Mark Ritson: Google Glass’s marketing was perfection but its design made you look super stupid

The downfall of Google Glass is down to one thing – it was an ugly product that made anyone wearing it look stupid. Its marketing, however, was immaculate with a seamless blend of social media and more traditional PR.

Ritson featured image

Despite all the hullaballoo, the boldest and most famous example of wearable technology is currently floating, face first, in the ocean somewhere off California. In mid-January, we learned that Google Glass was no longer a going concern, at least in its present form.

The interesting question is why the much-hyped spectacles failed so badly. Clearly, it wasn’t to do with targeting. Google played a blinder two years ago by running a social media contest to recruit the first 6,000 customers for Glass. The contest created acres of publicity but also ensured that the first phalanx of Glass wearing customers were non-geeky, super cool, emotionally intelligent types, which the advertising world often refers to as ‘aspirational’.

You also could not fault the communication campaign that promoted Glass to the world. A seamless blend of social media and more traditional PR and events saw Glass feted globally from Vogue to The Simpsons to The Colbert Report. Everywhere you looked in 2014 you saw Glass. And no-one could accuse Google of getting the pricing wrong. There were raised eyebrows at the initial price of $1,500, but the scramble to get hold of them and the subsequent grey market activity on eBay suggest that the price was indeed right.

Distribution was equally well managed. With the exception of those few errant pairs on eBay, Google sold all their units direct, ensuring a perfect control of price, availability and targeting. The absence of big box retailers and their usual addiction to sales promotions also helped build brand equity.

The product itself worked well too. Even confirmed technophobes, like your humble columnist, looked at what it could do – audio without headphones, visual recognition software, recording video from real-time line of sight– and cooed appreciatively.

So where did it all go wrong? Marketing theory would suggest that if you have the right target and the correct mix of the four P’s, you will make a big heap of money. It’s taken me much time and analysis to come up with my thesis but I’m certain the fatal flaw in Google Glass was that it made people look like wankers, or, as they became known, ‘Glassholes’. Even if you were a super-thin, super-cool, supermodel, when you wore Glass you looked super stupid. And the reason for this was because the product was ugly. If you don’t believe me try a, ahem, Google image search for ‘people wearing Google Glass’. See what I mean? You get the usual blend of supermodels and, fashionistas but they all, without exception, look like wankers.

Google Glass was good for tech, but hopeless on the wearable dimension. The reason it failed so miserably on the latter is all about Google and its core competencies. You may remember the concept of “the core competence of an organisation” – it’s one of the simplest, and most important, theories of strategy and was invented by CK Prahalad and Gary Hamel in a blast of early 90s genius.

The authors posit that companies are good at some shit (I am paraphrasing) and less good at other shit. It may sound a trivial theory but, and I encourage you to read the full paper in the Harvard Business Review, it explains pretty much everything including Google and its Glass failure. It certainly explains why Google can build successful websites and email apps (clunky, plain, devoid of distraction, evolving with usage) and why its eyewear was always going to suck, big-time.

Prahalad and Hamel said that a firm should come to recognise where it lacks core competence and outsource these challenges to someone who can help out. In contrast to Google, Apple has the core competence of design thanks to Steve Jobs and his love for simplicity and appearance. He once famously said: “Design is the fundamental soul of a human-made creation that ends up expressing itself in successive outer layers of the product or service.”

There’s every chance that wearable tech might pause with Glass and only truly enter fast-forward mode when Apple’s Watch is launched. Glass is on the drawing board of a new design team who report to Tony Fadell, an ex-Apple executive. Hamel and the late, great CK Prahalad would surely approve the decision.

Hide Comments3 Show Comments
Comments
  • Al King 12 Feb 2015 at 9:36 am

    Agreed. So who might they partner with? It’s harder to think of a cooler specs bran than Black Eyewear, whose specs are inspired by and named after great jazz artists. That would work. Or maybe go for a fully bespoke service, which allows you to choose every element of the design for a one-of-a-kind look like Larke Optics.

  • Claire 12 Feb 2015 at 12:03 pm

    Absolutely agree. You might call it the ‘bluetooth headset’ factor. Instant David Brent style free for all users.

  • Mark Batchelor 15 Feb 2015 at 2:51 pm

    If the reason that the product didn’t sell was because the target audience audience felt stupid wearing them, and it caused them to be ostracized by their peers – I would put that down to either not fully understanding the audience dynamic, deciding to ‘take a punt’ accepting that it was challenging society’s acceptability and current views, or just that it was too early. In 1993, I facilitated the launch of electronic books and electronic publishing in the UK. The Sony Data Discman was the new technology for book reading, along with other ‘multimedia’ PC, CD, and TV platforms. The Sony product never really took off as many would not accept that paperback novels would be happily read on an electronic device. Needless to say I can’t help smiling when I see people scrolling through the latest novel on their readers or tablets 20 years after the Sony Data Discman disappeared over the horizon.

  • Post a comment

Latest from Marketing Week

NOT REGISTERED? IT'S FREE, QUICK AND EASY!

Access Marketing Week’s wealth of insight, analysis and opinion that will help you do your job better.

Register and receive the best content from the only UK title 100% dedicated to serving marketers' needs.

We’ll ask you just a few questions about what you do and where you work. The more we know about our visitors, the better and more relevant content we can provide for them. And, yes, knowing our audience better helps us find commercial partners too. Don't worry, we won't share your information with other parties, unless you give us permission to do so.

Register now

THE BEST CONTENT

Our award winning editorial team (PPA Digital Brand of the Year) ask the big questions about the biggest issues on everything from strategy through to execution to help you navigate the fast moving modern marketing landscape.

THE BIGGEST ISSUES

From the opportunities and challenges of emerging technology to the need for greater effectiveness, from the challenge of measurement to building a marketing team fit for the future, we are your guide.

PERSONAL AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Information, inspiration and advice from the marketing world and beyond that will help you develop as a marketer and as a leader.

Having problems?

Contact us on +44 (0)20 7292 3711 or email subscriptions@marketingweek.com

If you are looking for our Jobs site, please click here