What’s Next?

What's Next?

GUEST POST from Mike Shipulski

Anonymous: What do you think we should do next?

Me: It depends. How did you get here?

Anonymous: Well, we’ve had great success improving on what we did last time.

Me: Well, then you’ll likely do that again.

Anonymous: Do you think we’ll be successful this time?

Me: It depends. If the performance/goodness has been flat over your last offerings, then no. When performance has been constant over the last several offerings it means your technology is mature and it’s time for a new one. Has performance been flat over the years?

Anon: Yes, but we’ve been successful with our tried-and-true recipe and the idea of creating a new technology is risky.

Me: All things have a half-life, including successful business models and long-in-the-tooth technologies, and your success has blinded you to the fact that yours are on life support. Developing a new technology isn’t risky. What’s risk is grasping tightly to a business model that’s out of gas.

Anon: That’s harsh.

Me: I prefer “truthful.”

Anon: So, we should start from scratch and create something altogether new?

Me: Heavens no. That would be a disaster. Figure out which elements are blocking new functionality and reinvent those. Hint: look for the system elements that haven’t changed in a dog’s age and that are shared by all your competitors.

Anon: So, I only have to reinvent several elements?

Me: Yes, but probably fewer than several. Probably just one.

Anon: What if we don’t do that?

Me: Over the next five years, you’ll be successful. And then in year six, the wheels will fall off.

Anon: Are you sure?

Me: No, they could fall off sooner.

Anon: How do you know it will go down like that?

Me: I’ve studied systems and technologies for more than three decades and I’ve made a lot of mistakes. Have you heard of The Voice of Technology?

Anon: No.

Me: Well, take a bite of this – The Voice of Technology. Kevin Kelly has talked about this stuff at great length. Have you read him?

Anon: No.

Me: Here’s a beauty from Kevin – What Technology Wants. How about S-curves?

Anon: Nope.

Me: Here’s a little primer – Beyond Dead Reckoning. How about Technology Forecasting?

Anon: Hmm. I don’t think so.

Me: Here’s something from Victor Fey, my teacher. He worked with Altshuller, the creator of TRIZ – Guided Technology Evolution. I’ve used this method to predict several industry-changing technologies.

Anon: Yikes! There’s a lot here. I’m overwhelmed.

Me: That’s good! Overwhelmed is a sign you realize there’s a lot you don’t know. You could be ready to become a student of the game.

Anon: But where do I start?

Me: I’d start Wardley Maps for situation analysis and LEANSTACK to figure out if customers will pay for your new offering.

Anon: With those two I’m good to go?

Me: Hell no!

Anon: What do you mean?

Me: There’s a whole body of work to learn about. Then you’ve got to build the organization, create the right mindset, select the right projects, train on the right tools, and run the projects.

Anon: That sounds like a lot of work.

Me: Well, you can always do what you did last time. END.

Image credit: Unsplash

Sign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.

Price is Relevant Only in the Absence of Value

1 Reply

Price is Relevant Only in the Absence of Value

GUEST POST from Shep Hyken

The title of this article may sound like a lesson in sales, but it’s much bigger than that. It’s about the entire customer experience. If a promise to provide value in the CX is built into a company’s mission and values statements, it potentially becomes part of the culture.

Imagine if your organization were bold enough to state that the value it delivers to customers would make price irrelevant. How do you define that value? It’s simple. It’s the value provided in the customer experience. But, remember that your definition of this value is only good if it aligns with what customers want and hope for.

Let’s talk about making price irrelevant. My good friend and fellow customer experience expert John DiJulius has often said, “Make price irrelevant.” He and I jab at each other over this statement. I’ve said, “Make price less relevant. There’s no way you can make price completely irrelevant.” John knows this, and he admits it, but at the same time, he argues the point that if you provide enough value with the experience, you can distance your company from the competition, even while charging more than others. I can live with that because he’s right. We’re just using different words to get us to the same outcome.

