Marketers have already won or why I will never buy myself a top smartphone
Rereading another article about a new smartphone of another eminent company, I stumbled a millionth time about the epithet “budget” applied to a smartphone worth about 13 thousand rubles.
Enough, comrades! There will be no comparison of the characteristics or reasoning about the vital need of 18 megapixel camera versus 13 megapixel. Under the cut, I will explain in detail, with facts and with examples, why all of us were missed by the marketing experts.
In general, there would be no problems if such adjectives (budget, affordable, etc ...) were given to the phones by markerats in their corporate browsers - well, you’ll think it’s crazy for yourself, the main thing is not to touch anyone. But after all, this leprosy has gradually infected even mere mortals - it is enough to read the comments to a review of a smart from any at least a little popular brand.
')
To put it bluntly, we live in a time when a brand can sell almost any product at any price by simply sticking its nameplate on it. The recent Chinese trunks from a fashion brand for 2k euros confirm this once again. About apple products generally keep quiet, this is a byword. It becomes sad when people are not just forced to buy at such prices, but moreover, they get used to this situation as the norm. It is even sadder to realize that this is exactly what happened with the smartphone market.
Let's start with a funny one. So, we have a “budget” smart for 13,000 wooden Russian rubles.
What can be done today with this money? You can, for example, pay for an apartment, and for delivery almost another three working weeks for lunch and dinner in the dining room at work. Or until the end of the month just to have lunch. Month of normal food in the dining room and the rent is not very impressive? Oakui. I will give an example with KDPV. With this money you can buy 100 kg (!!!) of potatoes + 18 kg of meat and more booze for delivery (I myself do not drink, but suddenly someone will be interested). If you do not lean heavily on potatoes on such a diet, you can easily live for considerably more than a month, while eating like some bourgeois ("I, please, have a potato in my uniform and an average steak"). Although, such a diet few people will benefit, and get bored quickly, besides, all this must be prepared. But in general, I think the idea is clear - for 13k rubles with the right approach you can easily eat for a couple of months for your pleasure.
Of course, very few people will appreciate the comparison with food (I hope GT blockaders do not read), although I personally even five years after the hungry army seems to be very clear. Nevertheless, the comparison with more material values looks a bit more objective: with this money it is already quite possible to buy a good TV set 32 '', with support for digital TV. And if you throw another 1k, then with Wi-Fi, and let it be some kind of Mystery, but this is already quite a big TV, damn it! And, for example, about the same 13k will cost you to buy subscriptions for 8 months (for 8 visits per month) to the Dynamo pool and swim there for your pleasure.
Well, okay, joked and that's enough. I promised the facts, here are the facts.
At first, I wanted to compare the “average” modern smarts with regular cell phones, but there is a thought that the comparison may not be entirely correct, because almost all new phones mainly use large screens and relatively expensive SoCs as processors. Therefore, for comparison, I use one of the first mass smartphones of the top segment. I propose to consider the argument about the screen size change insignificant, since the matrix manufacturing techniques have advanced significantly, therefore these changes in cost can be considered insignificant.
In the lower price range, there used to be only telephones, and even there were very cheap devices, so the comparison is obviously meaningless, although you can try.
So. 2007 year. It seems to be top devices (correct, if I am mistaken).
Nokia prices were in Euros, translated into dollars at the rate of 2007. Model N81 is given for balancing, since not all top smarts from 2016 managed to find prices for 64 GB models.
It would be nice to find Blackberry prices for objectivity. But, from what I found, prices were everywhere when buying with a contract, so I think it will be difficult. And the model for comparison is not easy to choose. I guess this is something like Storm should be. If anyone finds, skinte, please.
Total: the average price of the top smart in 2007, the year = $ 582
And now our 2016 rainbow. Top-end smartphones. Prices looked on of.saytah and / or on Amazon.
* Generally, on the manufacturer's website, prices for this model are higher, and there is a phone with a Verizon contract for $ 792, and for $ 839 with an AT & T contract. But in fact on the official website for you for this price will put VR glasses. On Amazon, for one phone (without glasses and not tied to an operator), prices range from 580 to 640, and since you have to pay for delivery in any case, I averaged this amount to 615.
