carrot
Flashaholic
First off, I know that a discussion like this can get heated, so I will not name names and I also encourage the rest of you to do the same.
Why clones are bad for manufacturers:
1) A manufacturer wishing to best succeed in an ever expanding market must be able to differentiate themselves. Clones are relatively easy to make, and present a "me too" image for the manufacturer. This reduces brand value, because the only thing said product has going for it is its relative inexpensiveness to the original.
B) Every product a manufacturer makes is an opportunity to build a brand, by having a unique style, a unique feature set, and gaining customer loyalty through trust. Offering a clone represents a missed opportunity. It is important to note that forming a strong brand identity allows consumers to develop emotional connections towards a product, its brand and manufacturer, resulting in brand loyalty and "fanboyism." Having repeat loyal customers builds your customer base by word of mouth.
3) Having a unique style makes products instantly recognizable. Consider cars, where modern Cadillacs have a very angled look, new Fords have an impressive chrome grille, and Chryslers are updated retro. This helps to build brand awareness and gives your brand identity. A product with character is far more interesting to consumers than another "me too."
4) A manufacturer can enter a niche without copying the design and styling of another manufacturer's product. Again we will look at cars: Honda introduced the Fit, which is a very popular 5-door hatchback thanks to its lower price and excellent feature set. Compare to Toyota's Yaris, Chevy's Aveo, Kia's Soul, Ford's Fiesta and Nissan's Versa. All fill the same niche while still maintaining a brand identity, and more importantly, differentiating themselves. For instance, the Versa offers more comfort than the Fit, but less room.
Sadly I think those who would best benefit from this section will not read it.
Why clones are bad for the industry
A) Clones can only differentiate themselves on price, which has a strong bearing on quality. This forces a race to the bottom, which may initially seem good to consumers, can in the long run be harmful.
Consider the computer industry, where various manufacturers cloned the original IBM workstations, initially improving upon each other but turning PCs into a commodity (a win for Microsoft, which needed to commoditize PCs to popularize their software... but a loss for IBM, Compaq, et al. [more...]). Now many computer manufacturers compete on price which results in the flimsy machines that fail within 3 years. Note that making something into a commodity only benefits those who have built their businesses around that commodity, not the manufacturers of the commodity themselves. The race to the bottom can be attributed to the reason why we have not seen any major shifts in computing paradigms for years, until the uprising of the "Very Personal Computer" ie. current generation smartphones. (To prove that point, I wrote and edited this entire post on my iPhone.)
2) Encouraging clones discourages innovation. If a manufacturer decides to compete on price (and subsequently quality) alone, then the manufacturer must run on artificially lower margins, which means less money for R&D. Less R&D means less innovation. Without R&D we would not have better batteries, good optics, brighter LEDs, IC-based (programmable, smart or regulated) flashlights. On that note, we should consider that buying originals encourages the continuation of innovation and R&D by rewarding innovation.
Why clones are bad for consumers, and subsequently The Product
1) Clones indicate a lack of attention to detail. If a manufacturer cannot be bothered to come up with their own feature set and/or aesthetic styling, they also cannot be bothered to build a Product properly. I will not name names but those with a keen eye and sense of engineering who have both Brand A, high end product, and Brand B, high performance low cost product, where Brand B chooses to copy significant parts of Brand A's styling in order to piggyback on Brand A's popularity and brand image, will notice that Brand B has all sorts of interesting engineering shortcomings and a distinct lack of attention to detail. Brand C, high performance low cost product, with its own styling and some investment into R&D, will often tend to have better attention to detail because their brand is riding on their own image, not the coattails of others. Don't think for a moment that this applies to only flashlights. Consider my earlier car analogy and follow up by considering clone manufacturers and their reputation in that industry.
2) Clones do not offer as great a sense of worth. For many of us who are avid product users, whether something is a clone or not has little effect on its pure utilitarian value, aside my previous statement about quality and lack of attention to details. However, for many of us who are also collectors and cherish the products we own for whatever desirable properties they have, we can take pride in having and using an excellent, well-designed, thoughtfully engineered Product. Joy and satisfaction is hard to qualify but I take much greater satisfaction in using an Original Product than a clone. I think many others would also agree.
Now I don't deny that clones have their place in society and in the industry, but I don't believe clones deserve worship and praise either.
I welcome all comments, and encourage further discussion on the subject. Hopefully we can be levelheaded and mindful of others' feelings on this often heated topic.
