Feature Creep - when you give consumers what they want they can still end up hating you for it

I read this piece by James Surowiecki (author of The Wisdom of Crowds), and it really resonated with me. It’s about “Feature Creep“, why it happens, what it’s bad, and why a possible solution might just be wrong.

It’s a pretty short read, but for your convenience here is the short version of it:

• Technology products tend to spiral with added stuff - features. These things cost manufacturers and consumers time and money - and frustration. For example, why does my new digital camera have a special mode for “Birthdays pictures of senior citizens underwater during solar eclipses”? (Ok, that’s an exaggeration.)
• Part of the problem is that companies - from engineering to marketing tend to pile on features because they’re cool, they give people more control/freedom, and they can differentiate. For example, my new digital camera can detect trace amounts of anthrax and automatically neutralizes the threat - does your brand? (Ok, that’s an exaggeration too.) This means that companies don’t listen to their customers, right?
• Wrong: If you ask consumers, they’ll tell you they want all the features, but they won’t actually use them - in fact, it might make things worse. That last part is classic - here’s the direct quote:

A recent study by a trio of marketing academics—Debora Viana Thompson, Rebecca W. Hamilton, and Roland T. Rust—found that when consumers were given a choice of three models, of varying complexity, of a digital device, more than sixty per cent chose the one with the most features. Then, when the subjects were given the chance to customize their product, choosing from twenty-five features, they behaved like kids in a candy store. (Twenty features was the average.) But, when they were asked to use the digital device, so-called “feature fatigue” set in. They became frustrated with the plethora of options they had created, and ended up happier with a simpler product.

This is classic. Just a few months ago, I read at WSJ article that talked about how 3rd row seats are a hot demand feature amongst SUV purchasers - but the reality is that only ~9% of people ever actually use them. The rest of the time, they’re lugging around extra weight, creating mor expenses for everyone: tires, gas, roads, pollution.

Another key quote:

We’re also willing to pay for extra options because we feel shortchanged if we don’t have them.

Being that I’m on the engineering side of the house, I can definitely see Jaime’s point about how there’s a natural inclination to want to provide features that gives users more control. After all, isn’t cutting a feature that gives the user more control, tantamount to being against democracy? Again, I exaggerate, but one topic that really interests me is the Paradox of Choice - that “Too many choices undermine happiness.” If you get a chance, you should watch this talk.

In Jaime’s article he says: “There is no easy solution to this.” That’s putting it mildly. But it’s clearly worth trying to solve.