So, has Harley attracted the younger generation yet? The data say “no”. A 2023 Harley investor presentation showed that only 15% of new Harley buyers in North America were under 30. For LiveWire specifically, the median buyer age in 2022 was 44. That’s younger than the gas-driven Harley median of 52. But 44 is not young. That’s Gen X, not Millennial, not Gen Z. So how could you want to attract a 25 year old? You need a bike under $10,000 with swappable batteries and a charging network they can find easily and trust for its services. LiveWire doesn’t address that problem.

In order to uphold the legacy of gas, pipe and rebellion with exclusivity of Harley, a dealer store would probably be displayed with leather vests, chrome accessories, and $40,000 CVO (custom vehicle operations) Limited versions. Unfortunately, A 22 year old urban rider doesn’t see themselves there. They see their dad’s hobby. LiveWire tried a separate retail experience to extend it to the younger folks. Dealership stores were re-arranged to suit the purpose. Those stores felt more like Apple than a biker bar. They have been clean, tidy and minimalist. But the problem remains: the lifestyle. Harley’s brand is built on H.O.G. (Harley Owners Group), group rides and rally weekends in Sturgis, South Dakota. A young rider on an electric bike doesn’t bond over engine idle sound or exhaust mods. They bond over software updates, phone pairing, and fast torque. That’s a different culture with transition challenge. The challenge lies in how to transit the legacy with “image” vs. real-time experience.

Here’s practical advice for brands like Harley. Perhaps you need to stop living in the past. Also stop selling the past. Rather, marketers of such brands should sell the “ride”. Create separate test ride events for electric only. Host those events in mixed use neighborhoods where young renters live. They could offer lease deals at $199 per month, for example. Young buyers don’t want a $15,000 loan, these customers probably want a monthly subscription they can cancel, like a software subscription. LiveWire’s current financing offers still looks like traditional motorcycle loans. They also need to integrate the “soft” part of the machine to meet young riders’ expectations. Young riders expect over-the-air (OTA) updates, ride analytics, and social features. The current LiveWire app has poor ratings and is loaded with complains from current users.

In a bid to catch up with the younger generation, LiveWire partnered with Damon Motors and other EV startups to lobby for more public fast chargers. That is a good move for sure. But more importantly, LiveWire started offering a $500 referral bonus to any existing owner who brings a first-time rider to a demonstration day. That generated 1,200 test rides in the first quarter of 2024. Almost one-fifth of the test riders were aged below 34, that’s a new promise to reckon with. The future is there, as it seems, but a missing dot is to be found that is lurking in the dark.

Here is the final takeaway. If you’re evaluating Harley for your own business or investment, watch two numbers: average buyer age for LiveWire and the quarterly unit volume. Until those would shift below 35 and above 5,000 units per year, based on what Harley has apparently been trying to lead up to, the brand probably would not have solved its problem. The company kept its gas engine revenue as a legacy source brand. It is about to lose its chance to lead the electric bike market, and now it needs to come with a clean slate of what it actually wants.

The LiveWire was priced at around USD 30k . Most bikers below 35 years of age were driven away by that price alone. The price of a used gasoline sportster is USD 5,000 to USD 8,000. Then Harley took the shock, sales dropped beyond expectations. Harley sold a total of 171 LiveWires in the U.S. in 2021. Early 2022, it came to light that the electric experiment was not scaling up. So it spun off LiveWire as its own brand, and took it public through a SPAC (Special Purpose Acquisition Company) merger with AEA-Bridges Impact Corp. The valuation of the deal was USD 1.77 billion for LiveWire. That’s a large quantity for real! Nowadays, LiveWire’s market capitalization is closer to USD 200 million. The difference is obvious to anyone, even without any advance knowledge of what the word “valuation” means.

Then the question came, what actually went wrong? One of the issues was the weight of the bike. In order to keep the legacy positioning intact, while upgrading the tech to the EV sphere, its weight turned out to be about 562 pounds. Second, the range was 146 miles in the city. It was depleted more by real world highway riding. Third, it takes 40 minutes to charge to 80% of its battery with a DC fast charger. Now compare that to a gas stop for your Sportster or Road Glide—it’s about 4 minutes. The average age of Harley’s core customer is 50 or higher, and they weren’t interested in the electric version. Neither was the target of the brand as well. Those core customers desired real-time “V twin rumble”. So, Harley attempted to pursue two audiences simultaneously that rarely worked. It’s a mess of positioning, to say the least. This appears to be a classic case study of how a legacy brand, overwhelmed with its past glory and pride, could not come out of the box and fumbles at what it does in repositioning on a clean slate. What do you think? (Read Part II here)

