Product/Technology Innovation: Is the audience always ready?

"Innovation" is a synonym for "the light at the end of the tunnel" and is perceived to be the best case scenario always. But is it? Most of the times the answer is a YES but here let's explore the flipside of this phenomenon.

Some of the companies would love to think of innovation as the ultimate answer as it provides a sure shot way out of their pre-existing turmoils. In midst of heavy investments and round the clock research, we may forget to encounter the fact that maybe the average 9 to 5 audience isn't ready to accept the product. There may be a variety of reasons ranging from complexity or the simple fact that the "innovative" product doesn't solve any existing problem. 

It's important to learn from failures and this article explores a highly publicized product downfall and what could have prevented it?  

Google Glass, an optical head-mounted display that combined all functions of a phone and a computer. An augmented reality product presenting the user all informations in front of their eyes, hands free and endowed with the latest technology. This product was something that would have come out of a futuristic sci-fi movie. Once it’s testing phase started, it created quite a stir and even royalties were seen sporting the product. It was innovative and marketed globally with celebrity associations.

But then why did Google stop making these and its applications?

The company made a futuristic product that everyone deemed to be “cool”. It had amazing utility as the user didn't have to carry a smartphone or a laptop, everything was shrunk into a piece as simple as a voice operated eyeglass. So what actually happened? To answer this question we dive into certain reasons why this product was a failure, but one thing is for sure, it didn't fail on technology but it failed on consumer acceptance big time. Here are a few reasons why it didn't succeed. 

• By 2012, it released the product for beta testing among few test subjects while promoting the glass worldwide. The consumers became confused as the there was no line between testing and promoting, if the product isn't available during the buzz, people are likely to be uninterested afterwards.
  

• Though it has mass applications, google failed to address some critiques that were made for the glass. It had recording features and facial recognition which would allow the wearer to record anything and anyone in public. Such concerns were made under the thought that this posed an intrusion to privacy and crossed ethical barriers. Too much technology isn't always good especially if you are driving or operating a machine (safety concerns).
  

• Consumers also thought that the glass made them stand out too much and was quite expensive. Google failed to help consumers realize why they needed this product at all or what problem does it solve? Though the answers may be obvious but consumers were ready to spend 2 minutes on a smartphone to call rather than 15 seconds on a glass. They couldn't convince the consumer to replace their smartphone. 
  

• Also it was banned by many restaurants, companies and theaters to keep their privacy intact. It made others suspicious of the wearer, a feeling most consumers want to avoid.

So what could Google had done different? Here are some personal suggestions.

• Rather than launching the product on a flashy runway or celebrity golf course, Google should have tested the glass (and their assumptions) in real world and whether the critical mass would actually accept it and answer how will it fit in a normal person’s life? 

• Google did not release the product in retail stores but rather gave a select group of people like journalists etc. the opportunities to be “early adopters”. They proved to be a tide of negative reviews. Hence its necessary to identify the right channels and people.

• All the utilities of the product have to be communicated in the right way and precisely in order to convince the people. Also don't promise what you cant deliver, for eg. all day wearable technology was used for google glass but its not true due to limited battery life.

• Launching such a product for real time applications like surgery or highly technical machine handling/engineering would make much for sense as those professionals would actually need this in order to deliver better results. Hence the critical mass has to be decided carefully. 

There have been many products that have been deemed innovative but failed in the general market. Segway, Ford Edsel (Favorite case study of Bill Gates), Nook and many others. Even big shots like Coca Cola, Pepsi, Mc'Donalds and even Facebook when it tried to become the home screen of your smartphone via "Facebook Home" have crashed and burned during many their product launches. For any product development manager it is essential to examine each and every step while keeping the end consumer in mind all the time.

But as history suggest we do learn from our mistakes and will continue to build glorious innovations. 

#innovation #productinnovation #googleglass