create 2 PowerPoints

Before entering EU Business School, I was seeing Google as a simple search engine, but I quickly figured that it is much more than that. In fact, at the very beginning of my bachelor, one of my classmates mentioned the failure of the Google glasses during one of his presentations. At that time, I was already wondering how such a technologically advanced company can fail on such a promising product. I knew something went wrong with this product, but I did not know what.

After conducting some research on my own, I figured that Google Glass was a new media innovation with an incredible potential, but consumers decided otherwise: they did not accept the product. The fact that purchaser still have such a power over the market and are able to influence it inspired me.

In addition, while working on a school project, I read an article about “X Development LLC.”, better known as “Google X”, which is a subsidiary semi-secret research and development facility organization founded by Google about ten years ago. It is the same company division that work on driverless vehicles. I was obviously immediately intrigued by the fact that Google owns a semi-secrete branch, thus, I wanted to know more about it.

Moreover, as part of the millennial generation, I feel concerned about my future. With this technological era, everyone has doubt on how the future will look like. What we know is that we will surely experience an unprecedented era of technology.

Letting the phone in the pocket all day long and still be able to perform most of its tasks is revolutionary, but the technology is already highly evolved, and the Google Glass could have entered our daily life. Thus, I am surprised that no one is using this technology.

​

Therefore, knowing that the Google glasses were developed by Google X, I felt fortunate to be asked to develop a marketing case about a product and to offer my own solutions and recommendations to this situation. Indeed, At the end of this case, I will emit theories on how to push the development of the device forward as well as highlighting important factors for which some change could be needed.

This case enables me to gain knowledge about a topic for which I am attached and that I already wanted to explore more deeply.

Released in May 2014, the Google Glass was one of the latest wearables, hands-free device. Google was already developing smart glasses a few years before its public release. This product offers a new way to perform tasks such as access information, interact with the technological environment as well as sharing content while giving the first person view of the experience (appendix, picture A)

The Google glasses are designed in the shape of a pair of eyeglasses with a screen positioned over the user’s right eye. This wearable computer allows its users to either select commands by sliding a pad located over the right eye up and down, or back and forth, or to rely on the voice command (appendix, picture B) The glasses incorporate an embedded camera, a. microphone, a small prism display, a GPS, and an amplifier that allow the user to hear audible sounds despite not being directly connected to the ears. Now that the tech industry focuses on smart devices and button-free commands, and the consumers on multitasking, Google thought that it was the right time to push this product to the market (Wilson, Mabbitt, Richardson and Pétrifies, 2021).

The innovation brought by the Google Glass is unprecedented: being able to answers phone call, access platforms such a social media, managing video conferencing as you walk around, take picture on voice command without taking your cell phone out of your pocket is thoroughgoing (appendix, picture C). Another incontrovertible advantage is the access to Google Map: The Glass shows the right path into the user’s vision while being on a bike for instance. There is no need to take the phone anymore. Those innovations gave the brand an early impression of success. Nonetheless, it was not the case (Craig and Craig, 2021).

Google’s wearable computer technology was once considered to be part of the most promising technological innovation, but never achieved its full potential. In fact, Glass came in the market and left it in a short space of time. However, this product is now still available in the second hand market, and can still download the most recent update which dates from 2019 (Gvora, 2021).

Such a technological innovation can increase the productivity in a working environment: the screen being in front of their vision allows employees to multitask without the need of accessions their phones. For this reason, Google created Google Glass Enterprise, a device that helps complex assemble to work better, faster, smarter, and safer (Google, 2020). The design of this glasses is an improved version of the Google Glass released to the public in 2014 (appendix, picture D)

Employees can then remain focused on a high value work. The voice command enables to access the right application at the right time. For instance, image annotated with instructions, training videos or checklists can be seen by the user.

In addition, Glass enables the communication between co-workers in an instant and communicating with them either through voice call or video conferencing. Video calls allow each part to see exactly what the other sees through the Glass.

Glass runs on Android Open-Source Platform, which makes it easy for its users to work with and achieve higher standards.

So why are people moving forward from Google Glass? One of the major reasons is that the company did not choose the right marketing strategy for this specific product. In addition to this, consumers were not ready yet. Most of them heard about the glasses once they were released only, and not before: they didn’t have enough time to process the idea of wearing a device on their face.

The wearable technology is a constantly growing trend. However, consumers are slower to embrace it. It could be explained by the fact that wearable devices are highly visible. Those glasses are aesthetically unappealing by looking unattractive and awkward. Thus, the design had in fact an important negative impact for the user’s experience. At that time, glass looked more clunky and was still considered by the majority of the market to be at its prototype phase (Hong, 2021). Glass is often compared with cheap modern smartphones.

The cost of the glasses is probably one of the biggest issues faced by Google for the product launch. Their selling price was at 1.500$, which is the triple the price of comparable devices on the market (around 500$). Wearable devices creators face a high competitiveness.  Therefore, knowing that it does not perform daily routine functions as well as smartphones, consumers think that the product cost too much for limited functions (Plafke, 2021).

