In a world where technologies and markets are changing at breakneck speed, the ability to combine innovation potential with a practical approach is becoming a key skill for industry leaders. Erik Avetisyan is an extraordinary entrepreneur whose projects in the field of consumer goods and alternative industries have already gained worldwide recognition, and his strategic decisions have repeatedly breached the walls of conservative markets. A locomotive for his teams, the only national-level expert, he confidently steers a course at the forefront of the industry, creating products that not only meet trends, but shape them.
Erik, how do you determine the balance between innovation and practicality at the product idea stage?
It all starts with the question: “What real problem are we solving?” Innovation for the sake of innovation rarely has a long-term effect. I look at the idea through two prisms: technological uniqueness and applicability in the consumer’s life. If at least one of these facets is lame, the project does not go beyond the concept stage.
Are there situations when innovation is “too ahead” of the market?
Yes, and this is one of the most difficult challenges. We had an experience when a product was technically several years ahead of the needs, and in the end it did not receive the expected response. We had to freeze the project and wait for the infrastructure and consumer habits to catch up with the idea. Today, I always evaluate the market readiness as carefully as the development itself.
What criteria help you understand that innovation is viable?
There are at least three factors: steady demand (even if it is still niche), economic efficiency of production, and scaling potential. If a product is difficult to manufacture or requires expensive infrastructure, the chances of mass success decrease.
How do you integrate innovative ideas into an existing business without risking disrupting its sustainability?
This is always a modular approach. The new idea is first implemented on a limited scale, without interfering with the main processes. We test, collect data, adjust, and only then integrate it at the company-wide level. This method reduces the risk and allows you to identify weaknesses in time.
Can you give an example when you managed to find a balance between innovation and the practical benefits of a product?
One of the illustrative cases is the work on a new line of consumer products for an adult audience. Initially, the team proposed a technology that looked impressive, but increased the cost by almost one and a half times. We conducted a series of A/B tests in different regions and found out that the key factor for buyers is not the complexity of the technology, but the convenience and durability of the product. As a result, we optimized the composition and redesigned the production process, retaining innovative functionality, but reducing the price by 18%. As a result, the product received a high response in the market and became profitable in the first quarter.
What mistakes do entrepreneurs most often make when they get carried away with innovation?
The most common one is to ignore the cost and the logic of consumer habits. It happens that a product is created that is truly unique, but at the same time is either too expensive for the mass consumer, or requires a radical lifestyle change. This is a dead end path.
What role does the team play in finding this balance?
A huge one. I work with people who are able not only to generate bold ideas, but also to think mundane, count, and predict. It’s a symbiosis of creatives and analysts. It is impossible to balance innovation and practicality alone.
What helps you avoid getting bogged down in endless innovation improvements?
A well-defined deadline and KPIs. If the product does not demonstrate the set indicators on time, we decide to finalize or close the project. This eliminates illusions and keeps the team in a working rhythm.
Can you give an example when practicality saved a project from failure?
There was a case when we were developing a product with a very complex production technology. The innovation was strong, but the cost was off the charts. We changed the materials and simplified the design, which reduced the price by almost half. The product lost some of its “wow effect”, but it became available to the mass market, and this is what ensured its commercial success.
