One of my favorite questions when I teach Innovation is to ask participants how long it took for Nestlé to succeed with their Nespresso coffee machine. So what’s your answer? One year? Five year? Well no. The answer is 21 years. Based on a technology licensed from the Battelle Institute by Nestlé in… 1974, Nespresso only became profitable in 1995 after much ups and downs. 21 years were needed to make a success of the Nespresso innovation.
Because somatic markers are based on past experiences of reward and punishment, fear too can create some of the most powerful somatic markers, and many advertisers are all too happy to take advantage of our stressed-out, insecure, increasingly vulnerable natures. Practically every brand category I can think of plays on fear, either directly or indirectly.
The two most common reasons for losing are not knowing you're competing in the first place, and not knowing with whom you're competing.
The three great essentials to achieve anything worthwhile are, first, hard work; second, stick-to-itiveness; third, common sense
I was happy, maybe as happy as I’d ever been, and happiness can be dangerous. It dulls the senses.
Every successful business creates a new kind of customer. That customer’s story changes because the business exists. There is a before-the-product story and an after-the-product story. The change that’s brought about doesn’t have to be as monumental as the changes that companies like Google create; they can be small shifts in attitude and perception, nearly imperceptible changes in habits that become rituals over time. Enhancing your products or services might signal advancement and feel like progress, but if there is no change in the customer, there is no innovation. What happens because your product exists? Or as author Michael Schrage would say, ‘Who do you want your customer to become?’ Before your product, people did. After your product, people do.
But it was Dr. Calvert's next finding that was truly fascinating. She discovered that when people viewed images associated with the strong brands—the iPod, the Harley-Davidson, the Ferrari, and others—their brains registered the exact same patterns of activity as they did when they viewed the religious images. Bottom line, there was no discernible difference between the way the subjects' brains reacted to powerful brands and the way they reacted to religious icons and figures.
(think about) the name of a dish on a menu. Something as simple as changing Chicken Soup to the more emotionally driven Grandma's Chicken Soup will increase sales.