Google Focus

A friend at HBS is going to be interning at Google this summer. We recently talked at length about an idea of his where Google should repackage some of its product line to make it more saleable for businesses—going into detail here is a story for another day. Though he and I agreed that Google stood to make a sizeable chunk of change on the proposition, I lobbied strongly that Google would never do it.

“It’s all about search and ads. That’s it. That’s all anything ever comes down to,” I pitched. My friend’s idea would monetize by selling products directly to businesses. Which seems simple enough. But, I explained, there are all sorts of logistics they’d need, too: You’d have to hire, train, and manage salespeople. You’d need effective customer service—an area which I think Google broadly ignores (perhaps they might simply argue “Just Google it”). You’d need to figure out how to identify leads. Etc., etc., etc. It’s true that Google is sitting atop a mountain of cash. But diversifying (even to a small degree) and not using its resources to feed #1? Out of the question.

So now I’m forced to eat my own medicine. Google recently announced they’d be shutting down Google Reader soon. In case you didn’t know me: Google Reader is in my Top 5 all-time favorite things on the internet. In case you didn’t know Google Reader: It’s an RSS aggregator, which in layman’s terms basically means it receives every update from all my other favorite sites on the internet, presents everything cleanly, and enables me to check one page (reader.google.com) instead of hundreds and without having to sift through a mountain of content which I’ve already seen or chosen to ignore.

I now think back to my argument from before. “It’s all about search and ads. That’s it.” I’ve met people from Google who explain that Google Chrome explicitly exists because of the incremental Google searches that result from using the Omnibar. Gmail exists because you search and view ads through the platform. YouTube, framed a little differently, is actually the internet’s second biggest search engine (after Google, of course). Google Glass exists because it opens up a treasure trove of new search opportunities.

I don’t think I ever actually search in Google Reader. And I’m not really ever served any ads. It seems like this’d be a tremendous opportunity for AdWords to reach me. I assume there’s a good reason why they don’t do this. Maybe it has something to do with advertising next to content that isn’t Google’s own. (What happens if Google runs an ad next to an ESPN article? Should ESPN get part of the revenues? What if ESPN finds the ad objectionable? Etc.)

As a result: Google Reader is dying. Thousands and thousands of loyalists like myself are left without any strong idea about how you’re supposed to browse the internet effectively without the use of a capable RSS aggregator.

Smells like a business opportunity…

Launching Tech Ventures: Death of the Customer

I wrote a thing for class that appears on the class blog: http://launchingtechventures.blogspot.com/2013/02/death-of-customer.html . My classmates have written a bunch of intelligent stuff there, too.

Here’s my post copied below:

Death of the “Customer”

petersel_josh_blog1

I’m really worried about this word.

Dictionary.com (above) seems to grasp what many tech founders conflate: the word “customer” can describe two very starkly different relationships. There’s a customer as someone you sell to, and a customer as someone you “deal with.” The site even highlights the critical differentiator for its vexed readers: Informal.

Perhaps, to be on the safe side, the word “customer” should be rejected out of hand in discussions of modern tech businesses—particularly those establishing multi-sided platforms, and most especially those in which one side of the platform is serviced completely for free.

For example: As an individual, I am with quite certainty NOT a “customer” of Facebook. I don’t give them money for anything. I don’t buy the gift cards, or the Farmville tokens, or click the ads, or anything. (I suppose, you might argue, that in this instance Dictionary.com’s “tough customer” moniker would actually be quite appropriate).

As far as Facebook is concerned, I am a user. In another lens, I might even be considered one small part of Facebook’s product, which it sells to its actual customers: advertisers, Zynga, data miners, and the like.

I think our discussion of the Aardvark case reached the right solution, but perhaps arrived there with entirely the wrong focal point. We agreed that Aardvark failed to achieve product-market fit, and talked about how despite the founding team’s best efforts in lean methodology, the resulting product never truly seemed to gel with its intended customer user demographic. Little energy seemed to be exhausted in resolving the product-market fit among the company’s actual customers: its advertisers. I don’t mean to stir a debate as to whether ads should have been implemented sooner or later. I mean to address the notion that it was never truly determined whether the product (the user base) and medium (Aardvark) being created would be desirable for potential purchasing clientele, and differentiated enough to be appealing in a market already saturated with a litany of advertising mediums.

