“The history of marketing is littered with spectacular failures, all the way from the Edsel to Dasani. Select one recent product launch and assess the extent to which it was successful”.

Throughout the generations we have all seen some huge failures in the marketing industry. For example, there was the “marketing catastrophe of Edsel” (Wernick, 1991: 77), the hugely unsuccessful 1950’s brainchild of car manufacturers Ford. Introduced in 1957, the Edsel flopped spectacularly, for numerous reasons, ranging from poor design, fords poor planning and the manufacturers’ massive failure to understand the nature of the American consumer. In a Times article dated 7 September 2006, author James Harding remarked “Ford ploughed hundreds of millions of dollars into the car’s development and produced a gas-guzzler ridiculed for its design. People said it looked like a Merc sucking on a lemon. Ford pulled the Edsel two years later” (times.co.uk). The manufacturers failed to realise that size really did matter. The extremely large and bulky Edsel was released in an era where people were beginning to prefer smaller and more economical design - the car was in truth, a product that nobody wanted. “The failure of that exaggerated vehicle, as the car industry subsequently learned, not only signalled the end of a design era but foreshadowed a crisis, which had become palpable by the early 1970’s, for the whole value complex which such styling bespoke” (Wernick, 1991: 77). Taking the baton of automotive failure was the oversized and overly flamboyant DeLorean. This gull-winged monstrosity was a prime example where a products aesthetic took far greater precedence over functionality; whilst the body shape was vaguely imaginative, the car was in reality extremely impractical and poorly designed – “The windows leaked, the engines regularly seized” (bbc.co.uk), coupled with an oversized body made for a product that really failed to capture the consumers’ imagination. Indeed this hair-brained venture failed so spectacularly, despite over £80 million of funding from public money (bbc.co.uk), that the man behind the model – John DeLorean – faced financial ruin and a severely tarnished reputation. Indeed DeLorean had become so desperate that he was even “arrested by the FBI on 19 October 1982 in Los Angeles and charged with trafficking cocaine” (bbc.co.uk). DeLoreans failure to act with integrity, and the subsequent masses of negative publicity the whole debacle brought, coupled with the above mentioned design faults proved an absolute disaster for this ill fated automobile, setting up the whole venture for complete and utter failure.

We also saw, during the 1980’s the consumers brief flirtation with the Sony Betamax, a product billed as aesthetically superior to VHS, producing higher quality recordings than that of the if its rivals. However, despite these bold claims, this was another venture which was consigned to the new product graveyard, as Sony placed aesthetics as of far more importance than functionality – to their ultimate cost. In more recent times, we have seen the extremely rapid rise and fall of Dasani, Coca Cola’s attempt to cash in on the bottled water market. This venture launched in the UK in January 2004, and bowed out less than 3 months later on 19 March 2004, in a wave of controversy and negative media coverage, with revelations that this so called ‘natural’ bottled spring water actually just tap water, which was also found to contain harmful chemicals like the cancer causing bromate, that ironically was not present in the product until it had been treated by the manufacturers (guardian.co.uk). This failure to act with integrity proved too big a blow for the Dasani product to recover from. Similarly to the Dasani flop, Coca Cola also tried to extend its successful brand with the addition of the ‘New Coke’ range, including Vanilla and Lemon Coke. Again, despite Coca Cola being a hugely successful and established brand, these products disappeared almost as quickly as they arrived, due again to poor market research and their failure to understand the consumer. I argue that these product launches have failed so dismally as the brands or manufacturers behind these products have either failed to act with integrity and failed to realise the consumers needs and intelligence thus ultimately failing to gain their trust or respect such as DeLorean and Coca Cola with their Dasani venture, or have manufactured a product that had not fully realised the importance of balancing aesthetics with functionality, as Edsel and Betamax discovered.

