We all know that one negative review equals to 10 positive reviews for the seller. However, this is a serious debate and critical article during the issues with smart home juice device on YouTube's review.
It's intended to sell the juice package with expensive high tech machine but you can do it handy by yourself.
It can check the the expiry date via visual judgement on the package instead of high tech
Supporter were already investing a huge money before the YouTuber broadcasted their review of this juice.
CSR contains variety of issues in the open view. However, if we trace back to the marketing phase, it should be firstly consider one aspect of view "Is it worth for customer to pay the money?" After that, we can talked about the minor issues. You might notice a little tricky now. Here's a different point from 'useful products' with 'worth to pay the product' that worth to pay means recognisable(better) solution to solve the problem. In Juicer case, it obviously consider useful solution
but not a recognisable solution. so even though the previous CEO got 1 billion funds on the kicker star, the Juicer still got the bad effect on youtube review.
What we learn from this lesson is that product design and marketing must be benefit for the folks or it might easy to sell and create the value itself. Secondly, no one considered as a designer will expect that one review will crash down a 50% price. In specific, if the smart device is more intelligence than the conventional one, it should be persuasive to the consumers and dominated the marketed. So we back to the original design and marketing process. Is there any distraction by the technology or any method? We all should be consider wisely and deeply before start to get the found. Sinopulsar sell smart things but we don't talk like a merchandise man. we are the pioneer educator of the IoT. So when you next time going to buy a smart things, it's better to ask in your mind that "is it smarter than the traditional one?"