My 14 year old cousin is up from the U.S. visiting. He went to Niagara Falls yesterday. Just prior to him leaving, I asked him if he wanted to take one of my Nikon SLR digital cameras. He responded with a shoulder shrug and this:
“Well thanks but I have a camera in my phone and it’s good enough. I don’t want to carry anything else.”
I point this out not to sound the alarm regarding the death of Digital SLR Cameras rather to continue to remind you that sometimes “good enough” cuts it. Sometimes there can be a serious hill to climb when attracting customers to change habits, try new things, or add things to the existing comfort zone.
Could not agree more.
We're seeing this everywhere - media, technology and so on. News, too. What fascinates me about this is that the market has in many ways been an inefficient driver to what customers actually want. Simplicity is a good example - used to blog about this all the time - almost *everything* should be simpler. Customers would buy more. Eg many ppl are satisfied with Google News' 2 line extract for their news, and don't need full AP feed. Even TV news is more than they need.
Posted by: Rob Hyndman | April 14, 2009 at 11:42
Economics of abundance. As features and content become cheap and abundant, the new scarcity is the consumer/user's attention. Or, in your case: your cousin's jacket pocket space.
Posted by: David Dufresne | April 14, 2009 at 13:43
It also cuts both ways. "But our product is superior, we've spent generations perfecting it" often chime the voices of the established incumbents, but the problem is the disruptive entrant's technology is "good enough" for most people's needs, and perhaps much cheaper (or free) to produce, and improving in quality at a much faster rate.
Posted by: Thomas Purves | April 14, 2009 at 14:32
I think it's the 80/20 rule. 80% of the people use 20% of the features. From first hand experience, it seems most people who are happy with a point'n'shoot (for various reasons, size being a big one) simply don't care about the added features and quality of SLRs (or higher end products).
I've shown my wife dozens of SLR photos that have been post-processed, in comparison with point'n'shoot versions of the same events. To me the difference is staggering.
However, I get the same response every time: No, you cannot buy an SLR.
Posted by: Jshirley | April 14, 2009 at 21:02
Used to maintain a blog called "Good Enough" at goodenov.blogspot.com but fell out of the habit. Anyway, the premise was that many things are "good enough" when you consider function, price, and convenience together. What's good enough for one might not be for another (phone for casual photos, but not professional work... )
It's particularly evident in today's economy: people hold onto an old car because it's good enough to get them to work and back, providing necessary function at a lower cost.
Posted by: blooflame | April 14, 2009 at 22:46
Rick,
So true and it's been happening for a long time. In the mid-1980's when the CD standard came out, audiophiles weren't impressed as it represented a lowering of audio quality, even though for most it was a vast improvement. And, eventually, it almost killed the high end audio market with brands like Linn, Tangent, Naim, Oracle, Bryston, etc.
So, I guess that sometimes the long tail is too long to make a viable market, particularly for manufactured goods.
Randall
Posted by: Randall Howar | April 15, 2009 at 14:09
We watch compressed video with artifacts instead of film. Same with audio.
We gladly talk on 'good enough' cell phones, voip instead of landlines.
We gladly use intermittent Internet via mobile wireless instead of plugging into the cat5.
Give a little quality and gain at lot of convenience. If the technology curve levels off people will start to expect better quality - once that happens there will be a new market for business who offer not new products - but better products.
Posted by: Jeff O | April 25, 2009 at 02:08