Essay About Paul Guehlar And Redesigned Product

Pricing Case
As Paul Guehlar, I would be looking at the data collected through the focus groups and Andy Wongs thoughts and hesitations, but more importantly I would have kept in mind the fact that there had been two previous attempts made to create a suitable privacy screen for the consumer market that had failed. And even though the group had assured me that the redesigned product would be a market place success, I would have still bared the two previous failures in mind. To me there is only so far you can go to innovate a product that hasnt seen a success from the time it was conceived to the point of its launch; and failure of the product which in this case was the privacy screen. There is a critical point at which a product is no longer profitable and will cause a company to hemorrhage money trying to figure out how to make it work. Then there are other factors that come into play such as: Will this product sell? Will I be able to distribute my product? Will the consumer market agree with the price point? Will the manufacturing cost be so high that I will have to raise the MSRP in order to make a profit? At a price point of $175 I fear that most consumers would not want to spend this much to fix something that may or may not be a pressing issue. As Paul Guehlar, I wouldnt have green lit the re-launch and would have either searched for a buyer to license the technology out if there was any chance of making money that way or I would have shut the project down all together focused efforts on other products that were profitable and tasking R&D with creating and alternate product that could be more profitable. It is true that after some tweaking, a product has the potential to work but still a small chance after it had already failed twice and after the sales of the first and second generation privacy screens were under $30,000 combined, I wouldnt have been able to justify the third attempt, to me the data shows that the market for a device like this