For this essay I am going to take an in depth look at the launch of the iPod, the market leading mp3 player made by Apple. First Launched on 23 October 2001, the iPod, and subsequent models that include the Nano, Shuffle and now the iPhone have changed the face of the digital walkman as we knew it, and is by far and away the most popular and walkman device currently on the market. My aim is to ascertain how and why this product has succeeded where these previous exampled failed so miserably. I intend to discover how this product firmly established itself as the number one device and how it has gone on to dominate the digital music market. The Apple brand has always marketed itself as slick, stylish and forward thinking; everything that would appeal to the consumer within today’s so called Capitalist society. In order to determine the main underlying reasons for the success of the iPod I am going to take an analytical look at the product, and also the Apple brand in order to determine if it is actual product; its technology and its features which has made this product so successful, or weather it is Apples clever marketing strategies and initiatives which have influenced the “helpless consumer/spectator/subject who is incapable of resisting” (Nava, 1997: 36), into buying into this slick, stylish and ‘cool’ image that Apple are striving to project. I am also going to look at the iPod product from an economic perspective, and how Apple has continuously managed to manipulate and force the consumer into brand loyalty, by introducing numerous software add-ons and other related products such as the iPod compatible only iTunes, and how they have managed to maintain their stranglehold on what has become an ever-evolving market, which is full of new and developing technological advances.

I am going to start with a detailed look at the iPod device, investigating what features and technologies Apple have bought to the table, in order to distinguish if it was actually technologically superior to existing devices when it was launched, or if it was Apple’s brand reputation that made this product such an attractive proposition to the consumer. I believe it is fair to say that the launch of the iPod 6 years ago has changed the face of the hand held music devices as we know it. Upon its first release, manufacturers Apple were able to boast that their iPod, a stainless steel unit, which would cost $399 with a 5GB hard drive, could store 1,000 songs, on a product that was the size of a deck of cards. The product connected to a Mac using FireWire which allowed the consumer to download an entire CD onto the iPod in under 10 seconds onto a device that measured a tiny 2.43 inches by 4.02 by 0.78 inches and weighs 6.5 ounces (news.com). This impressive specification was the platform for the dawn of a new era for portable music devices as consumers were now able to transport huge amounts of music on a tiny, light weight product, with the versatility to change tracks if an when it suited them simply by plugging it into their PC and altering the track listings. Storage and the transportation of music had never been easier as the consumer no longer had to carry around bundles of compact discs, and as such, the release of the iPod was the final nail in the coffin of the bulky, and now impractical personal CD player – iPod had dragged music into the digital age, with “the development of suitable hardware and software for distribution of digital files over computer networks” (Stafford, 2003: 257). We were now also clearly dealing with a music product that was ready to break the strangle hold that Sony hand on the portable music market. The original product also included a rechargeable 10-hour lithium polymer battery - revolutionary on a portable music device - thus banishing the need for expensive throw away batteries. It offered 20 minutes of anti-skip protection, and in addition to this it can also act as a portable hard drive that stores files on space not used for music (news.com). Six years on and the iPod is firmly established as the number one player in the mp3 market, with a wide range of iPod products in its portfolio available to the consumer, each with varying specifications including the tiny, inexpensive iPod Shuffle, with up to 2GB storage costing £45, through to the iPod Touch, with up to a 32GB storage space (apple.com). The iPod product has tasted unparalleled success in the digital music market, to such an extent that, “as of September 2007, the iPod had sold over 110 million units world wide, making it the best selling digital audio player series in history” (engaget.com, cited on wikipedia.org).

