naksteve wrote:what sells the most is what manufacturers have to make to stay in business]image[/I]product (e.g., Corvette, Viper, Acura NSX)--something to attract buyers into the showroom, so that, even though they may not be able to buy that showpiece, they may see something in the company line they associate with the same image and quality.
That's a marketing concept - branding.
But even a product designed to enhance the brand image needs to make money.
Also - it's hard to market a "strippo" product as an
upgrade, when it doesn't have 1/3 of the features that the model
below it has. And that
doesn't enhance the brand image, that leaves the consumer simply with questions. "WTF?" You don't want your customers thinking that, especially when it's likely that your customers are being told "Oh, that's because it's loaded with higher quality components inside!" by the slick salesperson or some 17 year old kid you find at your local typical car audio joint. I wouldn't believe them either, and I don't want those people to be the foundation of my marketing and branding strategy.
Take a Corvette as an example. It
is Chevrolet's "image product", as you say. Even it, as a performance car, has power windows, leather seats, cruise control, and air conditioning. Because that's what people expect for $50,000.
As an engineer, I know how valuable resources usually aren't spent where it counts--on making the best product possible, but on marketing, distribution, etc.
No offense, but If I had an engineer that was thinking this way, I'd address that thinking quickly, or I'd need to let them go. That kind of "us vs. them" thinking is not only way off base, but harmful to morale within the organization, and begins a dangerous downward spiral - particularly if there are any particularly strong personalities speaking loudly.
A business is a single unit, with a common goal. You are either part of the team, or not. Or, perhaps better worded in one of my favorite business adages "you are either part of the steamroller, or part of the pavement." :happy055:
More importantly, no team can function properly if one unit is "doing their thing" while another unit is "doing their thing". One team has to facilitate the other, and compromise to yield a product that is properly aligned to the goals of the
business - not the goals of engineering, or marketing, or human resources, or facilities, or purchasing, or manufacturing... its "and", not "or".
Think about it:
Market reasearch is done, in accordance with the branding and positioning of the company, to find out what consumers in that targeted segment want from their product, well into the next year. Technology trends play a role. Product designers and engineers work togther to unquestioningly design a product that meets those presented goals. Marketing people need to ensure that their target audience will be aware that their product exists out there. Logistics need to be addressed to make sure the product exists where those targeted demographics exist. It's really not fundamentally all that complicated.
And inherent in that, engineering needs to engineer not just functionality, but marketability, or the product will fail. It needs to engineer in packaging feasibility, or logistics (specifically distribution) become complicated and expensive. There are many interactions between units in a business, and all of those interactions are
often even more important than the discrete function of any one of those business units on their own.
But inside any of those business units, the danger is that employees might be working with such a head-down mentality, that they start talking about business areas in an "us vs. them" sort of way - and that is immediately harmful.
Your last point: that's a good idea. Just make a decent transport with digital outs--that's it. Then SQ guys could add their own D/A, pre-amp's and whatever features they want.
That's not at all my idea, although that would be one approach that could bring a cost-effective manufacturing approach to an entire product line, and end up arriving at the same place if that line was designed in a modular way - if implemented
that way, I absolutely love it.
What I was saying is more in line with customer expectations: They expect to find an upgrade path, as the price increases. Consider the question "What do I get with the $800 model that I don't get with the $500 model?"
1) If the answer is "Well, it doesn't do MP3 like the $500 one, it doesn't have any auxiliary inputs like the $500 one does, it doesn't have the display features the $500 one does, it doesn't have the processing features that the $500 does, and you have to buy an amp that'll cost you another $200 to $400... but
trust me, it's built with higher quality stuff inside, that means it'll sound better!"
And god forbid if the customer actually tries to A/B compare the sound quality in the demo room. Does the customer have a trained ear? Is the equipment in the demo room such that the HU is actually the weakest link in the chain anyway? And realistically, how much of a SQ difference is it, comparing one already-good HU to this snobby model? It's a "sale lost" for sure.
