<snip> Not everyone will order a Pandora, we know that, but the positive news will have a chain-reaction, which was discussed before. </snip>
I disagree, BSOD is no thing of the past, people are just stuck with Windows as most people are creatures of habit. He sure will mention that he got the Pandora in his next Podcast but there is no reason to believe that this will automatically change his viewers/listeners judgment about the Pandora. We do not know how he will make note of it (maybe he makes a joke out of it, again) nor can we ignore the fact that usually the first info about something sticks - think of tabloid headlines, even if the publishers are sentenced to print a correction in the next issue, the headline will stick to the case.
If you want to disagree on the BSOD, then fine. Just think of an example of Company X, which had a Product Y with Problem Z, which they later fixed and released a Product Y2 without Problem Z.
Are you actually reading my posts with any thought? Even the part you quoted said it: "Not everyone will order a Pandora, we know that, but the positive news will have a chain-reaction, which was discussed before."
So yeah, not AUTOMATICALLY change judgement, but it will have the chain-reaction. Or are you disagreeing with the chain-reaction? About how people communicate with each other and tell about their experiences?
And yes, we know that the first impression has a strong impact. But it can still be altered, even if it takes more work than what it took for the first impression. That's exactly why we need DAMAGE CONTROL.
Ugh, I don't think I'm getting through to you with what I mean with chain-reaction, so let me present it in a form of an example.
======================
Background:
OP - OpenPandora (not separating the UK and German part for now)
Mike - a retro-gaming podcaster
John - subscriber to the podcast
Paul - friend of John, potential customer of OP
Matt - another friend of John, potential customer of OP
Chris - yet another friend of John, potential customer of OP
It's quite rare to have a simple case of good/bad, there are shades of grey. So imagine a scale of -50 .... +50, implicating the average(*) consensus among the listeners, including subscriber John:
-50 = do not want
0 = maybe
+50 = gimme gimme
Let us begin:
Before the introduction of OP, point is at 0.
Every time podcaster Mike tells of good or bad news regarding on OP, the scale tips accordingly.
+30 (woot, new incredible handheld)
-6 (bank problems)
-12 (case&nub problems)
-15 (delays)
+15 (first mass production run)
-7 (delays)
So now we're at +5, positive maybe. Along comes friend Paul, telling John about how he just stumbled upon OP via Engadget, and asks John if he has heard about OP, and what's the deal with it. John describes his experience according to the +5. Paul decides to take the plunge and orders one.
-8 (delays)
+18 (moving production, new investors)
-7 (delays)
-12 (delays)
+11 (1GHz units)
-14 (delays)
-23 (delays, "SuperPandora 2.0")
So now we're at -30, things are pretty bad. Along comes friend Matt, telling John about how he just stumbled upon OP via Retrogamermag123, and asks John if he has heard about OP, and what's the deal with it. John describes his experience according to the -30, which is quite bad. -30 is actually so bad, that Matt decides to skip it altogether.
+20 (it's finally here!)
So now we're at -10, still slightly negative. Along comes friend Chris, telling John about how he just stumbled upon OP via Ballerinas-united, and asks John if he has heard about OP, and what's the deal with it. John describes his experience according to the -10, which is "meh". -10 is not enough to take the plunge, but Chris decides to follow the project for the time being.
So, changing the general/average consensus will have an impact on potential customers, even if they're not the ones listening to the podcast. When in turn someone asks Paul, Matt or Chris about the OP, they will tell according to their knowledge, which are +5, -30, -10.
(*): Yes, not everyone will react exactly the same, that's why it's called average. If the average score is -20, somebody will react with according to -30, while someone will react with -10, and so on.
=======================
Hard to believe that oversimplifing things with that analogy will serve any purpose, as the influences of one of newtons laws is something we experience every day of your life and grow very experienced in it. But predicting people reactions is quite another beast - think of apple, eight to ten years back no one predicted apple ascension into a market leading posiition. Or if you like it more case related, take the c't "fiasco" (I'm dramatizing a little, it was no real fiasco): A review from a or better "the" german publication regarding computer technology, where everbody was certain the editorial staff would see the potential of the Pandora. But it was quite the opposite.
Such laws in general can only descibe the outcome in a contained environment with specific, known influence factors - put your analogy outside a house in autumn with a not plain surface where the ball should bounce off - the outcome may differ from your past experiences.
But maybe my basic knowledge of the english language leaves me here and I simply did not get what you were trying to tell me, so please guide me in the right direction if I did.
The purpose was this:
There's actually no guarantee that the ball falls. It can be 99.9999999999999999% certain it does, but there's still that small chance that the gravity as a force suddenly stops or that some unpredicted counter-force occurs (like a strong gust of wind), and the ball keeps stationary, or even starts to fly upwards.
So the analogy was to emphasize this fact:
You can't be SURE of anything (or like you said, something happening "automatically"). But you can draw conclusions from the past and predict what is *likely* to happen.
So, (through prior experience and studies) we know that good news *usually* have good implications. And bad news *usually* have bad implications. In any case, sending him the unit doesn't actually have any foreseeable BAD implications.
Furthermore, predicting ONE person's reaction is hard, because the chance of deviation is higher. But when the number of samples increases, the average begins to stabilize, and we can begin to use more common generalizations.
No need to feel for me as I already have my Pandora for more than a year. As many people I'd like my illusions be kept intact, and react somewhat emotional when reality breaks through. Thats the case here, the Pandora beeing the anchor windward of mass market purchase decisions.
What "feels bad" is that he got a speedup simply because he is a "cry baby" 8so to speak).
But whats done is done, so no need to waste more time/words on this. Lets just wait for his review
He got a speedup because he has a like-minded crowd of followers, in addition to him being a pre-orderer. It was a chance to enhance OP's image. If you think about it, it's no different from sending him a review unit. Except because he is also a pre-orderer, he can now keep the unit. No reason to send units back and forth, with costly shipping fees.
And he didn't actually come and ask for a special treatment, himself. And as I already stated this: ED said he is more lenient with bloggers and reviewers.