Shep Hyken Knockout Cartoon

So, let’s not get caught up in the semantics of these two sentences. We are both in alignment, and you should be, too.

Furthermore, this way of thinking crosses over to the employee experience (EX). Can you create an employment opportunity so fulfilling that people would line up to apply for the job, even though they might make more elsewhere? There are companies, like Disney, that have achieved that. The Disney culture is so powerful that people love the company more than a higher paycheck from another employer. Of course, every company, Disney included, has to be somewhat competitive with compensation and benefits. But in the end, for many, happiness and fulfillment are more important than a few extra dollars in their paycheck.

Let’s close by considering three ideas:

The Alignment: Value in the customer experience and employee experience is non-negotiable. You can’t have one without the other.
The Opportunity: Create experiences that are so enriching that neither customers nor employees can easily walk away, regardless of dollars.
The Challenge: I challenge you to define your version of value and make it so compelling you’re willing to include it in your mission and value statements.

Image Credit: Shep Hyken

Sign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.

Eight Innovation Executive Types

Leave a reply

Eight Innovation Executive Types

GUEST POST from Stefan Lindegaard

Don’t put your leaders in boxes, but don’t ignore the signs neither. Look for traits, behaviors and action – or lack there or. Use the insight to make your leaders and executive teams – and thus your organization – even better at shaping the future.

1. No problem

‪The best scenario = executives who understand, get personally involved‬. Hint: Influence, upgrade other executives, key people together

2. No need

If someone really thinks innovation is not needed, you’re in trouble. Hint: Analyze reasons, consider actions – if any (just walk away?)

3. No results

Been there. It’s not worth it. Hint: Get small wins, back up with data, build credibility

4. No time

Sorry, but day-to-day activities are more important. Hint: Align initiatives, everyone wins w/o extra time needed

5. No money

Minimum budgets for execution, corporate capabilities. Hint: Focus on people, show ROI

6. Talk but no walk

Many talk the talk, but don’t walk the walk. Hint: Proof there is more talk than walk, constructive confrontation

7. No responsibility

Talk with Sandra. That’s why she’s our CIO. Hint: It’s is everyone’s responsibility, align initiatives

8. No clue

Sorry, no training on this. I don’t know how it works. Hint: You can work with this, upgrade and support

Thoughts?

Stefan Lindegaard Eight Innovation Executive Types

Image Credit: Stefan Lindegaard, Pexels

Sign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

Is AI Saving Corporate Innovation or Killing It?

2 Replies

Is AI Saving Corporate Innovation or Killing It?

GUEST POST from Robyn Bolton

AI is killing Corporate Innovation.

Last Friday, the brilliant minds of Scott Kirsner, Rita McGrath, and Alex Osterwalder (plus a few guest stars like me, no big deal) gathered to debate the truth of this statement.

Honestly, it was one of the smartest and most thoughtful debates on AI that I’ve heard (biased but right, as my husband would say), and you should definitely listen to the whole thing.

But if you don’t have time for the deep dive over your morning coffee, then here are the highlights (in my humble opinion)

Why this debate is important

Every quarter, InnoLead fields a survey to understand the issues and challenges facing corporate innovators. The results from their Q2 survey and anecdotal follow-on conversations were eye-opening:

Resources are shifting from Innovation to AI: 61.5% of companies are increasing the resources allocated to AI, while 63.9% of companies are maintaining or decreasing their innovation investments
IT is more likely to own AI than innovation: 61.5% of companies put IT in charge of exploring potential AI use cases, compared to 53.9% of Innovation departments (percentages sum to greater than 0 because multiple departments may have responsibility)
Innovation departments are becoming AI departments. In fact, some former VPs and Directors of Innovation have been retitled to VPs or Directors of AI

So when Scott asked if AI was killing Corporate Innovation, the data said YES.

The people said NO.

What’s killing corporate innovation isn’t technology. It’s leadership.

