1994-2002 [Subscribe to Daily Digest] |
As a designer, I understand that good design is usually about finding the right balance among various compromises. It's easy to design something that looks really cool, or that functions really well in one or two particular aspects, but it's only a matter of time before the look becomes dated, or the user needs functionality beyond the scope of the design. Those designs aren't necessarily bad, of course - Ferrari's are great - but, by design, they have limited functionality and can't meet the needs of most people for daily use.
Designing for "usability" becomes extremely difficult, however, because everyone's idea of what's useful and what isn't is different. It used to be that hard work and a little bit of genius was required to find a balance that the majority of users would like. Today, we have marketing. Businesses have learned that by polling the public, they can create a fictional "average joe" that they can design for. It's a lot easier to design for a watered down composite user with a single set of needs than it is to design for many different users with many different needs.
My C900 was designed the old way. It's designers met the needs of the "average user" by using a creative design that met the individual needs of many users. It can be a performance car to some, a utility vehicle to others, a luxury vehicle, a safety cage, etc. The creative, or "quirky", design limited the number of compromises that had to be made, and the compromises that had to be made were done in a balanced manner. The hatchback, the small displacement turbo, the front wheel drive - these are all examples of creative design or of balanced compromise.
My point in my earlier post was that this balance is imposible to market to most people. As a general rule, people only react to simple messages or to shiny objects. Successful car companies have learned this, and that is why you can say Volvo to most anyone, and they will think safety. Saab has never been able to distill its essence into a marketable message, so when you say Saab to someone, they're likely to give you a blank stare. At best, they will think "quirky", or at worst, they will think "ugly, unreliable, overpriced...and quirky". Saab can and has tried to market "different" or "rebel", but that approach limits their market to people who actually want to be different or rebellious. The reality is that there aren't that many people like that out there.
Audi, I think, has been in the same boat as Saab, though I think they're climbing their way out of it by concentrating on performance. They've done a good job, and products like the S4 and their performance in the American LeMans series prove it. They're also doing a good job of providing a few shiny objects to entice new customers. The TT almost got me.
, Mon, 30 Oct 2000 10:39:49
No Site Registration is Required to Post - Site Membership is optional (Member Features List), but helps to keep the site online
for all Saabers. If the site helps you, please consider helping the site by becoming a member.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
