Slashdot Mirror
Nokia's N-Gage - Savaged By Online Opinion
Thanks to CNN for their column discussing how the Internet has changed the way 'bad' products are viewed, with reference to Nokia's N-Gage 'mobile game deck'. The columnist argues: "Ten years ago you might have quietly withdrawn [an 'awkward' product] from store shelves", but times have changed: "The Internet provides an instant, widespread referendum on products... And the Net crowd, for obvious reasons, tends to eye high-tech products. But the things that do get interest, usually negative, watch out." He then gives the immensely popular, N-Gage-related Side Talkin' site as an example of this backlash, quoting a Nokia spokesman as saying of the site: "It's better to have some reaction than no reaction at all."
Imagin a beowulf cluster of Ngages.... it....would.....suck
-You're wasting your time. Alfador only likes me.
Think back a few decades about some of the crap you may have bought. Then think about - had you been able to read instant online opinion about the gadget - you may not have purchased the product.
Virtual Boy? NeoGeo? Would VHS have lost to Betamax?
"In the meantime, corporate chiefs can take heart that the Internet memory is mercifully short. Anyone remember an early Internet celeb called The Turkish Stud? Thought not, but "I Kiss You!!!" anyway." I, err, remember that. And I bet a lot of people here do to. Short memory?
I think the Internet has only changed the time it takes for bad products to be viewed as 'bad.'
"Back in the day" people might have bought lousy products initially, but after The Word eventually got out, people didn't continue buying them. Staying with the topic of videogames, the Sega Saturn didn't need the Internet to die. Nor did Virtual Boy (dear god, it didn't need help to die...)
There have been topics in the past about how text messaging and cellphones are killing opening weekends for movies because the 'bad word' gets around faster. It's causing bad movies to be known for their badness earlier but, eventually, people will learn products aren't good.
Even in the days before the 'net.
-Trillian
Hot chick? I could have sworn that was the dude from 3rd Rock From the Sun.
- colin
Before seeing the pictures of "Side Talking" on one of the sites in the article, I thought the N-gage concept was OK. I didn't realize how stupid the phone portion of the device was! I stand thoroughly corrected... it's hard to describe how shocked I am that a product like that could come to market - someone please tell me there is a standard hands free headset at least!
In fact, we're witnessing a defining moment in history that is indeed changing, and will continue to change, corporate markets forever.
Never before has this been possible. An individual, at virtually zero cost, can now express their opinion about the acts of a corporation or their products. Prior to the explosion of the internet, the only "people" with a voice loud enough to be heard by the buying public were those that had enough financial backing to fund such a publication. That included a very short list of a) corporations, such as the one that is selling the product in question, and b) large media organizations, which are also corporations. The problem is that "a" is clearly and understandably biased -- as their only responsibility is to profit off of their own product. Unfortunately, so is "b", as the very economic viability of traditional media is co-dependent on the health of a commercial marketplace, and the advertizing dollars that support it, thus implying an inherent and unavoidable conflict of interest. While there remained the possibility that a subscriber-based review publication could remain bias-free, that only acts in the interest of those that are able and willing to pay for the unbiased report -- i.e., a small enough minority that it does not protect the general population.
But here we have an environment in which a very minimially funded voice (i.e., a private individual) can easily make themselves heard to those who want to listen. Thus the tens of millions of advertising dollars invested by the product manufacturer can be trumped by pennies invested by the masses.
In the end, what does this mean? It means that the corporation will be forced to adjust to a new market. Period. Sure, there will be court battles regarding free speach vs. trademarks and ip claims, etc., etc. But ultimately, the corporations that adjust fastest, rather than those fighting the customer, will sell more products and thus grow healthier and stronger than those that do not adjust. And those healthier corporations will be marketing products that are driven directly by consumer desires. This is a good thing for the consumer, is it not? Can you think of a counterexample, where the ultimate needs of the masses were better known by the corporation than the masses themselves?
Note that I am not saying that there are not situations in which small, informed bodies can actually make better decisions for the majority than the majority itself. However, should those decisions not be relegated to a democratically elected body -- i.e., government?
Of course, the trend of free, instantanious information dissemination across a broad spectrum of the internet tends to democracize corporations over time, thus further blurring the lines between the corporation and the government itself. A parallel, of course, being drawn with the advent of inexpensive publishing via the printing presses that drove the governments themselves toward democracy.
And, like the risk of the democracy, the needs of the few can be lost in the desires of the many. So as corporations function more like a democratic government in the age of self-publishing, we can learn from the problems inherent in such governance when looking to the future problems we will face with corporations.