They don’t get it at all…
I often have long exchanges with one of my buddies regarding the multitude of “bone-headed” tech consumer products that pop-up every couple of weeks. By bone-headed, we simply mean products that are so poorly designed or marketed that they’re (1) doomed to fail right from the start, (2) create confusion in the marketplace or (3) introduce some proprietary technology that no one really wants.
Our conversations will usually be something like the following:
“Why can’t digital camera manufacturers use a standard mini-USB port instead of proprietary cables?”
“Why is it so difficult to add line-out to portable digital audio devices?”
“Why do consumer electronics like PSPs and digital cameras continue to ship with 32MB memory cards which are completely useless?”
“Why can any company call their stuff ‘universal’ when it isn’t?”
....
You get the picture and we can go on all day about this stuff. New tech products are coming out everyday and the press releases for these products and their respective CEO’s assurance that their “new” product is what consumers want is laughable and makes us angry.
I’d have to say that the “me-too” products are the ones that bother me the most. This is where companies simply bring out shameless copies or cheap imitations of the market leader. Basically, this applies to all the various iPod knock-offs that are on the market. In the short run, these companies think their product will sell just because it’s like the market leader. They spend absolutely no money on research and development (R&D) and rush their product to market as quickly as possible and wonder why it isn’t selling well. Then they bring out another product (that’s not compatible with their first product) thinking a rounder version will solve the problem.
All these companies are missing out on are a few basic things. The biggest problem in my mind is that these companies simply do not understand the market they’re selling their product in. On a superficial “fad” level, the iPod does sell because of the design and because it’s marketed as the cool thing to have. Of course, that’s only what the competitors see. What they’re missing is the big picture. Over the long run, it’s the platform that sells the device and what keeps the customers coming back. It’s the combination of iTunes + iPod + ease-of-use + reasonable DRM. It’s not just fancy looking hardware but rather the sum of the parts that makes it a compelling plaform to stay on. The software is a huge component. Although not perfect, it gives the user a unified way to access their music and freely lets a user rip their CDs to whichever format they want. It’s this end-to-end experience that no competitor has been able to match or exceed for the past five years. Why is that so hard to understand?
What about the customer? That’s a huge area where a lot of companies completely miss. Let’s revisit my Apple iPod example. What I like the most here is that they put the responsibility on the user to not “steal music”. That’s treating the customer right. I’ll save the long DRM argument for another day but the point is that if a majority of your market is buying your product then why are you punishing them? It doesn’t make sense and yet companies continue to treat all customers as criminals just to punish a small minority. What is the purpose of a company? Sales? Nope. It’s to create a customer! And if you’re lucky enough to create that customer it’s in your best interest to treat them right.
Another problem with these companies is that their strategy is so misguided. They should know that historically, positioning a product head-on with the market leader is suicidal. Instead of simply releasing “me-too” products, a smart company will find a way to create a new customer. One of my favorite examples of this is Shuttle. Shuttle used to primarily make PC motherboards; however, that market got ridiculously cutthroat and sprouted tons of different players. What did Shuttle do? Thanks in part to technological improvements and a certain amount of foresight and risk, Shuttle introduced the Small Form Factor (SFF) PC. While not the first to market such a product, they were first to position their product as a full-fledged desktop replacement since previously released products were seen as underpowered systems. And what happened? Shuttle created a new market and new opportunities. While there are other competitors now, Shuttle still has a decent chunk of the market and is usually the brand that most people think of when you think of SFF systems.
In a lot of areas, there are a few good products and there are dozens and dozens of “me-too” products. I just wish some of these companies would stop bombarding us with inferior products and actually put out products where it’s obvious that the customer was thought of first in the product design. Ok, enough ranting for now…
