All purpose sales and sales rumors/anecdotes thread next gen+

[goonergaz]

In the examples given then there is litterally no-one on this planet who buys just on brand. I knew one guy who when Arsenal were sponsered by JVC would buy JVC on EVERYTHING electrical that they made, no exceptions...but where does that brand loyalty sit!?

Another example, I bought a PS3 because it was made by Sony - I had a loyalty to the PlayStation brand (not Sony directly) - clearly my purchase was based on brand only because what I expected from that brand.

What does brand mean? "A meaningful brand is more than a product...it’s a story, and products are more than just an accumulation of functional benefits..." companies strive to 'build a brand' and surely exclusives are a part of that...I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Hypothetically, Apple can sell junk far better than some no name can sell the best smartphone hardware on the market.

Very hypothetical given Samsung outsell Apple by what is known in the mobile industry as a "metric fuck ton". Nobody is claiming brand is irrelevant but brand is also very volatile. Microsoft and BlackBerry were once huge brands in mobile, now they aren't. How does Apple, who were weeks from bankruptcy in 1998, become bigger than Microsoft? Apple's brand was bad, now it's good. Will it always be good? Probably not.

 

[dobwal]

Very hypothetical given Samsung outsell Apple by what is known in the mobile industry as a "metric fuck ton". Nobody is claiming brand is irrelevant but brand is also very volatile. Microsoft and BlackBerry were once huge brands in mobile, now they aren't. How does Apple, who were weeks from bankruptcy in 1998, become bigger than Microsoft? Apple's brand was bad, now it's good. Will it always be good? Probably not.

Samsung has been a well known mobile player far longer than Apple. And one of the biggest reason Samsung was able to out compete Apple was its huge distribution network that was already in place. It was able to enter new markets and sell its smartphones while Apple was busy trying to its itself outside the US and other western markets. When I wrote "no name", I meant a manufacturer that relatively no one knows.

Branding doesn't make anyone impervious to competition but it does forces others to establish, build their brand and wait for established players to slip or become stagnant.

Apple went from weeks from bankruptcy to being bigger than Microsoft by establishing and outcompeting everyone in the mp3 player market to the point it could basically create excitement by simply prefixing an "i" on a generic term for their products targeting new market. The iphone, ipad and watch or all products whose initial excitement and demand of those products had nothing to do with initial specs and features but the fact it was coming from Apple.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Apple went from weeks from bankruptcy to being bigger than Microsoft by establishing and outcompeting everyone in the mp3 player market to the point it could basically create excitement by simply prefixing an "i" on a generic term for their products targeting new market.

History seems to disagree with you. Firstly, even in 2008, which was the height of iPod sales, the vast majority of Apple's profits was from iTunes media sales not hardware sales. The iPhone changed that but you have seemingly forgotten that the first couple of iPhones really didn't sell well. The first iPhone clocked less than 7m global sales. How can this be so if Apple's brand was so strong? The second iPhone sold better but also not well. Again, how could this is so with Apple's magical iBrand mojo?

Secondly, the truth is brands don't often transcend product markets - all brand is guaranteed to get you is some media attention. Clearly not everybody who bought an iPod or a Mac was buying an iPhone because both of those product lines continued to outsell the phone initially.

Which is kind of my point. Brand isn't some magical thing that safeguards sales erosion. There are plenty of examples of a company with good branding and/or product struggling to sell a successor product: SEGA Saturn. SEGA Dreamcast. Wii U. PlayStation 3. Apple's early iPhones. Microsoft's Windows Phone. BlackBerry 2009 onwards.

 

[goonergaz]

I wonder how many iPhones would have sold without the Apple brand?

 

[Deleted member 11852]

I wonder how many iPhones would have sold without the Apple brand?

Had Samsung launched that exact same product, probably a lot more. What's your point? That big companies garner more attention than small companies? Sure they do, that's the nature of PR and marketing dollars.

