Ratings are great. They help to highlight a product’s individual performance on specific criteria compared to its peers. Unless the rating is base on user voting, the underlying mechanism is ‘best in class’. Ignoring this makes the rating counter productive as tool for supporting customer decision taking.
A nice example of using fact sheets with ratings in a less than perfect way is demonstrated by a local Swiss (mobile) phone provider. All phones on display have a small fact sheet. This seems part if the new branding, without doubt aimed at making the shop (and company) hip and modern. There is a coffee machine and there is a boll with sweets to make waiting more pleasurable. Overall, the shop offers a ‘green’ – good for the ecology – look. Tables are rustically wood. Offers are drawn on the wall as menus in restaurants, illustrated with comic versions of app icons. Employees do not stand behind a counter but walk around ‘free’, looking for customers to serve. If needed, there are discussion points scattered around the shop. They also walk around with tablet computers tide to their left hand. Personnel with a tablet fixed to their left hand, which invariably indicates modernity and hipness, right? Regretfully, the tablets still run made-for-desktop software, which is useable on a tablet except for simple tasks, which is even more regrettable since simple tasks are those for which you permit yourself to call the hotline and probably do not come into the shop. So you find yourself waiting in line for one of the employees with a desktop PC to become available while the tablet-boys are standing around chatting away about soccer waiting for the more simple tasks to arrive. Yes, I have a coffee, please.
While waiting, you are confronted with the phones on display. The phones are accompanied by a small – A8 size – fact sheets, printed on ‘green’ paper highlighting main characteristics. The idea is that you can tear off the fact sheet and take it with you. Great idea but clearly not been tried; it takes certain practice before you can tear off a fact-sheet without tearing it.
The fact sheet describes the phones’ qualities textually followed by a quantitated list of specific qualities and an environmental impact indication. Important to note is that these are two channels. Some customers will read the text, other customers will glance over the ratings and a few will do both. There is a very basic rule to adhere to when disseminating the same information through different channels; independent from the channel the information should be the same. It is highly recommended to check.
A very basic phone is descripted as (translated from German) ‘Exceptionally user friendly, with an uncommon simple user interface, excellent sound quality and utilities particularly useful to fulfill the needs of older users, such as alarm functions, reminders, memory teasers etc.’ So-far so good.
The four qualities that are highlighted and quantified are ‘calling’, ‘camera’, ‘screen’ and ‘music’, each rated on a five-point scale.
Calling is listed with a 3; an average.
This completely baffles me. Here we have a phone that is clearly and without any doubt made to make phone calls. That’s it. You can make phone calls. Nothing more. Sure, it has a few add-on features, but these are without doubt simply thrown into the mix to fill up the menu structure with some content, nothing more than placeholders. And according to the fact sheet, this phone performs ‘average’ when it comes to making a phone call.
If the phone truly has an average calling performance, it has no business being offered. It should not be here. They should not have wasted the recycled paper the fact sheets are printed on.
Now I am curious. Is there a phone that received a 5 for calling? Interestingly enough phones that clearly are created for the single purpose of calling all receive an average. Phones that have been created to do much more than just calling, i.e. smart phones, do not even have calling as a feature mentioned.
Form the fact sheets I cannot but conclude that none of the phones offered are excellent, if the only thing I want to do is make a call. Maybe there is no market for this? Not true. A study shows that 56 percent of all US adults now have smartphones. With more than 90% of US adults having a mobile phone, this means that the smartphone penetration is now about 60 percent. It also means that 40 percent has a ‘normal’ phone, for which making a phone call still is in the top 3 of most used functions (after checking time and sending SMS).
Smart phones are recommended based on surfing, camera, navigation & roadmaps, and the ability to text. They are not rated by their quality in calling, which probably has become a nice-to-have feature.
Now I am poking a bit at this specific situation, but to me it illustrates two issues; you need to know whom you are selling to and you need to understand the purpose of rating scales. The example suggest a lack in both.
Using the product design canvas, let’s compare the convention phone with a smart phone.
The canvas for a mobile phone may look like this:
The canvas for a smart phone may look like this:
So, what are the main differences between the phones that you need to high-light? This mainly depends on the clients you address and the features you expect they will find important. What is interesting about this case is that there are distinct groups within one large target segment; a more sophisticated one in search for a personal digital communicator and a more conservative one looking for a mobile phone. However, there will also be cross-overs; the more conservative but progressive interested in trying a personal communicator or a more sophisticated user settling for a simple mobile phone.
The information and ratings have to be presented such that they are comparable. There are situations where the distinct groups within the target segment recognize themselves as belonging to one of the groups. For example with cloths. Being more business-oriented you may not frequent the jeans section, or as a male you are less likely to look for something in the female section (the reverse is more likely to occur). But we openly accept that we are male, or that we are casual rather than formal. As a shop employee you can ask if the customer is looking for something more formal or more sportive. In the case of the mobile phone, you cannot approach the customer asking him how old he or she is, or how hip. This means that the information presented on the factsheets must address the full customer segment. Concretely this means that also the smart phone should be rated on it’s ability to make a phone call.
Ratings used on the fact sheets often are not absolute, but relative to the portfolio presented. They indicate ‘best in class’. The purpose of the rating is to support in selecting from amongst the products you are offering. Regarding the products you are offering, for each of the criteria used, one of the products performs best. For example, even if all phones basically offer a lousy calling experience, one of the phones has the best performance or if you will, the least lousy performance. This one should receive the highest mark. More generally, for each of the criteria, at least one of the products of the portfolio must be rated as good (i.e. best of class within the portfolio). Must. Naturally, based on you customer understanding, you have selected criteria on which all products perform excellent and avoided including criteria on which all perform weak (even though both for criteria there will be one ‘best in class’).
The environmental factor is a special case because the ‘environmental’ is not well defined. What is an ‘environmental’ factor? What is being measured? What does it mean to have ‘3 leaves’? Does it indicate the results of a total life-cycle assessment, or merely show in a fancy way the expected battery life? The fact-sheets counts ‘leaves’ but does not tell you how they are counted, which makes it more decoration than information. Also, the counted numbers appear contra intuitive.
Nokia nicely illustrates the relative impact of the various steps in the total life-cycle of a mobile phone. It shows that the majority of the sustainability impact is contributed during production, and that the ‘use’ part contributes only 10%. Based on this breakdown expected is that a simpler phone (i.e. one that is easier to produce) is greener compared to a smart phone, which is more complex to produce. Or, in short, expected is that a traditional handy is greener than a smart phone. This comparison is not completely fair as the smart phone offers functions typically performed on a computer. Therefore, the environmental impact cannot be contributed in full to the phone functionality which makes the comparison invalid. But that is the point. What does 3.5 leaves mean?
Factsheets are good. They give a quick overview of the product’s properties and are instrumental in guide the customer in selection from amongst the offering. If you want your customers to take the fact sheets (and you) serious, make sure to take the definition and creation of the fact sheets serious.
From the above you can deduce four guidelines: