Originally Posted by Joseph Dubin
That test was conducted by a renowned marketing firm and included consumers who showed an interest in purchasing a 3D set, from those most likely (5) to those mostly unlikely (1) and varying degrees of interest in-between. It included sports lovers, video games and 3D enthusiasts. Of the range group of those potential buyers, only one showed increased interest upon seeing the demonstration with the majority coming away less interested..
To compare such a study to asking the general public to test drive a Mercedes is ridiculous.
So too is to dismiss these findings since it wasn't regulated to high-end consumers. 3D was ballyhooed by the consumer electronics industry as the next big hot item, inundating us with marketing statistics and movie theater ticket revenue showing it was something MOST CONSUMERS wanted and was expected to be in 47 million households by the year 2014 -- it was not being touted as just the next successful niche among videophiles and purchasers of higher end equipment (47 million represents much more than just 5% of U.S. households).
Since the consumer electronics industry is hoping to make 3D a big seller among "mainstream" consumers it won't dismiss the study since it does not represent the high-end consumer -- quite the opposite. The industry will take it serious enough to limit the future production of 3D sets and concentrate on the high-end consumer should more studies garner the same results. Firms like Nielson and the one I posted about the psyche of the consumer are paid for by the industry to find out these facts to help shape it's future long-term planning.
I have to disagree
This was given to a control group where some would not be in a position to purchase these sets
Again...doesn't hold much salt...Now..if the control group were a group of blu ray players owners..or a group of gamers etc
As for being the next big thing...as I recall bluray was advertised as the same thing
In your opinion is it?
It was IMO...and clearly millions of others who bought it
I will look around for some old blu ray marketing...in my mind it was rolled out the same way
As you say only 13% have players it in their homes....so clearly some think it is and some think it isn't
And again..we roll in that couch...
When a product is not offered in a full product range then how it can it be substantial to use a full product range control group?
I think this can definitely be compared to the Mercedes...based on the current product offerings
You cannot use the same assumptions here as you can with a poll that is looking at who is watching "Cougar Town"...but you seem to be putting the same salt into both types of surveys
I take this passage from the study that..to me ..has a couple of passages that stick out like a sore thumb..I underlined the words to highlight them.
"What they said was this: Initial interest was high, but dropped off with those individuals once they actually viewed something (say, a sporting event) in the much ballyhooed 3D realm. Limited content and those glasses were also high on the list of deterrents, with an unhealthy 57% saying they hated the bulky, expensive eyewear.
The graph above speaks for itself, as you can see in most cases interest falls off once the person dons the glasses and immerses themselves in 3D. One notable exception is the video game crowd&madash;[COLOR="Black"]-fully 71% of so called "hardcore" gamers were interested in 3D technology.[/color]
Why would some one who spends $2500-$4000 for a TV gripe that a $100 pair glasses was expensive?
Would you buy a Mercedes and gripe about putting premium unleaded in it?
Why would walk into a nice store and buy a Cashmere topcoat and then gripe about the dry cleaning bill?
if the televisions were 1/2 of what they are now..or a third...then the price argument for glasses would have some weight.
As for not liking to wear them..or the bulkiness...that argument I can understand. However that person buys the the forthcoming glass less 3D Tv and pays the $8-10K for it and is satisfied
As to the 71% of games that say they liked it...makes sense to me. I have said that all along.
I would liked to see this study done with people that own blu ray players
Another thing that makes me raise my eyebrow....this group was self-defined rather than having actual stats attached to them.
So...honestly..I could call myself a hardcore gamer when I only have 3 games at home....
Or..I am an audiophile and I have a 10 year receiver at home that was $250.00 new
Not that there is anything wrong with either scenario..especially if it satisfies the persons needs.But there is a difference in that person and a hardcore gamer and/or audiophile
Especially when both of those groups..by true definition... are likely about the same percentage, or less, that the 4% this year who are going to buy 3D TV's
For instance..Home theater Magazine, CNET and several others state a minimum 46" screen size defines the entry level point in a home theater.
Can I then assume that anyone with a TV smaller than that can't have a home theater?
For this to have much weight with me I would need to know facts like ages...what model of TV(s) are currently in the home, household income, blu ray players in the home?, currently a pay TV subscriber( w/premium HD channels)?
Those are the things ..to me...that the manufacturers , from a marketing perspective should be interested in to define who is going to buy their products. Hard facts versus self defining.
For instance..it seems that Samsung has a connection with Direc TV..makes sense to me since Direct Tv has the most 3D content. From what I can see there is Direc TV information included with all of their high end TV's( and perhaps others as well)
As I am sure you know you can read about anything into these studies..I go back to the one you posted that said that 42% of those polled didn't think a clothes dryer was a necessity...and 41% didn't think AC was
I must live on an island..because I don't see anywhere near those type of ideas.
And I am thinking of family members, friends, or co workers( past or present)
Do you neighbors/family etc feel that way about the necessity of AC and clothes dryers?
Then what about those that spent $350 million plus ..in one day...on Call of Duty
A game that cost about 30% of the price of a cheap electric dryer
what category would they fall in?
Back to self defining aspect. You would likely call me an audiophile/videophile?..would that be accurate?
I would say I am not...while I appreciate the best of the best( the reference products) and think they are worth the money...I can't pay for them..ie..the $6K Pioneer Kuro plasma TV from two years ago..or the $8K Anthem D2 home theater preamp
So is one an Audiophile/Videophile because they actually own the equipment..or is it just enough to just appreciate the equipment even though buying it is out of the question?