Neil’s lecture provided many insights into customer perception, product experience, and customer analysis. And he shook up my go-to value proposition framework.
I’m most familiar with the kind of value proposition framework put forward by Harry Yang:
- For [user persona],
- [product brand name], a product of [frame of reference],
- provides [solution] for [user problem] by [distinct advantage].
However Neil’s presentation focused on a different kind of value proposition, relying more on the emotional benefits of using your particular product.
His approach was more like this:
- If I [use/purchase X]…
- Instead of [doing whatever I have been doing]…
- [the following good things will happen]
- I believe them because [endorsements, testimonials]
The Power Of Belief
I found the difference pretty striking.
And not just in a semantic way.
Consider these two different examples, following the two different frameworks…
- For parents of autistic children who wander,
- SafetyNet, a product of LoJack,
- provides a personal tracking system that works directly with the police to find and rescue missing people.
Gets the point across. Sounds like a good product.
Now look at this same product through Neil’s framework…
- If I purchase SafetyNet…
- Instead of investing in locks and sleeping with one eye open to monitor my autistic child…
- I’ll be able to get a good night’s sleep or enjoy a night on the town while knowing my child is safe.
- I believe in SafetyNet because our sheriff endorsed the product, my child’s school recommended the product, and a local boy was saved because of this product.
Which value prop do you think will feel more compelling to the target customer?