Carbon Footprint-friendly Food

As the impact of carbon emissions has become increasingly top of mind for many consumers, food companies are beginning to incorporate carbon considerations into their products and packaging. Here are a few examples:

1) Carbon impact-labeled milk
Earlier this month, Tesco, the British supermarket chain, began listing the carbon impact of its milk on the side of their cartons. For what it’s worth, the majority of carbon impacts from a pint of milk occurs during the agricultural stage due to cow methane emissions (also known as cow farts).

2) Global warming-friendly ice cream
Unilever, the CPG giant and world’s largest producer of ice cream, is developing an ice cream that can be stored at room temperature. Eliminating the need for refrigerated trucks or cold storage, the global warming-friendly ice cream would reduce Unilever's energy costs and overall greenhouse gas emissions.

3) Carbon-footprinted orange juice
Although it’s been a rough year for Tropicana, the company continues to move aggressively on a number of fronts, including efforts to certify the carbon footprint of its Pure Premium Orange Juice. In doing so, Tropicana became the first consumer brand in North America to get certification from the Carbon Trust, a British government-supported organization.

It’s great to see food companies seeking to address the carbon impacts of the products they sell. Building upon recent efforts by food companies to eliminate trans fats, I expect to see more food product and service innovations that emphasize carbon footprints and food content transparency in 2010.

Kindle and the Environment

Six colleges and universities—Princeton, Arizona State, Case Western, Pace, Reed College, and UVA’s Darden Business School—are piloting the distribution of Kindle DXs to students and allowing them to download textbooks for select courses. Princeton has indicated that the Kindle pilot is part of the university’s efforts at greater sustainability, while Darden’s associate dean has gone on record saying that the Kindle may be key to the school achieving its carbon neutral goal by 2020.

But the big question for me is: Is using a Kindle really more environmentally friendly that reading paper books?

Let’s looks at this question from a basic cradle-to-cradle perspective: raw materials, manufacturing, transportation, use, and end-of-life (i.e. recycling/disposal):

Raw Materials: By eliminating the need for paper, the Kindle saves tons of trees compared to books, and everyone makes note of this fact. However, the Kindle requires oil-derived plastics as well as a variety of metals that must be mined, so the relative environmental impact is not clear.

Manufacturing: The papermaking process is very energy and water intensive. And undoubtedly, paper mills use large amounts of toxic solvents, chlorinated compounds, and biocides to bleach and treat paper, plus a significant amount of waste and air emissions are produced in the process. But keep in mind, the electronics manufacturing process is not exactly a clean process either. No clear winner here.

Transportation: By converting paper books to electrons, the Kindle is reducing the number of books that get transported between book manufacturers, bookstores, and consumers. However, the shipping of raw materials needs to be considered as well. For example, the base components of the Kindle E Ink display are made in New England then shipped to Asia for finishing, then shipped for Kindle assembly somewhere else, then shipped back to an Amazon warehouse in the US…and that’s just the screen!

Use: During the purchase phase, the Kindle wins since books don’t need to be transported. However, in the actual use of a book (i.e. reading), the old paper book wins; no electricity is needed and no batteries are consumed.

End of Life: At end of life, it’s worth noting that paper is 100% recyclable, and books are 100% reusable. The same cannot be said about the Kindle. The plastics in electronics are not easily recycled, and electronics in general have a variety of heavy metals, toxins, and batteries that can be quite hazardous when they are not disposed of properly.

Overall, someone would have to do a very detailed lifecycle analysis to determine the true environmental impact of a Kindle. And while there are many legitimate reasons to buy a Kindle, “saving the environment” is not an obvious one.

To Kindle or Not to Kindle: Customer Experience

(Note: Completing my previous post, today I am writing about the Kindle customer experience.)

To create a compelling customer experience, we often tell our clients to define a clear customer experience vision. This vision makes it easier to determine which features of the potential product or service are the most important to develop.

Take home message: The Kindle has a very clear customer experience vision--Reading refined, allowing you to bring your library wherever you go. And this clear vision allows Amazon to decide what features to enhance, maintain, and de-emphasize for the target customer.

