Chris Dixon

What jobs are users hiring your product to perform?

One of Clay Christensen’s favorite concepts is that instead of dividing your customers into segments and asking which features each segment would like, you should think about what “job” the customers are “hiring” you product to perform. Here is an example:

A fast-food restaurant chain wanted to improve its milkshake sales. The company started by segmenting its market both by product (milkshakes) and by demographics (a marketer’s profile of a typical milkshake drinker). Next, the marketing department asked people who fit the demographic to list the characteristics of an ideal milkshake (thick, thin, chunky, smooth, fruity, chocolaty, etc.). The would-be customers answered as honestly as they could, and the company responded to the feedback. But alas, milkshake sales did not improve.

The company then enlisted the help of one of Christensen’s fellow researchers, who approached the situation by trying to deduce the “job” that customers were “hiring” a milkshake to do. First, he spent a full day in one of the chain’s restaurants, carefully documenting who was buying milkshakes, when they bought them, and whether they drank them on the premises. He discovered that 40 percent of the milkshakes were purchased first thing in the morning, by commuters who ordered them to go.

The next morning, he returned to the restaurant and interviewed customers who left with milkshake in hand, asking them what job they had hired the milkshake to do. “Most of them, it turned out, bought [the milkshake] to do a similar job,” he writes. “They faced a long, boring commute and needed something to keep that extra hand busy and to make the commute more interesting. They weren’t yet hungry, but knew that they’d be hungry by 10 a.m.; they wanted to consume something now that would stave off hunger until noon. And they faced constraints: They were in a hurry, they were wearing work clothes, and they had (at most) one free hand.”

The milkshake was hired in lieu of a bagel or doughnut because it was relatively tidy and appetite-quenching, and because trying to suck a thick liquid through a thin straw gave customers something to do with their boring commute. Understanding the job to be done, the company could then respond by creating a morning milkshake that was even thicker (to last through a long commute) and more interesting (with chunks of fruit) than its predecessor. The chain could also respond to a separate job that customers needed milkshakes to do: serve as a special treat for young children—without making the parents wait a half hour as the children tried to work the milkshake through a straw. In that case, a different, thinner milkshake was in order.

There are at least three obvious ways to apply this concept: 1) when searching for startup ideas, think about jobs people want done that they can’t currently get done, 2) when thinking about how to fix or improve your product, understand why existing users are hiring your product (or should be hiring your product) and try to improve those experiences, 3) when analyzing markets, segment companies by the jobs they are hired for. Sometimes products that might appear similar (e.g. two photo sharing apps) are actually hired for very different purposes, and are therefore misclassified as competitors.

  • Anonymous

    Great post. You bring up the idea of improving experiences. The surprise, sometimes unrelated experiential aspect of products has always fascinated me. In this case, milkshakes will always be taken as food/something to fill you up. But using milkshakes to fend off boredom provides a unique opportunity to craft the whole “surprise + delight” experience — that je ne sais qua that the customer will love.

    • http://www.cdixon.org chris dixon

      yeah, exactly. that’s why for example they added some chunks of fruit but not to many. apparently bored commuters kind of liked the serendipity of finding fruit here and there.

      • Anonymous

        What I’d be curious to know is if people actually articulated the boredom part or if it’s simply pattern recognition on the interviewer’s end. It reminds me of Gladwell’s Blink… he discusses how people are terrible at articulating why they like/want something. As a product design major, interviewing was always downplayed in the design research process. It was all about observing, looking for workarounds etc. and identifying patterns in people’s actions.

        • http://www.cdixon.org chris dixon

          I’m guessing the questions researchers ask need to be carefully designed to dig deeper with being leading.

          • http://twitter.com/juddm Judd Morgenstern

            So true. Leading questions at best yield incremental improvement, or at worst, further you down the wrong path.

            As a UX designer & researcher, I learned that it’s not just what people say, but also what they do, and how they feel (Adaptive Path framework). Which is why surveys or out-of-context focus groups don’t get as deep as observations and immersions.You bring up a point I want to write about more later: it’s great that more startups are acknowledging the value of user research, but hope they realize it is more than simply a one-afternoon activity of talking to people to check the ‘talked-to-customers’ box.

  • Pingback: Product management by PED - Pearltrees

  • http://lukehristou.com/ Luke Hristou

    Awesome post, 

    I like how you gave a very simple and specific use case and took it step by step through the relevant results of each. 

    The hypothesis of when/why a milkshake is purchased is exactly why one should never assume anything I suppose. 

    • http://www.cdixon.org chris dixon

      Thanks- note the milkshake example was quoting from an article I linked to. If you like it I highly recommend the article and also Christensen’s work in general.

  • http://twitter.com/L1AD LIAD

    There’s an incredible book dedicated to ‘jobs to be done’ called What Customers Want – Using Outcome Driven Innovation to Create Breakthrough Products and Services. - http://amzn.to/rG6vXP

    It’s endorsed by Clay and is full of key insights and strategies in leveraging classic disruptive and outcome driven innovation.

    I particularly liked the syntax they created for discovering jobs to be done. It’s akin to a fast track for product/market fit

    • http://www.cdixon.org chris dixon

      very interesting – i’ll check it out – thanks!

