Hey y’all - very random question; I’m interested to see what a greater sample size (beyond my trainer) thinks.
So I have a small business venture that I have been working on for several months related to planning and productivity tools (think sticky notes, stickers, etc.). I noticed a couple of things when looking for planners and other types of productivity tools to keep me organized at work; what I found was either functional but really boring, not at all effective (for work organization) but trendy, or lastly not at all what I am looking for both functionally, aesthetically or quality wise.
ANYWAYS - I was going over this with my trainer and she mentioned that it would be cool if what I made could translate to her world as a professional rider and trainer. Most everything could, of course, since the core of what I make is simply to enhance productivity and add options for functionality, simply. But it got me thinking about a subset of products specifically targeted to the horse community.
From this conversation I learned that my trainer is very much a pen and paper gal. My assumption prior to this conversation was that most horse people are tech people because you don’t want to have paper in a barn. She clarified that she doesn’t necessarily keep paper in the barn, but she plans and records in her office in the house (she lives on her property).
So here are my questions:
1. Are you a paper and pen horse person?
(Professional or not, but specifically related to horse ‘stuff’ - so tracking vet and farrier appointments, training logs, lesson logs, etc.)
2. If there was a functional tool/product on the market geared towards horse people, would it be something you’d hypothetically click on to learn more about?
(Notice how I didn’t ask if this is something you’d necessarily purchase - there’s a lot more that goes into the behavioral economics for a purchase and I don’t think asking that question without an example is fair)
Thanks gang! Super excited to see if my assumption about all horse people being tech people is incorrect.