As you may remember from last time, I mentioned that my friend Rachel is representative of a target persona for the Kindle. Let’s see how the Kindle leverages the enhance, maintain, de-emphasize model in a way that makes sense for Rachel:

What aspects of the experience are enhanced to meet Rachel’s needs?

• Portability: The Kindle is just 10.2 ounces and 1/3 inch thick, allowing Rachel to take her reading everywhere.
• On Demand Access: 3G wireless allows Rachel to download an entire book in only 60 seconds.
• Large Selection: There are over 300,000 books, magazines, and newspapers for Rachel to choose from on Kindle.
  

What aspects of the experience are maintained to allow Rachel to comfortably substitute or transition to the Kindle?

• Paper: Kindle uses an E Ink electronic paper screen, which is designed to read like real paper. E Ink is not backlit and doesn’t reflect light, which means that Rachel can read on the beach in bright sunlight.
• Leather Cover: The Kindle offers a number of leather covers, including some made by Cole-Hahn. As a result, holding a Kindle feels a lot like holding a leather-bound book to Rachel.
  
• Simple to Use: Unlike other electronics, the Kindle never needs to be connected to a computer and has no wires. For Rachel, it's ready to use right out of the box…just like a paper book!
  

What aspects of the experience are de-emphasized because they are not core to Rachel’s reading experience?
Web browsing and music. Although Kindle does allow for web browsing and music listening to occur, the Kindle is sub-optimal for both uses. Amazon recognizes that the core experience is about book reading and has emphasized book reading in its marketing and technology development. Also, the Kindle is not designed to compete with the iPhone/iPod Touch products; in fact, there is a Kindle iPhone app available for those who prefer to go that route.

*****
So there you have it. A compelling book-specific customer experience that 1) addresses a target set of customer needs and 2) makes specific choices about features to enhance, maintain, and de-emphasize. The Amazon Kindle.

To Kindle or Not to Kindle: Customer Needs

Like many people, I’m trying to decide whether I want to buy an Amazon Kindle. Is it the latest must-have gadget? Definitely. Is it the most important publishing invention since Gutenberg’s printing press? Possibly. Am I excited about its implications for innovation? You betcha!

One of the things that I really admire about the Kindle is how well the solution takes into account customer needs, which I believe ultimately determines the success of any product or service. In helping clients create innovation breakthroughs, I always ask them to start by using a customer needs lens, with a focus on answering three questions:

1) What is the typical persona of the target customer?
2) What are the customer needs to be solved?
3) What product or service is being substituted or replaced (if any)?

Let’s look at the Kindle under this lens.

1) Target Customer Persona
The target customer for the Kindle is an on-the-go, high volume reader of books. My friend, Rachel, might represent a typical persona of the Kindle target customer. Rachel is 30 years old, lives in New York City, and works as a consultant. Although she has an iPod, she is by no means a tech enthusiast; in fact, she still doesn’t have an iPhone. And in terms of reading habits, Rachel likes to read a number of books simultaneously and finishes a couple every month.

2) Customer Needs to Solve
If we were to spend a day with Rachel, we would find that the top needs to solve for her include:

• Portability—Rachel is constantly traveling for her consulting work and for pleasure. She needs her reading material to be lightweight and easy to carry, so she can fill her free time meaningfully at airports, subways, and hotels.
  
  
• Easy Access—Rachel wants to read new material wherever she is. If she happens to be done or is bored with a particular book, she wants to easily access other books or even a magazine, ideally without going to a bookstore.
  
  
• Large Selection—Because she has a wide variety of interests, Rachel reads many different types of books, not just the New York Times bestsellers. When Rachel goes to the beach, she often brings a mix of magazines and books.
  

3) Substitution Effect
For someone like Rachel, the Kindle solution is seeking to replace a book...or really, a whole lot of books at one time. The challenge will be to adequately replace the book experience—including the feel and readability of a paper book—while also giving her some benefits that are unique to the Kindle experience.