I have discussed the impressive technological advances that the Apple iPod can boast, but for a product to be this successful over what is a relatively long period of time, I believe that it takes more than just an impressive specification to consolidate itself firmly at the top of such a competitive market. I argue that in this narcissistic and image conscious day and age it is no longer acceptable for a product in this market to merely be extremely innovative and functional – people want more - it has to also look the part; slick, stylish and ‘cool’, otherwise the consumer wouldn’t look twice. I have been looking at the work of German Sociologist and Psychologist Kohut, and his study into this idea of narcissism, which is particularly evident in today’s society. He explains in his book, Seminars on Self-Psychology with Adolescents and Young Adults, “The bipolar self is made up of two aspects or modes of experience, the ‘archaic grandiose self’ and the ‘archaic idealising self’. The grandiose exhibitionistic self is a function of an infant’s feeling of omnipotence. The infant possessing feelings of being at the centre his or her and everybody else’s universe” (Kohut, 1987). This explains a great deal about the importance of aesthetics we now place on products, and how we go to great lengths to display what we possess. Some argue that we live within a capitalist society “where the expansion of commodity production throughout the twentieth century has given rise to the vast accumulation of material culture in the form of consumer goods” (Du Gay, 1997: 86), and as such, possibly an important achievement in a consumer’s life to buy something or own something to be proud of, whatever form it may take, something they can show off or brag about to their friends. Apple are well aware of this and is why their products can not only boast a highly impressive specification; they have clearly placed a huge emphasis on the importance of aesthetics. One of the iPod Unique selling propositions (USP) is that its functions are placed on a circular, rotating disc, which not only looks slick and stylish, but also makes life easier for the consumer, as they no longer have to press often stiff, small buttons in order to play, pause or skip tracks. “The iPod also comes with a screen for displaying artist name, song title and album name. The liquid-crystal display has a resolution of 160 pixels by 128 pixels and offers an LED backlight” (news.com). However, I believe that the most defining and revolutionary aesthetical feature of the iPod is the extremely stylish white earphone, an idea that was never warmed to before launch of the iPod. However, through effective marketing and advertising, Apple have revolutionized the white earphones concept, and in turn exploited this gap in the market to devastating effect. Indeed one online supplier, known as ipodaccessorydepot.com even writes in one of its product blurbs that “The white iPod ear buds and earphones have become the symbol of the iPod revolution. They tell the world that you possess the coolest MP3 player in the world”. I believe that they have every justification to make this bold claim, as this idea of white earphones has become so popular that they have since been copied, manufactured and sold by many of their major competitors, including Creative Zen and Sony, who have eventually learned from the Style conscious Apple brand that white design is ‘cool’ and have been forced to rethink their own earphone design in order to attempt to hang onto the iPod’s coat tails.

“It is often argued that the versatility of modern capitalism means that individual products (e.g. a bar of chocolate, or trainers) are not unique for very long” (Branston, 2003: 375) I am now going to look at Apple as a brand and investigate at how, in such a competitive field, where technological advances mean that “product specifications can be easily copied by rivals in a few days, and the difference between products anyway is often minimal” (Branston, 2003: 375), that the iPod has managed to destroy its rivals, when in terms of technology and financial muscle, many of its competitors are almost on a level playing field. I firmly believe that the importance of brand perception is vital. Apple realised long ago the importance of not only offering a technologically sound product range, but also the need for the brand to be seen to be stylish, contemporary and forward thinking. They have worked hard to establish this cool persona, and indeed, it’s is this ‘cool’ and stylish image that the Apple brand has become associated with over the years, that has laid down an ideal platform for the launch of a product like the iPod. A brand with a reputation for being ‘cool’ or forward thinking, will by in large be successful when launching a new product or service, as its already existing popular image and reputation will no doubt immediately grab the consumers attention. This cool persona which has long been associated with Apple has given them an excellent starting point at which to steal a march on their competitors. In her book No Logo, Naomi Klein explains how desperate brands are to be seen as cool and charismatic. She says “Cool, alternative, young, hip – whatever you want to call it – was the perfect identity for product driven companies looking to become transcendent image-based brands” (Klein, 2000: 68). Brands, especially those selling a product are desperate to gain a reputation for style and panache as they know that a reputation for being forward-thinking and doing things differently sells. “Advertisers, brand managers, music, film and television producers raced back to high school, sucking up to the in-crowd in a frantic effort to isolate and reproduce in TV commercials the precise ‘attitude’ teens and twenty-something’s were driven to consume with their snack foods and pop tunes” (Klein, 2000: 68). As I have already discussed, I believe Apple have adhered to this philosophy to the letter, and to great effect. For years the brand has gone to great lengths to market and promote their products as the stylish and trendy alternative to many of its competitors. We have repeatedly seen how Apple have long placed promotion and advertising their product in this cool, alternative way as vital to their business. It is the brands massive outlay on the promoting of their product in the most appropriate manner needed to gain this slick persona which has given them the stepping stone to dominate almost every business venture or product launch they turn their hand to, and how they leave their rivals in the shade. Klein says on the importance Apple, and even competitors Microsoft have always placed on advertising, marketing and promotion, “In 1993, the year the Marlborough Man was temporarily hobbled by ‘brand blind’ consumers, Microsoft made its striking debut on Advertising Age’s list of top 200 ad spenders – the very same year that Apple increased its marketing budget by 30 percent after already making branding history with its Orwellian Takeoff ad launch during the 1984 Super Bowl. Like Saturn, both companies were selling a hip new relationship to the machine that left the Big Blue IBM looking as chunky and menacing as the now-dead Cold War” (Klein, 2000: 17). It is this huge spending on promoting the product in the right way, and paying particular attention to how the Apple image and its products are conveyed, which have always allowed them to get ahead of the game, as we have seen on numerous product launches including the iMac, and now the iPod.

