Our topic for the week thats 'new product designing' and good product designing, makes me think of the so claimed futuristic Mag shoes produced by Nike in 2013. The article that i read on it calls it a futuristic failure and the most important reason for this was consumer dissatisfaction stemming out of an extravagant price. This was a limited edition of shoes inspired by the 'Back to the Future' trilogy. In this case, the inventory was perfectly designed, innovative, enduring but failed to be label friendly. Consumers were dissatisfied purely on the basis of its inaccessiblity. If i was to compare, i would
compare this situation with a the revolutionary "flyknit racers" that Nike came up with in 2013.
The article says -
"What makes Flyknit so truly disruptive is that it isn't a shoe--it's a way to make shoes. As the team members who spent four years developing the technology like to say, they're "breaking the sewing machine."
So clearly , the fly knitters were a thumbs up and the mag shoes werent so to say. In my opinion , i feel that apart from the obvious desirable features of sustainability, affordability, the most important aspect here that needs to be considered is the target audience. Price and supply are of course inversely proportional but the degree of proportionality depends highly on the target market which would include affluent individuals as in case of the mags.
If a company comes out with a limited edition product with far superior parts which cost a lot, it is but obvious that the product is going to be priced very high and that it is not meant for everyone to own. Here , we have innovation in both the cases, "new" designs too, but the question stays, Is "new product designing" accountable to the consumer' monetary satisfaction ultimately ?