Consumer Recommended Pricing VS Actual Holiday Sales

[PressBot]

It’s a crazy world!  When 3D HDTVs are priced too high, the analysts complain.  When 3D HDTVs go on sale for the holidays, the analysts find a new reason to complain!  From one 3D customer to another, this holiday season is a time to celebrate!



Based on the latest U-Decide Initiative findings, this table is a cross reference of the prices 2D gamers are willing to spend on a 50” 1080P 3D HDTV compared to the sales pricing of actual products this holiday season in US funds.  These prices also include the add-on expense of two pairs of branded 3D glasses.  When you figure that customers will likely pay more for higher visual quality, features, and content bundling, it’s clear that manufacturers are listening to the wants and needs of their customers.
Read full article...

[BlackShark]

I don't understand the meaning of this graph.
It's overloaded with stats and columns which don't bring much information.
Could you maybe reformulate it so that we could understand the important information more easily ?

[Neil]

The first line (Consumer Recommended Pricing) is how much consumers are willing to spend on a 3D HDTV. It's broken down into tiers ($2000, $2100, $2200, etc.), and percentage of the sample willing to spend in each tier group.

The following lines are the current holiday pricing of individual 3D HDTVs. Are these rates above or below the recommended consumer pricing?

That's what the chart explains.

Regards,
Neil

[BlackShark]

I understood that. It took me a few minutes but that is what I understood.
This graph is absolutely hidious, it's confusing, and it doesn't reach any conclusion. The raw data helps more than the graph.
You also use some very confusing words like "sales" instead of "pricing" (the products are on the shelves, there is no data about the number of products actually sold here)

You are creating 4 arbitrary categories by 100$ slices which all have the same amount of people, (useless) then 3 other separate categories which include nobody.
What you end up with is 2 categories : more or less than approx 2700$ while all these TVs target the same market : the 50" high end TV market, and the only info I get from it is : people want their 50" 3DTV to be less than 2700$ and that what manufacturers provide with the exception of Sony who sells an overpriced TV.

I mean yes, Sony's TV is overpriced but come on, this situation can't possibly be the only information buried in there.
I also question the data you have here. The most competitive TV market is the cheap HDTV market around the 1000~1200$ mark (at least that's how it is in France), how can suddenly the vast majority of people want a 3DTV that is at least twice that price. I know people a willing to pay slightly more for 3D and glasses are expensive not that much.
Where do these figures come from ? (what was the question from U-decide that gave these results ?)

For presenting such data, what about something which gives actual information and is clearer like this :

Examplegraph.gif

[Neil]

Hi BlackShark,

Let me try to respond to this...

I understood that. It took me a few minutes but that is what I understood.
This graph is absolutely hidious, it's confusing, and it doesn't reach any conclusion. The raw data helps more than the graph.
You also use some very confusing words like "sales" instead of "pricing" (the products are on the shelves, there is no data about the number of products actually sold here)

I see where you got confused. "Sales" is another word for "discounts" - like when things go on sale. This isn't an indication of how many units were sold. A different choice of words may have worked better.

You are creating 4 arbitrary categories by 100$ slices which all have the same amount of people, (useless) then 3 other separate categories which include nobody.
What you end up with is 2 categories : more or less than approx 2700$ while all these TVs target the same market : the 50" high end TV market, and the only info I get from it is : people want their 50" 3DTV to be less than 2700$ and that what manufacturers provide with the exception of Sony who sells an overpriced TV.

They aren't the same amount of people. This was the question asked in the study:

"If 3D glasses are already included or not needed, how much more would you be willing to spend on the following products for the 3D benefits compared to their equivalent 2D counterparts?

Calculate based on the following values for traditional 2D equipment. These estimates are based on above-average quality expectations, and not bargain pricing:"

The first option was a 50" HDTV valued at $2,000 US. The premium options in multiple choice were:

1=Nothing
2=5% more
3=10% more
4=20% more
5=50% more
6=80% more
7=100% or greater

So, the values of these premiums on a $2,000 product are:

1. $0
2. $100
3. $200
4. $400
5. $1,000
6. $1,600
7. $2,000

When we add these premiums to a base price of $2,000, we get:

1. $2,000
2. $2,100
3. $2,200
4. $2,400
5. $3,000
6. $3,600
7. $4,000

I also question the data you have here. The most competitive TV market is the cheap HDTV market around the 1000~1200$ mark (at least that's how it is in France), how can suddenly the vast majority of people want a 3DTV that is at least twice that price. I know people a willing to pay slightly more for 3D and glasses are expensive not that much.

This study wasn't about the vast majority of people; it's about gamers. The $2,000 (in US funds) was based on a premium grade 2D HDTV, not bargain basement displays. It's harder to find 2D televisions priced like this now because the whole market has been covered in deep holiday discounts, but at the time the data was being collected - this was the going rate.

With the exception of the 720P 3D sets which have been introduced in the past few months, most of the modern 3D HDTVs are designed and targeted to consumers interested in higher end/premium grade equipment. Otherwise it would be like comparing an Nvidia 8800GTS to a GTX580 - you just don't do it!

Using the yellow bar as a reference point, it's easy to see which are above and below the threshold, but I can look at finding additional ways to display the content.

Regards,
Neil

[Neil]

I added a tagline under the graph to help explain it more.