Plastiq, through all its efforts to strike new business, seemed to have some better understanding of this notion. It sent sales reps across the country to try and strike deals with car companies. Not a single bite. There was a backup plan, luckily, and the company changed gears and eschewed the dealers as a customer base. Imagine if, on the other hand, Plastiq had focused exclusively on making a really nice, flashy, convenient, interface for individuals looking to buy new cars with their credit cards (these are the “customers,” right??), and only approaching the auto dealers after developing some fanbase. They’d be dead on arrival.

Let’s kill the word customer and avoid whatever confusion it seems to be causing. From now on, it’s “buyers” who spend money and “users” who don’t.

The Louis C.K. “C.K.-ase”

As a final project for my Strategic Marketing in Creative Industries course last semester, I wrote the first draft of a potential case on Louis C.K., a wildly popular comedian who’s currently employing some intrepid tactics regarding the sale of his recorded materials and of tickets to his live shows.

The actual case seems like it’s not going to get written for now—C.K. is somewhat notorious for being very particular about the projects he participates in, not to mention the fact that he’s probably impossibly busy these days. Still, the mock case was fun to write, and kind of enjoyable to read, so I thought I’d share it. Download a PDF copy at the link below.

The Louis C.K. “C.K.-ase”

Make Spotify Better

I guess alternatively stylized as Sp°tify

Per the Media Summit I checked out at the end of last semester, Spotify is the music listening service that’s going to save the industry and save the world. I definitely dig what they’re doing. Here’s how it could be even better:

Difficulty Level: Easy

I was a Spotify Free user for a while, then clicked an ad that said “Try 30 free days of Spotify Premium.” That was cool for a few months, but then recently I made the switch back to Spotify Free.

I don’t mind that all the ads came back. I do mind that a lot of the ads say “Try 30 free days of Spotify Premium,” only when I click them, I’m taken to a page that explains “Sorry, you’ve already used up your free 30 day trial.”

Why serve broken ads like this to users? Clearly there’s data on me somewhere that says “already used his premium trial.” It’ll also be tough to induce me to another run at Premium via a second 30-day trial (a tactic that Netflix seemed to employ heavily for its ex-users).

Difficulty Level: Medium

Tabbed browsing.

Really, with the ability to look up artists, switch between discographies and bios, flip between apps, and more, the Spotify desktop app is as much an Internet browser as it is a music media browser. If I’m in the middle of reading up on The Flaming Lips’ biography, and want to change tracks, why should I need to hit the back button a half dozen times to get back to what I was doing? Even the much-maligned Internet Explorer 6 has peripherals that allow for tabbed browsing. And according to Wikipedia, that was released in 2001.

Difficulty Level: Medium

Literally the only reason why I ever open iTunes anymore is to download Podcasts. Because for some dopey reason, as far as I can tell, that’s the only way to download anything from the ESPN audio library (you can stream it from their website otherwise).

This seems like it’d be an easy thing to add, but I get why introducing Podcasts has some kinks. I think there are some premium podcasts which you have to pay for, which wouldn’t really jive with the current Spotify setup. Perhaps more importantly, the podcast might last 30-60 minutes without affording an opportunity for commercial interruption…so maybe it’s something exclusively available to Spotify Premium users? Is it better to pretend that Podcasts don’t exist, or drive customers to get their fix from 3rd parties? Wouldn’t you rather have your users camped on your application for as long as possible?

Difficulty Level: Medium

Spotify touts that it’s a tremendously powerful engine for music discovery. True, no question. But given that this is a focus, it seems a bit strange that you can’t really search for a music genre through Spotify’s search bar. A query of “hip hop” results in a few tracks (“Hip-Hop Saved My Life” by Lupe Fiasco, “Hip Hop Hooray” by Naughty by Nature, etc.), then a few user-created playlists, then a few artists (in this case, I guess, “Hip Hop Beats” and “Top 40 Hip Hop Hits” are listed as artists) and finally a few albums (Classic Hip-Hop, R&B: From Doo-Wop to Hip-Hop, etc.)

