Crowds, Market Research, .coms, and Why Chef Thomas Keller is like Steve Jobs.

kickstarter:

The NY Times Year in Ideas

This past weekend, Kickstarter had the tremendous honor of being included in the New York Times Magazine’s annual Year in Ideas […] exemplifying Kickstarter’s potential.

Having been involved in a “crowd-related” startup, I am fascinated by the potential for utilizing crowdsourced/group-buying mechanics for market research.

Entrepreneur Andrew_Chen writes prolifically about this topic. His buying Google Adwords and measuring click-throughs rates of specific keywords points to the ease and affordability of determining real, viable markets for new businesses (a click-through = a conscious curiosity or desire for the product). Clothing startup Bonobos is doing similar market research on its upcoming shirt line by polling customers via Twitter about various features: do you prefer two-button collars? one button collars? button position? etc. It has been fascinating to watch how brands engage with their customers, in attempts to engineer communities. Perhaps the epitome of a company that utilizes crowds would be Treadless.com. Threadless allows anyone to upload a t-shirt design to its website, after which the community determines what design will be produced by voting on their favorites. The voting community in turn becomes future buyers. In a way, Threadless is an entirely enclosed ecosystem in which designers, market analysts, and buyers mingle. This sort of market research is nothing new. What’s different, however, is that technology and the internet have efficiently bridged the gap between companies and customers (current or potential), bypassing the traditional methods of testing markets before the product’s release. Think of movies and test screenings, TV shows and pilots, or production cars and futuristic-looking concept cars. So my question is: since testing the market has become easier and cheaper, why do brands (or startups) continue to fail to engage their markets? Ultimately, products need to be adaptable to fit individual needs/preferences/etc., which I believe leads to an evolving trend of individualism. Perhaps in the future all products will be tailored to the individual—not like in pre-industrial, 18th century hand-crafted sort of way, but in a way where customers have a direct say in determining desirable end-products. In the end, perhaps technology and a better grasp of the modern community will enable brands to create better goods.

On the flip-side of this individual/crowdsourced argument is the paralysis of choice. For example, the increasing popularity of “Chef Tasting Menus” and “Pre Fixe” menus hints at a preference for less choice—i.e. the chef cooks and you eat. In my opinion this is either the epitome of egotism or the epitome of hospitality. So in a way, Chef Thomas Keller of The French Laundry is similar to Steve Jobs of Apple. They both are icons of their industry, and as icons, they make what they want, using the ingredients and the specifications they want, and you as a customer have little choice. But, yes, what they make is good.