• Stanley posted an update in the group Group logo of Experiential Innovation Experiential Innovation 4 years ago

    I have recently had several conversations with my peers discussing an item that is a fledgling trend in food: deconstruction. The concept is simple – meals are divided into their primary components and allowed to share space on the plate – but has a profound impact upon the senses and the patron. Individually each item can be enjoyed and savored before coming together in a culmination of flavors as a meal. That is truly remarkable that after all this time bringing ingredients together, now we are attempting to separate them. I believe that we can take note of this progress in food culture and apply it to the business realm. We have been striving to bring together synergistic businesses under one umbrella, but would it be best to separate them and allow them to specialize? Would it be best to do away with bundling services and instead focus on promoting a single item that will fulfill needs? It is an interesting avenue to pursue, and one that I believe warrants conversation.

    • That makes no sense at all. The point of packages are to encourage customers to spend more money and drive revenue. Separating them makes it easier for customers to avoid additional costs and fees. What would happen if instead of getting a suite of services for X amount, they are getting a single product for half the cost? They would obviously be taking the cheaper option for only what they need.

      • While I agree that package programs will typically have a higher price tag and bring in steady revenue, it also has the potential to alienate those who only want one or two parts of the package. You have to consider that those on the fence will be much more willing to adopt new services if they are able to select only what they actually want to purchase. That option to choose what you want and only pay for what you need is something that is quite appealing to the mass market. Yes, you will have those who downgrade their services, but if you can convince others to adopt new services, then it may outweigh the lost revenue.

        • The risk there doesn’t make it better. You can get some people who want to pick their services, but lose the increased sales from bigger packages. What business would risk their secure sales for the chance, just the chance, at more customers? It bankrupts companies and that’s why they fail to grow. Ideas like this just make things worse

          • As I replied to Ray Andrew’s comment, this is a system that works best for those with smaller markets and loyal followers. The present users will see this as a boon that can save money, but more importantly new consumers will have the opportunity to adopt the program and become new sources of revenue, albeit at much smaller profit margins.

    • To add to the conversation, I have seen this type of business model adopted by places such as restaurants and service providers (think of cable services). In both cases, I have found that it is a very hit-or-miss type of approach for the businesses involved. For the restaurants, you can clearly see that they are making much more money by being able to “customize” your order. Pizzerias are a strong example of this style, albeit blended with a “package” program in regards to specialty pizzas. Phone companies are adopting the same type of approach, and it has proven to be effective in convincing people to adopt the program or start the service. But you have to consider that these package programs were typically more expensive, so revenue is sure to take a hit with this piecemeal system.

      • I believe that the companies that will adopt this model will be aiming to undercut the stronger competition. Most businesses using this model seem to be niche markets who are fighting for each individual customer or sale, so it makes sense that their revenue is not as dependent upon the greater sum of available consumers purchasing their goods. Instead, they have a dedicated group of followers and are aiming to convert new sales, even if they are relatively small.

    • But how is that any different than regular food? I’m not understanding it too well. You just took food and gave them the chance to order separate items and options. For businesses, I don’t see how you can make more money by letting them purchase stuff in smaller batches.

      • Essentially, you are allowing the customer to experience each of the pieces individually rather than together. While it is the same parts, the end result is that you are able to thoroughly enjoy each component and identify which are unnecessary or off-putting. For businesses, I would say that this is the opportunity to allow customers to choose what services they desire and, if they so choose, opt into a service they would forgo had it been part of a bundle.