I suppose you can kind of do the music genre discovery thing by proxy of an app. The Soundrop app, for example, has a bunch of user-curated radio stations based around different themes like Electronica, Dub Step, Hip Hop, Indie Rock. My guess is that a Spotify Genre result page would look somewhat similar to whatever the top ranking user-created playlist is—a bunch of songs by various artists in the genre, just default sorted by popularity instead of by one individual’s whim. Is there some chance that Spotify doesn’t have genre information coded in? That’d make this harder. But generally, I just don’t see why Spotify should have to or want to depend other parties for this functionality. (H/t Casey.)

Difficulty Level: Hard

An extra $10 a month out of pocket, standing on its own, feels like kind of a big deal.

But bundled in and obscured under some other significantly larger recurring payment?

One of the biggest value-adds of Spotify Premium is that it enables the full-featured mobile application. What if the $10 to Spotify Premium was just baked in to the $100-whatever you’re already paying to AT&T for your phone+data plan? Only 10% more to have access to every song in the Spotify library? Not as daunting.

In addition, you’ve got the fact that cell phones generally lock users in to 2-year contracts, and have notoriously abysmal customer service. Once AT&T is Spotify’s operator, I’d imagine user attrition rates depreciating precipitously.

*UPDATE* I just saw an ad suggesting that I can route the balance of my Spotify Premium subscription to my Sprint bill. Which is neat, and it’s close to what I’m envisioning, but not quite. I was thinking more along the lines of opting for a type of Spotify account the same way you’d opt for a bigger or smaller data plan, or number of anytime minutes, or whatever the options are these days. This would give Spotify more of a consumer-facing presence on the carrier’s store- and web-front, as well as (hopefully) serve to really lock users in long-term.

Difficulty Level: Extreme

Same idea, bigger game.

Spotify could obliterate the car radio. Like SiriusXM, but way better.

Ideally, you’ve got a unit that replaces the radio, has a steady 3G/LTE/whatever connection, and lets you play whatever you want, whenever you want. If that’s too much into the futuristic/unfeasible end of the spectrum, then maybe just a hard drive that can download all the songs you ever want while the car is in the garage and connected to your WiFi at home.

Paying an extra $10 on the $X00 a month for the car, and utterly perfecting the radio? Knockout.

Difficulty Level: Extreme

On a preliminary level, it seems like there’s a pretty strict upward limit to the amount of revenue Spotify can generate on a per user basis: $9.99/mo. No matter how much music I consume, that’s the price of the Premium account.

How might Spotify upsell (price segregate?) its most avid fans?

Perhaps there might be some premium apps in the app store which users pay extra for. For reference, Apple generally takes a 30% cut of all sales made through the iTunes store.

Perhaps there are other goods that Spotify can sell. A custom poster based on my listening history over the past 12 months? Could Spotify traffic users to buy concert tickets and take a small cut of those sales?

Perhaps there are bigger subscription bundles Spotify might be able to offer. Competitor Rdio, for example, has family plans available—you can buy two accounts for $17.99/mo, or three for $22.99/mo. Perhaps this also addresses some market of people who share a single Spotify Premium account. I don’t know many friends who do this with Spotify, but then again, it feels like everyone I know does this with Netflix accounts (sorry I watched House of Cards using your account last week, Kevin).

I consider all of these options extreme, by the way, since they generally fundamentally alter the way users interact with the platform, rather than just offering marginal improvement like the easy and mediums.

JuiceDefender’s Business Model is Stupid

The battery life for my cellphone sucks.

I mean. To be fair, the battery is probably a modern technological marvel. But the phone screen is bright and ginormous, and there’s 4G running, and who knows what else is going on in the background and the phone can’t last the entire day.

Purportedly, there’s an app for that.

I downloaded JuiceDefender, which more or less says all the things I want to hear. Specifically, “extra hours of battery life,” and “runs by itself.” I guess it does some sort of hocus pocus magic in the background instead of me having to fiddle with Airplane Mode and data use settings and hacker mode and I don’t even know.

So I installed the app, and…haven’t noticed a difference at all.

JuiceDefender has three different app versions: Free, Plus ($1.99), and Ultimate ($4.99). I guess the sell is “If you like the Free version, then upgrade to Ultimate.” But the free version doesn’t seem to do anything. Why should I be compelled to give these guys more money? This business model sucks more than my batter life.

