I chose this question in Adlin’s interview mainly because I think he broke a tough taboo when saying that he looks at “competitive web sites as version 1.0 of our redesign”. Stealing, or even just being inspired, by competitors, is, according to my background, not something that we speak loudly about. Still, it’s obviously impossible not to be influenced by what your competitors are doing, and if there is a competitor’s idea that users love, you too need to supply them with it to stay in the competition.
It’s too bad the question (and thus also Adlin’s answer) is focused on the usability aspect, and not the competition itself. I agree with Adlin that with regard to usability competitors may be used to learn from. However, you can’t really copy usability without copying an entire web site. It’s the context – not individual details – that decides whether or not a web site is easy to use or not. Sure, certain features, such as perhaps Amazon’s one click buy (had it not been patented), can be picked up, but to me that is not about usability but features and services.
Something I’d like to have seen Adlin discuss is how a company should really act in the online community. When people can easily communicate with each other and with companies, the company’s personality may become a greater issue than it has been up till now.
For example, if customers (and general Internet users) realize that a company is copying other companies it will affect how people see that company. Also the number of people who actually realize that the company is copying other companies will be greater due to the ease of communication online.
What I’m getting at, though perhaps a little off topic, is that when people really start talking with and about companies’ and the way they act (such as has increasingly been the case in blogs), having a good social image may become more important to companies.
Personally I think that companies need to pay extra attention to the ethics of their actions, and the way in which the public will interpret their actions. It would have been interesting to see how Adlin thinks a company should relate to its competition online with this in mind.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Filip, an interesting take on Adlin's comments.
I agree that in many ways it looks like an admission to stealing competitors' ideas. This would likely fall into what we discussed in the previous class as "high imitability". So the advantage would be derived from complementary assets, which would include the company's personality and their image in the eyes of customers.
I'm not sure i agree with the taboo that you talk about Filip. For me, checking out the competition falls under research. I really see it as something that is a basic part of any business. I don't think it's a secret or that anyone would frown uppon it. Ofcourse there is a difference between doing research on a site, to learn what to do and what not to do, and plain copying.
My point is that checking out, in this case, the useability of a compeditors site to gather info is nothing different than checking their prices or their product catalogue.
I'd like to draw a parallell to the mobile phone industry. Someone was first with adding a camera or mp3 player to their phone. This was recognized as a good idea so the compeditors started doing it aswell. i don't see this as stealing, it's just business.
Stealing idea from competitor is good strategy for the renovation but it is not righteous act for company because onece employeers or customers figure out this fact then the firm's reliance will go down. Even many companies companies are stealing ideas from otehrs, most people are expecting rightouseness act on their favorite company. Other firm's Idea should be use as source of new idea and produce better product.
A bit off topic, but, as you mentioned, "ethics" becomes more important on this internet era, as internet, esp. social media, make companies "naked." This will also be relevant to the competition, like the issues you raised here, including copying.
Post a Comment