 

[dobwal]

History seems to disagree with you. Firstly, even in 2008, which was the height of iPod sales, the vast majority of Apple's profits was from iTunes media sales not hardware sales. The iPhone changed that but you have seemingly forgotten that the first couple of iPhones really didn't sell well. The first iPhone clocked less than 7m global sales. How can this be so if Apple's brand was so strong? The second iPhone sold better but also not well. Again, how could this is so with Apple's magical iBrand mojo?

Secondly, the truth is brands don't often transcend product markets - all brand is guaranteed to get you is some media attention. Clearly not everybody who bought an iPod or a Mac was buying an iPhone because both of those product lines continued to outsell the phone initially.

Which is kind of my point. Brand isn't some magical thing that safeguards sales erosion. There are plenty of examples of a company with good branding and/or product struggling to sell a successor product: SEGA Saturn. SEGA Dreamcast. Wii U. PlayStation 3. Apple's early iPhones. Microsoft's Windows Phone. BlackBerry 2009 onwards.

The first iphones weren't available through contract sudsidization and were limited to one provider at least in the US. Its wasn't a widely available device. Apple had a compelling product but an immature distribution network that it remedied over time.

Brands do not guarantee anything but people append confidence, trust and even disgust to brands. Can that confidence and trust be destroyed or disgust remedied. Sure.

But if you want to know how important branding is to the console market, then its not the hardware that serves as the ultimate proof but rather the software.

GTA is known to have relatively sparse marketing. Its the biggest franchise in gaming despite R* giving up little of the game pre release. GTA 6, Halo 6, GT 8, the next Elder Scrolls and the next Mass Effects and the initial excitement they will generate will have nothing to do with specs or feature list but come from past experiences with older iterations of those franchises that create that excitement.

Branding isn't the be all/end all for selling a product but its pretty much up there because in general, consumers aren't interested in judging every product on a case by case basis.

Marketing and advertising wouldn't be so brand centric if it weren't a prominent part of product selling. The only time branding isn't really that important is when there is products that can't be differentiated by quality like commodities i.e wheat or copper.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

The first iphone weren't subsidized through contracts and were limited to one provider at least in the US. Its wasn't a widely available device. Apple had a compelling product but an immature distribution network that it remedied over time.

I can only assume you're talking about the USA because the iPhone was available in a number of European countries - carrier subsidised (and probably available unlocked as in the norm in Europe).

GTA is known to have relatively sparse marketing. Its the biggest franchise in gaming despite R* giving up little of the game when it comes to marketing.

Maybe you live in outer Mongolia or something but GTA V's market was invasive. Certainly in London, New York and Washington DC (where I spent some time during the few weeks prior to its 2013 launch) there was advertising everywhere. Buses had GTA liveries, they repainted actual buildings with the GTA V logo and it was everywhere on gaming websites, magazines and TV. I am not surprised the marketing campaign alone was estimated to have cost between $79-109m. Have you seen this?. "Sparse" ???

Branding isn't the be all/end all for selling a product but its pretty much up there because in general, because consumers aren't interested in judging every product on a case by case basis.

I would agree that not all consumers will consider all their options but all evidence of brands rising and falling, particularly in technology, really disproves that the greater majority are simply opting to buy the brand the bought last time. Otherwise how do you explain the changing fortunes in consoles, TVs, phones, cars and pretty much everything else apart from Coca-Cola?

 

[dobwal]

I can only assume you're talking about the USA because the iPhone was available in a number of European countries - carrier subsidised (and probably available unlocked as in the norm in Europe).



Maybe you live in outer Mongolia or something but GTA V's market was invasive. Certainly in London, New York and Washington DC (where I spent some time during the few weeks prior to its 2013 launch) there was advertising everywhere. Buses had GTA liveries, they repainted actual buildings with the GTA V logo and it was everywhere on gaming websites, magazines and TV. I am not surprised the marketing campaign alone was estimated to have cost between $79-109m. Have you seen this?. "Sparse" ???



I would agree that not all consumers will consider all their options but all evidence of brands rising and falling, particularly in technology, really disproves that the greater majority are simply opting to buy the brand the bought last time. Otherwise how do you explain the changing fortunes in consoles, TVs, phones, cars and pretty much everything else apart from Coca-Cola?

