PS2 outselling XBox 360

[Shifty Geezer]

As a counter point though - Trust based on past performance will only get you so far. History proves that. Past success will not guarantee future success.

No-one ever said it would gaurentee it. But is massively important. If you have two entites, one well known and liked and used for a generation or two, and another unknown, to make the change you have to convince your customers that the unknown is leaps and bounds better. A small margin of improvement isn't going to entice the majority away. With similar products, people take the one they know and are familar with than the unknown. That's why there's so much spent on marketting, even when it's just a name on a Football sidings. Seeing the name makes it familar, so when given a choice between a few brands, the one that is familar has an advantage.

 

[TheChefO]

and it would take a lot to change the loyalty (a lot may be $300! ).

You know, I was just thinking about the price barrier and how Sony could attempt to break this barrier down a bit. What if Sony announced a standard 10 year warranty with ps3 along with lifetime disc replacement for scratched games. Would this influence you b3ders? What about the people you know? And how do you think the general public would react? Overall cost to Sony should be minimal but it would help them to enforce the concept of "our console is good for 10 years while our competitiors are stop-gap etc etc bla bla bla".

What do you guys think?

 

[TheChefO]

No-one ever said it would gaurentee it. But is massively important. If you have two entites, one well known and liked and used for a generation or two, and another unknown, to make the change you have to convince your customers that the unknown is leaps and bounds better. A small margin of improvement isn't going to entice the majority away. With similar products, people take the one they know and are familar with than the unknown. That's why there's so much spent on marketting, even when it's just a name on a Football sidings. Seeing the name makes it familar, so when given a choice between a few brands, the one that is familar has an advantage.

Agreed - I think were on the same page here. I just think Croc hunter is not giving Marketing the proper dues. In fact I disagree with his assertion that Marketing can't sell you crap. Anyone ever heard of Dell?

[offtopic]
ok ok ... actually I agree it is a mix and I think they go hand in hand as part of why Dell is the juggernaut they are today is becase of their past excellence. Another part is their marketing. I would argue Sony was recently in a similar situation recently but seem to be turning it around. [/offtopic]

 

[croc hunter2]

Chef, I never said marketing can't sell you crap, please learn to read properly. I said fairly clearly that it can, but if the product is crap then no amount of marketing will save it longer term.

<ot>
if Dell were actually shit, do you think that they would continue to sell. No is the obvious answer.

I have a network of Dells, they seem ok to me, their service is certainly no worse that HPs or IBMs and they are reasonably priced. If they were missing a significant part of the equation i would be churning them out of the network. PRONTO </ot>

Chef why do you think new products to a market are so heavily advertised. The reason is that they are trying to break into the brand recognition of the existing market leader(s). Next time you go shopping, look in your trolley and think why you buy a certain brand of sauce, breakfast cereal, beer, etc. It's often not because of any really inherent superiority of the brand you are buying, but its your recognition of those products (brands) and your past, obviously positive experience.

Well known brands can spend less on advertising specific products and more on the brand , and not as much as they might, due to the instant recognition. Sony sponsor the Champions League in Europe, not with PS2, just the word Playstation.

Read the following link and read how valuable brands are and why. McDonalds total income is supposedly related to their brand and almost no other factors. http://www.finfacts.com/brands.htm

if you go to the list you'll find Coca-Cola the brand is worth $67Billion, ie their brand will contribute $67B in revenue over the next 5 years. To generate sales of that magnitude from scratch would cost an enormous sum, much much more than they are going to spend on marketing.

 

[TheChefO]

Chef, I never said marketing can't sell you crap, please learn to read properly. I said fairly clearly that it can, but if the product is crap then no amount of marketing will save it longer term.

<ot>
if Dell were actually shit, do you think that they would continue to sell. No is the obvious answer.

I have a network of Dells, they seem ok to me, their service is certainly no worse that HPs or IBMs and they are reasonably priced. If they were missing a significant part of the equation i would be churning them out of the network. PRONTO </ot>

Chef why do you think new products to a market are so heavily advertised. The reason is that they are trying to break into the brand recognition of the existing market leader(s). Next time you go shopping, look in your trolley and think why you buy a certain brand of sauce, breakfast cereal, beer, etc. It's often not because of any really inherent superiority of the brand you are buying, but its your recognition of those products (brands) and your past, obviously positive experience.