Alex Osterwalder didn’t pull his punches and delivered a truth bomb right at the start. Like all the innovation tools and technologies that came before, the impact of AI on innovation isn’t about the technology itself—it’s about the leaders driving it.

If executives take the time to understand AI as a tool that enables successful outcomes and accelerates the accomplishment of key strategies, then there is no reason for it to threaten, let alone supplant, innovation.

But if they treat it like a shiny new toy or a silver bullet to solve all their growth needs, then it’s just “innovation theater” all over again.

AI is an Inflection Point that leaders need to approach strategically

As Rita wrote in her book Seeing Around Corners, an inflection point has a 10x impact on business, for example, 10x cheaper, 10x faster, or 10x easier. The emergence and large-scale adoption of AI is, without doubt, an inflection point for business.

Just like the internet and Netscape shook things up and changed the game, AI has the power to do the same—maybe even more. But, to Osterwalder’s point, leaders need to recognize AI as a strategic inflection point and proceed accordingly.

Leaders don’t need to have it all figured out yet, but they need a plan, and that’s where we come in.

This inflection point is our time to shine

From what I’ve seen, AI isn’t killing corporate innovation. It’s creating the biggest corporate innovation opportunity in decades. But it’s up to us, as corporate innovators, to seize the moment.

Unlike our colleagues in the core business, we are comfortable navigating ambiguity and uncertainty. We have experience creating order from what seems like chaos and using innovation to grow today’s business and create tomorrow’s.

We can do this because we’ve done it before. It’s exactly what we do,

AI is not a problem. It’s an opportunity. But only if we make it one.

AI is not the end of corporate innovation —it’s a tool, a powerful one at that.

As corporate innovators, we have the skills and knowledge required to steer businesses through uncertainty and drive meaningful change. So, let’s embrace AI strategically and unlock its full potential.

The path forward may not always be crystal clear, but that’s what makes it exciting. So, let’s seize the moment, navigate the chaos, and embrace AI as the innovation accelerant that it is.

Image Credit: Pixabay

Sign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

Nominations Closed – Top 40 Innovation Bloggers of 2023

Leave a reply

Human-Centered Change and Innovation loves making innovation insights accessible for the greater good, because we truly believe that the better our organizations get at delivering value to their stakeholders the less waste of natural resources and human resources there will be.

As a result, we are eternally grateful to all of you out there who take the time to create and share great innovation articles, presentations, white papers, and videos with Braden Kelley and the Human-Centered Change and Innovation team. As a small thank you to those of you who follow along, we like to make a list of the Top 40 Innovation Bloggers available each year!

Our lists from the ten previous years have been tremendously popular, including:

Top 40 Innovation Bloggers of 2015
Top 40 Innovation Bloggers of 2016
Top 40 Innovation Bloggers of 2017
Top 40 Innovation Bloggers of 2018
Top 40 Innovation Bloggers of 2019
Top 40 Innovation Bloggers of 2020
Top 40 Innovation Bloggers of 2021
Top 40 Innovation Bloggers of 2022

Do you just have someone that you like to read that writes about innovation, or some of the important adjacencies – trends, consumer psychology, change, leadership, strategy, behavioral economics, collaboration, or design thinking?

Human-Centered Change and Innovation is now looking for the Top 40 Innovation Bloggers of 2023.

The deadline for submitting nominations is December 24, 2023 at midnight GMT.

You can submit a nomination either of these two ways:

Sending us the name of the blogger and the url of their blog by @reply on twitter to @innovate
Sending the name of the blogger and the url of their blog and your e-mail address using our contact form

(Note: HUGE bonus points for being a contributing author)

So, think about who you like to read and let us know by midnight GMT on December 24, 2023.

We will then compile a voting list of all the nominations, and publish it on December 25, 2023.

Voting will then be open from December 25, 2023 – January 1, 2024 via comments and twitter @replies to @innovate.

The ranking will be done by me with influence from votes and nominations. The quality and quantity of contributions by an author to this web site will be a contributing factor.

