Gym Selfies. Empty Ice Trays. Daylight Savings. The Dallas Cowboys.
Products that make annoying stuff less annoying are underrated.
By “products” I don’t mean disruptive technology like the personal computer.
I’m talking about convenience products like the Munchkin Faucet Extender, which redirects water to the sink's edge so toddlers can wash their hands.
It has nearly 16,000 5-star reviews on Amazon and probably earns Munchkin millions annually – pretty nice for a two-inch piece of plastic.
Inconveniences are everywhere.
Noticing an untapped market for one is hard. If it were easy, such a market would already exist.
Faucet extenders weren’t sold until the late 1990s, despite the technology being around for decades. It sounds crazy, but recognizing the fact that lifting a toddler to wash their hands was an annoying problem with an affordable solution was hard, not hard like finding a four-leaf clover or spotting a forgery in a gallery. It’s more like noticing the Invisible Gorilla — fully visible but easily missed because you’re focused on something else.
How do you avoid this mistake?
One part is to simply pay attention.
I gravitate towards CPG brands that either sell products I use or compete with brands whose products I use. Spotting annoyances in markets that do not include me isn’t impossible, but it’s harder. You see the same principle in stand-up comedy. Bits based on something that really happened to the comedian are usually funnier.
The other part is to assume that whatever annoys you does not annoy other people, then work backwards to disprove your assumption. This step strikes me as much harder. Many "Shark Tank" pitches fail because they solve nonexistent or niche problems.
Which brings me to the point of this week’s newsletter.
Distinguish market-worthy annoyances from trivial ones
There’s a method that you can use to do this — in just an afternoon and for under $250.
It’s ideal if you are struggling to identify the most significant pain point from a list, lack the traffic for A/B testing, or want to avoid a “six figures and six months” research project.
How it works
I replicated the methodology last week across two surveys, each involving 150 participants (total cost: $160). In keeping with the theme of this week’s newsletter, the surveys measured 17 things that annoy me, including:
• Mismatched Tupperware lids and containers
• Running out of AA batteries
• The Dallas Cowboys
• Joggers who run in place at stop lights
Survey I
In the first survey, I showed each participant pairs of annoyances and asked them to select the more annoying of the two, then repeated the task eight times.
For the analysis, I measured the strength of each annoyance based on how frequently it was selected. For instance, “Talking during the movies” was chosen 84% of the time, so it got a “Strength” score of +34%, indicating it was selected 34% more often than the average.
(This is based on a methodology used here if you’re interested in the details, including how you can use it to do a segmentation, but don’t overthink it. It’s just a picking exercise.)
You can see the results below.
Survey II
But how annoying is “Talking during the movies?”
Do other people hate it as much as I do?
To find out, I had another group of 150 respondents read the same list of annoyances, but this time I offered them a deal: for $15 a month, they could permanently eliminate any annoyance of their choosing—but the subscription could never be canceled. They could pick one, or choose "None of these."
The steep price was meant to weed out anyone who wasn’t deeply troubled by any of the annoyances. Also, I’d take the deal for “Daylight Savings.” For me, paying $15 per month for an extra hour of sunlight every day is worth it.
What did everyone else do?
The most selected option by far was “None of these.” Among the alternatives, paying to eliminate “Daylight Savings” was indeed the most popular, but it was only chosen by 12% of respondents.
This result for me is the key point: Although most people probably agree that each item in the survey is annoying, few warranted a monthly fee for their removal.
People talking during movies is rare (in my experience) and mismatched Tupperware lids are irritating but tolerable. A slow-moving checkout line can be avoided by choosing the express lane, or just sucking it up. Other items, like slow walkers, the Dallas Cowboys, and Daylight Savings, are just part of life.
Could a different offer have changed the results?
Yes.
People might consider a one-time $15 surcharge for a talker-free movie experience, or opt for a $15 subscription if it included perks, such as premium seating and discounts on food and drinks.
You can easily tweak the deal, then retest with a new group of respondents, and continue until you can disprove your assumption.
That’s the point of the methodology – to quickly iterate.
(I linked to the data visualizations below. You can download and edit both.)
One last note
The 20th century was dominated by disruptive technology.
Yet it’s hard to overstate how much convenience products shaped daily life.
Imagine waking up in 1950, in a middle-income household with kids. You head to the kitchen to prepare your kids’ school lunch. You accidentally leave the fridge open but it doesn’t beep. You look for Tupperware but it’s not there. Ditto for garbage bags with drawstrings.
Dystopian if you ask me.
There are thousands of inconveniences still out there, fully visible yet "hidden," like the Invisible Gorilla.
‘Steal-This’ Resources
You’ll need a free Data Wrapper account to download and edit these.
• Data visualization one
• Data visualization two
Next Steps
If you’re considering creating a survey, but you’re unsure about your approach, then consider getting a Survey Roast.
Send me your survey draft, and for $145, I’ll make a 10-15 minute Loom video with copy-and-paste edits and suggestions.
I’d love to help.
Cheers,
Sam