Why clones are bad for manufacturers:
1) A manufacturer wishing to best succeed in an ever expanding market must be able to differentiate themselves. Clones are relatively easy to make, and present a "me too" image for the manufacturer. This reduces brand value, because the only thing said product has going for it is its relative inexpensiveness to the original.
B) Every product a manufacturer makes is an opportunity to build a brand, by having a unique style, a unique feature set, and gaining customer loyalty through trust. Offering a clone represents a missed opportunity. It is important to note that forming a strong brand identity allows consumers to develop emotional connections towards a product, its brand and manufacturer, resulting in brand loyalty and "fanboyism." Having repeat loyal customers builds your customer base by word of mouth.
3) Having a unique style makes products instantly recognizable. Consider cars, where modern Cadillacs have a very angled look, new Fords have an impressive chrome grille, and Chryslers are updated retro. This helps to build brand awareness and gives your brand identity. A product with character is far more interesting to consumers than another "me too."
4) A manufacturer can enter a niche without copying the design and styling of another manufacturer's product. Again we will look at cars: Honda introduced the Fit, which is a very popular 5-door hatchback thanks to its lower price and excellent feature set. Compare to Toyota's Yaris, Chevy's Aveo, Kia's Soul, Ford's Fiesta and Nissan's Versa. All fill the same niche while still maintaining a brand identity, and more importantly, differentiating themselves. For instance, the Versa offers more comfort than the Fit, but less room.
Sadly I think those who would best benefit from this section will not read it.
Why clones are bad for the industry
A) Clones can only differentiate themselves on price, which has a strong bearing on quality. This forces a race to the bottom, which may initially seem good to consumers, can in the long run be harmful.
Consider the computer industry, where various manufacturers cloned the original IBM workstations, initially improving upon each other but turning PCs into a commodity (a win for Microsoft, which needed to commoditize PCs to popularize their software... but a loss for IBM, Compaq, et al. [more...]). Now many computer manufacturers compete on price which results in the flimsy machines that fail within 3 years. Note that making something into a commodity only benefits those who have built their businesses around that commodity, not the manufacturers of the commodity themselves. The race to the bottom can be attributed to the reason why we have not seen any major shifts in computing paradigms for years, until the uprising of the "Very Personal Computer" ie. current generation smartphones. (To prove that point, I wrote and edited this entire post on my iPhone.)
2) Encouraging clones discourages innovation. If a manufacturer decides to compete on price (and subsequently quality) alone, then the manufacturer must run on artificially lower margins, which means less money for R&D. Less R&D means less innovation. Without R&D we would not have better batteries, good optics, brighter LEDs, IC-based (programmable, smart or regulated) flashlights. On that note, we should consider that buying originals encourages the continuation of innovation and R&D by rewarding innovation.
Why clones are bad for consumers, and subsequently The Product
1) Clones indicate a lack of attention to detail. If a manufacturer cannot be bothered to come up with their own feature set and/or aesthetic styling, they also cannot be bothered to build a Product properly. I will not name names but those with a keen eye and sense of engineering who have both Brand A, high end product, and Brand B, high performance low cost product, where Brand B chooses to copy significant parts of Brand A's styling in order to piggyback on Brand A's popularity and brand image, will notice that Brand B has all sorts of interesting engineering shortcomings and a distinct lack of attention to detail. Brand C, high performance low cost product, with its own styling and some investment into R&D, will often tend to have better attention to detail because their brand is riding on their own image, not the coattails of others. Don't think for a moment that this applies to only flashlights. Consider my earlier car analogy and follow up by considering clone manufacturers and their reputation in that industry.
2) Clones do not offer as great a sense of worth. For many of us who are avid product users, whether something is a clone or not has little effect on its pure utilitarian value, aside my previous statement about quality and lack of attention to details. However, for many of us who are also collectors and cherish the products we own for whatever desirable properties they have, we can take pride in having and using an excellent, well-designed, thoughtfully engineered Product. Joy and satisfaction is hard to qualify but I take much greater satisfaction in using an Original Product than a clone. I think many others would also agree.
Now I don't deny that clones have their place in society and in the industry, but I don't believe clones deserve worship and praise either.
I welcome all comments, and encourage further discussion on the subject. Hopefully we can be levelheaded and mindful of others' feelings on this often heated topic.