Contact me with writing samples if you’d like to publish your articles on our platform!

The official Top 40 Innovation Bloggers of 2023 will then be announced on here in early January 2024.

We’re curious to see who you think is worth reading!

Sign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

We Change the World with Ecosystems Not Inventions

Leave a reply

We Change the World with Ecosystems Not Inventions

GUEST POST from Greg Satell

Imagine yourself as the CEO of a Dow component company in 1919. You are fully aware of the technological forces that would shape much of the 20th century, electricity and internal combustion. You may have even be an early adopter of these technologies. Still, everything seems like business as usual.

What you don’t see, however, is that these inventions are merely the start. Secondary technologies, such as home appliances, radio, highways and shopping malls, would reshape the economy in ways that no one could have predicted. Your company has a roughly 50% chance of remaining on the Dow a decade later.

We are at a similar point today. New inventions, such as quantum computing, neuromorphic chips, synthetic biology and advancements in materials science already exist. It is not those inventions, however, but the ecosystems they spawn that will shape the decades to come. We’re all going to have to learn how to compete in a new era of innovation.

A 50-Year Boom In Productivity

By 1919, electricity was already a 40-year old technology. In 1882, just three years after he had almost literally shocked the world with his revolutionary electric light bulb, Thomas Edison opened his Pearl Street Station, the first commercial electrical distribution plant in the United States. By 1884 it was already servicing over 500 homes.

Yet although electricity and electric lighting were already widespread in 1919, they didn’t have a measurable effect on productivity and a paper by the economist Paul David helps explain why. It took time for manufacturers to adapt their factories to electricity and learn to design workflow to leverage the flexibility that the new technology offered. It was the improved workflow, more than the technology itself, that drove productivity forward.

Automobiles saw a similar evolution. It took time for infrastructure, such as roads and gas stations, to be built. Improved logistics reshaped supply chains and factories moved from cities in the north — close to customers — to small towns in the south, where labor and land were cheaper. That improved the economics of manufacturing further.

Yet all of that was just prelude to the massive changes that would come. Electricity spawned secondary innovations, such as household appliances and radios. Improved logistics reshaped the retail industry, shifting it from corner stores to supermarkets and shopping malls. As Robert Gordon explains in The Rise and Fall of American Growth, these changes resulted in a 50-year boom in productivity between 1920 and 1970.

The Digital Revolution

In 1984, Steve Jobs and Apple launched the Macintosh, which heralded a new era of computing. Based on technology developed for the Xerox Alto in the early 1970s, with a bitmapped screen, a graphical user interface and a mouse, it made computing far more accessible to regular consumers.

Before long, personal computers were everywhere. Kids would use them to write term papers and play video games. Lotus 1-2-3 spreadsheet software became a staple for small businesses and entrepreneurs. Desktop publishing helped democratize the flow of information. The computer age had begun in earnest.

Yet much like electricity and internal combustion earlier in the century, the effect on productivity was negligible, causing the Nobel Prize winning economist Robert Solow to quip, “You can see the computer age everywhere but in the productivity statistics.” In fact, it wouldn’t be till the late 90s that we saw a measurable impact from computers.

Once again, it wasn’t any particular invention that made the difference, but an ecosystem that built up over years. The Internet paved the way for open-source software. Hordes of application developers created industry specific tools to automate almost every imaginable business process. Computers converged with phones to create the mobile era.

The 30 Years Rule

Look back at the two major eras of technology in the 20th century and a consistent theme begins to emerge. An initial discovery of a new phenomenon, such as electricity and internal combustion, is eventually used to create a new invention, like the light bulb or the automobile. This creates some excitement, and builds the fortunes of a few entrepreneurs, but has little impact on society as a whole.

Yet slowly, an ecosystem begins to emerge. Roads and gas stations are built. Household appliances and personal computers are invented. Secondary inventions, such as shopping malls, home appliances, the Internet and application software help create new business models. Those business models create new value and drive productivity.

