Hi everyone!
Still training with the amazing Tony Hsieh (“The Visionary” Zappos CEO), Alfred Lin (“the Scientist”, Zappos CFO) and their absolutely awesome crew at Zappos. Amazing people, revolutionary business style. Shortly everyone here will be following suit, and I’ll soon be at the LA fulfillment lab.
There’s a few things I’ve wanted to share with everyone for a bit, but haven’t had the time to do “properly”. I’m just gonna take the time right now to sit down and hammer some of these things out, perfection be damned! (forum helpers, feel free to edit my post for typos and overly wacky grammar)
1. Upcoming Androstenol split test
I’m readying a new test pack with 2 or 3 alpha androstenols.
I’d like to include two “chemical standards” (the most stable, the “best of the best”) from the world’s finest and most accurate labs, and 1 excellent quality synthesis from Europe. The latter is much better than anything we’ve sampled from China, and is what we’d consider an excellent “perfume grade” synthesis. Smells great, but it’s made with a commercial process that would make it unsuitable for actual research or 100% reproducible mixes.
A very superficial, basic testing of them analytically would show them to be “the same” in a very primitive way. Slightly higher resolution would show a much larger difference between the two “standards” and the commercial synthesis. A truly in-depth analysis that looks below the surface would show extreme differences in % of active, % isomers, % of impurities, and the make up of those impurities (which can often be “active” themselves, changing how a chemical works)
I think such a test pack will clearly show you that no chemical produced with difference base stocks and synthesis routes is ever exactly the same. This will be an “unscented” test pack, so the very first thing that will strike you is how different each different sample smells.
Different results arise from the the differences that occur in synthesis of “the same” chemical (what chemists called “standards”) vs. large/commercial chemical processes.
Our friend Flo, who used to be a chemist for BASF in France, has told us numerous stories whereby processes were changed in ways they didn’t think would matter, but clients noticed. For example, the processes used to generate fabric colorants.
Superficial analytics showed the colorants to be similar enough, but the colors with new processes were instantly rejected by their high fashion clients. BASF didn’t think changing the process would matter, but the eye could tell right away. Process changes changed results. As our chemist sometimes says (often when referring to something more mundane like chemical yields and why they change), “Chemistry isn’t as exact a science as you may have made been to think”. There are variables in chemistry that do effect outcomes.
This is what this split test is designed to show. It’s designed to clearly show you the differences in pheromone molecules that the nose and your social awareness can spot, but which some people who don’t see the !Big Picture! might think insignificant.
This should clearly illustrate why we must use a different grade of chemical, made with tight controls, for research purposes here. We’re not saying that some commercial bulk batches aren’t good and usable for what they are (we quite like how some of the dirtier batches of Androstenone that come out, select batches could be used in commercial versions of TUTH or Ammo) – but just like you can’t build a house on quicksand, you can’t do research with chemicals that change every time they’re refreshed. Stability of synthesis leads to reproducibility of results, and reproducibility is the cornerstone of research.
A professor friend on this forum told me long ago about an extensive pheromone study done by Duke University was completely thrown out. They got every time they used different batches of molecules, which ruins the science. These molecules were sources from a bad supplier that didn’t do their own due diligence.
We don’t want that to happen here. We don’t want everything reported to the forum to be in vain. We may be able to produce decent mass market products sometime with commercial synthesis, but we simply can’t push the tech forward with that non-stable grade of chemical. You’ll soon see why we’re so picky.
2. “Rolling blackouts” of some research grade chemicals
Some of the research grades of chemicals here will be going into “rolling blackouts” as we exhaust the supplies faster than the chemist can remake them. This will chiefly affect alpha nol at first, since we use more of it than anything else. The last batch we received is almost gone, and it’ll take a little while to get the next one.
We’re working from several angles to rectify this, but the primary one we can financially afford at the moment is to diversify the number and quantity of molecules we use, so we aren’t so dependent on single molecules so much.
It’s like old time artists who’d run out of one color and start experimenting more with others in the meantime.
This will mean a shift towards more MXs and less pseudo-consumer products. A very good thing, really, as we return to our more experimental and revolutionary roots.