On the other hand, it’d be a lot smarter if the Free version was just a 30-day trial of the Ultimate version. If the app was really worth its mettle, 30 days is enough time for me to settle in to the routine of (finally!) not having to perform battery-saving acrobatics and midday phone recharges, and JuiceDefender becomes something I truly can’t live without. Of course I’ll spend some pocket change on something that eliminates experiencing my small version of technology hell (#firstworldproblems).

Instead, I have no idea if the app is any good. And I used the $5 to buy a sandwich.

Spotify Mobile Playlists

I guess alternatively stylized as Sp°tify

My original understanding of Spotify’s value proposition is that it’s great because of its unique freemium consumer pricing model. You can get all the bells & whistles for $10/mo, or some of the bells & whistles for $5/mo, or some of the bells & whistles plus banner and audio ads for $0/mo. This free option and freemium model is particularly enticing—companies like Napster and Rhapsody have been doing paid streaming services since at least 2005 when I was a sales floor rep at Best Buy, but you don’t see those guys making headlines. Spotify, on the other hand, has amassed something like 15 million users (4 paid, 11 ad-supported), and were recently valued around $3 billion.

And that all said: I don’t think the freemium desktop model is where the lion’s share of Spotify’s value lies.

First, for context: I’m a Spotify Free user. I put up with the ads. Repeat: I put up with them. I’m surprised at how irrelevant the ads are to me, considering how closely intertwined Spotify is with Facebook and how much they should know about my interests.

To be fair, Spotify needs to sell ads first before they can be relevant. Feels to me like 75% of the ads I listen to are just self-bumps from Spotify. These all essentially say “Hey! These ads are annoying! If you give us $10/month, then we won’t subject you to this very ad that you’re listening to!” (Which, reading between the lines, I think essentially says “We needed to fill space but didn’t sell anything here!”) Which seems silly and disingenuous. Worse, the majority of these ads will tout a 30-day free trial for Spotify Premium…which I’ve already exhausted. Even when I click through the ad, I can’t have another 30-day trial. That’s very frustrating.

The other 25% of the ads, these days, are from Harley Davidson. I guess one sales exec closed a huge sale, and now for some reason I (a 25-year old city-based grad student) am reminded every four songs to go out and buy a motorcycle.

Second, as to value: Everyone’s going mobile. Internet traffic through cell phones is up something like a bazillion percent (exaggeration). And nobody seems to have any idea how to monetize it. Ads don’t seem to work. Facebook spent a billion dollars on Instagram (not exaggeration), and neither phone app appears to have any advertising present. Zynga’s company value is plummeting.

I think Spotify can monetize free-for-consumers on mobile without doing ads. In fact, I think they’re planning on it.

There’s one overwhelming difference, in my mind, between Spotify’s desktop and mobile experiences: Apps. And what’s ironic, with the Apple and Android phones being so app-centric, is that it’s Spotify’s desktop platform—not its mobile version—which is app-rich.

I’m not sure how Spotify’s desktop apps are monetized currently. On the iPhone, I know Apple takes a clean 30% cut of all app proceeds…but my guess is Spotify’s current app library is completely free. Maybe when I listen to a playlist on the Pitchfork app, Spotify sends the appmaker a small fee. Not sure.

How would this work on a mobile phone?

Can Spotify have its advertisers curate (and pay for) playlists, which I can listen to or even temporarily download for free for a period of time?

Here’s the thing with radio- and stream-based phone apps: They require ubiquitous connectivity to the network. There’s a crisis here. Internet radio is okay because I can relatively easily ensure that my laptop will remain in range of an internet signal for the duration of my listening session. The entire point of listening On-The-Go through my phone is that I’m actually on the go, and invariably will be passing through an elevator or a subway train on the way. My connection dies, the music stops, broken experience.

Let’s say Pitchfork, or heck, even Harley Davidson, now let me download a playlist which I could listen to for a week. Instead of ads after every other song, build in liner notes. “We picked Dawes / ‘That Western Skyline’ because  it reminds us of being out on the open road; troubles in our wake but still front of mind. This next track…” Sort of like a radio host who can add a bit of color and personality. His bits are catered so that they’re both relevant to the sponsor and to the music, so that all of a sudden the ads aren’t an apologetic interruption to the listening experience.