Apart from small companies, giants are also susceptible to failure due to unreasoned tech adoption. In 2020, Microsoft initiated an aggressive move towards automated editorial curation for MSN. It virtually replaced human editors with AI to manage news updates and curation, that is. Unlike human editors, AI oftentimes may lack the contextual ambience, leading to disaster. Yes, that is what happened. The AI appeared to lack the human-like contextual judgement, resulting in the publication of inaccurate contents, including failure to correctly identify individuals in the photos. This incident could be regarded as a blunt reminder that mere adoption of technology without human judgment may actually lead to irrelevant results. Technology provides tools that supplement the quality and efficiency of the content and its curation, but it still cannot replace human-like contextual judgment. Consequently, MSN endured a momentous hit to its credibility. Manual deletion of erroneous contents followed the disaster.

It reminds that adopting new technologies without implementing robust governance and rigorous quality control measures can lead to highly counterproductive, and even disastrous outcomes. In a single word, it would be the overall cultural commitment positioned side-by-side with the adoption of technology, that is the secret to this management of change.

An interesting common story would definitely include Nokia, which famously erred on their hardware pride and plunged into a “case-study” grade disaster by not adopting the changing app-centric ecosystem. While the story still stands as a lesson for many, the opposite stories of brand failure due to tech adoption is also there! Yes, you heard it right, companies faced disaster even after innovative tech adoption. This is what we may call a “digital paradox”, a limbo that business strategists and tech developers must solve together.

The “GE Digital” could be a leading case of failure despite its digital eco-system ambition. GE has been a historical giant, however, its ambition to become a top-ten software company by 2020 through “GE Digital” initiative stands as a paradoxical lesson of failures despite tech adoption.  GE invested over four billion dollars into the Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT), aiming for the Android or iOS of the industrial world. The company invested heavily on tech acquisition, hired thousands of software engineers, and invested in its own massive cloud data centers to host “Predix”, the intended system to support industrial IOT.

However, the initiative was so much self-centric, that instead of collaborating with already established tech giants, the company followed a solo approach in being the industry leader. This might have resulted in the lack of positive chatters required in the tech world for spreading the words-of-mouth. The lack of internal cohesion was rumored, as stark culture conflicts between software developers and traditional industrial managers ensued. The project was finally scaled back and part of the acquisitions were divested.  It appears that the issue might not be the tech adoption only, but adopting a culture of change and assimilation with the core company philosophy. The strategic cohesion of running all the wheels towards a common output was perhaps missing. The company tried to achieve too much at once, hurt from a lack of internal consistency, and failed to follow a collaborative approach in innovation.

It appears that mere technology adoption is not the answer, nor does it make sense to throw money in innovation– unless a cultural shift is planned, adopted and phased with value-driven strategy along with the tech innovation. At the end of the day, a successful tech innovation is also a cultural commitment. What do you say? (Please click here to read the Part II)

Historically, brands went after big influencers and celebrities presuming that bigger followership meant bigger results. It’s been a number game, that is. But how about engagement and emotional connections? Larger followership may not necessarily mean extensive engagement to your target customers. This is the time we are experiencing a new phenomenon—the micro-influencers—typically creators with less than a tenth of a million followers— are proving to be more effective, more engaging, more emotionally attaching, more trusted, and often more lucrative partners for marketing campaigns.

This gradual shift isn’t a mere trend—it reflects the deeper changes in customer behavior, oftentimes paired with platform algorithm, and the way “trust” factors play out in the online world. Is it the classical thing as Seth Godin once termed as “Tribe” that is repacked and resurfaced in a new bottle? Probably it is.

Is “trust” the new currency? The answer is probably both “no” and “yes”. “No” means that trust has been an age-old currency, not a new one. “Yes” in the sense that the format of expression might have changed due to the change in the digital world. In essence, one of the central reasons micro-influencers outpace larger content creators is “trust”. Audiences these days are highly sensitive to overly organized, sales-driven and commercially motivated contents. Big influencers often promote several brands in a short span, which may reduce credibility and divert consumers’ attention.

Micro-influencers, to the contrary, tend to have narrower, more focused niche communities. Their followers see them less as celebs and more as related peers. This creates an appreciation of authenticity that pushes towards better consumer engagement and conversion pace.

