3 years ago I wrote an article “ The Anatomy of Need ”, which deciphered the concept of “the problem that the product solves for the client” and proposed a model that explains the structure of this complex phenomenon, which has still not been operationalized in business for the most part Architectonics of the Value Proposition.
In this article I will tell you about my main methodological project, at least at the time of publication. This is the value proposition model. Or, if you are a fan of English words or a search robot – value proposition.Make yourself comfortable, make yourself some tea or coffee, grab a lot of soft French rolls and start reading. It will be long (very long), but interesting.
THE MAIN DIFFICULTY Architectonics of the Value Proposition
When it comes to value, people are divided into two types – those who are sure that they understand everything and “what is there to discuss?”, and those who have already understood how deep the hole is and how unpleasant it is to fall into it. Value is an extremely abstract concept. Not only does it not have a physical embodiment in our world, it also finds comparisons rather poorly among the abstractions we understand.
All these things are derivatives of the value proposition – the so-called prototypes (meaning – experimental samples). But they are not the value proposition itself.
Based on the definition I gave above, belgium telegram data a value proposition is needed to win deals with clients. That is, roughly speaking, to make money.
BRIEF OVERVIEW OF EXISTING ANALOGUES Architectonics of the Value Proposition
If a company has crossed the threshold of statistical survival, it means that it has a value proposition. Internally, it may be called something else, or not called at all, just collected intuitively, but such activity is carried out.
And it would be strange if there were no tools for such an important task on the market. Of course, they exist. I think I tried all possible approaches to value management. And each one had flaws. Now I will tell you about the main methods and why none of them suited us in the end.
PITCHING TEMPLATES
That’s it. This is suggested to be filled in and used as a value proposition. This phrase captivates with its simplicity, but it is also its main drawback – this structure itself does not have any tools to control the correctness of filling. You can write any nonsense there, warning that this can be associated and if it is correct from the point of view of the language itself – you will not find logical errors in it. There are no set requirements and definitions for the missing blocks, so you can write anything you want there. Therefore, it evokes a feeling of simplicity and is usually used by those people whom I quoted at the beginning of the article: “what is there to discuss here?”
Actually, this is the main problem.
OSTERWALDER TEMPLATE
I wrote a separate longread about the Value Proposition Canvas , which, by the way, is still popular. And it is a really good tool, the main merit of which, as it seems to me, is that it introduced the concept of Value Proposition into more or less widespread use.
My main complaint about it is the absence of some important components in its structure. First of all, the concept of “value” as such. But not only.
In essence, Osterwalder’s VPC is a separate description of the client and product with a very rough hint of how they can be interconnected. If you have set Gains and Pains (and even figured out how they differ from each other!), then you still need to somehow understand what connects them with Pain Relievers and Gain Creators. And this very adapter is missing from Osterwalder. And it is important, for example, for marketing.
LEAN CANVAS
The problem with this template is that it is not really a value proposition model. There are blocks that relate to value – segment, problem, solution, unique value proposition (these are different blocks). But overall, it is a startup model. And you can’t dive directly into the depths of the value proposition, where all the pitfalls are hidden, with this template.
Well, to be honest, the general logic of why it was necessary to take the form of a very logical and verified Osterwalder template and saw through the blocks in it, china numbers losing the structure , escapes me. I do not recommend the Lean template to anyone.
MARKETING MIX 3-5-7P
An old tool, which is however close to our model ideologically. It also looks like a set of blocks. It’s a pity that the blocks are so abstract that it is impossible to use them. And the nature of their connection is not defined in any way. For example, how are product, price and place of sale connected (in the original terms?