I believe another major factor that has made the iPod such a massively successful product is that such a diverse consumer base have placed their trust in Apple, due to this cool, alternative perception the brand has. The product has managed to smash the barriers that exist between music genres, and more specifically the hugely cliquey subcultures associated with music genres. In his book, Subculture: The meaning of Style, author Dick Hebdidge explains how social groups are formed and how individuals within these various subcultures decorate themselves to display their own style, emotions, beliefs and even music tastes. This example centres round the punk rocker. Hebdidge explains “We can now look more closely at the relationship between experience, expression and signification in subculture; at the whole question of style and our reading of style. To return to our example, we have seen how the punk style fitted together homologically precisely through its lack of fit (hole tee-shirt, spitting, applause, bin-liner garment, anarchy, order) – by its refusal to cohere around a readily identifiable set of central values. It cohered, instead, illiptically through a chain of conspicuous absences. It was characterized by its unlocatedness – its blankness” (Hebdidge, 1979: 120).

This subculture ideology that Hebdidge refers to, can be directly applied to music genres. For example consumers who listen to punk will conform to the codes and conventions of that particular subculture, whereas the Drum & Bass genre seems to attract and appeal to the tracksuit and Rockport shoe wearing ‘Chav’ element of society. These music subcultures have traditionally only interacted with other listeners of their preferred music genre, in almost clique fashion.  However, since the launch of the iPod, we have almost seen this divide smashed, and the rise of a new clique – the Apple clique. People may still belong to contrasting subcultures, and whilst the Punk Rocker may still look and think totally different to the ‘emo’ or ‘chav’. However, the combination of the iPod and the Apple brands appeal to wider society’s narcissistic nature, together with its incredible specifications and product performance, coupled with the trust and respect the Apple brand has gained which has allowed the iPod to infiltrate a whole range of subcultures. This universally appealing mix of dynamic design, ‘cool’ persona, excellent performance and brand loyalty and trust, has given rise to the formation of a new iPod subculture, united in opposition to other walkman brands, and is another reason why the iPod product has sold so many units and tasted unparalleled success.

Another subtle way in which Apple have gained a stranglehold on the downloadable music market is the clever, almost manipulative incorporation of the accompanying iTunes facility into the product range. The iTunes software is a music downloading facility, which was until recently exclusively compatible with the iPod, meaning it was only open to iPod owners to download new music tracks for a nominal fee. This cleverly disguised Apple marketing ploy, I believe fools the consumer into thinking that it is another excellent, high tech facility available from Apple allowing them to obtain the latest music from their favourite artists in an innovative way, which again leaves their rivals standing. However for me, this is in truth a sly and discrete manipulation by Apple designed to monopolize the downloadable music market. Indeed the iTunes facility has recently attracted criticism for this manipulation and monopoly of the market and the way it is almost exploiting the consumer. “A Bulgarian EU commissioner has hit out at Apple’s ‘improper’ policy of bundling iTunes with its iPod players. The claims were made by Meglena Kuneva EC Commissioner for Consumer Protection, who has a responsibility to protect the rights of European consumers. “Do you find it proper that a music CD can be played on all trademarks of players, but the music sold in iTunes can be played only on an iPod?” Kuneva asked German magazine Focus. ‘I find it quite improper and I will do my best to change it’ Apple could face separate legal action in Norway, which is not a member of the EU, after the government criticised the iTunes monopoly in January. The Norwegians have set a deadline of October 2007 for Apple to open its digital rights management system up to other companies. Consumer rights groups in Finland, Germany and France have also laid into the iPod maker in recent months (www.pcw.co.uk). However, despite this exploitative venture, Apples ‘cool’ brand reputation and renowned name for product excellence, aesthetics and functionality has allowed such facilities to coexist with the Apple product without severely tarnishing their image and reputation, which cannot be said for the bromide p.r. disaster encountered by Coca Cola with their short lived Dasani, or the cocaine scandal that the DeLorean became infamous for.

