Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Gorilla and King Portfolio Candidates -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: mauser96 who wrote (24503)	5/10/2000 11:09:00 PM
From: Mike Buckley	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 54805

Luke, The idea of a superior microprocessor inside is a lot easier to explain and define than CDMA inside. I think it's easier to explain CDMA than a microprocessor. Imagine a few Qualcomm ads on national television showing the frustration of people who didn't purchase CDMA. A guy on a phone says, "Hello? Hello? Darn. Another dropped call. Should have gotten CDMA." Or he's talking to his friend, saying, "I can't hear you. Can you speak up? I didn't get CDMA." This is the EASIEST sell in the world. Easy to explain. Easy to convey. Because it's easy to understand. It's certainly theoretically possible for QCOM to pull off a marketing coup like Intel, but it's not likely IMHO. My point is that it wasn't a coup. It was simple. Convey the reliability of your product and at the same time scare the pants off anyone thinking of buying the competitors' products. How man other companies have been able to do this? I'm not really sure what you mean by "this." I know you're aware of all the consumer-oriented brand names that have been built and leveraged successfully just as Intel did. Also they were smart enough to start doing this when almost all PC's had an Intel chip,giving repetitive exposure. This is hardly the case with CDMA and QCOM. That's why it's important that it be done -- to ensure more handsets sold with that little Qualcomm thingy on it. Building and leveraging a brand isn't easy or cheap, especially if the consumer doesn't have the vaguest idea what it means and there's already a recognizable brand name on the phone. If the consumer knew what it meant, the marketing campaign wouldn't be needed. The fact that the consumer doesn't have the vaguest idea of what it means is the reason the campaign is needed. The fact that there was already a recognizable brand name on a computer didn't prevent the sucess of Intel's marketing campaign and for the same reasons won't prevent the success of Qualcomm's campaign. Why would the cell phone maker dilute it's own brand this way unless it thought the Qualcomm brand was stronger? The cell phone maker wouldn't consider it dilution any more than Compaq, IBM, Dell, Gateway or any other computer manufactuer considered it dilution of their brand name to have "Intel Inside." Just the opposite, it enhances their brand name because it associates it with dependability, reliablity, and customer satisfaction. All just my opinion. However, in this case I know I'm right. :) Tee hee. --Mike Buckley

To: mauser96 who wrote (24503)	5/11/2000 1:23:00 AM
From: chaz	Respond to of 54805

Lucius-- I simply must disagree. Branding may be costly, but it's far, far cheaper than obscurity. USSteel stamped or painted on a piece of pipe or bar stock allowed them to charge higher prices. It was a code (useful at the time) for "Made in the USA" and for a while it worked. Heck, lumber producers do it today on the ends of 2x4's. As far as what to tell the consumer...easy. List the benefits. Clear calls, fewer drops....that's why it's Qualcomm inside! Chaz

To: mauser96 who wrote (24503)	5/11/2000 2:15:00 AM
From: Curbstone	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

Lucius, I would like to see QCOM at least try this (branding) approach even though I suspect the odds are against them ,except perhaps with smaller cell phone makers or those without a good brand yet.(Samsung?)Even partial success would be a boost for them. Not a bad idea. Q could use this as an incentive for those wanting to pay less royalties. In exchange for a sticker on the back of the handset the vendor gets a .25% discounted royalty rate. Or something like that. AM