  • Deric Loh

    nothing beats interacting with the customers. the quickest way is to pick up the phone and start calling and understand why. Learn so much by just calling the customers rather than trying to torture the data inside out or sitting in a enclosed room call meeting room and debating.

  • http://arnoldwaldstein.com awaldstein

    Touches on how you figure out what your customers think. This is tough.

    You can’t ask effectively whether your customers like your product. Especially a new kind of functionality. You need to give them the opportunity to act out their response. Or a new platform to rate their experience.

    That’s where community and interaction plays in. It’s the platform you create for your customers to talk to each other about the product or tool or ‘job’ that you are giving them help with.

    Talking and observing your customers is great. I find that what you get from it is a function of both being open in your observations and giving them a platform where their responses come naturally.

  • http://www.alearningaday.com Rohan

    We need to watch customers use our product!

    Here’s a similar (ish) story that came to mind. 

    Microsoft
    was facing a recurrent problem. Every time they received negative customer
    feedback from their initial user testing, they faced negative and defensive
    developers.

    ‘Well, they
    can look in the manual’ or ‘My idea is brilliant. You just found 6 stupid
    people’ were the typical answers.

    So,
    Microsoft built it’s usability testing labs full of 1 way mirrors. Now, the
    developers saw the users with their applications. When this happened, 20 ideas
    naturally popped up. Besides, they empatized with their users now!

    They also
    gave their coders the exact machines used by users so they experienced exactly
    how fast it takes for the application to load instead of giving them high end
    computers. 
    This week, let’s ensure we watch end users use/apply the systems/solutions we
    develop..

  • http://www.gplus.to/arkadiuszdymalski Arkadiusz Dymalski

    I like this metaphor of job. It illustrates the basic concept of satisfying customer needs (aka solving their problems) very well. Actually the ‘job’ explains the concept in more simple as well as more effective way.

  • http://reecepacheco.com reecepacheco

    great points, Chris, particularly the 3rd
    users can use the same app in very different ways (hence the need to play in a big space with lots of potential users and keep your app simple enough to be “hired” for many different jobs)

  • http://stevecheney.posterous.com/ steve cheney

    Loves this metaphor. Also 

  • http://jasoncrawford.org jasoncrawford

    Here’s another way to apply the concept: When figuring out who your competitors are, ask how customers are currently getting their “jobs” done. What products are they “hiring”?

    Usually people think of competition as “other products that are similar in form or concept”—which, as you point out, leads to misclassifying superficially similar products as competitors. Thinking of it this way, you sometimes realize that your toughest competitor is the most mundane: e.g., pen & paper vs. most shopping list apps.

  • http://unystartups.com Julian Baldwin

    Three days in a row. Keep the posts coming!

  • David Britt

    Very interesting metaphor. Sometimes it’s hard to identify who is your competitors by just asking those customers.

  • http://www.facebook.com/himanshuhv Himanshu Varshney

    Interesting aspect. Liked the example quoted in the post :)

    • http://customresearchpaper.net/ custom research paper

      I agree with you!

  • Anonymous

    Lost my faith in humanity right about here: “and because trying to suck a thick liquid through a thin straw gave customers something to do with their boring commute.”

    • http://www.cdixon.org chris dixon

      agree. the example is a little depressing (what was that company in Wall-E??) but general point is sound and hopefully applicable
      to societally beneficial products.

  • http://twitter.com/juddm Judd Morgenstern

    Another cool and related framework is thinking about a product from a Form / Function / Purpose perspective. In milkshake example, Form = other milkshakes, Function = sustenance (vs. other food), but Purpose = entertain during a boring commute. Helpful segmenting technique for your point (3) above.

  • http://twitter.com/andyidsinga andyidsinga

    Nice practical advice in the last paragraph. 

    BTW, I love the milkshake story .. as I was reading innovators solution I found it a bit of a slog until I hit the whole hiring your product for a job and milkshake story ..and then I was all like – yeah thats what I’m talking about :)

  • Pingback: Software Marketing Tweetables 26 December 2011 | Smart Software Marketing

  • Pingback: Building products from improvised user behaviors - Chris Dixon

  • http://masongentry.com Mason Gentry

    Lo-fi photos have always had a certain amount of social currency associated with them. Shooting with film, cross-processing, etc. is time consuming. But Lo-fi photographers do it BECAUSE it’s difficult. It’s a badge of honor to go through all that hassle.

    Now Instagram comes along and allows anyone to create these unique looking photos with minimal effort. To the film purists, a bit of the magic is gone. It’s less cool.

    The “job” Instagram performs is to make a photo fashionable by making it look old. The problem with this is, the uniqueness of a lomo-fied snapshot will decline over time, since anyone can create them. Once everyone’s profile photo on Facebook is an Instragram, the game is up.

    Will be interesting to see if they move beyond filters and figure out how to improve the quality of people’s photos in other ways.

    • http://www.cdixon.org chris dixon

      I happen to agree with you re lo fi and instagram. But I think my point still stands-even if people like you and me don’t like the effects of a cool thing going mainstream and perhaps getting dumbed down.

    • http://essaysmonster.com/buy-essay buy essay

      I agree with you!!!

  • Pingback: Building Products for Improvised User Behavior | Dylan Reid

  • Pingback: Innovating with improvised user behavior | Customer Experience Academy