3. “Reference Grade” versions of our “consumer” products
We’ll likely have to make “Reference” grades of our own pseudo-consumer products (and actual consumer products if and when it gets to that) products that ALWAYS use research grade chemicals, just in case we ever produce versions that don’t.
True consumer products that can be sold to dealers, etc. would not use chemicals that cost as much as we use now, yet it’s important for research and mix reproducibility that a product is always as standard (which basically means “the same”) as possible. That means using the more stable and standard component chemicals as possible, at least in a special “reference” edition.
The new “Reference Editions” will continue to make the sharing of reproducible mixes possible, even if we do more into the consumer realm.
i.e., on forums like this, a truly reproducible mix would look more like this “2 Sprays of Instant Honesty Reference Edition, 3 sprays of P91 15mcg, 1 spray P74 10mcg”.
That is infinitely more reproducible than something like this “2 dabs of Random Consumer Grade Product, 3 sprays of Random Quality Consumer Product, and 4” of Random Grade Consumer Product" (even if some of those random consumer products, are at some point, ours or licensees of ours)
Social testing is random enough by virtue of the infinite, ever shifting variables in the real world. We need the most control, and least variability, in the mixes and sprays themselves reported on this forum. i.e., at least on this forum, randomness should be introduced by life, not by products reported on.
4. Office move
We recently changed offices in LA. The building we were in was sold to a single owner that consumed it entirely for a project, but we were fortunate to find a space right up the street. I’m almost constantly traveling for business, but I’m getting in there soon to optimize things a bit to get things setup to produce more MXs.
5. Possible Androtics Open Meetups in LA
Although Amy and Michelle will sadly be focusing more on studies soon, I absolutely adore the work culture was have in LA right now with Jacob, Ben, and Drew. It’s taken a long time to find the right people here, but we now have a mini-Zappos/mini-Trader Joes/mini-Apple type thing going on, and it’s great!
I’d love to sponsor a once a month or so meetup at a local hangout, open to all participants here in good standing.
6. Change of focus of LA office; possible shift of consumer fulfillment to new office or highly capable fulfillment company. You could call it “separation of church and state”
Along with the theme of optimizing the office for more MX and more custom mix production, I’d like to see we could move many of our “standard” consumer-ish products from our batching office to another site for fulfillment.
Our customer service obsession and often same day shipping of “consumer” orders takes up most of the work we have every day. At our LA office, it’s a nonstop deluge until the shipping cutoff time (around 4pm), which leaves very few hours for the batching and production of new MXs and custom mixes.
We could easily do what other companies do and overload our people there, reality be damned, but we’ve found that that’s a good way to introduce batch errors.
While we’d still like to ship fast, I’d just like to change the entire focus of our LA office back to our more experimental roots. Back when we made tremendous strides in pheromone technology, by focusing on introducing new technology more than anything else.
Over the past few years, the focus has become more about same day shipping and absolute order processing satisfaction (a strenuous and all consuming goal at times!, whereas the penultimate goal of our little innovation factory should be more about creating new things. As we’re more research oriented here, that should really be the #1 priority above and beyond everything else. Priority 1.1 can be everything else involved. 
7. Priority 1 Innovation, Priority 1.1 everything else
I know people have liked customer satisfaction being priority #1 here. Just like Zappos, it just feels good. However, as I wrote above, with our limited resources this has gotten in the way of doing something like stores such as Zappos don’t – product innovation. We are different than a mere store. We’re more of an experimentation and innovation factory that just happens to ship.
If necessary, we can create ANOTHER brand to actually make delivery and service of our products priority #1.0, but for now, somebody’s gotta do the innovation! We revolutionized the entire pheromone industry 7 years ago with the introduction of A314 and bnol to the market, and we’d like to focus more on those roots.
I believe that by making innovation #1, #1.0 again, above all else, we will actually make our core group of people happier – since that’s what people originally flocked to us for.
Yes, it’ll take some experimentation to accomplish the switchover and still maintain high standards in delivery and customer satisfaction, but keep in mind that we know a lot more know than when we first started.
