Skip to main content

Image Should Reinforce Substance

When positioning your company or product, don't focus purely on image. Use image to reinforce perceptions of substance.

I began purchasing Sony laptop computers in the late 90s. The main reason for choosing Sony was that their "desktop replacement" laptops had all the features that made me more productive: large display, high resolution, and a touchpad. A bonus was that the laptops were sleek and stylish.

Though the stylishness of the laptops was not the primary reason for my purchasing them, it reinforced my purchasing decision. Rational or not, somehow the stylishness made me more confident in the quality and reliability of the product. My first Sony laptop did not disappoint. As a matter of fact, I am using it to type this blog entry. It has been durable and reliable.

After less than a year-long honeymoon, my second Sony laptop has been a major disappointment. It is even more stylish than my first Sony. However, it developed an overheating problem, the support for it was lousy, it went out of warranty when I needed it serviced for overheating, the backlight crapped out, its battery life is pathetic, and it weighs too much.

I had a similar experience with a Sony video camera.

Sony seems to be trying, like Apple, to establish itself as a fashionable brand. All of its products seem to be stylish is some way. But Sony is no Apple. Apple has substance to back up its image. Sony no longer does, at least in many of its newer products.

I would like to buy a new laptop, but I will not be buying a Sony, no matter how stylish it is. To me, there is no longer any substance in the "Sony" brand.

Comments

This is an interesting blog. Here's a new site that tells us about Sony Laptop so drop by if you have the chance.

Popular posts from this blog

Why Spreadsheets Suck for Prioritizing

The Goal As a company executive, you want confidence that your product team (which includes all the people, from all departments, responsible for product success) has a sound basis for deciding which items are on the product roadmap. You also want confidence the team is prioritizing the items in a smart way. What Should We Prioritize? The items the team prioritizes could be features, user stories, epics, market problems, themes, or experiments. Melissa Perri  makes an excellent case for a " problem roadmap ", and, in general, I recommend focusing on the latter types of items. However, the topic of what types of items you should prioritize - and in what situations - is interesting and important but beyond the scope of this blog entry. A Sad but Familiar Story If there is significant controversy about priorities, then almost inevitably, a product manager or other member of the team decides to put together The Spreadsheet. I've done it. Some of the mos

Use Case as a Black Box

Consider the following use case: Purchase Items Actor: Purchaser Precondition: Purchaser types at least thirty words per minute and has a web navigation efficiency rating of at least 40. Postcondition: For the average Purchaser acting at full efficiency, the number of seconds elapsed is no more than 30 + 20 * n, where n is the number of items purchased. The name of the use case represents a functional requirement. What does the product do, or enable the user to do? Purchase items. What are we to make of the preconditions and postconditions? What relationship do they have to the requirements for the product? Answer: the preconditions and postconditions are the nonfunctional requirements attached to the functional requirement . Another way of expressing the nonfunctional requirement would be as an attribute and associated constraint: Usability: For a Purchaser who types at least thirty words per minute and has a web navigation efficiency rating of at least 40, it shall take no

Henry Ford's "Faster Horse" Quote

You may have heard the ( apocryphal ) Henry Ford quote: If I'd asked customers what they wanted, they would have said "a faster horse". Over at the On Product Management blog , Saeed gives his take on this infamous quote. He "hates" it, and gives some compelling reasons. Saeed is spot on in his explanations. Personally, I think the quote is great, but it's a matter of interpretation. The valid point of the quote is not that it's a bad idea to facilitate a conversation with your market to better understand it. The valid points are: You must ask the right questions to get valuable answers. You must interpret the answers thoughtfully - often outside their direct meaning - to glean reliable information. Asking questions is not always the best way to "listen" to your market. (E.g., sometimes pure observational studies are more reliable.) Nonetheless, I find the quote is helpful to combat "armchair product management" in the