** Here it should be noted that the Xperia XZ is not a flagship. The top is now, sort of, the Z5 Premium. However, in some official foreign Sony Store, I did not find this model on sale at all. They have the coolest XZ. But here it is not so simple. For example, the price for the British "only" is 549 pounds, which is approximately 672 to the dollar at today's exchange rate. And for the Poles, it will cost 2,990 zł, which is already 762 to the buck. In general, I took the average of this price. By the way, in Colombia, this same smart costs $ 3200 altogether, apparently the number of drug barons per capita seems to affect.
*** I looked at the price on the off site, but when I try to buy it, it sends to Amazon where it costs $ 50 cheaper and has free delivery.
Total: the average price for the top smart in 2016 year = $ 700
For nine years, the price of the same product has increased by 20%!
Perhaps it is a matter of inflation or some problems with the production of electronics? This, of course, is unlikely, because the prices I took from different sources and different countries, but still. I recently very successfully caught the eye of someone's publication on Habré, and from there I brazenly drew out a scan of the price list of a store with Tsaritsino for the year 2002. We will compare in dollars to avoid dirty insinuations with the course.
Here, admire: Scan weighs 5 MB .
Pay attention already in 2002 it was possible to take some kind of LCD monitor 15 '' for only $ 460! Unprecedented luxury at the time. Well, let's find out how much the most budget LCD with a diagonal of 21 "will be now (progress does not stand still, tea has learned to somehow optimize).
In general, anyone can make sure that for 6500 rubles today you can buy a quite tolerable TFT-monik. This ... drum roll ... $ 102.
Wow! Price dropped four times. This is despite the fact that I look at prices for the end user, already with all the extra charges, etc. Even assuming that LCDs only appeared, and instead compare today's 21 "LCDs with the then 17" CRTs, it turns out that the average price for them was around $ 200, so the price of consumer goods still fell twice to the current moment.
Well, maybe the world began to produce less mobile phones or demand fell? Let's figure it out.
Here are interesting graphs that show us the brave growth of two market locomotives, albeit in the short interval 2010-2012.
I really didn’t quite understand why in the 10th year they would start almost from scratch, but oh well, let's leave it to the painter’s conscience.
Maybe things did not go so well with them? Anyway, I found another interesting sign that shows us that the total smartphone market from 2013 to 2016 has almost doubled. I apologize in advance for the quality of the picture, I found it in the open spaces.
Demand is growing steadily, production is growing ... Competition, judging by the market is also present. And what's the price? Is growing too ?!
Trying to see the exact picture through the veil of my own errors, I turned to the last argument, which, perhaps, could be one of the most weighty. I found a wonderful post in LiveJournal in which the author collected Rosstat data and built many graphs illustrating the purchasing power of the Russian population from 1995 to 2015.
According to the link I recommend to go, there are many interesting things. We are primarily interested in red-green graphics. And you need to evaluate the values of 2007 and 2015.
Let's compare different market segments. Here, for example, a comparison of the level of drugs:
There is a fall below the level of 2007 almost everywhere. We look further. Prices for museums, exhibitions, theaters and cinemas, i.e. for entertainment and leisure.
Only holiday homes have become more accessible (by the way, I wonder why). The availability of transport changes is also a minimum - unless the plane tickets and in the train compartment with something became more accessible.
And finally - prices for housing and public utilities and services:
It can be seen that only fixed telephone communication has become cheaper, which, in general, is understandable.
Total: of the 21 positions, only 5 have become more accessible from the year 2007. The rest either have risen appreciably or have changed slightly. Those. it can be concluded that the purchasing power of Russians has not increased significantly since 2007.
For greater persuasiveness, it would be possible to compare the cost price of a smartphone then and now, but take my word for it, if there is a change, then certainly not in the direction of growth. Well, or do not believe it, google it yourself, everything is easy to find, it has already been considered more than once.
