ugly about their own products when they contrast them to competitive offerings.
Too many companies “drink their own kool-aid” and/or eat their own dog food so much that they actually believe they understand their products from a customer’s perspective inside an incredibly competitive world.
Worst case, if you can’t make it happen inside your company, hire a firm (could be Crimson, could be other companies) to help you get that real experience, insight and knowledge you crave about how your competitors’ products are really doing.
Using other people’s products applies across the board. Many banks for whom I have worked have their senior executives book home and other loans with competitors and use competitive depository products to keep plugged into the competition. In the case of the loans, there are also regulatory requirements to be met, which turns a necessary step into a positive one.
How do you tell your customers that you are using products, which you are telling them not to buy?
Absolutely right. Tunnel vision is the Achilles heel of marketers. Companies are so obsessed with their market offerings that competitor blips on the radar are not given due attention. Furthermore, it is not politically right in companies to procure competitor products and discuss about them…egos get hurt, and that could be dangerous to an individual. So why take the risk? Yes Sir is the best approach.
Al, great point.
I am NOT saying that you should violate any patent or confidentiality agreement.
Let’s take the Apple – Nokia example. Apple employees buy Nokia phones and USE them! I’m not saying they tear them apart to see what what technologies are found inside. I’m saying they discover why Nokia sells BILLIONS of phones vs. Apple’s MILLIONS of phones.
Wow. What an experience that could be. What if they actually LIKE something about the Nokia phone. Then, they will be thinking about how to make the next iphone better.
You have a point about knowing how your competitor’s products work, and knowing how they compare to your offerings.
However, how does one avoid charges of reverse engineering by your competitors? Where is the line between ethical and legal competitive research, and illegal reverse engineering?
Glenn, thanks for a thought-provoking post. It’s always been seen as loyal to love and use your own products (years ago as a GTE employee I was very impressed to see a presentation from the Sylvania light bulb group in which the climax was them stomping a GE bulb on stage).
But you bring up a very good point. In today’s ultra-competitive environment, a company must understand both the strengths and weaknesses of its own products and those of its competitors. How better to learn that than by using the products and gaining expertise in them?
To me, it’s an extension of valuing dissent. Companies must get past the loyalty question and encourage the use of competitive products to build a 3-dimensional picture of itself in the marketplace.
Until then, customers will continue to make puzzling choices, selecting what seems to be an inferior competitor as compared to “our” market-leading product.
Regards, John