*****
With the customer needs lens established, we can then meaningfully imagine and ideate a new book reading experience. In my next post, I will blog about how the Kindle experience addresses Rachel’s needs and the book substitution challenge.

Self-quantifiers: How do you spend your time?

As many of you know, I love the concept of self-quantifiers--people tracking random things in their life--and my belief that the ability to leverage this phenomenon represents a unique innovation opportunity. Here’s another self-quantification example:

The New York Times recently analyzed the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ American Time Use Survey, which literally tracks how people spend every minute of their day. When do people sleep? When do people work? When do people watch TV?

Check out this FUN interactive graphic they put together, and compare yourself to the average:

In playing with the data, I couldn’t help notice that a substantial amount of people were working between midnight and 5am. I wonder what percentage of those people were Wall Street investment bankers. If the data was collected after September, probably not a very large percentage…

Tide Basic...a disruptive innovation?

Last month, Procter & Gamble (P&G) announced that they are test marketing a new product called Tide Basic. The new detergent costs 20% less than regular Tide, has fewer extra features (e.g. no anti-pilling or color preservation technologies), and is only available in powder form.

Interesting product for the times that we are in, but is Tide Basic a disruptive innovation?

On the face of it, some would argue yes. The target consumer is a non-user of Tide. The performance of Tide Basic on typical detergent features has been reduced. A different lever of performance--value--is increased. And the product price is significantly lower.

But here’s the key problem: disruptive innovations are intended to create new markets, and Tide Basic is not doing that. There has always been a vibrant low-end market for detergent; Tide is finally entering that market now simply because the economic downturn has led to "trading down" behavior by consumers, and as a result, significant market share decline for Tide.

Will P&G be successful with this product anyways? Hard to say. Certainly, many companies put out good-better-best versions of their products (e.g. Exxon-Mobil gas, HP laptops, Kraft Mac N Cheese) with great success. On the other hand, sales cannibalization of regular Tide is a key issue, as is the potential of diluting Tide’s premium-oriented brand with a low price product.

And as far as disruptive innovation is concerned, Tide Basic... basically does not meet the standard.

Cash for Clunkers: Good, Bad, or Ugly?

Exceeding all expectations, the new “Cash for Clunkers” program ran out of cash last week, prompting a quick vote by the House of Representatives to add $2 billion to the car buying program. Also known as the Car Allowance Rebate System (CARS), “Cash for Clunkers” is a stimulus program which encourages car owners to trade-in their current vehicles for a new car that gets better mileage, in exchange for a trade-in credit of $3,500 or $4,500.

Despite the program’s success, news reports suggest that “Cash for Clunkers” will face some serious challenges getting passed in the Senate. So let’s do a quick “Good, Bad, and Ugly Check” on the program.

Good: For the economy! Nearly a quarter million cars have been traded in! Although some of that amount may be attributable to retroactive credits (car buyers can take the CARS credit if they did a trade-in anytime after July 1st), “Cash for Clunkers” has boosted car demand, which had declined to record lows. Economic stimulus is happening!

OK: for the Environment! Early reports from DOT suggest that new vehicles purchased through the program, on average, are getting 25.4 miles per gallon, a 9.6 mpg improvement over the vehicles that are being traded in. This is great, except for the fact that our new CAFE standard is 35.5 mpg by 2016. The program should have supported a bigger push toward the new standard.

Bad: for the Consumer! Looks like the taxpayer will be swallowing another big bill. Equally important, early indications are that the surge in demand has encouraged some dealers to charge the full MSRP, instead of the lower invoice price, so basically the “savings” is a net zero for new car buyers.

Ugly: for US Innovation! Instead of providing greater incentives for US auto companies to change their offerings and accelerate adoption of energy-efficient technologies, the program seems to be rewarding obsolete behaviors. And while the US auto industry is crucial for us to support, the “Cash for Clunkers” program does not seem to be consistent with a national innovation policy for the US auto industry that will allow the Fords and GMs of the world to be competitive over the long-term with foreign automakers.