Does "Test Market" count as a release?

[mr_me]

Sounds like a released product then.  A product they tried to eliminate by buying them all back to absolve them of their responsibilities of releasing a product.  Even in that case there is a type of market.  They offer a product direct to their existing customer base and the customer decides to purchase.

Edited January 20, 2020 by mr_me

[CatPix]

Yet no one consider the M35 released.

Neither Citroën themselves nor car enthusiast themselves.

Unlike the GS Birotor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citroën_GS#GS_Birotor that is a commercial release (and was bought back too to avoir lenghty part support).

[BassGuitari]

On 1/19/2020 at 2:56 PM, mr_me said:

A test market is not a focus group, a focus group is a focus group.  Had the NES been cancelled after the new york test, it would still be a released product.  It was sold to consumers, would have warranty support, and follow all regulations and certifications required of any product.  Is there a rule that says you can't sell a localised product if you want, or for how long it sells.

 

Just as focus groups inform what features a product will have or what direction it will take, test markets inform whether the product is viable for release. They're just further extensions of the testing process.

 

Obviously you can sell a product on a limited, local basis. That will never be the goal of product developers at a company launching a video game console, though. I think that's the key distinction here.

 

[turboxray]

14 hours ago, BassGuitari said:

 test markets inform whether the product is viable for release. 

 

No. Do you know how much tooling and creating a package process costs? Nevermind that you have to do a lot more than just produce a 'couple hundred' to break even. "Test markets" is not a clear cut definition whose sole purpose is provided an answer to question of IF. If the intention is to release, then 'test markets' answer the question of HOW. Nintendo already committed to production and selling; they were fine-tuning their marketing, appearance, appeal, etc. It wasn't just consumer base, it was showing retailers as well. Nintendo wasn't Mattel or some large well known American company that could persuade shops and stores to reserve shelf space for an unproven item simply by history and confidence. Nintendo's 'test market' was their strategy for breaking in, not evaluating/bracing for a possible exit. 

 

 

 If anyone wants to define test market other than what Nintendo's objectives were, then make an exception for Nintendo's entry into the market because it's pretty clear Big N knew there was a great opportunity there to be had, and they were gonna step up and take it. Like I said before, if you're going to make explicit definitions then you better make exceptions to go along with them as well. Else, shoe horning events into definitions that don't accurately describe them, results in fraudulent categorization and incorrect information (and rewriting historical narratives).  

[Metal Ghost]

I still don’t get how anyone could think that a Test Market Release isn’t, nonetheless, a release. It’s just a matter of scale or degrees at that point. At least IMHO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tanooki]

Basically the Nintendo test market, was only in name.  Why because retailers were scared completely because 2 years before they got stuck holding the ball on a lot of unmoveable product due to that regional crash.  Nintendo wanted the NA market, so the entire concept and execution of the console was one pack of lies, a lie rolled in a lie, rolled in another, etc.  The famicom molding probably could have worked in a good healthy market, but no, they had to run a con racket.  They made the system look like and load like a VCR for a kid, easy to use.  They packed in the pointless(nearly) robot as a cheap novelty item with they could pitch it then as a TOY to those types of stores too.  The packing, stylizing of all the various bits, everything, came down to running a con against the toy and electronics industry, but also kind of on the consumer too.  They needed to bs their way in, so they go all in on the thing, call it a test, roll it out in two large markets in 1985 late, then into more larger and larger spaces the following year until they could eventually go national.  A true test would have been what others said, it was no test, just by name, the fake name Nintendo put out there to sell space to get it on the shelf in stores and to wow consumers into thinking they were getting in on an opportunity of a lifetime.

[BassGuitari]

On 1/22/2020 at 11:41 AM, turboxray said:

No. Do you know how much tooling and creating a package process costs? Nevermind that you have to do a lot more than just produce a 'couple hundred' to break even. "Test markets" is not a clear cut definition whose sole purpose is provided an answer to question of IF. If the intention is to release, then 'test markets' answer the question of HOW. Nintendo already committed to production and selling; they were fine-tuning their marketing, appearance, appeal, etc. It wasn't just consumer base, it was showing retailers as well. Nintendo wasn't Mattel or some large well known American company that could persuade shops and stores to reserve shelf space for an unproven item simply by history and confidence. Nintendo's 'test market' was their strategy for breaking in, not evaluating/bracing for a possible exit. 

 

 

 If anyone wants to define test market other than what Nintendo's objectives were, then make an exception for Nintendo's entry into the market because it's pretty clear Big N knew there was a great opportunity there to be had, and they were gonna step up and take it. Like I said before, if you're going to make explicit definitions then you better make exceptions to go along with them as well. Else, shoe horning events into definitions that don't accurately describe them, results in fraudulent categorization and incorrect information (and rewriting historical narratives).  

 

Yes. "A test market, in the field of business and marketing, is a geographic region or demographic group used to gauge the viability of a product or service in the mass market prior to a wide scale roll-out."

 

I never mentioned Nintendo. Or producing a "couple hundred" of anything. 🤷‍♂️

 

On 1/22/2020 at 5:50 PM, Metal Ghost said:

I still don’t get how anyone could think that a Test Market Release isn’t, nonetheless, a release. It’s just a matter of scale or degrees at that point. At least IMHO

Because test marketing is still part of the product development phase, whereas a "release," essentially, is the launch phase.

 

And also because the only way you could have gotten, say, an Intellivision in 1979 is if you lived in Fresno, California.

[mr_me]

Even if a test market failed, the product still got out.  You can't put the genie back in the bottle although in some cases the manufacturer tried to buy their product all back.  You can't deny the fact that the product was released.  Even a US national release doesn't help people in Canada; can they say it wasn't released because of the limited market.

[CatPix]

Well yeah, I never heard anyone saying that "the Wonderswan was released in Europe, but geographically limited to Japan".

 

The Amiga CD32 was not released in the USA. Apparently people near the Canadian border could order one via Canadian mail-order, but that doesn't make it an US release.

 

And again, Citroën M-35.