Well known brands can spend less on advertising specific products and more on the brand , and not as much as they might, due to the instant recognition. Sony sponsor the Champions League in Europe, not with PS2, just the word Playstation.

Read the following link and read how valuable brands are and why. McDonalds total income is supposedly related to their brand and almost no other factors. http://www.finfacts.com/brands.htm

if you go to the list you'll find Coca-Cola the brand is worth $67Billion, ie their brand will contribute $67B in revenue over the next 5 years. To generate sales of that magnitude from scratch would cost an enormous sum, much much more than they are going to spend on marketing.

I apologize for misunderstanding your post - I agree as I stated - Brand comfort (past experience) and Marketing both play a role. I just felt from your post that you were not giving marketing it's due. The two go hand in hand for most repeat success but marketing can get you into areas you have no prior success in. Even in cases where you have previously competed and failed miserably, marketing can help you become successful.

Brand recognition/comfort will only get you so far as well is what my point was.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Chef, I never said marketing can't sell you crap, please learn to read properly. I said fairly clearly that it can, but if the product is crap then no amount of marketing will save it longer term.

And brand reputation can kill you to. Amstrad had a bulk supply of broken HDDs that got them a reputation for unreliablility they never recovered from. There's a conspiracy theory attached to that, that US companies brokered an agreement to sabotage the foreign power, but regardless, a negative reputation can be as hard to overturn as a positive one. The only place this isn't so is Celebrities, where whatever reputation, more of it increases your commercial worth!

 

[Johnny Awesome]

MS will gain marketshare. The question is: How much?

 

[Powderkeg]

No-one ever said it would gaurentee it. But is massively important. If you have two entites, one well known and liked and used for a generation or two, and another unknown, to make the change you have to convince your customers that the unknown is leaps and bounds better. A small margin of improvement isn't going to entice the majority away. With similar products, people take the one they know and are familar with than the unknown.

That's an interesting theory.

If you applied that theory to the HD-DVD/Bluray format war what conclusion would you draw?

 

[London Geezer]

That's an interesting theory.

If you applied that theory to the HD-DVD/Bluray format war what conclusion would you draw?

My conclusion is that good old DVD will be around being the best selling video format for years to come, but maybe that's just me

 

[Powderkeg]

My conclusion is that good old DVD will be around being the best selling video format for years to come, but maybe that's just me

That would be my conclusion as well, but such a belief doesn't support the whole "PS3 is worth the extra money because of the Bluray" arguement that has gone on so long around here, does it?

If we assume people will go with what they know and are familiar with by default, a product with DVD in the name would seem to be the obvious choice for them for future movie and player purchases, be it DVD or HD-DVD. DVD is what they know and are familiar with, so we can assume it will have the majority of consumer support by default.

But if you take the Bluray player away from the PS3 (At least as far as being a desirable feature for the common consumer) then what you have is a console that is significantly higher priced than it's competition, with little to nothing from the games that displays the systems superiority.

Name brand will only get you so far. Price is another major factor in peoples purchases, and twice the price for the same performance isn't normally a formula for success, regardless of what name brand you are pushing. The PS2 succeeded in part because of the name brand, but also because it was offering the same thing (Often better) as their competition for the same price as their competition.

I wouldn't be too quick to say that that previous success will transfer to the PS3 which has double the price tag, and yet offers nothing to really justify the added cost other than support for a new movie format that based on Shifty's logic, is probably not going to be the format most people buy.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

That's an interesting theory.

If you applied that theory to the HD-DVD/Bluray format war what conclusion would you draw?

All things being equal, if DVD is presented as the next progession of DVD, it'd have the advantage. But if half the films you want aren't available for the format, it gets one of those big, bad, black marks that makes a difference. This is akin to consoles and exclusive franchises.

 

[TheChefO]

All things being equal, if DVD is presented as the next progession of DVD, it'd have the advantage. But if half the films you want aren't available for the format, it gets one of those big, bad, black marks that makes a difference. This is akin to consoles and exclusive franchises.

True - HD-dvd will have to sell enough units to solidify itself as a format to change the studios Bluray exclusive stance on the format. Same thing happened with dvd. There were studios that waited years to make their movies available on dvd. Starwars anyone? :smile: (I think Jurrasic Park too)

They just have to hold out long enough and have enough sales to justify the HD-DVD release.