Besides the notion of mad, guerilla science we started with, we now also better know shipping and shipping logistics. We better know the shipping companies. We better understand the geography of fulfillment (where to ship from). We also basically know what honest customers want, and what they don’t care about as much. We also have a good idea of the fulfillment companies that can actually ship fast, and the ones that merely pray and hope you don’t notice what really goes on.
At this stage of the game, we should be able to somehow balance both innovation and customer satisfaction with the delivery and service processes.
We’d like to try out a few ideas involving outside infrastructures first. Try a few experiments in those areas. If those experiments fail, no big deal. As shipping and customer satisfaction have become our core competencies as much as innovation, we could even just set up another office to focus on just those things.
The essential ingredient seems to be having totally different sets of people in different mind-spaces, which is much easier when they’re in different physical spaces.
8. Part of the Zappos Story: The Geography of Failure & Success
Consider Zappos, one of the biggest modern success stories.
They have admin, marketing, customer service, and even programmers in Las vegas, but their shipping center is in Kentucky, ten or so miles away from UPS’ WorldPort in Shepardsville. Their experiments combining the two never worked well, which is why they maintain these two areas separately.
Check this out. Even though they started with over hundreds of times more much money than we did (since they were professionally funded by investors), and ultimately have a simpler business than us (sales and fulfillment focused only – no product innovation), their original experiments running Zappos in San Francisco almost killed them.
Wait, WHAT? How can things go so badly in San Fran, supposedly home to some of the brightest innovators in the country?
Well, it turned out that there was was little about the SF cultural and work environment that was compatible with “high touch” ecommerce. Almost none of their hires worked out for key areas like customer services. Also, the high costs of doing business in such an expensive, highly regulated and taxed area also got in the way. Even with fairly extreme funding cycles, Zappos kept going bankrupt while still in the Bay Area.
Yet by putting the right pieces in the right places (literally!), they went from a struggling company that could barely keep the lights on some days, to the MASSIVE success they are today, doing over $1 billion a year in SALES the past several years.
One of the biggest lessons I take from the Zappos story is that “Everything has it’s place”. Really, everything does. Innovation in innovation compatible areas, customer service in customer service areas, fulfillment in fulfillment compatible areas. Whenever possible, it’s better to coast and glide than it is to battle upstream conditions that are set against you.
We don’t have the money Zappos does to put every part of our business where it really should be on it’s own, but we do some good ideas on how to improve it and slowly transition, so the limited human resources we do have can focus more on what they should be to make this a more exciting place to be.
9. MX bottles
To really get things rolling MX-wise, we also need to source FAR more of the little 5ml bottles than we currently have access to. We just can’t seem to get enough, and believe me, it’s not for lack of trying.
Please just keep in mind that this factor will also make our core Androtics project more “cyclic” (the “rolling blackout” type situation), until resolved.
10. Finally, something truly exciting! “30 Mixes in 30 Days”
I’m preparing a contest called “30 Mixes in 30 Days” where 30 submitted mixes get blind tested over 30 days, and will be voted upon.
Just trying to figure out how to do it the right way with the forum.
It would probably work something like this:
There will probably be new submission forum that will be open for a short time (a few days to a week). Then mixes will be randomly selected (preferably by a disinterested party that doesn’t know anything about pheromone mixes) and moved to another forum - the “selected mixes” forum.
MX #s will be secretly assigned (so blind testing can occur) and a new thread created for each MX so we can can vote on them.
Finally the original submissions that contain the mix formulas will be merged into the threads where each MX was discussed and voted upon. We’ll then give the winner something, and we can all talk about what worked in the mixes and what didn’t in a new mix analysis forum.
Don’t quote me quite yet, but the process should look at least something like that.
As all mixes will be sold and tested blind for at least a month, we’re going to allow previously shared mixes to be submitted for the contest. We won’t know if a mix comes from a forum favorite user, or a newbie, so there won’t be any bias like that. We’re also doing so you can continue to share and refine mixes out in the open publicly, and still be able to win contests.
This will be really exciting, and should generate tons of data and new mixes strategies!
The only sticking point seems to be how the vbulletin voting system works. I’d much prefer a more powerful type system you find in some of the fancier polling systems online. As we’re actively gearing up to do this (we’re not going to let perfectionism get in the way of actually launching this), I guess we’ll see very soon!
