Brand Failures
Brand Failures Brand Failures
242 Brand failures 85 Dell’s Web PC Not quite a net gain In late 1999, computer manufacturer Dell launched the Web PC. The computer was small (a mere ten inches in height) and came in five different colours. The aim of the computer was to simplify the experience of surfing the Internet, while at the same time being attractive. ‘The quality of the customer’s experience will be the defining source of loyalty in the Internet era,’ Michael Dell told the press at the time. ‘The Web PC is breaking new ground for our industry as we take our one-on-one relationships with customers to a new level of helpfulness.’ One of the key features of the product was an ‘e-support button’, that instantly launched a self-diagnostic programme. The button could also connect users directly to Dell’s award-winning online technical support team. The PC also included a ‘sleep mode’ designed to eliminate the time spent booting up the computer for Internet access. Users could simply push a button to instantly ‘wake up’ the computer. ‘Many of these benefits are made possible by the ‘legacy-free’ design of the Web PC,’ explained John Medica, the vice president and general manager of Dell’s Web Products Group. ‘We hand picked every piece of technology that went into the Web PC without carrying over any technology from previous PC designs that doesn’t contribute to a pure Internet experience.’ The product was heavily marketed through a multi-media advertising campaign, centred around the slogan ‘Born to Web’, which drove customers to a Web PC Web site and free phone number, both of which acted as direct sales channels. In addition, Dell offered different peripheral products for the
Internet and new technology failures 243 Web PC, including such devices as a digital scanner, a joy stick and a digital camera. The press heaped praise on the product, although most journalists saw it as an attempt to echo Apple’s iMac strategy, with its emphasis on an eyecatching design, and user-friendly hardware. In his review for the Washington Post¸ Alan Kay said that although it ‘focuses more on style than computing,’ the Web PC is ‘a decent PC that’ll do most things you want.’ However, despite the number of benefits it offered, the Web PC was a flop. Dell pulled the machine from the market in June 2002, just six months after its release. Why A number of reasons. Firstly, the emphasis on design was misguided. Sure, the iMac had been a success. But Apple had always been about design, and Dell hadn’t. Dell’s core customers wanted good value and functionality, not groundbreaking design. Dell’s Web PC was good-looking, but its looks were ultimately irrelevant. Whereas Dell usually uses its own in-house design team, for this project the company gave the job to a radical San Francisco-based design firm called Pentagram. ‘I’ve designed great things that have been failures,’ the chief designer told Business 2.0 magazine. ‘The product didn’t fit what Dell is about.’ Computer User magazine noted another problem. ‘Oddly, Dell is targeting its Web PC toward home or home-office markets where users would generally be better off with an expandable upgradeable system,’ commented the reviewer. Dell’s core market was traditionally business-orientated. Then there was the price tag. Although it was billed as ‘low cost’, the price of US $999 was more expensive than many competing models. ‘Consumers are looking at price first, then styling,’ said Stephen Baker, a PC analyst at research firm PC Data. ‘No-one aside from Apple has been able to crack that styling thing.’ Furthermore, Dell was selling in a completely new way. By offering a complete package, the world’s number two computer maker was breaking with its typical practice of offering à la carte pricing that allows customers to mix-and-match computer chips and other components to create a customized PC. If the Dell brand signified anything it signified customization and functionality over design. The Web PC failed to offer either one of these values.
