Sometimes the problem lies not in the technology, but in the way a product is initially understood, marketed and sold. The real-world journey of Google Glass is a prime example of this: as a consumer product, Glass generated enormous attention but failed to meet a stable mass demand. Later, the same basic idea found much clearer use cases in the corporate environment.
Company:
Google / Google Glass
Topic:
Positioning, target audience and actual need
Key learning point:
It is not uncommon for a strong product to fail because it is explained, marketed or sold in a way that does not address the actual need.
Reuters reported in 2015 that Google had halted consumer sales of Glass; X chief Astro Teller later said that Google had allowed, or even encouraged, too much attention and had not made it clear enough that it was a prototype rather than a finished mass-market product. After that, the focus gradually shifted towards the enterprise sector. X and Google later described specific industrial applications; in 2019, Google wrote that Glass Enterprise Edition helped staff in logistics, manufacturing and field service with hands-free access to checklists, work instructions and photos, and had supported faster processes, better quality and lower costs for business customers.
Glass’s early focus on consumers was spectacular, but unfocused. It attracted attention, but lacked a clear, broad-based everyday use case. The subsequent enterprise focus was much more precise: hands-free, information in the field of view, clear benefits in manufacturing, logistics, healthcare or field service. X cites partners such as Boeing, DHL, Sutter Health and AGCO. The interesting point, therefore, is not just the product change, but the shift from a fascinating feature to a concrete work task.
Google Glass is a good real-world example of whether a product addresses actual needs. In the consumer context, the focus was very much on what the glasses are technically capable of. In the enterprise context, the focus was much more on which specific problem they solve in the workflow. It is precisely this difference that is key for sales and positioning: a technically impressive product does not sell itself automatically on the basis of its features, but rather on its relevance to the user’s everyday life.
For Aiquiro Research, this would be the key question:
Does a company primarily talk about product features – or about a truly compelling reason for the customer to make a decision?
In such a case, we would examine:
1. Who is the actual first user – and in what context does immediate benefit arise?
2. Which reasons for purchase are actually relevant: fascination, prestige, efficiency, quality, safety, time savings?
3. Which target group is reached by the current argumentation, but not really convinced?
4. What positioning makes the offering practically compatible?
The case of Google Glass shows very clearly that the same underlying technology can be assessed completely differently depending on the target group and context of use.
When an offer attracts a lot of attention but still fails to deliver, the problem isn’t always down to poor performance. Often, it is because the offer is being explained, positioned or sold in a way that does not match the actual need. In such cases, ‘more sales’ is not automatically the solution; rather, the first step is to provide a clearer answer to the question: For whom is the benefit truly essential?
The official Google Glass article on Glass Enterprise Edition 2 and the YouTube video “Glass Enterprise Edition 2: Say Hello to Glass”. Both demonstrate very well how significantly the narrative has shifted from that of a spectacular consumer gadget to that of a clear work aid.
In that case, it is often not your efforts that are the problem, but the focus of your positioning.