For a quick reference, in South Korea, beauty content creator Liah Yoo built a loyal audience by sharing honest skincare journeys (that’s how her followers think), rather than constant sponsorships. When she praises a product, her audience perceives it as an authentic advice rather than advertising— leading to stronger purchase intention.

So it’s about active engagement, yes. A million followers might look impressive, but engagement tells the real story. Micro-influencers consistently gain higher engagement rates (likes, comments, shares) because their audiences are more invested. Some studies estimated that while big influencers usually have around 1.5% engagement rates, micro-influencers usually have around 3-6% engagement rates. A few percentage points in differences are actually big in this competitive world, isn’t it?

In another quick reference, in North America, fitness creator Whitney Simmons started as a relatively smaller influencer rivalled to major fitness celebs. Due to her conversational tone, consistent interaction with followers, and community-driven contents ultimately helped her build better engagement. Brands partnering with creators like her often see better marketing ROI than campaigns with larger but less interactive audiences.

Another beast in the digital work is the changing algorithm of various platforms. Algorithms on platforms like Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube also favor contents that induce engagement and various interactions. This means micro-influencers often get better organic outreach relative to their size, further enhancing their impact.

Cost-effectiveness and scalability is another reason. Collaborating with a single giant influencer can consume a large portion of a marketing budget, with no guaranteed return at the end. Micro-influencers are more affordable and scalable, allowing brands to diversify their campaigns. As a matter of strategy, instead of investing in one high-profile endorsement, brands can partner with multiple micro-influencers across different niches and regions. This not only diversifies risk but also creates more interacting touchpoints for potential engagement.

The growing body of micro-influencers reflects a strategic shift in marketing communication focus: from mass appeal to meaningful connection. In an era where consumers value authenticity, relevance, and trust, smaller content makers are advantageously positioned to deliver results that bigger influencers often cannot. However, the irony of micro-influencers, in the long run though, is that they will gradually turn into mega-influencers who will gradually lose relevance because of rapid monetization and larger commercial endorsement in the marketing landscape!  

No matter what, micro-influencers are proving that influence isn’t measured by follower count only, but by the strength of the active relationship that sustains over time with their target customers. What do you think?

This is not only about hardware modification, it’s about the innovation of intent. The incremental automation of lane-keeping and adaptive cruise control has been extended to include further automation into steering and other controls. The recently surfaced “Cybercab” project moves towards a level 4 or level 5 autonomy, where human intervention in driving is not only unnecessary, but also not physically possible inside a car cabin. These “robotaxis’ are about to shift the landscape of taxi services in a disruptive way.

Here are the customer advantages: first, this would significantly enhance operational efficiency. Unlike human driven cars, this would not take any social breaks. An automated taxi may be able to achieve dozens of rides per working shift, helping far more passengers than a privately-owned car would ideally do. Consequently, due to the optimized software and hardware alignment, operating costs are expected to go down, resulting in a significant decrease in the price of rides. The whole economy of taxi services would be redefined, that is. For future riders, more affordable rides might shift the ride-hailing services to a positive edge compared to having a self-owned car. The reduction in “attention load” of self-driven cars would also help riders to focus more on prioritized preferences during a commute.

Well, there are a few caveats though. First of all, ensuring the trust and reliability of software functionality would be of utmost importance. There are safety-critical system components in such an automated vehicle on public roads. It must have a proven and reliable system of software and hardware to make this thing happen.

Because of this safety and reliability concerns, there are regulatory hurdles. The entire legal framework of transportation system stands on the assumption of a licensed human driver. If anything goes wrong, who would be responsible in an accident? How would these vehicles be inspected and certified, what would be the legal framework? Aligning “robotaxis” with a workable legal framework would require in-depth collaboration between researchers and policy thinkers, a process usually marred by slow exchange of ideas and resistance to change towards a riskier alternative.  Even when these two groups positively agree on moving forward with complete automation, the riders’ trust issues would creep in, whether riders will wholeheartedly trust this fully-automated car and bet their life on a new system of hardware and software while commuting.

Overall, it seems that the innovation is achievable with the advent of technology and proven systems on place. The upside is huge, the downside is manageable. The taxi industry is about to watch a disruptive trend in the next few years. What do you think?