The truth is that innovation is never a single event, but a process of discovery, engineering and transformation. As a general rule of thumb, it takes about 30 years for all of this to take place, because thousands, if not millions of people need to change their behavior, coordinate their activity and start new businesses.

That’s why the future will always surprise us. It is not any one great event that tips the scales, but some hardly noticeable connection that completes the network. Network scientists call this type of thing an ‘instantaneous phase transition’ and there’s really no way to predict exactly when it will happen, but if you learn to look for telltale signs, you can see one coming.

A New Era Of Innovation

Today, we appear to be in a very similar situation to what those executives faced in 1919. We have decoded the human genome. Artificial intelligence has become a reality that everyone, for the most part, accepts. New computing architectures, such as quantum computers and neuromorphic chips, are in late stages of development by a variety of companies.

Yet once again, the impact has been negligible and it’s not hard to see why. While these inventions, in some cases at least, are relatively mature, they have yet to create the ecosystems that can drive a true transformation. Today, however, we can clearly see those ecosystems being created.

In fact, in artificial intelligence we can already see a fairly well developed ecosystem emerging already. In synthetic biology and genomics we can begin to see one as well, although it is still nascent. IBM has created a Q Network of major companies, research labs and startups to support quantum computing.

Here’s what’s important to know: We can’t predict exactly when the system will tip, but it’s a good bet it will happen in the next decade. It is also likely that the impact will be equal to or greater than the 50 year boom that began in the 1920s. Finally, it won’t be driven by any particular invention, but by ecosystems. You need to start figuring out how you will connect.

— Article courtesy of the Digital Tonto blog and an earlier version appeared on Inc.com
— Image credit: Pixabay

Sign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.

Two Kinds of Persistence – What’s Your Habit?

1 Reply

GUEST POST from Dennis Stauffer

I suspect you’ve heard all your life that it’s important to be persistent, whether that’s studying hard, practicing a sport, launching a new business, or attempting some innovation. You’re told that you need to stick with it until you find success. You need to have GRIT.

But what’s so often lost in that advice is that there’s more than one way to be persistent, and which one you have can make a HUGE difference.

Type 1

The first kind of persistence is sticking with something despite setbacks. That’s the marathoner who pushes through exhaustion and pain. It’s the student who studies until they really “get” the subject matter. It’s the entrepreneur putting in long hours to pursue a dream. That kind of persistence sees a target, pushes toward it, and blocks out any distractions that keep them from pursuing it.

Type 2

The other kind of persistence is about being creative and resourceful. It’s trying more than one way to reach your goals, and sometimes adjusting those goals to fit the realities you confront. It’s the entrepreneur that pivots to a new business model because the first one isn’t working. It’s the student who changes their career plans because it better fits their personal strengths and preferences. It’s the athlete who changes their technique to improve rather than just practicing the same approach.

Type 1 versus Type 2

These are radically different—opposing—strategies, and you can be quite good at one of them and lousy at the other.

That first kind of persistence is helpful when things are predictable and the rules are clear, when you know what will work. You just need to go do it. That’s useful at times, but much of life rarely works that way.

The challenges you face are often not so clear, and one of the biggest mistakes you can make is thinking they are when they’re not. That’s the entrepreneur that falls in love with an idea and keeps pursuing it long after getting signals that it’s not really working. Thinking: if I just push a little longer. When they need to change course.

It’s called being stubborn.

Skilled innovators—and those who are most effective generally—favor that second kind of persistence. They don’t just keep plugging along. They’re willing to rethink their strategy, seek feedback and gain new insights. Instead of assuming they know what works, they strive to figure out what works.

That’s not mindless pushing, and it’s not just trying random alternatives. It’s a disciplined process you can learn. A process of innovation that reflects a mindset that values flexibility, adaptability and resourcefulness, more than raw determination.

Which kind of persistence do you believe in? Which do you use?