The original iPhones were only available to ATT subscribers and you had to pay full retail for them.

In terms of your examples, the console market leader has either been Nintendo or Sony for the last 30 years. The smartphones market was a niche market where the iphone and android success comes from endearing themselves to the general consumer market. Every windows and blackberry owners could of still been windows and blackberry owners today and it would have done nothing to change the realities of today. At least in the US, american car manufacturers dominated the market far longer the quality of their products should have allowed. Ford, GMC and other american autos lived off brand loyalty for decades. "I'm a Ford man", "I'm a Chevy man" or "I'm a Pontaic man" are common phrases in the US lexicon when it comes to auto.

Massive retail marketing yes in terms of highlighting its release. Traditional game marketing where we see good portions of gameplay and a sense of the mechanics through vids and images No. Pubs and devs can spend years trying to convince you that an unreleased title is worthy of your purchase. That's not how R* markets GTA.

I am not saying brand values can't be changed but people's dependence on them retards or inhibits change. The console market would be alot more volatile and spec dependent if branding didn't matter and people trust in MS and Sony suddenly ended when their PS or Xbox warranted disposing.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I am not saying brand values can't be changed...

That's brand loyalty. You are loyal to a brand if you won't change. If change is an option, you aren't loyal. You may have a preference, but not a loyalty, because someone else may offer a more compelling option convincing you to swap. Dogs are loyal because they'll never leave their owners. Cats aren't loyal even though they stick around, as at any time they may change their mind and move in with someone else. Most consumers are more cat-like than dog-like, preferring the home (brand) they know but not against a change at some point.

In business terms there's likely measures of brand loyalty, but we're talking specifically about the hardcore type here.

 

[dobwal]

That's brand loyalty. You are loyal to a brand if you won't change. If change is an option, you aren't loyal. You may have a preference, but not a loyalty, because someone else may offer a more compelling option convincing you to swap. Dogs are loyal because they'll never leave their owners. Cats aren't loyal even though they stick around, as at any time they may change their mind and move in with someone else. Most consumers are more cat-like than dog-like, preferring the home (brand) they know but not against a change at some point.

In business terms there's likely measures of brand loyalty, but we're talking specifically about the hardcore type here.

You are loyal until you decide to stop being loyal. People will question any product even from a brand they have been buying for years if they don't give them the experience that encouraged the loyalty in the first place.

Loyalty doesn't require support or alliegiance based on an infinite time span.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/brand-loyalty.asp
When consumers become committed to your brand and make repeat purchases over time. Brand loyalty is a result of consumer behavior and is affected by a person's preferences. Loyal customers will consistently purchase products from their preferred brands, regardless of convenience or price.

"Until they die" is not part of that definition.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

The original iPhones were only available to ATT subscribers and you had to pay full retail for them.

I don't want to burst you bubble, but there is a big wide world outside of the US. Also, Santa Claus isn't real

In terms of your examples, the console market leader has either been Nintendo or Sony for the last 30 years.

So what does that say for brand loyalty?

The smartphones market was a niche market where the iphone and android success comes from endearing themselves to the general consumer market.

And Apple didn't make any significant success until 2009 (iPhone 3GS) and Android 2010, by which times smartphones sales were passing dumb phone sales. How do you explain this? What about Nokia?

Massive retail marketing yes in terms of highlighting its release. Traditional game marketing where we see good portions of gameplay and a sense of the mechanics through vids and images No. Pubs and devs can spend years trying to convince you that an unreleased title is worthy of your purchase. That's not how R* markets GTA.

So only the type of marketing you chose counts as marketing. Got it.

 

[Clukos]

TIL brand loyalty doesn't exist

 

[Shifty Geezer]

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/brand-loyalty.asp

Quotation wars!
http://www.forbes.com/sites/glennllopis/2014/12/10/consumers-are-no-longer-brand-loyal/

Consumers are no longer brand loyal. They may be loyal to the engagement experience that a particular brand offers.