Besides the cost, there is still a lack of “social necessity” for this type of product. It is hard for potential consumers to understand the problems it solves and the task it performs. Perhaps, the company expected a wider acceptance from potential consumers. Therefore, Google could have created a public demand for the Glass by making them seem revolutionary and practically improve (Kalia, 2021).

In addition, wearable devices are likely to be hacked or even manipulated with nefarious intentions, which push the public questioning themselves regarding both security and privacy concerns. That is to say that the users can have access to “hidden” camera and microphone that can be unethically used for harassing or spying for instance, creating bigger challenges for everyone’s privacy.

Safety reasons could explain why the Glass did not reach its full potential: the device is positioned on the user’s head and is emitting dangerous levels of cancer-causing radiation, safety risks while driving among others (Arthur, 2021).

Last but not least, the American multinational had no specific target market at the time of its release: the company didn’t have the right positioning and launched the product without an extensive market research. Google knew who not to target but did not focus on who to target. they did not want their product to be seen as a “geek” product, which was probable a mistake. (Waddington, 2021). 

When we think of innovative products that failed to hit the market, we think of google glass. Google was one of the most amazing technologies that received market hype, but surprisingly flopped. Unfortunately, google glass failed mainly because of marketing and design issues. The creators neglected very important aspect to marketing and strategic planning. They assumed that the product will sell itself, due to the market hype. This analysis will go in depth on reasons why google glass was not able not launch.

Google Glass lacked a clear consensus among the creators on where the specific market of google glass will be. The creators were torn from whether the product will be as a fashion device to be worn all day or whether it will just be worn for utilitarian functions. Either way, the creators of google glass assumed that with demand, the users will buy the product and use it accordingly. Therefore, the biggest mistake from the google glass creators was the assumption that the product will be worn and acceptable by the public without validating whether the product actually met or overpowered the users’ concerns and needs in the real world. Although google glass was a visionary technology, the creators did not consider whether the piece of technology might be needed and used by an average user. Also they did not note whether this technology can be used in public without making people uncomfortable. They ignored the idea that the aesthetic design, might turn off users easily and assumed that the product will be chosen because of the hype. The creators should have first tested the prototype by observation and engaging users to allow redesign and modification is done accordingly (Yoon, 2018).

Google glass designers failed to clearly define the advancements they were making and how that was important to their target users. Pfister, (2019) When google glass was released, there was no provision of meaningful benefits to its previous users and other potential users. They did not provide a select group that will act as the early adopters. The two main functions of google glass was to scroll through the internet and take pictures with a 2-3 hour battery life. With such battery life, they could not be able to complete superior cameras and processors, without making the glasses unacceptable to wear or use in public. The goggle glass did not provide huge technological advancement in terms of camera, processors and other functionalities compared to the other older technologies and therefore rendering the product useless for supplementation of day to day lives. The creators did not do a thorough competitive research before bringing the product to the market.

Although google communicated a lot about google glass, there was no much depth in their marketing campaign, as it seems like they were replacing GoPro. Google glass it potential by not telling the consumers exactly why they needed them. In their marketing, google featured bikers, and skydivers and displayed them during royalty fashions shows. Google communications was mainly based on the products capabilities including; a touchpad to control the device, a 30-degree tilt of head and a 5 megapixel camera. However, google did not highlight the benefit of the device in the society; for example how it could benefit in research or the education system. Google brought about a huge confusion in the market on whether the google glass was an experiment or a finished product. Nieto-Rodriguez, (2017) explains that google did a poor job in communicating about the product. According to users’ feedbacks, the glass was only at what they called, its prototype phase, which was maybe the case knowing that google quickly stopped the production in order to take into consideration new design and functional alternatives, comparable to a cheap modern smartphone.

Google glass technology lacked a consensus of how it would be used. With the advancement in the camera technology of smartphones, google took an assumption that users wanted a better spontaneous way to take photos that was separate from the device (Sawyer et al., 2014). However, this assumption may have not been true. Therefore, this product was created without deep basis of the solutions for the problems or the target market. In 2018, Nunes and Arruda state that price may have considerable affected the marketability of google glass. The retail price of google was $1,500, which was very high compared to many wearables that are in the market. This price was very high considering that that the product did to solve a particular significant problem in the current world. The device costs was expensive for a device comparable to a cheap phone. Consumers did not understand the utility of this product and found it too expensive, thus didn’t buy it. The creators generally assumed that people will see the value of the product in their lives, despite not solving any major problem. Comparing the price to product doing the same things, the value would buy a product that is long lasting, has a longer battery life and is easy to use (plafke, 2021).

Privacy is a very important aspect in the digital world today. Factors like continued breach on financial security, major privacy scandals and how much we lives our lives online today shows how privacy is important: Google glass did not come out with confidence about the privacy of this new technology. Glass could take photos even without subjects knowing that they are being photographed. Taking photos this days may seem normal, but s lot of people still feel wrong taking a picture without someone’s consents. This aspect of privacy may have led to negative public impression, hence becoming one of the causes why the product was rejected (Kudina and Verbeek, 2019).