Here’s the best part: In Spotify’s original model, the ads are implemented in a way that they feel like a detraction from the intended good. I’ve actually casually spoken with members of the Spotify team who’ve brought up this sentiment, and suggested that it makes selling ads and building for the free product especially difficult. In my model, the advertiser is intrinsically adding value, both providing tangential content and affording me the ability to do something I couldn’t have done without their participation. Detracting is bad, adding is good.

As a result: One less reason for someone to say “I don’t have Spotify,” and one step closer to Spotify taking over the world.

Airplane Mode

Airplane mode, a la mode

Dear iOS & Android,

Please fix this garbage.

How impossibly stupid is it that the only time that you are ever—EVER—explicitly told that you can’t use your phone’s Airplane Mode is when you’re actually sitting on an airplane?

“Airplane Mode is not enough; your phones have to be turned all the way off,” says every poor flight attendant across the entire country, for every flight, every day, as planes are preparing for takeoff.

Look, I get why this setting is secretly brilliant. Modern smartphones depend on a steady signal connection in order to update mountains of inane app updates, tweets, emails, whatever. When this connection is lost, the phones are designed to exhaust all effort possible to reestablish connection—which is fine if you’ve, say, stepped into an elevator and you’re in the middle of a thing. But it’s a battery-crippling disaster if you’re somewhere like an airplane. Airplane Mode turns off most of the signal transmitting functions while still affording people the opportunity to keep their phone on so they play Angry Birds or whatever the hell.

You have to fix this.

See, I can’t blame the users here. You’ve clearly designed this feature to give them the impression that it’s acceptable for use on airplanes—there’s that neat little airplane logo that you utilize, and the whole using the word “Airplane” in the name thing. People have been trained for millenia to pick up on those sorts of signals. I think it’s perfectly reasonable for an average consumer to conclude that Airplane Mode is an appropriate alternative for the flight attendants’ hopeless “turn all your stuff off, for the love of god, I’m begging you” plea.

I’m certainly not asking the airline people for help. They’ve demonstrated sufficient evidence of significant mental trauma already. That’d be a hopeless endeavor. So it’s you guys.

I don’t want to ask for much. For sure, you all might be able to invent a smarter algorithm for checking data signals. But that sounds like a lot of work, and I’m not technologically sophisticated enough to make a sound recommendation here. So how about this: Turn your airplane logos into traincar images, and re-brand your feature as “Subway Mode.”

Thanks.

(One first-world problem down, infinity to go.)

Re-designing the Travel Bag II

Yesterday, I investigated the travel bag, and re-framed the problem of designing a travel bag that best suits the size and portability needs of modern tourists to also include the needs of several other parties involved, including airlines, airports, and airplanes.

Here’s a creative matrix I used to brainstorm some ideas.

EXCELE

Along the X axis, I asked myself questions critical to the value proposition for each of the stakeholders. Along the Y axis, I listed the most likely levers available to drive change. Then I used my brain for 15 minutes.

Once those ideas were down, I sorted them chronologically by importance—in other words, “how likely is it that this idea will result in a significantly improved overall travel experience?” From there, I ranked by ease/affordability, with the most points going towards ideas that might have the lowest cost barriers. I could have been wrong at any point. Then, I found a sum using a skill called “basic mathematics.”

ACLES

Interestingly, seven of the fourteen ideas I’d come up with all received a fairly high allocation of points (20+) and as such might merit future consideration. At the conclusion of my rankings, I was surprised to find that altering an entire culture—the idea to eliminate the norm of bringing overhead bags—was only the sixth most expensive idea to implement. But to be fair, I did come up with a few especially strange ideas. Having circus muscle men to help people load luggage in overheads would be pretty funny.

With these in mind, I came up with a pair of possible product prototypes.

Solution Alternative #1: The top of the travel bag detaches and doubles as your TSA bin.

First, I focused on the top two ideas: TSA branded, approved product and a travel bag with TSA security parts (bins, liquid baggies) built in. It seems likely that the two might be built in chorus.