Here is the video version of this post for all of you:

Image Credit: Pexels

Sign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

Stuff Your Stoking with Innovation for $4.24

Leave a reply

Stuff Your Stoking with Innovation for $4.24

Wow! Exciting news!

While supplies last you can get the hardcover version of my best-selling book Stoking Your Innovation Bonfire for only $4.24 (88% off), including free delivery in the USA from Amazon!

Sorry, unfortunately Amazon doesn’t have a discount on the kindle version, which remains at $28.00, so this is quite the deal!

The offer is only valid while supplies list (or until Amazon changes the price) so act fast!

Quick reminder: Everyone can download lots of free tools from this web site, including:

700+ quote posters
The Experiment Canvas™
Visual Project Charter™
10 Free Human-Centered Change Tools
Nine Innovation Roles card design

Follow this link to select multiple items and download them ALL AT ONCE!

And finally, I created the Human-Centered Change methodology to help organizations get everyone literally all on the same page for change. The 70+ visual, collaborative tools are introduced in my book Charting Change, including the powerful Change Planning Canvas™. The toolkit has been created to help organizations:

Beat the 70% failure rate for change programs
Quickly visualize, plan and execute change efforts
Deliver projects and change efforts on time
Accelerate implementation and adoption
Get valuable tools for a low investment

Sign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.

Do the Right Thing

1 Reply

Do the Right Thing

GUEST POST from Mike Shipulski

100% agreement means there’s less than 100% truth. If, as a senior leader, you know there are differing opinions left unsaid, what would you do? Would you chastise the untruthful who are afraid to speak their minds? Would you simply ignore what you know to be true and play Angry Birds on your phone? Would you make it safe for the fearful to share their truth? Or would you take it on the chin and speak their truth? As a senior leader, I’d do the last one.

Best practice is sometimes a worst practice. If, as a senior leader, you know a more senior leader is putting immense pressure put on the team to follow a best practice, yet the context requires a new practice, what would you do? Would you go along with the ruse and support the worst practice? Would you keep your mouth shut and play tick-tack-toe until the meeting is over? Would you suggest a new practice, help the team implement it, and take the heat from the Status Quo Police? As a senior leader, I’d do the last one.

Truth builds trust. If, as a senior leader, you know the justification for a new project has been doctored, what would you do? Would you go along with the charade because it’s easy? Would call out the duplicity and preserve the trust you’ve earned from the team over the last decade? As a senior leader, I’d do the last one.

The loudest voice isn’t the rightest voice. If, as a senior leader, you know a more senior leader is using their positional power to strong-arm the team into a decision that is not supported by the data, what would you do? Would you go along with it, even though you know it’s wrong? Would you ask a probing question that makes it clear there is some serious steamrolling going on? And if that doesn’t work, would you be more direct and call out the steamrolling for what it is? As a senior leader, I’d do the last two.

What’s best for the company is not always best for your career. When you speak truth to power in the name of doing what’s best for the company, your career may suffer. When you see duplicity and call it by name, the company will be better for it, but your career may not. When you protect people from the steam roller, the team will thank you, but it may cost you a promotion. When you tell the truth, the right work happens and you earn the trust and respect of most everyone. As a senior leader, if your career suffers, so be it.

When you do the right thing, people remember. When, in a trying time, you have someone’s back, they remember. When a team is unduly pressured and you put yourself between them and the pressure, they remember. When you step in front of the steamroller, people remember. And when you silence the loudest voice so the right decision is made, people remember. As a senior leader, I want to be remembered.

How Do You Want to Be Remembered?

Do you want to be remembered as someone who played Angry Birds or advocated for those too afraid to speak their truth?
Do you want to be remembered as someone who doodled on their notepad or spoke truth to power?
Do you want to be remembered as someone who kept their mouth shut or called out the inconvenient truth?
Do you want to be remembered as someone who did all they could to advance their career or someone who earned the trust and respect of those they worked with?