 

[Pozer]

I think the PS1 was very successful in marketing it as the first video game system for an older demographic. Games with adult content designed for people who grew up with Sega and nintendo and wanted more than mascots and platformers. Plus it helped that it was released by a company as respected as Sony. People saw the Sony brand and expected it to be around awhile because they made great electronics. Plus it was designed very well. It was one of the best looking consoles ever with a controller design way ahead of its time.

 

[Powderkeg]

All things being equal, if DVD is presented as the next progession of DVD, it'd have the advantage. But if half the films you want aren't available for the format, it gets one of those big, bad, black marks that makes a difference. This is akin to consoles and exclusive franchises.

And Bluray will have the exact same black marks since it also is missing half the movies. End result, both products offfer essentially the same thing, with name brand recognition going to HD-DVD.

Funny how you think it's such an important issue with console sales, but as soon as I use the exact same logic with Bluray you suddenly have excuses why your own logic no longer applies.

 

[patsu]

If you're really serious about finding out brand equity in a new product, plus how it can influence sales, you can try conjoint analysis. Some marketing departments have been using it to (try to) understand their new product dynamics.

Just make sure brand name _and_ price are amongst the features (or product attributes) to be tested. e.g., "Blu-ray" vs "HD-DVD", "Playstation" vs "Xbox", etc.. That way you can estimate how much (in $) a brand is worth potentially. Not sure whether Sony uses it in their focus group when they priced PS 3. On top of that, I'm also not sure whether and how much they jack it up to take a larger share of the PS 3 margin during launch.

As for pushing Blu-ray or HD-DVD, it depends on how they shape their perception of the "total package". e.g., The Blu-ray camp may use "Built-into PS3 so more people will have it" as part of their pitch to cushion the insecurity associated with new product, the HD-DVD camp may want to do a side-by-side comparison now, or they may bundle (more) free movies, ...

I believe the names (HD-DVD, Blu-ray) probably play very little role compared to who's behind them, their current/actual performances and what the deal is. This is because the brand equity for both the names should be close to zero for most of the population (both of them are new !).

 

[scooby_dooby]

All things being equal, if DVD is presented as the next progession of DVD, it'd have the advantage. But if half the films you want aren't available for the format, it gets one of those big, bad, black marks that makes a difference. This is akin to consoles and exclusive franchises.

from what I've read, while BR has a greater number of studios, when you count actual movies both sides have about 50% of the movie library, so this applies to both.

I will say though, there is a big difference between mindshare for a product (i.e. playstation) and mindhsare for a media format.

While people are likely to trust PS, and give PS the benefit of the doubt based on past experience. I really don't think that applies to HD-DVD, sure it may 'register' easier with the consumer, but as far as loyalty to the format? I don't think so.

HD-DVD may have a slight marketing advantage, but you can't compare it to the mindshare or consumer trust Sony has earned from the success of PS1 and PS2.

 

[Titanio]

And Bluray will have the exact same black marks since it also is missing half the movies. End result, both products offfer essentially the same thing, with name brand recognition going to HD-DVD.

Hmmmm...? Half of the major hollywood studios support HD-DVD. All but one support Blu-ray (and Blu-ray claims access to 90% of Hollywood content between those that do support it). That's not the same thing. In fact that's a major major difference, and a major advantage for Blu-ray.

 

[scooby_dooby]

Hmmmm...? Half of the major hollywood studios support HD-DVD. All but one support Blu-ray (and Blu-ray claims access to 90% of Hollywood content between those that do support it). That's not the same thing. In fact that's a major major difference, and a major advantage for Blu-ray.

Source for the 90%?

 

[Pozer]

Honestly the BR v. HDdvd debate is kinda mute both sides have strong backing. HD-dvd with the porn industry and lower productions costs for pressing, BR with Sony owned studios that will never let go of it.

I think it's possible for both formats to exist for a long time. Who would have thought before last gen that 3 consoles could co-exist. Just because one video format could only exist before doesn't mean things can't change.

 

[OtakingGX]

Honestly the BR v. HDdvd debate is kinda mute both sides have strong backing. HD-dvd with the porn industry and lower productions costs for pressing, BR with Sony owned studios that will never let go of it.

I think it's possible for both formats to exist for a long time. Who would have thought before last gen that 3 consoles could co-exist. Just because one video format could only exist before doesn't mean things can't change.

From what I understand, HD-DVD will have dual layer discs available from the get-go. BRD will launch with single layer discs and who knows when dual layer will become available. I may be totally misinformed on this though.