- Page 199 and 200: People failures 191 met comedians w
- Page 201 and 202: People failures 193 was out, Planet
- Page 203 and 204: People failures 195 is wrong to lea
- Page 205 and 206: People failures 197 had lost the su
- Page 207: People failures 199 tortilla brand
- Page 211 and 212: Brands, like people, have a fear of
- Page 213 and 214: Rebranding failures 205 73 Consigni
- Page 215 and 216: Rebranding failures 207 of the name
- Page 217 and 218: Rebranding failures 209 74 Tommy Hi
- Page 219 and 220: Rebranding failures 211 style that
- Page 221 and 222: Rebranding failures 213 in the Repu
- Page 223 and 224: Rebranding failures 215 former secr
- Page 225 and 226: Rebranding failures 217 Lessons fro
- Page 227 and 228: Rebranding failures 219 neighbours
- Page 229 and 230: 79 British Airways When British Air
- Page 231: CHAPTER 9 Internet and new technolo
- Page 234 and 235: 226 Brand failures now believe bran
- Page 237 and 238: 81 Pets.com In the mid-1990s, when
- Page 239 and 240: Internet and new technology failure
- Page 241 and 242: Internet and new technology failure
- Page 243 and 244: Internet and new technology failure
- Page 245 and 246: Internet and new technology failure
- Page 247 and 248: Internet and new technology failure
- Page 249: Internet and new technology failure
- Page 253 and 254: Internet and new technology failure
- Page 255 and 256: Internet and new technology failure
- Page 257 and 258: Internet and new technology failure
- Page 259 and 260: Internet and new technology failure
- Page 261 and 262: Internet and new technology failure
- Page 263: Internet and new technology failure
- Page 267: All brands will eventually fail. Th
- Page 270 and 271: 262 Brand failures The $600-million
- Page 272 and 273: 264 Brand failures Lessons from Old
- Page 274 and 275: 266 Brand failures interview. ‘An
- Page 276 and 277: 268 Brand failures 91 Ovaltine When
- Page 278 and 279: 270 Brand failures 92 Kodak Failing
- Page 280 and 281: 272 Brand failures tive strategy if
- Page 282 and 283: 274 Brand failures 93 Polaroid Live
- Page 284 and 285: 276 Brand failures launch of its SX
- Page 286 and 287: 278 Brand failures ‘was that they
- Page 288 and 289: 280 Brand failures 94 Rover A dog o
- Page 290 and 291: 282 Brand failures 95 Moulinex Goin
- Page 292 and 293: 284 Brand failures 96 Nova magazine
- Page 294 and 295: 286 Brand failures The cycle of lau
- Page 296 and 297: 288 Brand failures As with most bra
- Page 298 and 299: 290 Brand failures For the Levi’s
Internet and new technology failures 243<br />
Web PC, including such devices as a digital scanner, a joy stick and a digital<br />
camera.<br />
The press heaped praise on the product, although most journalists saw it<br />
as an attempt to echo Apple’s iMac strategy, with its emphasis on an eyecatching<br />
design, and user-friendly hardware. In his review for the Washington<br />
Post¸ Alan Kay said that although it ‘focuses more on style than computing,’<br />
the Web PC is ‘a decent PC that’ll do most things you want.’<br />
However, despite the number of benefits it offered, the Web PC was a flop.<br />
Dell pulled the machine from the market in June 2002, just six months after<br />
its release. Why A number of reasons.<br />
Firstly, the emphasis on design was misguided. Sure, the iMac had been a<br />
success. But Apple had always been about design, and Dell hadn’t. Dell’s core<br />
customers wanted good value and functionality, not groundbreaking design.<br />
Dell’s Web PC was good-looking, but its looks were ultimately irrelevant.<br />
Whereas Dell usually uses its own in-house design team, for this project the<br />
company gave the job to a radical San Francisco-based design firm called<br />
Pentagram. ‘I’ve designed great things that have been failures,’ the chief<br />
designer told Business 2.0 magazine. ‘The product didn’t fit what Dell is<br />
about.’<br />
Computer User magazine noted another problem. ‘Oddly, Dell is targeting<br />
its Web PC toward home or home-office markets where users would generally<br />
be better off with an expandable upgradeable system,’ commented the<br />
reviewer. Dell’s core market was traditionally business-orientated.<br />
Then there was the price tag. Although it was billed as ‘low cost’, the price<br />
of US $999 was more expensive than many competing models. ‘Consumers<br />
are looking at price first, then styling,’ said Stephen Baker, a PC analyst at<br />
research firm PC Data. ‘No-one aside from Apple has been able to crack that<br />
styling thing.’<br />
Furthermore, Dell was selling in a completely new way. By offering a<br />
complete package, the world’s number two computer maker was breaking<br />
with its typical practice of offering à la carte pricing that allows customers to<br />
mix-and-match computer chips and other components to create a customized<br />
PC. If the Dell brand signified anything it signified customization and<br />
functionality over design. The Web PC failed to offer either one of these<br />
values.