February 7, 2005

the ignorance premium (cont.)

zzzbambam25.jpg
In explai­ning The Igno­rance Pre­mium (how the less the cus­to­mer knows, the more com­pa­nies can charge) I cite gentleman’s tai­lo­ring as an exam­ple:

Know diddly-squat about tai­lo­ring? Then you’re more likely to pay that extra $300 for that Armani, less likely to save $600 from going with the old man in Chi­na­town.
But then English­Cut comes along… sud­denly the con­ver­sa­tion avai­la­ble to most peo­ple gets much smarter.

Kathe­rine in the com­ments right­fully asks:

How much extra does not kno­wing have to cost me before it’s worthwhile to get smart? Sure, I can save $600 by fin­ding the tai­lor in Chi­na­town. But if the time I spend fin­ding him is worth more than $600, what have I really saved? 

Obviously, if the time you spend fin­ding him costs you more than $600, you haven’t saved anything.
But what if the cost was only $500? $300? $50 $15? Or how about “vir­tually free”?
And what if this vir­tually free infor­ma­tion, which is now only avai­la­ble to the few rea­ders of English­Cut, somehow mana­ged to spread out to thou­sands of peo­ple? Tens of thou­sands? Hun­dreds of thou­sands?
How would a com­pany like Armani adapt?
But this isn’t really about tai­lo­ring. This is about all of us.
A lot of the mar­kets we work in are star­ting to get far smar­ter, at a noti­cably fas­ter rate than the com­pa­nies we work for i.e. the com­pa­nies ser­vi­cing these mar­kets.
Have you a plan?

8 Responses to “the ignorance premium (cont.)”

  1. mamagiggle says:

    inhe­rent dream + per­fect plan + a miracle = $$$$$

  2. Hey Hugh…
    Just a thought… the dif­fe­rence bet­ween long term thin­king and short term thin­king. If it DOES take me more time to find the saving, and the saving is less than what it cost me to FIND the saving, this is not neces­sa­rily a bad thing. It’s an invest­ment in my know­ledge.
    In the case of fin­ding that Chi­nese tai­lor, if I need eight suits over my life­time of suit-wearing, the cost of FINDING the tai­lor in the first place is tri­vial.
    And marketplace-as-conversation makes it chea­per for me to find the Chi­nese tai­lor.
    Second order thin­king takes that dee­per… my being OPEN to con­ver­sa­tion as a mar­ket tool makes me more likely to find the Chi­nese tai­lor.
    Third order thin­king has the Chi­nese tai­lor with his ear on the con­ver­sa­tio­nal pipe­line rea­li­sing that someone like me might be in need, and he may raise his voice above the cla­mou­ring crowd.
    Blue skies
    love
    Roy

  3. hugh macleod says:

    Agreed, Roy, I par­ti­cu­larly liked your Point # 3 =)

  4. Katherine says:

    First I have to find English­Cut in order to know that the Chi­nese tai­lor exists. Then I have to find the par­ti­cu­lar Chi­nese tai­lor who is con­ve­nient to me, since he pro­bably doesn’t have anywhere near the adver­ti­sing bud­get or loca­tion visi­bi­lity of the Armani store. Then I have to phy­si­cally meet with him at least once and pro­bably seve­ral times. Plus I have to make all the hard deci­sions about cut, color, fabric, etc. (or get to know the tai­lor well enough to let him make them for me).
    If my hourly rate is high enough to afford Armani in the first place, my $600 savings will vanish pretty quickly.
    I agree with you in prin­ci­ple. I just think your analy­sis is a bit sim­plis­tic. The Inter­net may have made the effi­cien­cies of mass mar­ke­ting and mass pro­duc­tion less impor­tant, but it hasn’t era­sed them.