And from your link, brand loyalty requires repeat purchases even when there are better alternatives ("regardless of convenience or price"). The console market shows no such loyalty outside of a minority fanboy populace. People buy Nintendo one cycle, Sony the next, MS the next. You can't create a console brand that'll see everyone buying the sequel regardless. What you can do is create a brand momentum, so PS2 sold alongside suitable alternatives but the alternatives were overlooked because the PS brand was trustworthy. You can also lose that momentum because few are loyal to your brand, so PS3 had brand momentum and lost it, and had to compete on level terms with XB360 (and interestingly sold level numbers).

 

[dobwal]

I don't want to burst you bubble, but there is a big wide world outside of the US. Also, Santa Claus isn't real



So what does that say for brand loyalty?



And Apple didn't make any significant success until 2009 (iPhone 3GS) and Android 2010, by which times smartphones sales were passing dumb phone sales. How do you explain this? What about Nokia?



So only the type of marketing you chose counts as marketing. Got it.

Nevermind

 

[DJ12]

I think this singular ad will have a significant impact this years holiday sales in the US.

Sony does not have an big exclusive, but they know how to promote. Great ad.

Wow. BEST. GAME. ADVERT. EVER!!!!

Gaming and star wars tick all this nerds boxes. Almost makes me want the game. I'm not a fan of fpses.

 

[DieH@rd]

I'm not a fan of fpses.

You can play entire game in third person mode if you want [this was present in the Beta]
https://i.imgur.com/dEsyAxc.jpg

 

[DJ12]

You can play entire game in third person mode if you want [this was present in the Beta]
https://i.imgur.com/dEsyAxc.jpg

Not a fan of shooting games in general. Tolerate uncharted for the story. This being multiplayer only is not for me.

I wish it was as it looks great, but hopefully ea do a kotor style (rpg/single player story based game) with that engine

 

[dobwal]

Quotation wars!
http://www.forbes.com/sites/glennllopis/2014/12/10/consumers-are-no-longer-brand-loyal/
And from your link, brand loyalty requires repeat purchases even when there are better alternatives ("regardless of convenience or price"). The console market shows no such loyalty outside of a minority fanboy populace. People buy Nintendo one cycle, Sony the next, MS the next. You can't create a console brand that'll see everyone buying the sequel regardless. What you can do is create a brand momentum, so PS2 sold alongside suitable alternatives but the alternatives were overlooked because the PS brand was trustworthy. You can also lose that momentum because few are loyal to your brand, so PS3 had brand momentum and lost it, and had to compete on level terms with XB360 (and interestingly sold level numbers).

LOL. You want quotation wars.
http://www.idigitaltimes.com/ps4-vs...oyalty-and-fun-factor-top-factors-next-417725

“Nintendo has tapped into its loyal fan base with its latest system—86% of Wii U owners are prior Wii owners,” Nielson reports. “Consumers appreciate the fun-factor, kid-friendliness, and value of Wii U. Not far behind, three of four Microsoft Xbox One owners are previous Xbox 360 owners.

“And this is understandable, as these consumers indicate their top reason for purchasing an Xbox One was the brand. Meanwhile, PlayStation 4 has shown an ability to capture both previous PlayStation 3 owners, as well as competitive seventh gen users, thanks to its superior resolution, Blu-ray player and game library according to purchasers.”

http://www.latinpost.com/articles/8...tudy-confirms-gamers-prefer-playstation-4.htm

In fact, the trend continues to single game console owners as 14% of Xbox 360 users purchased the PS4 while only 8% of PS3 users bought the Xbox One. PS3 owners who purchased Sony's latest game console were still majority at 51% while 42% of Xbox 360 users remained brand loyal.

 

[DieH@rd]

According to Zhuge, PS4 has won September.

I wish it was as it looks great, but hopefully ea do a kotor style (rpg/single player story based game) with that engine

As of now, the only other unveiled SW project at EA is Visceral+Motive adventure game by Amy Henning.