What is the result? Production is growing. Demand is growing. Proiz People do not get richer. And what's the price? And the price is growing, and very significantly. How so?
Yes, it is possible that manufacturers began to receive no longer due to the fact that they stupidly raised prices, perhaps it is a matter of expanding the market, improving the manufacturability of production or something else ... For the end user, this does not matter.
People are willing to buy this product for the money. People were convinced that it was worth so much. You just need to slightly warm their interest, order a couple of reviews with epithets in the spirit of "budget", "affordable", etc ... Set minimum prices for resellers. In general, instill the idea that this thing is not cheap. And everything, it is possible to raise prices smoothly, by a couple of percent per year, and voila, considering the volumes, the total profit will grow in a power dependence.
Of course, I have no illusions that I can convince someone with this article, but still ...
To hell with such marketing! I will never buy a smart more expensive 10k!
PS In order not to respond the same to many comments, I will add here.
I understand perfectly what is the price of the final device. Here it is chosen as an indicator not because I do not understand this. If you prefer, it is determined by a dozen, second, third factors (this was also rightly repeatedly noted in the comments). However, they are not always in a linear relationship. To take them all into account is quite a lot of work, in some cases drawing on such a good research on economics. Besides the fact that I am not an economist by profession, I still do not have enough time for such studies, and most importantly, I think that they are not particularly needed for anyone here.
That is why I do not go into details in the article for ala “chip makers switched to a smaller technical process, the size of the plates increased, which means the unit cost fell,” or “nobody is developing the core, but only buying a license from ARM” and the like. and just take the final price for the consumer. In my opinion, this is the most adequate of quick assessments.
It also repeatedly rightly pointed to the inflation of the dollar. However, I believe that cheaper iron and an increase in production volumes compensate for this inflation with a vengeance. In the end, manufacturers' profits are growing, why should the end user get used to this, and not to increase the availability of the benefits of civilization?
Enough, comrades! There will be no comparison of the characteristics or reasoning about the vital need of 18 megapixel camera versus 13 megapixel. Under the cut, I will explain in detail, with facts and with examples, why all of us were missed by the marketing experts.
In general, there would be no problems if such adjectives (budget, affordable, etc ...) were given to the phones by markerats in their corporate browsers - well, you’ll think it’s crazy for yourself, the main thing is not to touch anyone. But after all, this leprosy has gradually infected even mere mortals - it is enough to read the comments to a review of a smart from any at least a little popular brand.
')
To put it bluntly, we live in a time when a brand can sell almost any product at any price by simply sticking its nameplate on it. The recent Chinese trunks from a fashion brand for 2k euros confirm this once again. About apple products generally keep quiet, this is a byword. It becomes sad when people are not just forced to buy at such prices, but moreover, they get used to this situation as the norm. It is even sadder to realize that this is exactly what happened with the smartphone market.
Let's start with a funny one. So, we have a “budget” smart for 13,000 wooden Russian rubles.
What can be done today with this money? You can, for example, pay for an apartment, and for delivery almost another three working weeks for lunch and dinner in the dining room at work. Or until the end of the month just to have lunch. Month of normal food in the dining room and the rent is not very impressive? Oakui. I will give an example with KDPV. With this money you can buy 100 kg (!!!) of potatoes + 18 kg of meat and more booze for delivery (I myself do not drink, but suddenly someone will be interested). If you do not lean heavily on potatoes on such a diet, you can easily live for considerably more than a month, while eating like some bourgeois ("I, please, have a potato in my uniform and an average steak"). Although, such a diet few people will benefit, and get bored quickly, besides, all this must be prepared. But in general, I think the idea is clear - for 13k rubles with the right approach you can easily eat for a couple of months for your pleasure.
Of course, very few people will appreciate the comparison with food (I hope GT blockaders do not read), although I personally even five years after the hungry army seems to be very clear. Nevertheless, the comparison with more material values looks a bit more objective: with this money it is already quite possible to buy a good TV set 32 '', with support for digital TV. And if you throw another 1k, then with Wi-Fi, and let it be some kind of Mystery, but this is already quite a big TV, damn it! And, for example, about the same 13k will cost you to buy subscriptions for 8 months (for 8 visits per month) to the Dynamo pool and swim there for your pleasure.
