Stokes said:
There are so many things said haven't had time to read it all, but I have a comment about prices.
I really think that the starting price for HM will be high then it will come down. Its just like XBox, playstation etc. Always starts high to get all the people that want it first. Then prices will come down. Lets just hope that they (the companies) don't just care about the prices and care more about how we feel.
Private companies never care how you feel. You're nothing to them, a mere blot in the paper-work. What they do care about is income over investment, and that's why I think my idea is way more sound. From what we've heard so far, HM costs a fraction compared to hair transplant. You need to differentiate HM from hair transplant to the laymen-customer. You'd undermine all other options of hair-fixin' if you offer it to a consumer-price of tops 3k for a full head of hair. So far I have seen NO counter-argument to my reasoning, other than "corporate-greed".
And just because you brought up Xboxes and playstations, I want to counter your argument with nintendo's stroke of genius in the upcoming console battle (I'll try to explain for those over 25 who have a real life).
Xbox 360 and Ps3 (the next iteration of consoles from Microsoft and Sony respectively) will be tricked out like sh*t and cost a fortune. Not only will they play hyper-realistic games, but also raise the dead and support cold fusion through standard 2.0 usb. Their business strategy is the tired old thing; upgrade hardware, which costs money and sell it to the customer for largely the same experience.
Xbox 360 and Ps3 are hair transplant. Their conceptual form, from their industrial design, input devices, gameplay and business philosophy regarding what the future of gaming will be like is the same as 20 years ago. So more of the same and goddamn expensive. This is now popularily called the red ocean strategy, in which you compete in the same arena as your opponents and try to trump eachother on basically the same parameters. Competition is fierce, and has to be since the products largely aim to do the same thing.
Nintendo will try blue ocean strategy this time around. Their input devie is completly different, prompting new types of games. Their online service will be free, their business philosophy in regards to gaming will put a serious focus on innovation, ie, get everyone to play, especially casual gamers. This will be aqured by new ideas spured on by the console design, as well a the announced low price compared to the "competition".
HM is nintendo done right. Blue ocean strategy is basically to look at the red ocean strategy, declare it retarded, and aim to create a market where there existed none before.
Case in point; by transfering money saved by the price reduction in "manifacturing" HM to the consumer, you can offer the service, which is different and in this case (and might be in nintendo's as well... ) superior to the tried and true crap. The low price, service-options and low invested time by both parties will attract both those in serious need (ie, the "hardcore" gamer of my analogy") as well as those in a percieved need of a little extra volume to their otherwise completly scalp-covering hair (the casual gamer of my analogy.)
Suddenly we got a crapload of a customer-base; both those who would otherwise spend obscene amount of money on hair transplant and pills and whatnot, as well as those only mildly interested in adding to their hair-count. case in point - a LOT of females and quite a lot of men with very mild thining.
Oh yeah, because you've now conquered the market through offering a better alternative, you've not only increased your customer base from those that would have wanted your service either way into also those that didn't even know they wanted it, you've now obliterated any competition. Why the hell would you spend your precious time and money with pills and lasers and crap if you can get a nice thick full head of hair for 2-3K?
ta-da. You now own the industry. And all this by giving the customer, both established and new, what they want for a low price.
I'm telling you, any kind of price-matching with hair transplant is retarded. It's bad business. And no, I will not pay whatever it costs. I, like many of me will not pay for something if we experience a feeling of being robbed blind. People have a cumulative, subconscious understanding of what things are actually worth, or should be worth, which I think is the leading factor in why Apple, despite offering in many people's eyes a superior product, cannot seem to hold more than at best 5% of the total market-share. It's a great, most likely superior solution at a perceivably over-priced cost. I would *love* to have an ibook and an imac. But for half the cost of the former, and a fourth of the latter I can get comparable pc products that will do the job - in a way. (hair transplant anyone?) Apple can, but clearly does not seem to have the goal of dominating the market. It is therefor sucessful in its own sphere by being an alternative. it saves on energy to, in a manner of selection, stand beside a less attractive person rather than doll yourself up and really go all out.
Apple profits by the constant clownery, and inevitable comparison, that windows offers.
feelings of injustice is an incredibly powerful emotion that all succesful business-operations are, or should be, aware of. You don't gain customers by waving a promise of low cost around for years and then financially urinating them in the face just cause you know you can get 2-3% to get a second morgage. Pardon my french.
One can only hope that Bosley picked up that incredibly hyped up Blue Ocean Strategy book and gotten a clue, like most of the updated business industry seems to have lately.
This is all an analogy and not about consoles nor computers in general. I have no favorism on any of the next-gen consoles other than my admiration for Nintendo's progressive thinking in a stale industry. It's just for illustrative purposes.
Blue Ocean, from what I know about it, has been very successful when implemented whole-heartedly. Nintendo's decision to fully embrace the strategy, and the outcome of it, has basically pulled nintendo from a (falsely) perceived grave into the hottest sh*t to drop in 2006. Everyone wants to play it, everyone wants to own it, and because of the price, everyone probably could. It's an absolute stroke of genius executed by thinking outside of the box.
I don't know how Bosley is run, but by basically having the patent for HM they'd be the dumbest company ever to have a clearly superior product, that's thankfully cheap, and to throw it right into the Red Ocean with the rest of the crap instead of letting it sail on the Blue Ocean.
By owning the patent they have two options: make a decent amount of money that corellates in profit as you slowly lower the price after a few years, or do you want to revolutionize this industry and make an obscene, absolutely disgusting amount of money and be the only thing that enters a person's mind when they think of hairloss?
I'm not a economist, I'm a college student with a schizophrenic mix of "majors" ranging from philosophy, sociology, psychology, history and journalism. Thus, I deal in broad ideas and not minute hair-splitting. I openly welcome discussion on this topic, as it is interesting both as food for thought and food for wallet and concerns us all.
For the record, I am absolutely positive it will be expensive and take a long time to reach a consumer-friendly regression-line. I don't know why, maybe I'm a pessimist in the hopes of being pleasantly surprised, or maybe I have a precognitive grudge against Bosley as a company.
Will Bosley pull this off, come 2008?
