Designing for Distrust

---

My Encounter with Uttam Banerjee

How do you sell sustainable innovation in a damaged market? And what if the very benefit you are selling is one that your customers do not value?

Entering a market that one's predecessors burned is a difficult challenge for any founder. Uttam Banerjee’s journey with waterless urinals was not about launching a new product but an exercise in resurrecting a category that the market had already declared dead. Uttam’s story provides a lesson in strategic empathy by demonstrating how to persevere in a distrustful environment not by shouting louder, but by listening more closely, respecting the local context, and solving the right problem.

The Principle of Contextual Design

Uttam’s most significant challenge was an inherited failure. Before Ekam Eco was founded, waterless urinals had already been tried in India and had “failed miserably.” Imported products were introduced without considering the local environment, and their failure gave the entire product category a “negative connotation.” This meant Uttam’s first task was to undo the damage of his predecessor. This process took “almost 7, maybe 8 years to rebuild” and regain public trust.

This inherited failure was a textbook case of a lack of “contextual design”. The previous products failed because they ignored a fundamental cultural reality. As Uttam explains, “Indians are washers. We are not wipers”. This is a deep-seated behavioral norm. A technology that requires a user to abandon such a practice for a foreign one is destined to fail. The perceived “pain” of changing the habit far outweighs the perceived “gain”. The original innovators tried to force a change in user behavior to fit their product. Uttam understood he had to design a product that fit the existing user behavior.

Redesigning the Value Proposition

This deep understanding of context led to his most critical strategic pivot. He recognized that for many potential customers, the primary value proposition isn’t “water saving”. In many places, “water is available, free of cost,” so the “value related to saving water is not there”. He applied the design principle of the “gain versus pain ratio”. The gain of saving a perceived free resource was low, while the pain of changing a lifelong habit was high. The equation did not work.

The solution was to find a different, more urgent pain point. He realized that while people may not be concerned about water, they are deeply concerned with a more immediate issue: “the odor problems”. He, therefore, “redesigned the value proposition”. The product name, Zerodor, reflects this insight. He replaced the idea of a sustainable feature with a tangible benefit. This is a textbook example of using the “gain versus pain ratio” to drive the adoption of a sustainable product. By reframing his product to solve a more perceptive problem, he defeated the necessity to change their values to fit a product.

What can we take from his approach?

Open Questions

1. Uttam's pivot from 'water saving' to 'odor removal' was a strategic success. What other 'sustainable features' in the market today are being incorrectly positioned as the primary benefit, when they should instead be the secondary outcome of a more tangible solution?

2.The article talks about the 'pain' of changing our habits. What is one deep-seated habit in your own life that you know is inefficient or unsustainable, but the 'pain' of changing it feels too high compared to the 'gain'?"