Well, okay, joked and that's enough. I promised the facts, here are the facts.
At first, I wanted to compare the “average” modern smarts with regular cell phones, but there is a thought that the comparison may not be entirely correct, because almost all new phones mainly use large screens and relatively expensive SoCs as processors. Therefore, for comparison, I use one of the first mass smartphones of the top segment. I propose to consider the argument about the screen size change insignificant, since the matrix manufacturing techniques have advanced significantly, therefore these changes in cost can be considered insignificant.
In the lower price range, there used to be only telephones, and even there were very cheap devices, so the comparison is obviously meaningless, although you can try.
So. 2007 year. It seems to be top devices (correct, if I am mistaken).
| Model | Retail price from the company's press release |
|---|---|
| Nokia N81 | $ 490 |
| Nokia N81 8Gb | $ 550 |
| Nokia N95 8Gb | $ 690 |
| iPhone 8Gb | $ 599 |
Nokia prices were in Euros, translated into dollars at the rate of 2007. Model N81 is given for balancing, since not all top smarts from 2016 managed to find prices for 64 GB models.
It would be nice to find Blackberry prices for objectivity. But, from what I found, prices were everywhere when buying with a contract, so I think it will be difficult. And the model for comparison is not easy to choose. I guess this is something like Storm should be. If anyone finds, skinte, please.
Total: the average price of the top smart in 2007, the year = $ 582
And now our 2016 rainbow. Top-end smartphones. Prices looked on of.saytah and / or on Amazon.
| Model | Retail price without binding to the operator |
|---|---|
| iPhone 7 Plus 128Gb | $ 869 |
| Galaxy Note5 64Gb | $ 615 * |
| Sony Xperia XZ 32Gb | $ 717 ** |
| Huawei Nexus 6P, 128Gb | $ 599 *** |
* Generally, on the manufacturer's website, prices for this model are higher, and there is a phone with a Verizon contract for $ 792, and for $ 839 with an AT & T contract. But in fact on the official website for you for this price will put VR glasses. On Amazon, for one phone (without glasses and not tied to an operator), prices range from 580 to 640, and since you have to pay for delivery in any case, I averaged this amount to 615.
** Here it should be noted that the Xperia XZ is not a flagship. The top is now, sort of, the Z5 Premium. However, in some official foreign Sony Store, I did not find this model on sale at all. They have the coolest XZ. But here it is not so simple. For example, the price for the British "only" is 549 pounds, which is approximately 672 to the dollar at today's exchange rate. And for the Poles, it will cost 2,990 zł, which is already 762 to the buck. In general, I took the average of this price. By the way, in Colombia, this same smart costs $ 3200 altogether, apparently the number of drug barons per capita seems to affect.
*** I looked at the price on the off site, but when I try to buy it, it sends to Amazon where it costs $ 50 cheaper and has free delivery.
Total: the average price for the top smart in 2016 year = $ 700
For nine years, the price of the same product has increased by 20%!
Perhaps it is a matter of inflation or some problems with the production of electronics? This, of course, is unlikely, because the prices I took from different sources and different countries, but still. I recently very successfully caught the eye of someone's publication on Habré, and from there I brazenly drew out a scan of the price list of a store with Tsaritsino for the year 2002. We will compare in dollars to avoid dirty insinuations with the course.
Here, admire: Scan weighs 5 MB .
Pay attention already in 2002 it was possible to take some kind of LCD monitor 15 '' for only $ 460! Unprecedented luxury at the time. Well, let's find out how much the most budget LCD with a diagonal of 21 "will be now (progress does not stand still, tea has learned to somehow optimize).
In general, anyone can make sure that for 6500 rubles today you can buy a quite tolerable TFT-monik. This ... drum roll ... $ 102.
Wow! Price dropped four times. This is despite the fact that I look at prices for the end user, already with all the extra charges, etc. Even assuming that LCDs only appeared, and instead compare today's 21 "LCDs with the then 17" CRTs, it turns out that the average price for them was around $ 200, so the price of consumer goods still fell twice to the current moment.
