Indeed quality trumps all. I have always believed that. Success is built on high quality.
Your illustration is correct for the time in which the technology has already been accepted into the market place and the doctors are making a choice of which to use. At that point, the quality wins - your logic is sound. Long term the ease of market infusion, and I hope the subsequent challenge of market saturation for that matter, is all that the company and its competitors will face.
But I am pointing out the effect during the time of introduction to market. Say I am a cosmetic surgeon who has depended on the after surgery hospital crowd. There is a reasonable segment of these physicians, I would guess, although I really don't know this. We will just say for this example that it applies to whatever size segment of the cosmetic surgery market it is for now. So this new technology comes out that will eliminate at least 70% of my revenue stream. I know if I buy it I can increase my other 30% through time, but even if I do it by 15% per year it is still many years of debt until I catch up and then I have to catch up on that debt, etc... And the cosmetic surgeon who does non-hospital work and only cosmetic work needs to purchase a new system for X amount of dollars. Perhaps they just started out and invested in, well, some kind of bulk stitch-em-up supply purchase or something, I don't know....
OK. Now I am just getting ridiculous. So my point really is a question. Would the psychological factors including fear of change, market loss, and loss of competitive advantage along with potential entry price prohibitions cause difficulty for those trying to enter the market and if so, what is necessary to overcome this potential obstacle?
I realize I am only talking about a tiny part of the actual marketing challenge, so understand this is not about bashing or being negative - just talking about it. All the positives are well noted, and this author wished he had a little more scratch in the vault...
-Neb