2) On the other hand, if the answer was "Well, it has everything that the $500 model has,
plus it has higher quality stuff inside, that means it'll sound better!" you may have just made a sale, and no demo necessary.
That's a winning design.
And what does this show, really? Think about
that:
Product 1 is engineering operating in a vacuum, operating independently of marketing. Product 2 is engineering working with marketing - and therefore customers.
Without that teamwork, despite engineering's best intentions, they developed a product that (as history has proved) customers actually don't want, despite upper-eschelon engineered performance - performance was only in one area, inadvertantly
handicapping performance in all other areas.
I'm sure you understand this - as an engineer, you wouldn't want your legacy to be that you engineer in handicaps!
But to a non-technical person (such as management, who is fundamentally concerned with the organization as a team), that is what they would see in a product like that - and would inherently start asking questions like "Is this what market research identified? How are actual sales on this unit, by comparison?"
...and that's a whole road you don't want to be having responsibility for the answers.
And that's why that sort of "strippo performance" product doesn't exist anymore, I am convinced anyway.
I personally would love to "build my own solution", as a customer. To have the ability to take my pick of (and upgrade it later maybe) a CD transport. To have the ability to take my pick of a radio or satellite tuner. To have the ability to take my pick of a basic, traditional "bass and treble, fader and balance" processing section, or maybe a more sophisticated EQ-enhanced, DSP, crossover included processing section. To have the ability to select one of a few choices of interfaces (or maybe they in part correspond to the processing section).
Sure, you might end up with a HU that's needs an external chassis like a flip-out DVD, but it lets a customer honestly understand where their money is being spent in the HU, and gives them the flexibility to spend money multiple times with that company - starting small and upgrading, rather than buying once and maybe ditching it later in favor of another manufacturer's higher end later. I'm a fan of that idea. No one will build it though.
[quote="naksteve"]what sells the most is what manufacturers have to make to stay in business]image[/I]product (e.g., Corvette, Viper, Acura NSX)--something to attract buyers into the showroom, so that, even though they may not be able to buy that showpiece, they may see something in the company line they associate with the same image and quality.[/quote] That's a marketing concept - branding.
But even a product designed to enhance the brand image needs to make money. ;)
Also - it's hard to market a "strippo" product as an [i]upgrade[/i], when it doesn't have 1/3 of the features that the model [i]below[/i] it has. And that [i]doesn't[/i] enhance the brand image, that leaves the consumer simply with questions. "WTF?" You don't want your customers thinking that, especially when it's likely that your customers are being told "Oh, that's because it's loaded with higher quality components inside!" by the slick salesperson or some 17 year old kid you find at your local typical car audio joint. I wouldn't believe them either, and I don't want those people to be the foundation of my marketing and branding strategy. :sad017:
Take a Corvette as an example. It [i]is [/i]Chevrolet's "image product", as you say. Even it, as a performance car, has power windows, leather seats, cruise control, and air conditioning. Because that's what people expect for $50,000. ;)
[quote]As an engineer, I know how valuable resources usually aren't spent where it counts--on making the best product possible, but on marketing, distribution, etc.[/quote]
No offense, but If I had an engineer that was thinking this way, I'd address that thinking quickly, or I'd need to let them go. That kind of "us vs. them" thinking is not only way off base, but harmful to morale within the organization, and begins a dangerous downward spiral - particularly if there are any particularly strong personalities speaking loudly.
A business is a single unit, with a common goal. You are either part of the team, or not. Or, perhaps better worded in one of my favorite business adages "you are either part of the steamroller, or part of the pavement." :happy055:
More importantly, no team can function properly if one unit is "doing their thing" while another unit is "doing their thing". One team has to facilitate the other, and compromise to yield a product that is properly aligned to the goals of the [i]business [/i]- not the goals of engineering, or marketing, or human resources, or facilities, or purchasing, or manufacturing... its "and", not "or".
