Defeating fatigue case study

                                   Defeating feature fatigue

How capability affects consumer’s purchase decision and long term satisfaction?

At the moment of purchasing, the main consideration of a customer is whether the product is attractive or not, and this attractiveness is translated by the number of features that a product has and its extent of complexity, therefore; customers tend to place a high weight on capability and less weight on usability and hence, choose the product with more features. But after the actual use, customers gradually become aware of problems brought by the complexity of the product and the usability penalty that they have foregone; and this eventually lead to product dissatisfaction or what we call “feature fatigue”. In other words, capability has a great effect on expected utility (before using the product) than usability does, but after using the product, it’s the usability that plays a role. These two examples are to illustrate the feature fatigue problem: 63% of mobile phone returns in UK has no hardware or software fault but the reported problems relate to usability like issues about the configuration of the handset, Microsoft Word 2003, which has thirty-one toolbars and more than fifteen hundred mysterious commands.

Findings of the article’s studies

In this article, three studies have been conducted to understand why do consumers seem to be making choices that do not maximize their long-term satisfaction. Results have shown that customers are aware of the complexity of the rich-feature product, but they associate it with a high usability, and when customers given the opportunity to customize a product, they add on average all the feature they are offered which means they still prefer the rich-feature products.

The analytical model

This article goes into an analytical detail explaining how companies keep adding features to their products but in the process cruelly hurts the usability of the products in subject. The article provides a mathematical model that allows to determine the range of features should be added to maximize the company’s long term profitability and the customer’s the lifetime value at the same time by maximizing this formula Fopt = [(d-a)+w(e-a)]/[2b(1+w)] (see appendix).We can conclude that   companies must take care not to include too many features in their products in an attempt to maximize initial sales, or to include too few features, as they might if they focused strictly on maximizing repurchases.

Literature review

Many studies were conducted after the ones in this article, and their findings led basically to the same conclusions. Hamilton and Thompson (2007) used construal-level theory to explain the reason for feature fatigue, they found that indirect experience leads to a non-concrete mental understanding and increases the weight placed on high-capability products, while direct experience causes more concrete mental understanding and increases the weight placed on high-usability products. Alexander, Lynch, and Wang (2008) found that at the moment of purchase a really new product (RNP) generates a high construal level than an incrementally new product (INP) does. Since RNPs necessitate more strength to learn to use than INPs do, RNPs are more expected to lead to feature fatigue. Thompson and Norton (2011) advocated that social surroundings affect consumers' buying decision; customers are more likely to pick the rich-feature products when their selections are done in public.

Implication of the case study for companies

In the light of the findings of the three studies discussed in the case study, managers find themselves in a critical situation where they should find a solution to increase their profitability and increase their customers’ long term satisfaction. Managers should consider offering a wider assortment of simpler products, instead of all-purpose, feature-rich products. Instead of packing one model with many features to address market heterogeneity, firms might increase consumer satisfaction by creating more tailored products with limited sets of capabilities that appeal to different segments.

Online feature fatigue

The concept of feature fatigue can also be applied to websites, both in terms of design and copy. In this circumstance, feature fatigue can be used to describe a situation where there is so much content to read, and feature tables are so big site visitors can’t face reading it all. Website designers should take into consideration the following tips while creating one:

• Identify the core features and highlight them first.
• Use bold header titles that describe the benefits so people can just skim the page.
• Be concise in describing the service features and their benefits. Short sentences/ paragraphs are important.
• Use images to show a feature in motion, thus avoiding the need to describe it in text.
• Start broad and get more specific as the user drills further in to the information. A feature comparison table has its place, just not on the first page. If people want that information, give them the links to read more.

The best example is Apple website; they limit their home page to the hero product.

The happy medium strategy:

...