In the four cases above, I choose the latter.

Image credit: Unsplash

Sign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.

Adapting Your Business For A New Generation

1 Reply

The Zero Consumer Revolution

Adapting Your Business For A New Generation

GUEST POST from Shep Hyken

There’s a new type of customer in town, and you need to know and understand them. McKinsey has coined the term Zero Consumer, defined as a consumer who shops across different channels, expects excellent service (including fast shipping) and sustainable products. But even if you provide all of that, there’s one more critical thing to know—they show little loyalty.

For 40 years, I’ve preached the famous concept from Harvard Business School professor emeritus and former editor of Harvard Business Review, Dr. Theodore (Ted) Levitt, that the function of a business is to get and keep customers. Furthermore, research from many reputable sources tells us that it’s less costly to maintain and keep customers than to keep finding new ones. However, this new customer, the Zero Consumer, can make the second part of Dr. Levitt’s function (keeping customers) more challenging.

In addition to that, Dr. Levitt is also known for stating that “companies should stop defining themselves by what they produce and instead reorient themselves toward customer needs.” This is further explained in his article, What Business Are You In?: Classic Advice from Theodore Levitt. I love his example about gasoline.

In this article, Levitt states, “Let’s start at the beginning: the customer.” He uses the example that a consumer driving a car “strongly” dislikes the experience of buying gasoline. He said, “People actually do not buy gasoline. They cannot see it, taste it, feel it, appreciate or really test it. What they buy is the right to continue driving their cars.” He refers to a gas station as a tax collector that is paid a “periodic toll” as the price of customers using their cars.

My take on this is that the gas station is a commodity. People buy from a specific gas station out of convenience, including location (proximity to the customer’s home or place of work) and ease of entrance and egress (e.g., the gas station is on the right side of a busy street). Price is also a consideration. It seems gasoline is gasoline, regardless of where you buy it.

This ties into the McKinsey Zero Consumer concept. The majority of Zero Consumers seem to be Gen-Z and Millennials. Here are some general characteristics of this new group of consumers:

Zero Consumers have zero boundaries in that they are influenced by social media, celebrities and content (articles, blogs, videos, etc.). They expect omnichannel options and move through different buying channels to make purchases. In other words, be prepared to sell to them when they are ready and on whatever channel is most convenient to them: in a physical store, on an app, on a website, etc.
Zero Consumers no longer fall in the middle. Their shopping habits are tougher to define. They either try to save money or are willing to spend more on what they want. McKinsey’s research finds that mid-priced goods and services have declined 10%. That doesn’t seem like much, but the average consumer is “trading down” to lower-priced goods. But at the same time, 40% say they plan to splurge on their spending, especially in travel, apparel and restaurants.
Zero Consumers have zero loyalty. That’s a bold statement from McKinsey. In 2002, they found that half of consumers claimed to switch brands versus one-third two years earlier. Furthermore, they say, “Absent truly differentiated, exclusive offerings, the retailer will soon become a utility—just a means of distribution. This sounds a lot like Dr. Levitt’s gasoline example. If you’re delivering a commoditized, same-as-everyone-else experience, don’t expect to be treated differently than a commodity.
Zero Consumers have zero patience. This trend has been around since Amazon started teaching customers what fast and convenient service is all about. Consumers don’t need to wait, and if you can’t deliver at their expected speed, they will find another company that will.

I’ve taken direction on this article from McKinsey content and research. McKinsey is one of the go-to resources for understanding all things business. Regardless of the type of business you’re in or the type of customers you sell to, you must consider how the broader consumers behave. Your customers compare you to their favorite experiences, including their retail brand experiences. While you may or may not be a retailer and be subjected to this type of customer, you must understand they expect whatever they love from other places they do business with from you as well. The more you know and understand them, the better decisions you’ll make on how to market, sell and service them.

This article originally appeared on Forbes.com

Image Credit: Shep Hyken

Sign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.