Despite the beautiful piece of design, google glass was not comfortable. Google glass weight was 42g and was constantly hanging over the head making it very uncomfortable. Also, the screen positioned in the top right meant that the eyes was always constantly moving up and right. Constant flick of eyes especially to one position makes an individual extremely uncomfortable. This new tech was really hard in development, but however still need a huge design overhaul (Haesner et al., 2018)

The experience of people on how they have had interactions with technology, is a key way of assessing user satisfaction. The highest satisfaction from users is seen when the product solves a problem or issue that they have. Therefore, for any design especially in the technical world, it is very important to understand human behaviors, capabilities, and needs. The solutions that the device provides should always counter negative experiences. In reference to google glass, contemplating that google glass offer unique functionality to other products such as smartphones without solving any kind of human problem is clearly a product failure (Waseem-Ul-Hameed et al., 2018).

some issues such as health, safety, and privacy concerns may be some of the reason why google halted its production. However, the largest identified issues are related to the marketing of the product followed by technical design and privacy.

Google glass should make a partnership with an eyewear manufacturing company because google has to cater for a larger market that is beyond their products. Google need a company that will help in developing glass products and also creating or helping google standout in glass-products market. Market research shows that 98% of eyewear product are being sold - as retail products, whereas goggle has expertise in online sales, which constitutes of only 2% of the eyewear product sales (Altwaijry et al., 2018)

Google glass received several negative review about several parts of the product. It is essential to collect as many users and non-user feedbacks and take them into account in order to improve the product, and thus, improve the customer satisfaction.

In addition, it is necessary for the company to consider mass customizations, by developing variety of products so as to ensure that they meet the needs of their customers. Through mass customization, google glass will satisfy the target market fully.

Market should consider finding a market strategy and a marketing support that fits the product. Google should provide net sales on marketing support from specific companies. Marketing support will help the company to develop huge customer awareness and will reduce marketing support ratio. Google should also consider an open platform strategy where google partner with even smaller retailers and eyewear manufacturer to ensure that they achieve massive mass market demand.

The company defined poorly target or wrong market. Google glass could have targeted this transformational tool for professionals. Truck drives or pilots could constantly access directions without necessarily moving their fingers for instance. Other potential market could include physicians, security personnel, police or machine operators. Yet, such an advanced tool was not a priority for the creators of google glass. Google glass should have targeted professionals including doctors, executives and engineers or celebrities as the early adopters of google glass. Professionals and celebrities would be much willing to pay for $1500 for such a magnificent gadget.

Speaking about celebrities, they are could be one of the best way to promote this kind of products. And, Nowadays, most celebrities are influencers that operate in the digital world. Those influencers are followed by millions of people: those people are generally young knowing that they are the most actives on social mdias. What better place to promote such an innovative and life-changing product that are the Google Glass?

The failure of google glass was mainly because of the failure or lack of clarity on the product and on its marketing. In an exploding digital market, new technologies and products need to have a clear value to their users on the problem it is solving. The developers of google glass did not validate the users’ problems, before coming up with solutions to the users. Therefore, the product did not succeed because the users did not understand the value that the product was giving them.to ensure the success of the google glass product, this research recommends that ; 1) Google should make partnerships with eyewear manufacturing companies 2) they should consider mass customization, and 3) finding an efficient marketing strategy and market support.

Altwaijry, H., Moghimi, M. and Belongie, S., 2018, March. Recognizing locations with google glass: A case study. In IEEE winter conference on applications of computer vision (pp. 167-174). IEEE.

Haesner, M., Wolf, S., Steinert, A. and Steinhagen-Thiessen, E., 2018. Touch interaction with Google Glass–Is it suitable for older adults?. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 110, pp.12-20.

Kudina, O. and Verbeek, P.P., 2019. Ethics from within: Google Glass, the Collingridge dilemma, and the mediated value of privacy. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 44(2), pp.291-314.

Nieto-Rodriguez, A. 2017. Notorious Project Failures-Google Glass.

Nunes, G.S. and Arruda Filho, E.J.M., 2018. Consumer behavior regarding wearable technologies: Google Glass. Innovation & Management Review.

Pfister, D.S., 2019. Technoliberal rhetoric, civic attention, and common sensation in Sergey Brin’s “Why Google Glass?”. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 105(2), pp.182-203.

Sawyer, B.D., Finomore, V.S., Calvo, A.A. and Hancock, P.A., 2014. Google Glass: A driver distraction cause or cure?. Human factors, 56(7), pp.1307-1321.

Waseem-Ul-Hameed, S.N., Azeem, M., Aljumah, A.I. and Adeyemi, R.A., 2018. Determinants of e-logistic customer satisfaction: A mediating role of information and communication technology (ICT). International Journal of Supply Chain Management, 7(1), p.105.

Yoon, C. 2018. Assumptions that led to the failure of Google Glass.

2 | Page