What they have done ?and what you did not stat?is that they eventually offered more expensive, items once they built up mindshare. This is not an easy way to grow your brand. You have wait for the mindshare to build. You have to wait for the customer to trust you. This takes time. It's not a short run scenario. And you still run the risk of growing too fast if you try to make a luxury item that doesn't fit with your current lines up.
I said nothing about the relative ease of this method. Nor did I state anything about the dangers of this method.
But I'm glad that you can now finally admit that, as a method, it exists.
Then don't lame ass examples if they have no relevance to the discussion. Stay on topic.
The examples were precisely on point. Years ago, Japanese car makers accepted lower margins in order to build market share in N America. Such a method, used in the short run, is a method used to maximize total profits in the long run.
The examples were precisely on point. Years ago, Japanese car makers accepted lower margins in order to build market share in N America. Such a method, used in the short run, is a method used to maximize total profits in the long run.
I don't mean to butt-in, but who is playing the role of the Japanese car makers in this technology discussion? And who is playing the part of "the establishment"?
Nokia once owned the top-end. (and the middle and the bottom) - And lost it to an upstart that didn't bother with this high-volume, low-profit nonsense. They just stole the top-end overnight.
If Nokia want to re-capture the top-end, all they have to do is make a device which appeals to consumers more.
In the mean-time, I suspect Nokia are satisfied with their massive and growing market share. Because when you sell that many units, its hard to not make a profit. Nokia must regret losing the most profitable segment of the market, but they are obviously not eager to what needs to be done to re-capture that top-end.
Comments
What they have done ?and what you did not stat?is that they eventually offered more expensive, items once they built up mindshare. This is not an easy way to grow your brand. You have wait for the mindshare to build. You have to wait for the customer to trust you. This takes time. It's not a short run scenario. And you still run the risk of growing too fast if you try to make a luxury item that doesn't fit with your current lines up.
I said nothing about the relative ease of this method. Nor did I state anything about the dangers of this method.
But I'm glad that you can now finally admit that, as a method, it exists.
I said nothing about the relative ease of this method. Nor did I state anything about the dangers of this method.
But I'm glad that you can now finally admit that, as a method, it exists.
Then don't lame ass examples if they have no relevance to the discussion. Stay on topic.
Then don't lame ass examples if they have no relevance to the discussion. Stay on topic.
The examples were precisely on point. Years ago, Japanese car makers accepted lower margins in order to build market share in N America. Such a method, used in the short run, is a method used to maximize total profits in the long run.
The examples were precisely on point. Years ago, Japanese car makers accepted lower margins in order to build market share in N America. Such a method, used in the short run, is a method used to maximize total profits in the long run.
I don't mean to butt-in, but who is playing the role of the Japanese car makers in this technology discussion? And who is playing the part of "the establishment"?
Nokia once owned the top-end. (and the middle and the bottom) - And lost it to an upstart that didn't bother with this high-volume, low-profit nonsense. They just stole the top-end overnight.
If Nokia want to re-capture the top-end, all they have to do is make a device which appeals to consumers more.
In the mean-time, I suspect Nokia are satisfied with their massive and growing market share. Because when you sell that many units, its hard to not make a profit. Nokia must regret losing the most profitable segment of the market, but they are obviously not eager to what needs to be done to re-capture that top-end.
C.