Customer Interview Takeaways
December 9, 2024
Thank you to the 32 individuals who volunteered 16 hours of time to participate in our customer interviews. Because of you, we believe even more strongly that there’s a latent global demand for a “people’s tech company," and we feel great about the “go-to-market” messaging we're using to tap into that demand.
Almost all of our volunteers live in Colorado, 22 of the 32 were not User Cooperative members at the time, and they seemed evenly distributed in terms of age, education, gender, knowledge of technology, race, and rural/urban location – a happy accident because I was more of a beggar for volunteers than a chooser.
The questions I asked were open-ended and evolved somewhat over the course of the monthlong series, and they included questions, like “do you believe that big technology companies have too much power?” and “do you believe that you’re capturing the fair share of the value tech companies get from your data?”
I did not ask hypothetical questions or those seeking validation for what we’re doing. All lines of inquiry were meant to get at the interviewees’ “truths” on this tech stuff.
Key Takeaways
Here are the summary takeaways from our conversations:
Belief that tech companies have too much power
Almost every interviewee believes that big technology companies have too much power, and this power is generally viewed in terms of dependency on products, a lack of alternatives, and the economic and informational superiority these technology companies have to maintain this position.
Belief that most tech-company value is derived from people’s data
Interviewees believe that on average (and median) that big technology companies derive approximately 70% of their enterprise value from consumer data. Many interviewees commented that they had never been asked about this.
Belief that people don’t get a fair share of tech-company value
Almost every interviewee believes – firmly in most cases – that they aren’t getting a “fair share” of the value big technology companies derive from their attention, data, and content, like social media posts. Several believe that they aren’t getting any value, even when considering their free or discounted access to technology services, like a search engine. Many interviewees commented that they had never been asked about this.
Basic but sufficient knowledge about how tech companies make money from people’s data
Interviewees on average (and median) rate themselves as knowing 4 out of 10 – 10 is the highest – on how much they know about how big technology companies monetize people’s data. Many interviewees acknowledge that these activities are likely far more extensive than they realize.
Willingness to trade (some) privacy for personalized services
Almost every interviewee has been subjected to targeted ads that have “read their mind,” other privacy violations, or personal data breaches. However, most interviewees use big technology company services that collect and use their personal data. Interviewees are mixed on whether they’re concerned about online privacy.
“Acceptance” of the way things are
Almost every interviewee has mixed feelings about the utility and power of big technology companies. Most acknowledge that the former is the cause of the latter, and there’s nothing that they can do practically about this as individuals. All interviewees almost always “accept the terms and move on,” as several put it. Many interviewees said that they felt a sense of resignation about this.
Consistency with Global Survey Data
I’m pleased to report that the key takeaways above are consistent with the key takeaways from far more rigorous national and global consumer studies conducted several years ago – takeaways that indicate to us a latent global demand for a “people’s tech company.”
For example:
Widespread concern about the size and power of tech companies
85% of Americans are “very/somewhat,” versus "not very/not at all," concerned about the "size and power of large technology companies."
77% say they “believe that major internet technology companies like Facebook, Google, Amazon and Apple have too much power.”
88% (of the 77%) say they have too much power because "they may misuse customers' data, and 87% (of the 77%) say they have too much power because "they possess a lot of data on people who use their websites, apps and products."
Source: Gallup-Knight, Techlash? America’s Growing Concern With Major Technology Companies, March 2020
Widespread belief that sharing data with companies is a “necessary evil”
76% of Canada, China, India, UK, and USA "call sharing personal information with companies a ‘necessary evil.’”
Widespread belief that businesses benefit more from people’s data than people do
75% of Americans and 78% of a sample of ROW believe "businesses currently benefit the most from personal data exchange," not "consumers e.g. me."
Widespread belief that people don’t really benefit from the data companies collect
72% of Americans believe they "benefit 'none' or 'very little' from the data collected about them by companies.”
Widespread basic literacy on how tech companies collect and use people’s data
96% of Americans know about data collection and profiles: They believe “Online platforms collect data about what you do even away from their services, including when you visit companies’ websites or apps, so that they can build a more comprehensive profile on you.”
Widespread demand for more control over data
84% of Americans and 83% of a sample of ROW say "I would like more control over the personal information I give companies and the way in which it is stored."
Widespread sense of loss of control over data
91% of American "adults agree or strongly agree that consumers have lost control of how personal information is collected and used by companies.”
Widespread belief that the risks of corporate data collection outweigh the benefits
81% of Americans believe "potential risks of companies collecting data about them outweigh the benefits.”
Widespread belief that shareholders matter less than other stakeholders in company success
87% of the world says “stakeholders, not shareholders, are the most important to long-term company success.”
Widespread support for more profit sharing with other critical stakeholders
When Americans were asked whether they would "support companies that shared more profits with workers," 80% said they would “buy a product or services from the company;” 79% said they would recommend the company to others;" 67% said they would "want to invest in the company;" and 66% said they would "want to work for the company."
(This isn't directly relevant to a consumer-owned company like ours, but I went with it anyway because, to my knowledge, no surveys of this magnitude have investigated the prospect of consumer ownership.)
Widespread belief in the efficacy of cooperation
87% of Americans say they can be “very/somewhat effective,” versus "not very/not at all effective," when "they act together to try to change companies' behaviors."
What’s Next?
This series of interviews was crucial to helping us understand more precisely the situation we face as we find our footing in the marketplace – achieving “product-market fit” in startup parlance.
Sequoia Capital, the preeminent venture capital firm, has been party to this process time and again. Sequoia even has a product-market fit framework for startups like us that are taking on “hard problems” that people have adapted to, and their intro paragraph is so spot-on to our situation that I include the whole thing to describe it:
“You take a pain point universally accepted as a hard fact of life, and see that it’s merely a hard problem that your product solves for the customer. Your customers have resigned themselves to just living with the problem. They’re not urgently engaged with trying to solve it. The status quo is just how it is, and change doesn’t seem like an option. You upend how things are done with an unexpected approach: Facts can’t be changed—but problems can be solved. The challenge to overcome is force of habit. Customers will have to change their current behaviors, and inertia is powerful. You need an approach that’s novel enough, for a problem that matters enough, to be worth making a change.”
So, are we novel? Yes. Are we dealing with problems that matter enough? Yes. We have what it takes to execute.
Our task ahead is simply to continue honing our messaging as we get more signals from the marketplace, and, sure as last Sunday, we’ll find our footing.
With gratitude for our 32 volunteers,
Matt
December 9, 2024
Matt Martensen
Founder/organizer