John,
Since I am completely unfamiliar with marketing-stuff, I find your mail
most interresting (and no, I do not feel that you pick on
me..assuming that "Tom Clausen" in your mail is an abbrevation of "Thomas
Clausen"). As an engineer working within research/teaching, I tend to
think along the "technical" lines (which, of course, involves good design
of a "product") rather than along the lines of marketing (which, of
course, involves good design of a huge profit). And also, I think of what
is convenient to me ;) So I hadn't had the issues you raise in your mail
in mind atall.
Refreshing - though also a bit sad...In any event, thanks ;)
--thomas
On Thu, 8 Feb 2001, John A. Lind wrote:
> At 15:37 2/8/01, you wrote:
> >At 08:43 AM 2/8/2001 +0000, Thomas Clausen wrote:
> > >In that case, I don't give crap for MBA's. No offence, but teaching
> > >"Loosing customer loyality" doesn't seem to be that good of an idea. Let
> > >me explain below...
> >
> >Well, as a guy with several degrees (one of which is an MBA), I just had
> >to respond.
> >
> >"Planned obsolescence" (which I assume is what John Lind was referring to)
> >was a product development strategy used primarily by the automakers from
> >the 1950s through the 1970s (and emulated by lots of other companies, of
> >course) to support their massive capital spending. In every marketing
> >course I ever took, it was *not* held up as some "shining example" of good
> >marketing strategy or customer relations strategy, but was rather
> >thoroughly lampooned as being short-sighted, wasteful and alienating. It
> >may have been thought a good idea in the 60s, but hey! -- as one wag has
> >so eloquently put it, "The 60s are *over*."
> [snip]
>
> It still exists . . . but not as blatant as the examples you (and I) were
> given and lampooned in the classroom. My thought was incompatibility
> creates a barrier to competition in lens sales from a supply of used OM
> lenses. That it might be an inconvenience for Tom Clausen, et alia,
> doesn't matter to a large corporation. In brand loyalty, it's sheer
> numbers that count; there would have to be enough Tom Clausen's. The
> strategic direction chosen will be the one predicted to maximize the bottom
> line revenue and profit.
>
> Not considering technical feasibility, the basic business tradeoff is this:
>
> On one hand:
> There is a large base of used OM lenses. If we sell bodies that are
> compatible with them, we will sell fewer new lenses; some will seek used OM
> lenses and those transactions do not generate revenue for us. This is
> opportunity lost. Incompatibility creates a barrier to competition from
> the used market!
>
> On the other hand:
> There is a large base of used OM lenses. If we sell bodies that are
> compatible with them, we may sell more bodies. Some who might not buy our
> body may do so if it is backward compatible. This is opportunity
> gained. Compatibility expands the marketing base!
>
> The business question:
> Which of these two strategies will generate more revenue (profit)?
> I would not dare to attempt answering this question and very likely nobody
> else on this list is qualified to either.
>
> This is a simplistic presentation of first order considerations . . . there
> are some second order ones such as "public good will," not from an
> individual or a few, but by the mass market as a whole. Are there a
> sufficient number of OM system owners interested in digital to satisfy a
> business case for it? Some list members might be, and may even be
> passionately interested. That doesn't matter; it's the numbers (how many)
> that count and _don't_ underestimate how high that number might be.
>
> [This is not intended to pick on Tom Clausen. To a corporation, an
> individual does not matter unless it influences a tremendously huge number
> of other individuals who would otherwise be customers. Is that rather
> cold? Yes, but it's also reality.]
>
> -- John
>
>
> < This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
> < For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
> < Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
>
--
Mange hilsner / Sincerely
-------------------------------------------
Thomas Heide Clausen
Civilingeniør i Datateknik (cand.polyt)
M.Sc in Computer Engineering
E-Mail: T.Clausen@xxxxxxxxxxxx
WWW: http://www.cs.auc.dk/~voop
-------------------------------------------
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|