Regards,
Neil

[cybereality]

This graph is extremely confusing, has massive redundancy (you should not have to repeat the same values 8 times), and doesn't really seem to draw any conclusions. The most valuable piece of data, the percentage of gamers and what they are willing to spend, is not even properly highlighted. I understand what you were trying to do, but the graph (as it exists) is largely useless. For starters, it should be a single 2D graph. In this case a line chart would make more sense, not a bar chart (although both could work). The example BlackShark gave is actually very good, and a lot more informative. It is also much easier to read and understand what information you should be looking at.

Also, the word sales generally refers to the amount of the product sold and not the retail price. A little confusing.

[Neil]

Ok. Let me see if there is another way to plot the graph. No big deal.

Regards,
Neil

[BlackShark]

Ok now I kind of see how that went wrong. I vaguely remember this question and see now why my feelings with your news report are so far off from the results of the chart.

The data you gathered corresponds to the high-end market, but the way I read your news report, you complain about articles talking about "consumers" as the whole market. It changes completely the way I interpret "2D gamers" in the chart and in your data :
your data corresponds to the high-end gamer market, but you seem to mean it's about the entire market.

Speaking about the market as a whole : the sub 1500$ HDTV market dwarfs everything else, most of that is around the 1000$ mark, and this isn't new, it was already the case one year ago. (I'm speaking about France, It's maybe a little bit more in the USA/Canada because of the room available in the average American home, but I don't believe it's that much higher). When speaking about the entire market, it is so obvious that 3DTVs are overpriced flagship models, even for gamers.

Having such a mismatch posted right on the front page, feels wrong, VERY wrong. It makes mtbs look bad, like we're completely disconnected from reality.
You should remove it from the front page entirely and rewrite it differently (3DTV lower holiday prices now targeting perfectly the premium gamer market, or something along those lines).

An other thing about how the U-decide survey was conducted :
The "how much more would you pay" approach will make people over-estimate what they'd really want to spend.
It's good to show to the industry to tell them "look ! consumers want this, make and sell us the products ! you'll make money !" It's good as a first step in order to have something we are starving for.

However Now comes the second step, where as a consumer organisation, our goal shift towards : "Your product is not good enough, make it better... and I want it cheaper too !"
I believe we are kind of at this transition point for 3D displays, the products are on the market and TV manufacturers are now convinced 3DTVs will be the future.
So for the next version U-decide initiative, you should avoid using the "how much more approach" for 3D displays and use instead a "what size do you want ? how much are you ready to spend ? how many glasses ? so you mean a total a xxxx $ for the whole package right ?" to make sure you get the most interesting answers.
Next year, we'll be starving for content though and have to try to convince producers they should make 3D content, so keep the how much more approach for games and movies.

[Neil]

Hi BlackShark,

I don't think any of this makes us look bad. Look at the "monoscoper" sites: they don't seem to care how they look or where they source their data from. I've never seen so much broken telephone!

I'll add some text to the story to make it easier to put in perspective. You raise valid points.

Regards,
Neil

[cybereality]

There is one thing that kind of bothers me about the data. In the U-Decide questionnaire, the question that was posed was "Assuming a high-end 50" 2D TV costs $2,000, how much more would you be willing to spend to get the 3D functionality" (or something along those lines). Lets ignore the fact that TVs do not cost that much (in fact, I could get a Panasonic 50" 3DTV for $1,200, arguably the best 3DTV on the market). The problem is how the way the question was worded affects the data. If you look at BlackShark's example graph, there is a bell curve of the line representing consumer pricing. It focuses on the mid-range, lets say around $2,300. It implies that consumers want to spend around $2,300, but this isn't really accurate. The question was not "how much would you like to spend..." but "what is the maximum premium you would be willing to spend...". See, a person willing to spend $2,400 would be perfectly happy buying the same TV for $2,000. Just because they are willing to spend more doesn't me they *want* to spend more. Pretty much anybody will take a better deal if they can find it. I am not sure how you could weight a graph to take this into account, but maybe you might want to word the question differently on the next U-Decide.

[tritosine5G]

can't wait for laser powered CRT to come back and kill LCD and plasma too.

http://www.digitalsignagetoday.com/arti ... 1-displays" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://laser-tv.org/2010/laser-tv-twist/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

CRT hurry up and come back.

The tiles also are made entirely from off-the-shelf components, Morris says, meaning there's a reduction in the environmental footprint of the tiles even as they're being built.

those lasers can be built off the shelf as well!!

http://www.engadget.com/2010/09/07/tosh ... ra-bright/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

1000 LCD nits vs. 800 , not bad, they are very close......

[Neil]

The following is an excerpt of a blog article.  Read Full Article

It’s a crazy world!  When 3D HDTVs are priced too high, the analysts complain.  When 3D HDTVs go on sale for the holidays, the analysts find a new reason to complain!  From one 3D customer to another, this holiday season is a time to celebrate!

Based on the latest U-Decide Initiative findings, this table is a cross reference of the prices 2D gamers are willing to spend on a 50” 1080P 3D HDTV compared to the sales pricing of actual products this holiday season in US funds.  These prices also include the add-on expense of two pairs of branded 3D glasses.  When you figure that customers will likely pay more for higher visual quality, features, and content bundling, it’s clear that manufacturers are listening to the wants and needs of their customers.