On first sight this appears to be a really clever Value Proposition, but a thorough analysis shows it’s not quite what it seems.
When teaching Value Proposition creation, I make teams consider not only the Targeting and Insights, but also the Alternatives.
Other ways the same problem can be solved, often in a different and less high tech way (Indirect Alternatives).
This Yerka bike is a classic example of the emperors new clothes syndrome, where your initial reaction is ‘Wow!’ how cool!’
The trick with objective Value Proposition analysis and coaching is to step back and ask a few key question?
Why does this bike wrap itself around the lampost?
How is that better than the ubiquitous existing bike lock?
What happens if a thief cuts your existing £10 bike lock compared to the crossbar of your £600 bike?
How does this solution protect your wheel from being stolen, and do you need a separate bike lock for that?
Finally, how is this the ‘Worlds first anti-theft bike?’ Is that supportable, is it even true when compared to the alternatives?
A Value Proposition expert stays agnostic of the technology and demands real questions to some of the trickier questions.
What do you think?