Entelligence: Close to the edge
By Michael Gartenberg 
posted May 13th 2009 3:45PM
posted May 13th 2009 3:45PM
Entelligence is a column by technology strategist and author Michael Gartenberg, a man whose desire for a delicious cup of coffee and a quality New York bagel is dwarfed only by his passion for tech. In these articles, he'll explore where our industry is and where it's going -- on both micro and macro levels -- with the unique wit and insight only he can provide.
Now if you're reading this, chances are you're a bit of an edge case -- or at the very least a gadget enthusiast. That's cool, I'm one as well. In fact, over the last few years I've coined three rules that I've come to refer to as Gartenberg's Three Laws of Consumer Electronics. For those of you not familiar with them, they are:
- There's a world wide market of 50,000 for any device sold to enthusiasts and early adopters.
- If Gartenberg sees a product at a demo and doesn't offer his credit card for purchase immediately, the product is doomed.
- Even if Gartenberg does offer his credit card, the product may well still be doomed -- as Gartenberg is part of the 50,000 enthusiasts that will buy (almost) anything.
(If you're in the NY area, come on over some time and I'll show you my collection)
There's a techie market that will buy anything. I'm part of it. There's about 50,000 of us who will buy anything. If it's cool, we buy it and then we move on to the next shiny thing. Unfortunately, you can't make any money that way. The rest of the world, the millions of users, the masses and the folks that actually make something profitable are different. They don't buy out of "cool." They buy out of function or need, especially in tough economic times like this. Shocking, I know -- but true; and that's why product designers need to think of the enthusiast as well as the mainstream market as they create the latest and greatest.
By the way, that doesn't mean that the masses should be product designers. It's why I generally hate focus groups when working with vendors who are testing new product ideas. They simply aren't capable of making the leap to where the paradigm might shift. On the other hand, the masses do tend to get it once it's explained to them, and at the end of the day, it's the mass markets that make for successful products as opposed to niche ones. Why do you think it took so long for MP3 players to make even the inroads they have made today as mass market devices? Yes, the edge cases bought an early one, but it took the iPod to take MP3 to the masses. Designing for the edge group is usually a mistake, but that doesn't mean every product needs to be vanilla either.
The key is, I believe, to design for the edge but create products that can make the shift over the to the mass markets. That is, products that fit a mainstream need, are not niche, are approachable for novice users, but have enough depth for advanced users to master. Products like the Nikon D series digital SLRs, The original Palm Pilot and of course, the iPod all met this criteria.
"The key is, I believe, to design for the edge but create products that can make the shift over the to the mass markets." |
Way back when, music players started like this, but there are a lot of reasons that they were able to make the leap from the enthusiast to the masses. In the case of MP3 players, it's not about design for the edge or the masses -- it's about where the sweet spot is today for folks to build and sell devices. There may be folks that need or desire 100GB+ devices, for example -- they just don't represent the mass market. The mass market is still happy with about 1,000 songs and the capacities that go with that number. The proof? Look how well the iPod nano and iPod touch are doing. They're at a capacity and price point that users want today. As for tomorrow? That will change over time but there still needs to be a bridge from the edge case to the mass market. No bridge, no sales. Most of the time, the market needs to be educated to drive things forward, and that's where the edge case comes in. These are the folks that educate the masses in terms of design.
Sometimes, the market knows what it wants once it see it but at the same time it won't pay for more than it needs. And that, my friends, is why they call folks like us enthusiasts. So, as an enthusiast, what advice do you have for vendors to take products from things that appeal to folks like us to the mass market?
Michael Gartenberg is vice president of strategy and analysis at Interpret, LLC. His weblog can be found at gartenblog.net. Contact him at gartenberg AT gmail DOT com. Views expressed here are his own.
This is what I think the rules mean...
1. If your product is interesting enough to gain someone's attention (ie, the 50,000) it will likely sell just because of this interest. This is regardless of the actual ease of use or of its usefulness. Obviously this number 50,000 is a roundabout figure and can go up or down depending on the product. Example... a new type of oil drilling unit vs a new type of bluetooth headset...
2. Very likely an opinion more so than fact. However, depending on how reliable Gartenberg's predictions on the success of new technology and/or other products this could be very close to the truth. I'm not saying it's truth simply that it COULD be.
3. A follow up to fact #2... IE, Gartenberg gives not expressed guarantee as to whether or not a product will become successful simply because he himself chose to purchase it. This also follows his comments as to how "edge" enthusiasts are more likely to pick up on a new product simply because it is a new (either kewl or potentially useful) product. Just because "they" think a product is worthy of picking up doesn't mean the mainstream market will have those same feelings or even realize that they should.
Basically it comes to this... Designers shouldn't be afraid to design something different as there will likely be someone who wants to purchase their product. However, designers looking to be successful need to be aware that the newest most radical designs may not be what the public wants or may be wary of (simply because it's new and radical)... Proof is in the pudding (as so many say).
FYI, the idea that there is a separation of the enthusiast and mainstream market isn't new. Seventeen years ago Geoffrey A. Moore wrote a book called "Crossing the Chasm"; the summary of this idea is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossing_the_Chasm
Essentially he comes to the same conclusions that you do, which is build momentum in the enthusiast market, but design the product for the mainstream...
Aiming for the lowest common denominator only hurts technology, MP3s being one glaring point. You now have to go out of your way to find a lossless file, and buying CDs at retail is becoming more difficult as record stores close down. Apple has helped to destroy music fidelity.
"...buying CDs at retail is becoming more difficult "
WTF? Where do you live? I understand that not everybody has access to an independent record shop, but by no means is it hard to buy a physical CD. I prefer physical media (I acknowledge that puts me into a minority on this particular blog site), and I'm constantly buying CDs whether from B&M shops or online.
Well, that's good that we can leave comments in this column. That "Switched On" column is eternally comment-locked, and I never understood why except for that the author (Ross Rubin? Rick Rubin? Something like that) doesn't want his view challenged.
I love that Album. NP:Siberian Khatru
I don't care at all about this article. All I can say is Yes rocks and that's one of their greatest albums!
Engadget, you're embarrassing yourselves again. Get rid of this pretentious hack!
Awesome, I totally have this album! It's only got like three songs, though.
I get up, I get down...
I wrote a paper on this subject in a games theory course. since then I am hooked to it.
The masses are not driven only by the need, specs and costs! when the masses buy a new shirt, and all shirts provide same need, comfort and price, still, some shirts sell much better. some fashion houses sell more than others. my conclusion was that we can all find ourselves on a spectrum with 2 poles: we all need to be a part of the group and we all think of ourselves as unique and special. the only difference between the 50,000 and the others, is that in this particular market, we less care about being different and like to be on the other side, getting peoples reaction about how advanced we are in technology.
In the design process of the Grippity1.0 we felt that duality everyday, trying to put the innovation in a sweet pill of clean media center game pad.
you can find this anywhere: look at the automobile industry for instance - people go to autoshows, gazing at concept cars that look amazing, only to go to the dealer and get the pale version of that concept. why? because all practical design (architecture, fashion, industrial etc.) is always going on the thin undetectable line between innovation and familiarity, between looking like everyone else and being special.