This is not what it is all about. It isn't about making something weirdo appealing to a few. It is about being distinctive or downright appealing. Cars still look like cars but still some manages to design cars that look gorgeous without being weird. Making a copy of another makers car is a recipe for getting forgotten. I good case in point is the last Honda Accord made in the UK and designed for the European market. They basically cut and pasted an Audi A4 with an Opel Omega into an absurdily derivative piece of utter shit design that made everyone laugh their collective asses off. It didn't matter that the car itself was great, nobody bought it. It was the class least sold model continent wise. Now the the new Accord, they dropped the idea of making a European version at all and just ship the japanese one to Europe. The idea that if you make something along the line of the competition the buyers won't buy the competitors product isn't correct. You may end up that your own customers buy the competitors product instead as that product seem original and after all, the competition may have been onto something as it is worth copying.
P�l ----- Original Message ----- From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2003 4:13 PM Subject: Re: All Is Right In The Pentax World! > Mike Johnston pointed out: > > Not to ignore the content of Shaun's message, however--I agree with you > > Shaun. The fact is, when you have only one product, you need to make sure it > > is mainstream. If you try to make it too "different," it will probably > > appeal to too few people. The *ist D looks to be very well-judged in this > > regard--different enough, but also mainstream enough. > > Hmph. > > This ties into a rant I've been composing in my head (that'll > eventually escape through my fingers and wind up on my web site > or in my LiveJournal) about blandness. It seems that in _many_ > products, "failing to offend" has become more important than > "managing to thrill". I complained in my LiveJournal about > "classic rock" radio stations that have three *decades* of music > to choose from and still wind up playing so few songs that they > have to repeat the same ones several times a day, and someone > more familiar with the radio industry explained that tests had > shown that the thing that made people change stations was > "hearing a song they don't like", so the radio stations had to > limit themselves to the relatively few songs that "everybody" > (in their demographic) likes. (I'm the odd one out ... the way > to get me to change the station is to bore me. Playing one song > I don't like isn't enough, though ten in a row would do it.) > Twenty years ago (before the micro-brewery thing caught on), my > father explained something similar about beer: that there had > once been lots of regional brews which all tasted different, but > when (American) brands got big enough to go national, they had > to moderate the flavour so as to not make someone from halfway > across the country go "yuck", so all the big brands wound up > being bland and tasting similar. (Micro-brews reverse this by > being (and often, I think, deliberately staying) small enough to > not have to worry about attracting more than just the folks who > like their particular flavour. Are there other examples of a > counter-trend in my culture (US)? And is the "beige-ing" effect > universal, or particularly American?) > > Somehow I can accept this more easily with a big-ticket item > such as a camera, especially when there's major R&D and > _tooling_ costs for setting up a line, so that Large Sales > Volume becomes crucial to profitability/survival (as opposed to > merely being the difference between small profits and large > profits). A custom-designed camera that's Exactly Right For > Glenn would be nifty, but there'd be no "economy of scale"; it's > like how I can buy a mass-produced guitar off the rack for a > couple hundred dollars, or pay ten bleeping times as much (or > more) for a hand-built-just-for-me instrument with whatever > tweaks to the design I desire. I don't know of anybody > hand-building custom SLR bodies yet. Or a good way to make > affordable "small batches" (like a microbrew). As Mike pointed > out, it takes a funny balance: similar enough to not put off > potential customers, but distinct enough to make them choose it > over a competitor. I'm sure there's more than one balance, but > I'm guessing there are "nodes" in the graph: certain designs > are going to cost a certain amount to produce; of the designs at > a particular price point, only the ones that'll appeal to (or at > least fail to put off) enough customers to make back the cost of > tooling and design can be mass-produced. > > (I may hate the effect, but I think I understand it.) > > If you're making a product that doesn't have enough of a market > to warrant mass-production in the first place, or where folks > are willing to pay high enough prices to warrant small > production runs, it's easier to provide more options. Or > customization. How large is the large-format camera market? > Some of those are hand-built, aren't they? I imagine (and hope > that someone will confirm or rebut) that if you're willing to > spend enough, you can get a large-format camera customized > pretty much any way you want, right? > > > I'm sure most of us would like to see Pentax a) be _bold_ and > make a camera we can point to as Different and Better and a > Trend Setter instead of looking at all commodity-ish, and b) > make something *I* think is cool ... which will be a little > different for each speaker. But we also need Pentax to get away > with being however bold they are, which means: 1) a little bit > of unfortunate conservatism to avoid "bizarring" itself into > being a niche player, and 2) enough _advertising_ to convince > anyone sitting on the fence that the things that are different > about Pentax' offerings are Very Desirable Traits That Every > Consumer Desperately Wants. (And I really hope Pentax doesn't > forget (2).) > > Oh, but I'm just a grumpy culture-critic, not a businessman, so > apply salt as needed. Anyhow, assuming I've actually got a > clue, how does this affect how you percieve the design > considerations of the *ist? > > -- Glenn >
