Marketing/Product Development - Peer Response DQ4

User Generated

ekuvznafuh

Business Finance

Description

I have to reply to 2 peer's post. Please find the attachment of both peers reply. Please compose reply for both posts in the attached documents.

Each response should be minimum of 150 words excluding reference. Also, Cite at least one reference for each peer reply.

Requirement

Forums Guidelines Criteria

Requirements

Quality Guidelines (50%):

  • Responses are original in content with a minimum of one external reference.
  • All posts demonstrated analysis of the topic.
  • Responses to classmates are significant and advanced the discussion.

Participation Guidelines (30%):

  • Responses to classmates are at least 200 words.

Clarity, Organization & Professionalism Guidelines (20%):

  • Responses were organized and logical.
  • No spelling or grammatical errors.
  • References were used and cited properly.
  • Appropriate language, respect and consideration toward peers/instructor.

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Peer Response – 1 In general, there seems to be one major problem that led to the state of Google Glass as it is today. When Google Glass was originally released, everyone from the engineers to the consumers knew that the product was still in beta testing; "the current prototype was just that: a prototype, with major kinks to be worked out" (Bilton, 2015). That is to say, the released product had a long way to go production-wise and monetarily for it to be successful in the long run. Regardless of this widely known fact, it was determined to release a beta test of the product to get feedback from the customer and society as a whole to hone in on the areas that needed the most work. What is most interesting about this method of beta testing that Google conducted is that the company "decided not to sell the first version in retail stores, but instead limit it to Glass Explorers, a select group of geeks and journalists who paid $1,500 for the privilege of being an early adopter" (Bilton, 2015). The exclusivity of the product led to more interest and excitement about the product, but unfortunately, the product had too many kinks to work out, and it did not result in favorable reviews. The negative reviews in combination with the huge spotlight led to the demise of Google Glass before it could even get off the ground. Some aspects of Google Glass that needed improved upon was the technology that the product was formed upon, the fashion statement that the product made, the limited functionality of the product, and the overall cost was too high for the output that it created. On the other hand, some industries are finding Google Glass incredibly useful in the workplace - it creates a more efficient workplace which can save time and money in the long run (Shamma, 2017). For the general population, however, Google Glass isn't practical in today's world. On the bright side, there is potential for its success in the future: "if the company can come back with a vastly improved (and much cheaper) product, Glass could still catch on" (Montgomery, 2015). Peer Response – 2 Google Glass had the opportunity to be the next big technological innovation, but the product failed before it even reached the mass market. While the intent was honorable, the Google Glass project was doomed from inception because of poor product development, a lack of marketing expertise, and marketing myopia. MARKETING MYOPIA When Google announced Google Glass several years ago, it brought forth a new idea: wearable technology. Google's Glass started "a mainstream conversation about wearable tech, taking it out of the lab and thrusting it into the clutches of consumers." (Pease, 2014) Apple, at the same time, was developing another wearable technology piece in the form of a watch. The two companies took opposite paths during the development stages. Apple designed its watch with the consumers needs driving the process. Google designed its watch with its head in the sand, focusing on the exorbitant price tag associated with the eye wear. Google's product development team, "[lost] touch with the emotions and needs of the people they actually work[ed] for: consumers." (Pease, 2014). Google Glass' developers were guilty of marketing myopia. POOR PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT Just by looking at a pair of Google Glass glasses, you can tell the product was created by someone out of touch with current fashions. The style is only the beginnings of a massive failure in the product development phase of the technology project. "Defining the expected quality of the final product (and its features), and ensuring that they are met, via regular tests and pilots, is a fundamental task of a project manager." (NietoRodriguez, 2017) A seasoned project manager was missing on this product because the glasses were unfashionable, uncomfortable, and didn't function properly most of the time. Had the necessary care been taken to ensure the product was well functioning, Google Glass may have been a success. LAZILY MARKETED Google Glass had no official product launch; its creators just released a few to testers willing to pay $1,500. Google was hoping the early adopters would be so ecstatic about the product, it would be all the (free!) marketing they needed. And while the testers did make serious commotion about the product, Google failed to make more pairs available. So when regular users wanted to buy a pair, they couldn't! Personally, I believe consumers got irritated and then they waited to buy the Apple Watch that came out a few months later instead of Google Glasses. And because Google relied on early adopters to do the marketing for them, the messages sent out about the products were not crafted to Google's specific marketing plan. This lead to early questions coming up about the product, specifically related to the security and ethical nature of it. Google couldn't frame the message they wanted, which should have been about the product making user's lives easier and more special. Instead, users questions about the product blurred, then severely dampened, the excitement surrounding it.
Purchase answer to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

Attached.

Peer Response – 1
In general, there seems to be one major problem that led to the state of Google Glass
as it is today. When Google Glass was originally released, everyone from the engineers
to the consumers knew that the product was still in beta testing; "the current prototype
was just that: a prototype, with major kinks to be worked out" (Bilton, 2015). That is to
say, the released product had a long way to go production-wise and monetarily for it to
be successful in the long run. Regardless of this widely known fact, it was determined to
release a beta test of the product to get feedback from the customer and society as a
whole to hone in on the areas that needed the most work. What is most interesting
about this method of beta testing that Google conducted is that the company "decided
not to sell the first version in retail stores, but instead limit it to Glass Explorers, a select
group of geeks and journalists who paid $1,500 for the privilege of being an early
adopter" (Bilton, 2015). The exclusivity of the product led to more interest and
excitement about the product, but unfortunately, the product had too many kinks to work
out, and it did not result in favorable reviews. The negative reviews in combination with
the huge spotlight led to the demise of Google Glass before it could even get off the
ground.
Some aspects of Google Glass that needed improved upon was the technology that the
product was formed upon, the fashion statement that the product made, the limited
functionality of the product, and the overall cost was too h...


Anonymous
Very useful material for studying!

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Similar Content

Related Tags