Could this be called the cycle of self-destruction at the cost of monetization? Well, here comes an opportunity for techpreneurs to come up with the very idea that the bloated app developers had in their minds in the first place! Here are three examples from my personal experience. This may be construed as an “unpaid” app review at best, done from purely from a consumer perspective. You are free to disagree or forward your honest opinion. Readers’ discretion is advised, assuming no definitive utility promised or harm indicated by this review.

First, SHAREit got bloated! SHAREit could be a textbook example for this rise and fall. When it was launched in 2012, it felt like magical, solving a problem to its core. It solved a massive pain point– moving heavy files between devices without burning through expensive mobile data or hunting for a usb cable. Then, the shift happened. It probably decided it didn’t want to be a tool anymore, it wanted to be an empire! It started cramming in video streaming, news feeds, and games. The app’s footprint exploded from a lean 10MB to a bloated 40MB. Suddenly, trying to send a photo felt like walking through a crowded place where everyone is howling at you to buy something. This bloat created a vacuum that LocalSend probably filled in gradually. By staying open-source and refusing to track users or show ads, LocalSend does exactly what early SHAREit did. It probably respects your time and your battery life, proving that users will probably choose simplicity over multiple functionality.

Second, how about ES File Explorer? For years, android users used to like it a lot. It was probably the gold standard for managing files—powerful, intuitive, and reliable. But success often breeds a kind of ambition for monetization and bloating, leading to failure. The developers began a frantic quest to do “everything”. They added cloud storage, app managers, junk cleaners, and a setting menu that felt like a mystic place. The breaking point came in 2019 when the app was booted from the Play Store due to intrusive ads and serious privacy flags. This downfall paved the way for “Files by Google” and “Simple File Manager”. These apps succeeded by going back to basics: they let you manage files without making you feel like your data were being sold off in the background.

Third, the story of Clean Master is perhaps the most mystic and cautionary tale in the industry. It started as a genuine utility—a way to clear out your cache and keep your phone smooth. It worked, and people loved it. Then came the growth stress! Suddenly, the app claimed it could cool your CPU (a physical impossibility for software) and save your battery by killing background tasks. I am not sure how it worked, but I think better alternatives are plenty in the play store. Today, most of what Clean Master promised is built directly into Android (latest versions), or handled better by tools like SD Maid. I would request any other app like SD Maid to excuse me for not being able to name them here. Search for yourself and you will find many alternatives for sure.

The lesson? If an app starts creating problems just so it can solve them, it’s time to hit uninstall and find an alternative. This pattern reveals a fundamental stress in how we build software today. Many apps are venture capital-funded, meaning they are under tremendous pressure to show steep growth curve. This unusual expectation, without any organic growth elements, usually leads to “feature-rich and creepy’ as well as aggressive monetization that eventually kills the user experience. The real opportunity for the next generation of programmers lies in sustainable simplicity. Three major lessons can be learned: stay focused on one job, respect user privacy, embrace models like open-source or optional donations. Consuming less resources also could lead to greener software practices in future. Perhaps, green computing is the next frontier for battles to grab consumer attention, which eventually would result in a growth of focused and non-bloated software development culture.

• Deploying Strategic Customer Surveys
  Strategically constructed surveys and opinion polls provide a direct avenue towards understanding customers. These instruments should be concise and strategically deployed across channels such as email or social media. It’s the “tribe” that we are trying to interpolate and extrapolate, with the possibility of emergence of new trends and tribes. The survey can start from specific product feedback to broader findings of a customer’s ways of life, enacting a more comprehensible view of their world.
• Engage in Contextual Data Analytics
  For the digitally-skilled enterprise, a mine of gold is the behavioral data that can be extracted through advanced tools and processes. Are companies relying on this data-driven culture? Interpreting this “gold mine” reveals insightful narratives about buying behavior and trends, doesn’t it? This empirical foundation is no more the domain of mere academicians, top companies are harvesting this for over a decade now. So, would you question your position in the queue now?
  Besides CRM databases and apparent gold mines, social media context would also be in this shopping list. Customer opinions, sentiments and purchase data would provide a wealth of information for marketers.
• Buyers’ Persona
  In the era of searching for digital twins, creating buyers’ persona from online activities and engagement is another strategic objective of this whole analytics exercise. These detailed profiles, encompassing demographics, interests, and behavioral trends, serve as important archetypes. They ensure that marketing strategies and promotional communications are crafted to address the specific motivations and challenges of the people we want to serve, thereby enhancing relevance and contextual connections.
• Qualitative Focus Groups, Still Relevant?
  Of course, yes. Probably the importance has grown up amid new trends in new tribes. While data provides the “what” part of the story, FGDs often reveal the “why” part of the story. These qualitative discussions with small groups of customers enhances strategic insights of customers’ perception, attitudes and relevant emotions. The open and two-way dialogue can explore and explain tremendous amount of insights that quantitative data might not be able to reflect, offering more contextual relevance for refining customer experiences.
• Business Intelligence?
  Monitoring the competitive scenario can yield surprising revelations about one’s own customers. Analyzing a competitor’s engagement tactics, public feedback, and marketing strategies can highlight overall industry trends and unmet customer demands. While some would argue not to focus too much on competition, a continuous monitoring of competitive actions would perhaps prevent some loss due to guerilla tactics oftentimes followed by prudent competitors for transient harassment.
  
