Product Value Versus Acquisition Experience

I had a frustrating conversation with a half-witted colleague about the difference between the value delivered by a product and the value of a pleasant acquisition process.   Perhaps "half-witted" is harsh - he was a young guy with a few years of experience, at the level of proficiency where he knows enough to think he knows everything, and it may be a while before humility sets in and he sorts things out.  I hope it will happen before he does much serious damage or annoys too many people.

The point of contention was this: he considered the acquisition process to be part of the product, rather than a part of the acquisition cost.  In effect, if you can make the acquisition process pleasant or entertaining, the product itself doesn't need to deliver value to the buyer.   This is not a unique perspective, as I've heard it from more seasoned individuals who ought to know better, as well as executives who recognize that it's cheaper and easier to improve the acquisition process than to improve the product's actual value.  And it's poison.

Taken to its logical extremes, this means that such a person would feel justified in delivering a product that offers no benefit whatsoever to the buyer, but who nonetheless purchases it because the shopping and buying experience is so engaging that they pay no attention to the fact that what they are buying is essentially worthless.   This is exactly what swindlers and con-artists do, and I don't think it's an exaggeration to suggest that it is thoroughly unethical.

As such,  there is considerable danger in attempting to combine two things that ought to be kept separate, such that we pursue success in both regards rather than considering one to be a substitute for the other.   We want the customer to find the acquisition process to be pleasant, or at least as non-unpleasant as we can offer; but ultimately the function a company serves is to provide them a product or service that delivers an actual benefit.

Even as a customer experience practitioner, I must admit that the value the customer derives from the product is far more important than the pleasure they take from the acquisition process - and if any compromise is to be made, a more difficult acquisition for a more valuable product is to be preferred over a more pleasant acquisition process for a less valuable product - at least if we're to have any claim that our ultimate interest is serving the best interests of the customer rather than conning them out of their money for a product that delivers no value.

This is often seen in frivolous commercial products that attempt, through advertising, to generate a level of enthusiasm that leads them to purchase a product that they will later realize is junk.   They may waste a little cash, or in some instances quite a lot of it, and hopefully learn to distrust advertising. In other instances, the consequences are not so trivial - to be encouraged to make a disastrous investment with your retirement fund, to be encouraged to take medication that is a placebo with serious side effects, and the like.  When we create the thrill of anticipation, along with a quick-and-easy process for acquisition, we are doing harm.   And when we equivocate or suggest that the acquisition process is a substitute for product value, we intend to continue doing so.

Perhaps there's the counter argument of "a fool and his money," and I don't think I can deny that - but when we advocate making fools of people for the sake of parting them from their money, we can no longer claim innocence from the consequences.