One critical aspect the two have in common is that they address a human problem. For the former: Airline passengers hate the TSA. They’re the enemy. People feel personally violated by the TSA (probably because they physically are personally violated). It seems like the TSA exists with the sole purpose of making things slow and difficult. As a result, the passengers treat the security process like they’d treat anything they don’t like: begrudgingly. Many are willfully ignorant of TSA officers’ requests to remove belts or jewelry, or otherwise partake in assorted small acts of anarchy.

Aside from potential advances in check-in rapidity, a TSA-approved luggage series might provide another more important benefit: an olive branch, and the notion that the TSA actually wants a speedy, painless process just as much as the passengers do!

As for enhancing rapidity: What are the true causes of such lengthy lines at the security check step of the travel process? My first thought goes to the exhaustive laundry list of demands that the TSA has created (ziplock bags for all liquids, separate crate for laptops, etc.), but I assume these are immobile—in fact, I felt these were so entrenched that I (perhaps foolishly) actively chose not to address this issue in my creative matrix. My gut’s next instinct is to blame the on-site TSA team…but upon reflection, I don’t think they’re necessarily the second biggest contributing factor to lag. Checking passengers’ ID and processing them through the human-size metal detector are I think actually fairly speedy processes. I think lag comes in as a result of the way passengers pack and unpack their bags.

While queuing for the metal detector, passengers must unpack hurriedly and haphazardly. Quickly, I must stuff my shoes, belt, cellphone, wallet, jacket, travel size shampoo, toothpaste and more into one bin, while unzipping my carry-on to remove the laptop which must get stored in a second bin. Moments later on the other side of the metal detector, I have to undo this entire process. Awesome times.

Bags can move slowly through the carry-on metal detector and may need to be re-screened by the TSA expert. Why? Because the inside of a typical travel bag is a mess. Check out what these guys have to sift through. I couldn’t find Waldo in here, much less a concealed weapon. The TSA officer has to sift through piles of junk to try and detect anything suspicious, and there’s no way she might standardize this process.

A TSA-approved travel bag could feasibly solve both these problems at once. With consideration under the guidelines of subtraction and closed-world conditions: What if the airport didn’t provide bins? What if all we had to work with was our travel bag itself?

I made a very crude mock-up. Seriously, the most crude mock up of all time.

crockup

The idea is as such: When you arrive at the metal detectors, you simply detach the top of your travel bag and flip it upside-down to use as a bin. In my vision, the inside of the top might be stitched with suitable elastic bands and clear baggies, or otherwise have explicitly designated cubbies for most of the core pressure-point items, such as my laptop and toothpaste. This gives the TSA agent an easy rubric to follow and check against for aberration. As this type of bag proliferates, there’s reduced need for bins, which means reduced clutter, transactional labor and friction.

On the other side of the equation, this solution relieves me of the burden of having to open and sift through a bunch of things—critical items would be proactively packed neatly and accessibly. I’d envision this top might not have to be attached to the bag by much more than a few straps of Velcro—sturdy enough to withstand the modest rigors of commute and overhead storage, easy enough to undo and redo in a flash without even requiring precision. Before the final product is publicly unveiled, I’d foresee numerous iterations here in order to cater to style and personal security needs, etc., but at some level, the bag should devolve to “TSA mode,” which might only need to hold up long enough for you to get from the metal detector to your gate before you armor up.

Reaching back into my bag of ideas, this might be a clever way to simultaneously implement expert traveler fastlanes. Allowing travelers toting TSA-approved luggage to use the first-class lane (or otherwise, a separate lane just below first class) would be a terrific way to align TSA and passenger interests, rewarding patrons who seek to expedite the process and creating value for both parties.

Solution #2: Travel bags contoured for overhead storage.

More crude mock-ups!

go go gadget MS PAint

The idea here is that many airlines use a very specific set of planes in order to increase operating efficiencies, and as such, probably very readily know what the overhead storage capacity is for their fleet. JetBlue comes to mind as an airline that only flies two different models of plane. Could they not design and propagate a carry-on bag that fits perfectly?