Well, maybe the world began to produce less mobile phones or demand fell? Let's figure it out.
Here are interesting graphs that show us the brave growth of two market locomotives, albeit in the short interval 2010-2012.
I really didn’t quite understand why in the 10th year they would start almost from scratch, but oh well, let's leave it to the painter’s conscience.
Maybe things did not go so well with them? Anyway, I found another interesting sign that shows us that the total smartphone market from 2013 to 2016 has almost doubled. I apologize in advance for the quality of the picture, I found it in the open spaces.
Demand is growing steadily, production is growing ... Competition, judging by the market is also present. And what's the price? Is growing too ?!
Trying to see the exact picture through the veil of my own errors, I turned to the last argument, which, perhaps, could be one of the most weighty. I found a wonderful post in LiveJournal in which the author collected Rosstat data and built many graphs illustrating the purchasing power of the Russian population from 1995 to 2015.
According to the link I recommend to go, there are many interesting things. We are primarily interested in red-green graphics. And you need to evaluate the values of 2007 and 2015.
Let's compare different market segments. Here, for example, a comparison of the level of drugs:
There is a fall below the level of 2007 almost everywhere. We look further. Prices for museums, exhibitions, theaters and cinemas, i.e. for entertainment and leisure.
Only holiday homes have become more accessible (by the way, I wonder why). The availability of transport changes is also a minimum - unless the plane tickets and in the train compartment with something became more accessible.
And finally - prices for housing and public utilities and services:
It can be seen that only fixed telephone communication has become cheaper, which, in general, is understandable.
Total: of the 21 positions, only 5 have become more accessible from the year 2007. The rest either have risen appreciably or have changed slightly. Those. it can be concluded that the purchasing power of Russians has not increased significantly since 2007.
For greater persuasiveness, it would be possible to compare the cost price of a smartphone then and now, but take my word for it, if there is a change, then certainly not in the direction of growth. Well, or do not believe it, google it yourself, everything is easy to find, it has already been considered more than once.
What is the result? Production is growing. Demand is growing. Proiz People do not get richer. And what's the price? And the price is growing, and very significantly. How so?
Yes, it is possible that manufacturers began to receive no longer due to the fact that they stupidly raised prices, perhaps it is a matter of expanding the market, improving the manufacturability of production or something else ... For the end user, this does not matter.
People are willing to buy this product for the money. People were convinced that it was worth so much. You just need to slightly warm their interest, order a couple of reviews with epithets in the spirit of "budget", "affordable", etc ... Set minimum prices for resellers. In general, instill the idea that this thing is not cheap. And everything, it is possible to raise prices smoothly, by a couple of percent per year, and voila, considering the volumes, the total profit will grow in a power dependence.
Of course, I have no illusions that I can convince someone with this article, but still ...
To hell with such marketing! I will never buy a smart more expensive 10k!
PS In order not to respond the same to many comments, I will add here.
I understand perfectly what is the price of the final device. Here it is chosen as an indicator not because I do not understand this. If you prefer, it is determined by a dozen, second, third factors (this was also rightly repeatedly noted in the comments). However, they are not always in a linear relationship. To take them all into account is quite a lot of work, in some cases drawing on such a good research on economics. Besides the fact that I am not an economist by profession, I still do not have enough time for such studies, and most importantly, I think that they are not particularly needed for anyone here.
That is why I do not go into details in the article for ala “chip makers switched to a smaller technical process, the size of the plates increased, which means the unit cost fell,” or “nobody is developing the core, but only buying a license from ARM” and the like. and just take the final price for the consumer. In my opinion, this is the most adequate of quick assessments.
It also repeatedly rightly pointed to the inflation of the dollar. However, I believe that cheaper iron and an increase in production volumes compensate for this inflation with a vengeance. In the end, manufacturers' profits are growing, why should the end user get used to this, and not to increase the availability of the benefits of civilization?
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/398817/
All Articles