In an earlier life, I worked as a research biochemist and assisted in obtaining patents on the bioremediation of hexavalent chromium (Patent Numbers: 5,062,956, 5,155,042). This was a lot of fun, but no way to make a living. One of the things I learned from my time in corporate research, was the value of doing research with a marketing objective in mind. That is, “research for research’s sake” is a good academic exercise, but if the results are not a product or service that someone is willing to exchange for something of value (money or time), it’s just not a worthwhile venture.

Innovation in Iowa has a long history. Otto Rohwedder of Davenport spent years inventing a machine that would slice bread (a version is part of the Smithsonian collection). But, “The best thing since sliced bread,” would not be a benchmark for invention if Otto’s son did not successfully commercialize the product in 1928 when it proved to be a commercial success.

Today, Iowa has great university research parks and entrepreneurs who are working on groundbreaking technologies. But a new technology does not mean a new product. This “Commercialization Gap” exists for two main reasons: bad research, or bad marketing.

Bad research (really a marketing research problem) results in a product, which just does not have enough perceived value to make the market change its behavior. When Bill BonDurant was at Hewlett- Packard he stated, “New products fail for marketing reasons, not for technical reasons…We can do what we set out to do; it is just that frequently what we decided to do is not what the market wants.” This is a technology company stating that the marketing objective must come first.

Thomas Edison, who is one of my favorite American entrepreneurs, (has 1,093 patents) stated, “My principal business consists of giving commercial value to the brilliant, but misdirected, ideas of others.... Accordingly, I never pick up an item without thinking of how I might improve it. I readily absorb ideas from every source, frequently starting where the last person left off.” Edison did not see himself as an inventor, but as a marketer. “I never perfected an invention that I did not think about in terms of the service it might give others... I find out what the world needs, then I proceed to invent…” He understood the value of innovation is not the invention, but the value it would create for others, its marketability. Good research starts with marketing.

Bad marketing is the biggest killer of good products. “If you build it, they will come”, is a great line about a baseball field in a middle of a cornfield in Iowa, but has nothing to do with
marketing. Good products alone will not make a commercial success.

A great example is the Betamax video player, which most of us do not have at home. In the mid-1970’s Sony’s Beta player was a superior video product and the first to market, but through marketing blunders, Sony allowed JVC to win the format wars with its VHS product.

“Build a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door,” or so quoted Ralph Waldo Emerson. But the “world” (the market) will not line up at “your door” if they do not know and understand the value of your “Better Mousetrap.” The key to successful innovation is not the building, but the marketing of a better mousetrap. What is your better mousetrap?

Jim Goodman is the president of Customer Ease, a marketing consulting and research company in Des Moines. Jim founded the CEO Center (Creative Entrepreneur Organization) for assisting in the growth of Iowa businesses.

Jim is also an adjunct professor for Drake University teaching Entrepreneurship and Marketing Research.

To reach Jim: jimg@customer-ease.com or 515-471-1301.