Idea to make millions

[DavidL41]

Complexity is the enemy of execution.

The definition of a business is a system that consistently adds value in a timely and effective manner.

Coffee is the product. They deliver the product in a timely and effective manner.

The innovation (making it better) came in with the atmosphere, ambiance, nicer chairs. Other places innovated coffee by having it served by hot chicks in bikinis. Other places served it faster than anyone else. Other places found better beans. Whatever the innovation -- their "unique selling proposition" -- really it just comes down to getting someone from "ain't got it" to "got it" in a timely and effective manner.

I think what you're talking about is important but really advanced.

How do you create an emotional response to a product or service?

Well... that depends on the innovation. Sometimes it is a hot chick in a bikini -- that makes me happy. Other times it's when I have a problem and I haven't been able to solve it, it becomes a huge relief. Sometimes it's as simple as a meaningful conversation.

But at the end of the day if the value is delivered in a TIMELY and effective manner... the result is accomplished and everybody is happy.

If something breaks down in your system, then the result is not delivered in a timely manner and people associate negative feelings to you, your products, your brand, etc.

We've all had companies that we love their product but you question whether you should order it again because you don't know how/when it will show up.

Yes, you want to create an emotional response.... but probably not in the way you're thinking. That usually happens automatically when you solve someone's problem. If the product or service solves someone's problem (in a timely and effective manner), my emotions change.

But trying to create an emotion first is like putting the cart before the horse.

I think I have not conveyed my concept fully. The concept to me is to do the market research, find an opportunity where a 'value proposition innovation' can be made. People buy the value proposition that is tailored just for them for max value and customer satisfaction.


In simpler terms, Starbucks looked at a customer segment, and realized in Europe there is an already validated high end european coffee lounge scene. He made some tweaks to see if it would work in America. He innovated the value proposition in order to serve a premium experience with higher end coffee to women, and upper middle class mostly.

In essence, he created a new superior value proposition tailored to his target audience. He kept a supreme focus on continually improving the value proposition for his target audience.


In conclusion, my overall concept is:


superior strategy + superior organization/business model
= superior value proposition for target audience = superior results ( customer satisfaction + profit + growth)

A business wants to create a superior value proposition (value, brand, product, and experience). It needs an optimal strategy and organization/business model to be able to design and create that superior value proposition.

The concept at hand is to achieve an above average or superior value proposition for the target audience. Keep improving the value proposition to improve results(ideally leading to heavy growth and then scale). Would you say that is an accurate enough way to look at overall strategy?

 

[DavidL41]

You describe stuff from the business model/supply-side of things. But the magic happens on the user/demand-side. Be careful not to trample a subtle part of seeing the world from another person's perspective and letting them show you what they really need. And then acting on it, watering the seed of productocracy and gaining traction in the real world.

View attachment 39384

I'm afraid that this theoretical "approach to the approach" made Starbucks fail in Australia.

Why there are almost no Starbucks in Australia

It's easy to find a Starbucks cafe almost anywhere in the world, but in Australia, there aren't that many.

www.cnbc.com

I agree with @Kung Fu Steve:

Right, but they made the adjustment. They did the strategic management and adjusted it for that situation. They project the brand, and what they are offering is strong enough to succeed there long term, and success is likely long term. It's impossible to be 100% accurate which is why they call it strategic management. Strategy needs to be continually adjusted/managed to get the right outcome.

What you're saying is correct... but feels very theoretical in the way you describe it. As if it was based on extensive paper research. You're not wrong, it's just your way of communicating is very algorithmic.

working on the business(at the helm) is different than working in the business. The ceo and coo is in charge of company building, and strategic management to create and achieve the intended high result. I believe it is like asking a person who is strategically using a sniper to use a machine gun up close. Everyone's got their style. I personally find managing strategy to output the intended result, and building an effectively executing organization/business model to achieve that outcome is the approach that works for my thinking. I believe a macro view of things helps in optimizing outcomes. I do agree that at the start of a company you are doing both, working in it and at the helm of it.

If you are working IN your business rather than at the helm leading your business you effectively just spend money to run a job, not run a business. If no one is effectively leading and managing the business it's getting close to gambling. Just my opinion. Company building/managing, and strategy is my thinking on it