Schedule a conversation

Case study

Product Development: Unlocking Customer Insights for Differentiated Products

A different feature set moved preference 20+ points at a 25% higher price, and cost less to build.

Client
Automotive product development
+20 PTSUNIT PREFERENCE+25%PRICE, AND LESS TO BUILD+20OLDNEWPREFERENCE, 0 TO 100Client results

The challenge

Pricing pressure and lost share in the entry-level category, with sales pushing for a smaller, cheaper machine.

A year of development, on one read

A capital equipment manufacturer was under pricing pressure and losing share in the entry-level category. The sales team’s read was clear and expensive: the company needed to design a smaller, 110-volt machine to compete. Acting on that would have committed a year of new product development.

WHAT THE SALES TEAM’S READ WOULD HAVE COMMITTEDA SMALLER, 110-VOLT MACHINE: A YEAR OF NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENTSTARTSIX MONTHSONE YEAR
WHAT THE READ WOULD HAVE COMMITTEDA YEAR OF DEVELOPMENTSTARTONE YEARFor a smaller, 110-volt machine

The approach

Before committing engineering, we ran qualitative Voice of Customer research across the key personas in that segment to validate the stated needs and pain points.

Listen first, then test the trade-offs

The research surfaced other candidate differentiators, and we tested those against the assumed size and voltage requirements using Conjoint Analysis, putting real trade-offs in front of real buyers.

RESEARCH BEFORE ENGINEERING1Voice of Customerqualitative, across the keypersonas2Other differentiatorssurfaced by the research3Conjoint Analysisagainst size and voltage4Real trade-offsin front of real buyersWHAT BUYERSWOULD TRADE
RESEARCH BEFORE ENGINEERING1Voice of Customerqualitative, across the key personas2Other differentiatorssurfaced by the research3Conjoint Analysisagainst size and voltage4Real trade-offsin front of real buyersWHAT BUYERSWOULD TRADE

The results

A large segment would readily trade smaller size and 110v service for higher capacity and a touchscreen interface.

What buyers would trade

Smaller size and 110v service did enter the purchase equation, but their effect on unit preference was small. A large segment would readily trade both for higher capacity and a touchscreen interface, vectors of differentiation worth 20+ points of unit preference at a nearly 25% higher price point.

THE ASSUMPTION AGAINST THE ANSWERWHAT SALES ASSUMEDWHAT A LARGE SEGMENT WOULD TRADE IT FORSmaller size110-volt serviceA small effect on unit preferenceHigher capacityA touchscreen interface20+ points of unit preference, at a nearly 25% higher priceClient results
THE ASSUMPTION AGAINST THE ANSWERWHAT SALES ASSUMEDSmaller size110-volt serviceA small effect on unit preferenceWHAT A LARGE SEGMENT WOULD TRADE IT FORHigher capacityA touchscreen interface20+ points of unit preference, at anearly 25% higher priceClient results
PRICE POINTCurrentNewly featuredNearly +25%DRAWN AT 24%, SINCE THE CASE SAYS NEARLY 25Client results

A nearly 25% higher price

The newly featured unit held its preference at a price point nearly 25% higher.

COST TO BUILDCurrent offeringNewly featured unitLOWERCame in lower when engineering costed itClient results

Cheaper to build

When engineering costed the newly featured unit, it came in lower than the current offering.

RESEARCH AGAINST DEVELOPMENTThe year-long projectThe researchA FEW WEEKSNeither share nor revenue would have movedClient results

A few weeks instead of a year

A few weeks of research replaced a year-long development project that would have moved neither share nor revenue.

RelatedProduct developmentManufacturing & distribution

Keep reading

More engagements like this

All fifteen engagements

Apply it to your business

Ready for results like this?

Bring us the growth problem you cannot staff for.

Schedule a conversation