  

The journey to know one’s customers is not about looking at a fixed dot, it is a continuous process of learning, adaptation, unlearning and innovation. It commands a commitment to listening and understanding—both to the quantitative data and to the human stories beneath it. By putting together these diverse strategies, a business can nurture a profound and dynamic culture of understanding its audience. What do you think?

A classic business dilemma is about to launch multiple product versions in the close price ranges to give customers more choices in that ranges, albeit with a risk of damaging some of its own product varieties at the growth of other variants. Adding more products having similar differentiations at the similar price point is called line-filling strategy, oftentimes practiced by renowned brands to offer customers more choices, and tactfully closing-in the deal within its own portfolio. Obviously, it comes at a price. The price is forgetting and sacrificing another variant of its own as we know as cannibalization. Every company may chase more market shares, but might push too far with new variants and unpredictably your best-sellers start losing ground to your own lineup.

Line filling appears to be attractive for many reasons. When you put new products within an existing product line, you’re not only trying to grow into a whole new market, but also aiming to cash out more value from customers you already have in the portfolio. Sometimes it closes a gap, something your competition might find out and fill it by themselves. One such example could be the launching of Maruti Victoris in the similar price range, where it already has a popular model called Grand Vitara.

Line filling, oftentimes, acts as a deterrent in the market for competitors. Once you fill every gap, competition has less space to fit in. In addition, you get more market share by alluring different customer segments within the same category of products, tricking customers to stay with your broad portfolio. Domination of shelf space is another winning point. Visibility must have an impact on customers’ minds. By working on outlook or styles, apart from designs, customers from all taste segments can be appealed to.

But there is a caveat. Launching a new product in the same product line comes with the risk of product cannibalization. That’s when your new variant starts pocketing revenue and profits from your existing ones, and not your competitors. Assuming differences in profits, your new product line may earn less profits, resulting in overall lower profit margins, not to mention the internal competition among brand managers if they are assigned different variants to different individuals. Then comes the question of addressing customers’ confusion. Extended product lines create extended headache, unless there are plans of addressing these headaches beforehand.

So what is the takeaway? Since there are advantages and disadvantages, the advantages must outweigh the disadvantages in a business context. Rather than shying away from cannibalization, we can think of how to manage it in our favor. True, there will be some degree of cannibalization. Business experiments are risky, but so is the growth hacking and managing profit potential. The smart move would probably include an eco-system of “controlled cannibalization”, where the older model will give way to the newer ones in such a way that losing a share of a pie would result in winning a bigger share of that pie, maintaining a steady growth overall. What do you think?

How would you feel when your top salesperson walks in with a competitor’s coffee cup, right there on the table? It’s a silent alarm going off about something way bigger than just a misplaced mug. The consequence is clear: If your sales team doesn’t believe in what you’re selling, you’ve got a real problem. These folks know your product inside and out—the strengths, the flaws, the stuff the marketing team never sees. If they’re still choosing the rival’s product on their own time, that’s a pretty clear signal: they’re not convinced. And honestly, if they’re not, why should your customers be?

You can’t expect anyone to be genuinely “selling” if they don’t believe in the pitch themselves. That’s a recipe for going through the motions, disengagement, and most likely high turnover. People get tired of faking enthusiasm. The message to your customers? It gets shaky, fast. Everyone can tell when someone’s just reading from the script instead of speaking from the heart. And don’t fool yourself—customers can spot a lack of authenticity a mile away. If your sales force doesn’t have real enthusiasm, your buyers will sense it. No marketing campaign can replace the trust built by someone who’s genuinely excited about what they’re selling. If that belief is missing, every deal feels like a struggle, and every win is harder than it should be.