Here’s a good case study that illustrates just because technology allows you to create something new, it doesn’t mean there’s enough of a return for people to embrace it.
A few months ago, Therma Blade – with the help of hockey superstar Wayne Gretzy – unveiled a new skate blade that uses on-board electronics to heat up to five degrees celsius. The idea, in theory, is it will give you better grip on the ice. Gretzky glowingly described it as “the most significant advance in skate blade design in at least 30 years”.
It turns out the Therma Blade, which costs a whopping $400 for a set, failed to impress five NHL players who give them a whirl. Chicago Black Hawk Martin Lapointe said: “I wouldn’t buy them”.
Ouch.
Therma Blade’s biggest problem is the return on investment doesn’t seem big enough to convince hockey players it’s worth the investment. Of course, it wasn’t that long ago that people dismissed the idea of spending $200 for a composite stick only to see composite sticks force wooden sticks in near-extinction.
Maybe Therma Blade, which took inventor Tony Web five years to develop, will find commercial success but it strikes me as a technology that may not find a home with consumers – much like Bluetooth has failed to grab much of a foothold.
2 Comments
This issue is not restricted to technology. Business 101 suggests that “new” is useless unless “new” converts to something better (lower costs of production, more value for the consumer to enable more demand or higher prices). Clearly for these skates, the consumer saw little additional value.
However, I think it can be said that too many technology geeks build something new without considering the end use or the expected demand for the end product.
I wish the NHL would step up and ban some of these new products and preserve their traditions like baseball did. Guys should still be using real lumber and the heated skate blade should be banned even if it is a gimmick.