A business's best profit can come from its loyal fan base, as long as the company treats them as loyalists instead of suckers. The way that Apple has treated its loyalist is a scary approach that more companies may start to treat their loyal fan base.
With the release of the highly anticipated iPhone, there was much skepticism if it was worth the insanely high prices that Apple was charging. With much of the market afraid to test it out, the fans most loyal to Apple were the ones who showed up at midnight at Best Buy's across the nation to be the first to have the iPhone. Within days reviews of the product were all over the Internet, with some negative but enough positive to convince those who are interested in the iPhone that it was worth it. Thus the loyal fans were even convincing non-loyal users to try out the iPhone, so instead of giving the loyal fans the satisfaction of being the pioneers of the new age of technology, Apple instead made them look like fools to all the new users of the iPhone.
By lowering the price to a reasonable amount just months after the release, Apple made the extremist who stayed in lines for hours look like idiots for their dedication to their brand. So as the fans grew upset with the companies decision to lower the prices to increase their product sales, Apple never jumped on a way to satisfy them. Finally a decision to give out a rebate was one, too late and two, a cheap excuse to only buy more Apple products. Only $100 dollars for Apple products, was only half of the what the price drop was and it gave the customers no options and thus no satisfaction, like the Rolling Stones.
If more companies treat their loyal customers this way, it may become more common for customers to not wait for highly anticipated releases. Imagine everyone showing up at Blockbuster to rent the Halo 3 instead of waiting at Best Buy to buy it. What if people wait til 2009 to buy the 2008 models of vehicles so the price will go down. Or better yet, imagine people waiting for a band to start giving away their tickets instead of being the first ones to buy tickets for KISS farewell tour part XL.
The point is the reason customers and fans are loyal is because they are rewarded for it 9 out of 10 times by either being the first to have the product or by getting a little extra for making the effort and sacrifice, Apple basically showed that they do not care about their loyal fans, but if it hurts them or not will depend on the next highly anticipated Apple release. If the iBaby is a flop then they turned their fans away, but if they still buy even though they might get screwed well then ... They're Loyalists
Monday, September 24, 2007
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Changing our Mind
In the section of Appiah's book, "Changing Our Minds," he talks about how it is so hard to change a persons mind, especially when they are raised a certain way and believe what they know as the only way.
The example of spanking is common topic for discussion here in America, however, the topic of male and female circumcising during teenage years, is a harder topic to consider. By showing a different side of thought he tries to show us how it is so easy to stand by something that is easy to believe in and see how others may do so with something we would never consider standing by.
To understand how others think and to help reach compromises with each other we must see it through there side and not just by their point of view but also by how they consider it. An idea can be changes because we can remember when it became an idea and why we thought of it, but a belief is harder to change because we never knew it becoming an idea it was always there for us to believe in.
So when trying to reach compromise and change or persuade someone or some group, we must see how it is they think and how they came about that way of thinking.
The example of spanking is common topic for discussion here in America, however, the topic of male and female circumcising during teenage years, is a harder topic to consider. By showing a different side of thought he tries to show us how it is so easy to stand by something that is easy to believe in and see how others may do so with something we would never consider standing by.
To understand how others think and to help reach compromises with each other we must see it through there side and not just by their point of view but also by how they consider it. An idea can be changes because we can remember when it became an idea and why we thought of it, but a belief is harder to change because we never knew it becoming an idea it was always there for us to believe in.
So when trying to reach compromise and change or persuade someone or some group, we must see how it is they think and how they came about that way of thinking.
Dallas Cowboys "Stonewall Defense"
After reading the case study on the Dallas Cowboys, it took me back to the time of the incident. I remember the controversy, but not as much as I remember other events in Cowboy history or even that year.
That is odd considering the severity of a cut on a players neck caused by a pair of scissors, which is usually the cause for and assault charge and in some cases a attempted murder. At the time Michael Irvin was on probation and any crime that violated parole would result in his jailing.
The fact that no one in the organization told, is an example of Utilitarian perspective. It benefited the Cowboys to keep Irvin on a Super Bowl caliber team, and his presence on the team gave everyone a better opportunity to win it. This could have been used as leverage to keep members of the team and staff quiet on the incident, because if they told and Irvin was arrested it damaged the chances for even the back-up players to win a Super Bowl ring.
Even Everett McIver could have taken the approach that his chance of winning a ring is more important than getting justice or his story out, and thus staying quiet is the better option.
If the organization did take a Communitarian approach to its players and issues than McIver, an average guard on the team would have been treated as equal as Irvin, a superstar wide receiver, and McIver would have been protected the team and Irvin would be punished for his involvement.
Reporters are always able to get someone on the team to talk, even if its the last person on a depth chart, for attention. However in this case the Utilitarian approach to handling the situation prevailed as the greater number of people benefited, while McIver did not get his justice.
The practice of Stonewalling put the organization in jeopardy if the story had gotten out that the team was covering up for criminal activity. However, it was effective because the story never got out and anything that was public was never confirmed and thus uncreditable. It made the media look bad, and the team look questionable until the incident blew over and everyone went on happy.
That was until the Cardinals upset the Cowboys at home in the first round of the playoffs, even after Dallas had defeated them twice in the season.
That is odd considering the severity of a cut on a players neck caused by a pair of scissors, which is usually the cause for and assault charge and in some cases a attempted murder. At the time Michael Irvin was on probation and any crime that violated parole would result in his jailing.
The fact that no one in the organization told, is an example of Utilitarian perspective. It benefited the Cowboys to keep Irvin on a Super Bowl caliber team, and his presence on the team gave everyone a better opportunity to win it. This could have been used as leverage to keep members of the team and staff quiet on the incident, because if they told and Irvin was arrested it damaged the chances for even the back-up players to win a Super Bowl ring.
Even Everett McIver could have taken the approach that his chance of winning a ring is more important than getting justice or his story out, and thus staying quiet is the better option.
If the organization did take a Communitarian approach to its players and issues than McIver, an average guard on the team would have been treated as equal as Irvin, a superstar wide receiver, and McIver would have been protected the team and Irvin would be punished for his involvement.
Reporters are always able to get someone on the team to talk, even if its the last person on a depth chart, for attention. However in this case the Utilitarian approach to handling the situation prevailed as the greater number of people benefited, while McIver did not get his justice.
The practice of Stonewalling put the organization in jeopardy if the story had gotten out that the team was covering up for criminal activity. However, it was effective because the story never got out and anything that was public was never confirmed and thus uncreditable. It made the media look bad, and the team look questionable until the incident blew over and everyone went on happy.
That was until the Cardinals upset the Cowboys at home in the first round of the playoffs, even after Dallas had defeated them twice in the season.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)