Similar to the TSA problems above, much of the lag in boarding planes is the result of human error. We pack enormous carry-on suitcases hoping to avoid checked baggage fees. In fact, often enough, an overhead bag that fit perfectly on one plane can be too large for the overhead on another—yet how should we know? Rampant is the problem of customers squandering time and holding up the entire boarding process by trying to shove these bags into the overhead, worse still the time and effort exhausted when an oversized bag must be taken from the cabin and moved into the checked luggage post-facto.

Suppose JetBlue said “this bag will definitely fit into our planes.” Oversized bags: eliminated. Bags checked post-facto: eliminated. Customer confidence, happiness, and loyalty: skyrocketing. If I know my bag is guaranteed to fit JetBlue, and I don’t want to invest in a whole portfolio of bags catered to each airline, I’m overwhelmingly more likely to seek JetBlue flights.

One interesting correlated thought: As far as I can remember, the overhead storage space in most or all planes is shaped like a trapezoid (like the mock-ups above). Why is the standard profile shape of a carry-on bag rectangular? My guess is that this is to aid stacking and shipping. But a carry-on travel bag should never need to be stacked…so is the rectangle necessary? Generally, the clothing on the inside will be folded and stacked to meet a rectangular profile; is the bulbous part of the luggage’s profile rendered useless? Or could it be used to store my toothpaste, hair gel, and other odd essentials?

Perhaps, ideally, this bulbous part could be used as the aforementioned TSA tray, and we might kill two birds with one stone.

Re-designing the Travel Bag

How can we make travel bags better?

In the past few years, we’ve seen several significant shifts in the way Americans approach and experience airline travel. Low-cost point-to-point airlines are more commonplace, personal electronics devices have proliferated, oil prices have spiked, and security measures have heightened—among a multitude of other trends. Each development has brought about new policies and procedures employed by airlines, airports, and passengers, resulting in an experience that may seem highly foreign for a traveler from even twenty years ago. Everyone is now a terrorist who hides explosives in his laptop, belt, and shoes—unless you’re under 12 years old, in which case apparently shoe-based weapons have been ruled out as a possibility.

The common travel bag, on the other hand, has not seen change commensurate with the rapid evolution of the travel process. The last time bags got a significant upgrade was when the wheel was invented implemented.

My Goal: Design a travel bag that better suits the size and portability needs of the modern tourist.

At first glance, the above trends have the following primary direct implications:

  1. Shorter trips, which call for lighter luggage loads, are more commonplace
  2. Travelers often tote laptops, which need to be inspected separately by security
  3. It is now commonplace for airlines to charge additional fees for checked luggage because “high oil prices”

And the following primary indirect implications:

  1. Much higher percentage of passengers with two carry-on bags and zero checked bags
  2. Longer lines at multiple stages of boarding process

Here’s a Journey Map of what it’s like to fly these days.

  1. Home. I am packing clothes for my trip. I have some idea of how much I will need to pack, constrained by how many days my trip will last. I am explicitly limited by the physical capacity of my luggage. Generally, if an additional article of clothing will fit inside my bag, I will pack it. If it doesn’t fit, I’ll ask mom to come help me fold and fit everything better.
  2. Transit to the airport. In Boston, the cab costs an unfathomable $40. I take public transit which costs about 45 minutes.
  3. I get to the airport, which has a bunch of smaller steps. These could arguably be bundled together into “hate myself,” but for the sake of comprehensiveness:
    1. Arrive, wait in queue, and get boarding pass.
    2. Check larger luggage (if applicable).
    3. Queue for TSA and metal detectors.
    4. Arrive at gate, wait for boarding.
  4. Board the plane, queue to reach my specific seat. Store carry-on luggage in overhead compartment or beneath seat.
  5. Disembark, collecting luggage from overhead bins.
  6. Leave airport, commute to final destination.

I’d consider four parties to be the primary players in the travel bag & airplane boarding process: The traveler, the luggage maker, the airport/security team, and the airline. They each have different objectives and relationships with the travel bag. Generally, I think a luggage maker might only design a bag to meet the needs of me, the traveler. An intelligently-designed travel bag, however, would make life better for everyone. (Isn’t that a generous thing for a travel bag to want to do?)

Problem Reframe: Can we design a Travel Bag that better suits the needs of all parties in the travel journey map—including not just travelers, but airlines, airports, and manufacturers, too?

Part II tomorrow with a few more pictures.