  5. acm says:

    You wrote:
    A lot of the mar­kets we work in are star­ting to get far smar­ter, at a noti­cably fas­ter rate than the com­pa­nies we work for i.e. the com­pa­nies ser­vi­cing these mar­kets.
    This is get­ting some dis­cus­sion just in terms of performance-based data and how it sha­pes mar­kets for non­tra­di­tio­nal “com­mo­di­ties” such as medi­cine — yes, it’s help­ful for hos­pi­tals to study the ways that some of their collea­gues get dis­pro­por­tio­na­tely bet­ter out­co­mes, but once that data exists, it’s also pretty rea­so­na­ble for patients to stop trus­ting the nea­rest hos­pi­tal to give them opti­mum care… It will take a *long* time for hos­pi­tals (and doc­tors!) to figure out how to work within that new space, and long before that, the patients will have chan­ged their dis­tri­bu­tion. (or at least the smart ones.)

  6. Hi Kathe­rine…
    Yeah, I agree, my analy­sis IS sim­plis­tic. What I’m trying to illus­trate with it, though, is that short term thin­king has a dif­fe­rent pers­pec­tive to long term thin­king.
    In the short term, you lose money by see­king out the Chi­nese tai­lor. And you’re incon­ve­nien­ced. And so on.
    In the long term, you’ve found your­self a tai­lor, you’ve enga­ged in a new con­ver­sa­tion (or set of con­ver­sa­tions), you’ve met a new set of peo­ple, you’ve expan­ded your net­work.
    Short ter­mists wouldn’t want or need the long term gains. They’re not inte­res­ted in the con­ver­sa­tion in the first place. They just want a suit, any suit, and will pay the price for it. They’re really not loo­king for savings even. They want ins­tant deli­very.
    The long ter­mists are coming at life and busi­ness from a slightly shif­ted para­digm. You, for ins­tance, are pro­bably a long-termist, cos you’re taking time to con­verse in a blog com­ment thread. In order for you to chat with me about this, you’ve got to perio­di­cally head for Hugh’s blog and see if any addi­tio­nal com­ments have been made. You’re inves­ting in my and your expan­sion, and that of the other rea­ders of this thread. And so am I. And so is Hugh.
    Short term, we gain nothing. Long term, my name gets out there. Your name does too. One day, we hook up and do con­ver­sa­tio­nal busi­ness. Cos we’re not dis­sing each other. Cos we’re being mutual about this chat. We’re not making each other wrong. And we’re demons­tra­ting this in a way that short ter­mists wouldn’t get close to.
    I dig this stuff. We’re in a new world.
    Blue skies
    love
    Roy

  7. Katherine says:

    I think we all take a short term view in some situa­tions and a long term view in others, actually. Someone who appre­cia­tes fine tai­lo­ring more than the “cool­ness” that comes from a desig­ner label is more likely to seek out the Chi­nese tai­lor. Someone who enjoys coo­king as an art is more likely to track down farmer’s mar­kets, arti­san bake­ries, etc. Though it might be very worthwhile to bring that atten­tion to detail to all aspects of your life, very few peo­ple actually do so.
    For me, the inte­res­ting thing about the Inter­net isn’t so much smar­ter con­ver­sa­tions, but more diverse con­ver­sa­tions. (Cf. Wired on the Long Tail) If I want to talk about fine tai­lo­ring, or arti­san bake­ries, or just about anything else, I can find like-minded peo­ple. If my cul­tu­ral tas­tes run to Mayan folk music and Middle Eas­tern films, I can find them, too. Like­wise, as an inde­pen­dent crea­tor, I can find my audience without neces­sa­rily fit­ting into the mold defi­ned by Big Media.

  8. hugh macleod says:

    Kathe­rine, it’s OK… you can buy Armani if you pre­fer ;-)
    You can also pre­tend that mar­kets never get smar­ter, or even if they do you are far too ahead of the curve for it to ever make a dif­fe­rence to you per­so­nally.
    In fact, I bet Armani sell a lot of suits to peo­ple who think exactly that ;-)