37signals’ Jason Fried makes an interesting argument comparing software to shoes (and tennis rackets). Essentially the idea is that most consumers buy what looks good to/on them.
Here’s how most people found a shoe and decided if it was right for them. They’d walk up to the pegboard wall where the shoes were lined up. They’d pick up a few, spin ‘em around, and put them back. Then they’d hone in on one of them because they liked the way it looked. They’d ask for their size, I’d bring it out, and they’d try it on. They’d jam their thumb between their big toe and the tip of the shoe to see if it fit. Then they’d maybe bounce around a bit or “hard walk” to see how the cushioning felt. Then they’d look in the mirror to see how it looked. They’d they’d buy it or repeat the process with another shoe.
I sold tennis rackets and shoes as an assistant tennis pro in high school. I agree that most consumers buy technical products (like sporting equipment) for non-technical reasons. But, that doesn’t leave any room for innovation which is what drives the ongoing profitability of the industry. I can guarantee you that the Wilson Oversize Hammer didn’t take off because of it’s good looks. Most people looked at that thing and laughed out loud.
If you are selling new technology, tennis rackets or software, you can’t rely on good aesthetics alone. If you want to innovate, you have to get people to think differently and design alone can’t accomplish that task. If it could, we’d still be rocking beautiful persimmon drivers on the golf course instead of Big Bula Bombers. And the Wilson Hammer never ever ever would’ve sold 2 rackets.
And tennis shoes?
Need I say more about shoes? You better have some Goodyear rubber if you want me to buy something besides these.
You need specs and endorsements to sell something truly new and innovative. Design, while incredibly central, can’t evolve an industry on it’s own.
