[3] Mass Customization - A modern myth

The on-mass measurement (Mass customization) is probably one of the most enduring myths of contemporary marketing. Personalization is often confused with the idea that we should adjust bids closer to the desires of consumers. We forget in passing that the idea of personalization is content to offer standard, provided that special attention be given to one recipient. The smile of the dairy certainly enhances the standard basket of eggs that the consumer has bought, but that's another story.
So let us say on the measure, including information technology makes possible the massification and automation. It is curious to note the popularity of this idea, as history shows us the consumer after all, that standardized solutions are excluded in many areas the individual solutions. The clothing has annihilated the population of seamstresses, the supermarket has almost eradicated the traditional grocers long ago that our apothecaries can prepare more in their mortars medications that we agree we strive to standard doses in blisters.
Of course we understand that the savings made by these solutions, and lowered costs through economies of scale have changed the relative value between the standard and tailor-made, and that therefore the hope that we can produce, with the same scales and the same cost reductions, solutions tailor-made to justify this craze persistent.
Aurelie Merle in a thesis in 2007 and an article of 2008 (1) shows that the value of a bespoke is largely in the product value and adjusted, but does not depend directly on the participatory experience, even if the latter contributes to the value of individual products. From this perspective, it supports this view. The key is in the individual product and it has more value than the standardized product.
However, the details of the thesis, not in the article, a particular fact was that a small fraction of subjects perceived less value in the individual solution in the standardized solution. The partial and marginal in research could be understood as the fact that for some consumers the benefit of individualization was exceeded by the cost of the process. When you go to the dressmaker, it must undergo the time of measurement, it can be painful.
This reinforces the hypothesis that two recent publications (2,3), showing one another and that the value of a bespoke is mainly related to consumer characteristics: its level of competence and knowledge in particular that it has its own selection criteria, and level of involvement and motivation.
On a more fundamental level, we must bring these items from the perspective of modern cognitive psychology that reports that faced with a choice where the alternatives are many, the decision is of poor quality and often unsatisfactory. It is the thesis of B. Schwartz on the paradox of choice. When the choice is too difficult, too expensive, it relies on the chance! Who has not experienced this panic at a radius too large?
To set clear and largely developed from this point of view, we will gladly take the lesson from Barry Schwartz (4), including empirical tests begin to be provided in the decision analysis on the web. (on a subject near and ways of solution we will look at the fresh Collapsed Choice Theory)

The practical implications are important. Needless to engage a consumer who does not know exactly what he wants and is not ready to make a major research effort to design the product or service that suits him best. It may even turn away from platforms which offer these solutions for their preferred options crudest, whose choice is limited. Unless we can simplify his task, not only offer him the opportunity to individualize the offer but also by the hand and taking him the least time possible.
The mass-customization is probably an option reserved for narrow groups of consumers and areas where the involvement and expertise are high. Two signs are indicative of favorable situations: what price is willing to pay the consumer? What is the status of the brand? So what can Nike be prohibited other shoe manufacturer.
The whole question boils down to what proportion of consumers (a market or mark) is finally motivated enough and competent? It is likely to be low, leaving a bright even mass marketing. But it is a point of view to discuss!
(1) Merle A, J Chandon, Robert E. Understanding the perceived value of mass customization. A distinction between product value and the value of the experience of co-design. (Englisha). Research and Applications in Marketing [serial online]. September 2008, 23 (3) :27-50.
(2) N Bharadwaj, R Naylor, F. ter Hofstede Consumer response to and choice of customized versus standardized systems. International Journal of Research in Marketing [serial online]. September 2009, 26 (3) :216-227.
(3) Franke N, P Keinz, C. Steger Testing the Value of Customization: When Do Customers Really Prefer Products Tailored to Their Preferences?. Journal of Marketing [serial online]. September 2009, 73 (5) :103-121.
(4) Schwartz, B. The Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less. Harper Perennial, 2005.
by : http://jst-2-earn-money.blogspot.com