If a company, such as DeLorean or Coca Cola fails to act with integrity, they will inevitably lose the consumers’ faith and trust in their product, which is an incredibly difficult obstacle to overcome. This earning of trust and respect is something Apple have worked tirelessly to gain. In his book The Corporate Brand, author Nicholas Ind explains “Companies who fail to deliver quality products or services are regarded poorly. The only way for an organisation to create trust is through meeting people’s expectations of honesty and openness” (Ind, 1997: 20). Apples willingness to invest both the time and money into developing a trustworthy product that offers cutting edge technology and is both functional and reliable, gives the consumer the utmost confidence in the brand. Contrast the respect Apple have gained to the pr shambles and soiled reputations of Coca Cola’s Dasani and the DeLorean and you can instantly see why Apple have won the trust of the consumer whilst the others fell by the wayside, surrounded in controversy and sleaze.

I argue that it is this combination of successful brand building, and meticulous attention to detail when it comes to both functionality and aesthetics which have allowed the iPod to prosper where products such as New Coke have been found wanting. Apple have clearly done their homework with the iPod. The sales figures that I have previously mentioned, is clear evidence that every decision, both with branding and design is considered and scrutinised, and evaluated – they leave nothing to chance. Contrast this to Coca Cola’s New Coke venture. In trying to learn from Dasani’s shortcomings, this product was thoroughly tested – so much so that they asked fundamentally wrong questions in the market research stage, and as such they overlooked the fact people drank the Coca Cola brand, not the taste.

It is this equally balanced combination of style and functionality which is one of the main reasons that Apple, and its launch of the iPod has succeeded where products had previously failed so spectacularly. As with every new Apple product, each aspect of the design and product specification has been carefully considered, which is what has given the vast majority of consumers’ absolute trust in the brand. Every aspect of the product design and aesthetics has been well crafted, which is complemented by the most sophisticated, cutting edge yet functional and practical specifications, giving the iPod the ideal platform to succeed where other products, such as the Sony Betamax and the Edsel has failed so abysmally. While the Betamax may have offered superior picture and recording quality to that of its rival VHS format video recorders, its aesthetical qualities were totally undermined by its lack of functionality. The consumer may well have been able to re-watch its recordings in excellent quality. However, Sony made a massive error with the functionality of the product – The consumer was only able to record up to one hour of footage, making it almost impossible to record films, sports events and feature length programmes, which had a massive bearing on why the product was so unsuccessful. Guardian Journalist Jack Schofield commented on the subject of the Betamax failure and why he believed it was so unsuccessful in an article dated 25 January 2003. He explained “Later I found out that Betamax had owned the market, but lost it because Sony got one simple decision wrong. It chose to make smaller, neater tapes that lasted for an hour, whereas the VHS manufacturers used basically the same technology with a bulkier tape that lasted two hours. Instead of poring over the sound and picture quality, reviewers could simply have taken the systems home. Their spouses/children/grandparents and everybody else would quickly have told them the truth. “We’re going out tonight and I want to record a movie. That Betamax tape is useless: it isn’t long enough. Get rid of it.” (Guardian.co.uk).

When considering the points I have covered in this essay I believe that the iPod has been so hugely successful, especially when compared to the failures of Dasani, Betamax, Edsel and DeLorean products, is because the Apple brand have addressed the fundamental balance of style, functionality, aesthetics, and a strong USP. Then consider the hard work and importance placed on promoting the brand in the most suitable way in order to earn the trust and respect of the consumer, both through brand perception and product performance. I believe that it is Apple’s efforts to adhere to each of these factors and ideologies which have given the iPod the ideal platform on which to launch, and for the Apple brand to enjoy the great success it has had over such a sustained period.

_________________________________________________________________

Bibliography

  • Branston, G, and Stafford, R, (2003), The Media Students Book Third Edition, Routledge: London

  • Du Gay, P, (1997), Doing Cultural Studies: The Story of the Sony Walkman, Sage: London

  • Hebdidge, D, (1979), Subculture: The Meaning of Style, London: Routledge

  • Ind, N, (1997), The Corporate Brand, MacMillan, Basingstoke

  • Klein, N, (2000) No Logo, Flamingo: London

  • Kohut, H (1987) The Kohut seminars on self-psychology with adolescents and young adults, Norton: London

  • Nava, M, (1997), Buy this Book, Routledge: London

  • Wernick, A, (1991) Promotional Culture, Sage: London

_________________________________________________________________

Webography