Yesterday Steve Jobs stated that one iPad is selling every three seconds - so the iPad is finally getting into the hands of people. Is it just the initial hype, the coolness factor that creates the sales or can we indeed expect long-term sustainable growth of the iPad? I contemplated these questions which made me then curious to investigate it a bit more, watching Steve Job’s initial key note speech on the iPad introduction and rereading some of last months’ articles.
The buzz and publicity prior to the official launch have once more been enormous – the iPad received consistent coverage in major newspapers, journals, magazines and trade press. Similarly, the iPad has been one of the hottest discussion topics in the blogosphere, social media and online forums. After such a hype and product mystification it did not come as a surprise that the die-hard customers again lined up in front of the New York Apple stores four days prior to the store’s launch. Undoubtedly, Apple has done a great job of making use of all PR opportunities before stepping in with follow-up above-the-line communication, which is now seen in great abundance. Only a solid publicity platform can give a product like the iPad the necessary credentials in people’s mind to get it off the ground.
On the other hand, a threat stems from the strong initial hype and rapid decline in publicity after the iPad launch. Apple definitely has to make sure that the interest in the “new category” is a trend rather than a fad. In general, too much PR can be as bad as too little PR, meaning that brands which take off to rapidly can decline just as fast. Those are fads, which rise one day and appear the next day. When signs of a fad evolve, the company should slow down. Trends, on the other hand, rise more slowly and are more long-lasting. We will see how the coolness of the iPad can be sustained over time.
What other factors can decide upon the success or failure of the product? Steve Jobs highlighted in his key note speech that the iPad opens a new category between the Mac book and iPod. My marketing gurus Ries & Trout stated as one of their “immutable laws of marketing” that the so-called “law of the category” indicates that one of the basic issues in marketing is creating a category to be first in- “It's better to be first than it is to be better.”
I just wonder is this really the case for the iPad? The design is undoubtedly revolutionary and the bigger interface makes it possible to play games and read books in a way that has not been possible before. The appeal to people might stem from the unique experience of media consumption. As Steve Jobs proclaimed the iPad as a "groundbreaking" device that will change the way people interact with the web. Similar to the iPhone, the iPad also carries the convenience factor of combining many functions into one device.
However, whether the iPad indeed succeeded in opening a new category altogether in terms of its functionality remains questionable. It can be that none of the functions is pioneering. According to many of blogosphere voices, the iPad isn’t the first, but more like a larger version of the Apple products that have been on the market for years. The first portable and convenient touch screen technological product to play movies, handle email, and featured Apple apps has been the iPhone. It would have some aspects of everything, but not enough of one thing. According to one blogger's article “The iPod is an MP3 Player. The iPhone is a cell phone. And, the iPad is a Video-game-playing-movie-watching-media-tainment-eReader-and-tablet, with access to apps”. In that respect, it can be argued that the iPad suffers from lack of focus, purpose, and identity.
Is the hype of the iPad a fad or a trend? Perhaps the iPad will go a similar path as the iPhone: there seems to be no concrete need, but once the product is adopted, customers might not imagine a life without it anymore. The iPad’s development will be interesting to follow for us marketers because it deals with the fundament of consumer behaviour- the juggling of people’s needs and wants. Apple might be creating a device to address the needs that consumers are possibly still unaware of, and create new needs that still do not exist in the market. Because the product is innovative, many people might fail to imagine its purpose, or even that their behaviour itself might change as the iPad evolves. People tend to shiver away from a product to which they have to adapt, because they are creatures of habit. It would mean changing the way they live their lives, which most people do not want to do overnight.
From that perspective, the iPad is hoping to fill a space not yet satisfied, one that people still might not fully grasp to date. The success of the iPad would indeed depend upon whether the market will change some of their deeply incarnated consumer behaviors to some extent. The critical questions will remain: will people indeed change their behavior- or could it be outside their comfort zone? Would the avid book reader in the long term give up their paper versions to read from a screen, and would people indeed type longer documents on a touch screen? And finally, are customers willing to invest significantly into a device that only combines the functions of other devices they already possess?
Francesco Wesel
www.francescowesel.com
www.brandnewtimes.blogspot.com