[i]Think about it:[/i]
Market reasearch is done, in accordance with the branding and positioning of the company, to find out what consumers in that targeted segment want from their product, well into the next year. Technology trends play a role. Product designers and engineers work togther to unquestioningly design a product that meets those presented goals. Marketing people need to ensure that their target audience will be aware that their product exists out there. Logistics need to be addressed to make sure the product exists where those targeted demographics exist. It's really not fundamentally all that complicated.
And inherent in that, engineering needs to engineer not just functionality, but marketability, or the product will fail. It needs to engineer in packaging feasibility, or logistics (specifically distribution) become complicated and expensive. There are many interactions between units in a business, and all of those interactions are [i]often[/i] even more important than the discrete function of any one of those business units on their own. ;)
But inside any of those business units, the danger is that employees might be working with such a head-down mentality, that they start talking about business areas in an "us vs. them" sort of way - and that is immediately harmful. :eek:
[quote]Your last point: that's a good idea. Just make a decent transport with digital outs--that's it. Then SQ guys could add their own D/A, pre-amp's and whatever features they want.[/quote]
That's not at all my idea, although that would be one approach that could bring a cost-effective manufacturing approach to an entire product line, and end up arriving at the same place if that line was designed in a modular way - if implemented [i]that[/i] way, I absolutely love it. :cool:
What I was saying is more in line with customer expectations: They expect to find an upgrade path, as the price increases. Consider the question "What do I get with the $800 model that I don't get with the $500 model?"
[b]1)[/b] If the answer is "Well, it doesn't do MP3 like the $500 one, it doesn't have any auxiliary inputs like the $500 one does, it doesn't have the display features the $500 one does, it doesn't have the processing features that the $500 does, and you have to buy an amp that'll cost you another $200 to $400... but [i]trust me[/i], it's built with higher quality stuff inside, that means it'll sound better!" :rolleyes:
And god forbid if the customer actually tries to A/B compare the sound quality in the demo room. Does the customer have a trained ear? Is the equipment in the demo room such that the HU is actually the weakest link in the chain anyway? And realistically, how much of a SQ difference is it, comparing one already-good HU to this snobby model? It's a "sale lost" for sure.
[b]2)[/b] On the other hand, if the answer was "Well, it has everything that the $500 model has, [i]plus[/i] it has higher quality stuff inside, that means it'll sound better!" you may have just made a sale, and no demo necessary. [i]That's[/i] a winning design.
And what does this show, really? Think about [i]that[/i]:
Product 1 is engineering operating in a vacuum, operating independently of marketing. Product 2 is engineering working with marketing - and therefore customers. ;) Without that teamwork, despite engineering's best intentions, they developed a product that (as history has proved) customers actually don't want, despite upper-eschelon engineered performance - performance was only in one area, inadvertantly [i]handicapping[/i] performance in all other areas.
I'm sure you understand this - as an engineer, you wouldn't want your legacy to be that you engineer in handicaps! :sad017: But to a non-technical person (such as management, who is fundamentally concerned with the organization as a team), that is what they would see in a product like that - and would inherently start asking questions like "Is this what market research identified? How are actual sales on this unit, by comparison?"
...and that's a whole road you don't want to be having responsibility for the answers. :o
And that's why that sort of "strippo performance" product doesn't exist anymore, I am convinced anyway. :thumbsup
I personally would love to "build my own solution", as a customer. To have the ability to take my pick of (and upgrade it later maybe) a CD transport. To have the ability to take my pick of a radio or satellite tuner. To have the ability to take my pick of a basic, traditional "bass and treble, fader and balance" processing section, or maybe a more sophisticated EQ-enhanced, DSP, crossover included processing section. To have the ability to select one of a few choices of interfaces (or maybe they in part correspond to the processing section).
Sure, you might end up with a HU that's needs an external chassis like a flip-out DVD, but it lets a customer honestly understand where their money is being spent in the HU, and gives them the flexibility to spend money multiple times with that company - starting small and upgrading, rather than buying once and maybe ditching it later in favor of another manufacturer's higher end later. I'm a fan of that idea. No one will build it though. :p