On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 17:29:22 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
<jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote in
<5qkic2pp2h9nu3epo681cu7qba2hp9shqk@4ax.com>:

>John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> hath wroth:
>
>>Not that simple. Poorer performance tends to result in a higher return
>>rate, which can be a killer on cost that far overwhelms the small
>>savings.
>
>Chuckle. Return rate is a problem but not for the obvious reason that
>it affects the bottom line. The return rate on commodity wireless is
>sufficiently small that at least one manufacturer just throws them
>away and only retests them if a major distributor returns them en
>masse. They also unload them with large rebates, which requires
>destroying the packaging to collect, which therefore reduces the
>return rate. Return rate is a killer only because it trashes brand
>name recognition, which is the major reason consumers buy any
>particular device.

My professional experience in that business is quite different. The
cost of returns, even if scrapped, is very high, typically measured as
the cost of quality -- you have to take them back to be sure retailers
aren't cheating you. Most manfs will at least retest them, because the
vast majority of returns (>90%) are fully functional, and can easily be
recouped as refurbs. If scrapped, they are usually at least broken down
for parts, or at least recycled for valuable materials.

>If you look carefully at the advertising in the
>consumer magazines (not the trade journals), you'll probably notice
>that much of starts by congratulating the consumer on having made an
>intelligent choice and goes on to assure the consumer that the company
>is behind its products 150%. In other words, they're going for the
>repeat business based on name recognition.

Again, not that simple. What goes around, comes around. Retailers hate
returns, and tend to trash whatever product is giving them the most
grief, which directly leads to lower sales. No good manf is going to
knowingly take that risk.

>>And people don't just buy on price alone -- reviews and
>>recommendations are factors, for which performance is also important.
>
>Yep. Just ask Joe Sixpack which reviews he's read on his wireless
>router. Ummm...well...er...ah... Maybe it came with my computer?
>You, me, and Dilbert probably read reviews in detail. Only a few of
>my customers do that. Mostly they have a friend or consultant that
>has a wireless something, and they just buy the same thing and blame
>their friend or consultant when it doesn't quite work.

Sometimes, which I think supports my point, but most rely on branding
and on the retail salesperson, which is why the return rate is so
critical.

>>>Customers perceived that two antennas are somehow
>>>better than one and considered a single antenna router to be inferior.
>
>>And they were right, whether they knew the exact reason or not.
>
>Sure. Perception is everything. Few can explain why two antennas are
>better, but intelligence and technology doesn't count with decisions
>based on perception.

I didn't say that. With all due respect, I think you're being way too
harsh and cynical. Knowing the exact reason is unimportant when the
market mechanism is working, as it is here. That's why branding is so
important. Consumers will mercilessly desert a brand that betrays them,
and loyally support safe brands even when a guru thinks some other
product might be better, because it really isn't better, since it hasn't
earned their market trust. What makes trust such a powerful force is
that it's so hard to earn and so easy to lose.

>There are other things that are amazingly important for retail sales.
>Color is one. Colors all have subliminal meanings. I walked in to a
>customer with a Watchguard SOHO router. It's in a bright red plastic
>box, apparently to capitalize on the firewall features. My customer
>asked if I had something in a different color? Huh? She said that it
>reminded her of blood, which made her feel awkward. I replaced it
>with an antiseptic white Netgear WG-614, which was deemed acceptable.
>
>Weight is also an important feature. Given two almost identical
>products, the average consumer will usually pick the heaviest product.
>There's a perception that you get more for your money if it's heavier.
>I learned this the hard way when designing marine radios. We
>literally put a lead brick inside the box and sales immediately
>improved.

I've been doing this much of my professional life, and my experience is
that these are just small factors. Change the color on a product that's
lost market trust and it's still toast.

>Criteria for commodity router selection (most important on top):
> 1. It's cheap.
> 2. A friend has one that works.
> 3. I've heard of the manufacturer from somewhere.
> 4. The box and color look cool.
> 5. It weighs like something that should work.
> 6. The literature is incomprehensible, so it must be powerful.
> 7. Larger numbers are always better.
> 108Mbits/sec instead of 54Mbits/sec.
> Is 802.11z later than 802.11b? 5.7GHz is bigger than 2.4Ghz.
> 8. The flashing lights sure look nice. What do they mean?
> 9. This box has more acronyms than the other box.
> 10. I read a review that said all I had to do is plug in the
> wireless router and it's ready to go.
>Optional:
> 11. Jeff L said it sucked so I guess I'll try it.

You left out some of the most important criteria:

0a. It's sold by my store.
0b. The salesperson in my store recommends it.

You seem to have a very low opinion of people. I think that's both
unwarranted and sad -- they may simply have different priorities than
you and me, which to them are valid, no matter what we might think of
them.

--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>