If Wii U had a different name would sales be higher?

[Nirvana_Nut85]

Norris2k said:

Nirvana_Nut85 said:

Norris2k said:

Nirvana_Nut85 said:

There are many ways to make the customer understand you've got a new product.

A new design : failed
Buzz on the internet, word of mouth : failed
A powerful product : failed
Good ads : failed
A good name : failed
A clearly different product/games : failed
A bunch of new games at launch : failed
Lot of happy customer hungry for your new product : I suppose it failed

Don't blame the name.

I really can't believe you can have 120 millions of happy customers, 20 of them fans of the brand, have a new product good enough for them, and you don't sell well because of the name. Even if it was for the confusion on the name, (I don't believe that but) the casual public saw multiple time the ads, with supposedly a new gamepad and new games, a name "Wii U" appeared... About 90% of them thought it was just a new gamepad, and 95% of them thought "whatever, I don't give a shit". They didn't think that's a new console, they didn't go ask to the shop for the new pad, didn't search on the internet, didn't ask to a guy that knows, whoever understood didn't dare talking or buzz about it. That's a severe problem, and that's what the problem is. Your naming problem is totally delusional. And I do hope Nintendo thinks better about that, because if that's the way they think, like it's just a little misunderstanding on a very little and stupid naming mistake, they are dead.

To address the first part of your response: 

New Design: Apple has proven that is irrelevant 

Interent Buzz: The name plays apart of that as well as poor marketing

A Powerful Product: Substantially more powerful than it's predecessor

Good Ads: Agreed, as I said marketing plays a significant role

Different Games: Have you even tried the Wii U?

New Games At Launch: Substantially more than PS4

Customer wanting product: Again poor marketing resulted in lack of consumer knowledge

I'm delusional? You obviously do not have a grasp on the basis of how marketing works. A poorly named product that does not clarify to the customer that it is a different product than it's predecessor is not going to acheive awareness and sales with the casual consumer. Simply naming the Wii U "Wii 2" would have allowed for substantially higher sales (I'd estimate the ltd would be around 12 million at this point) and led to a lot less confusion. Hell, even major news networks (CNN) ran storys about hte Wii U being an add on. People are not going to pay $349 for an add on.  I find it amusing that you do not believe the naming of a product matters. Why do you think companies like Sony, Apple, Samsung do so for alot of their electronic devices when releasing a predecessor? Because it's easier for the casual consumer (which is a large basis of Nintendo's base) to be aware that it is different from the previous entry. If Nintendo wanted to continue the Wii name, they should have used numerals until the third or  fourth iteration before changing it to something like Wii U.

You are very biased in your answer to make irrevelant a lot of things. And it's easy for you, because I didn't write a mandatory list, it's just a list of points that I think make a product new for customers, and Nintendo failed them all. No company can afford that.

Apple doesn't prove a new design is irrevelant, they prove they can afford to keep the same design because they do better in other area (like screen definition, not just better than previous model, but better than competition), have a fanboy (happy customers) base big enough, a design already among the best, and massive ads and buzz.

Being more powerful than a very outdated model is not enough. Powerful means more powerful or at the same power range than other products. Again, it's not mandatory, and there are lot of examples of products selling with an agressive pricing, appealing new features (like the Wii). The problem is selling a product more expensive and not significantly better than what competion is selling for 7 years.

I do think if the client is interested, the naming doesn't really matters. Iphone S, xperia Z/T/T2/whatever, Geforce 4200 GTX, Intel Xeon E5-2650, DS instead of GB 2 or 3, Bravia (EX645, etc)... and XBox One (wtf, one) proves it. And you can buzz without a good naming/title, youtube is proving that everyday, twits doesn't even have titles. I do think that if the client have the slightest interest in the product, especially granted they are 120 millions, there is so many hardcore fans and news about a new product, Wii U, with a U added to Wii, is enough to be understandable and generate buzz.

The client understand if he is motivated, if moving a wiimote seems fun, it's easy to market, the client talk about it, the client buy it, the client shows it, and it become a 120 million user market. If the Wii U sells 4 or 5 time less than the Wii, it's a fundamental problem. And I will tell you my opinion : for now, a new controller is not a new and hot thing, and is not so much a selling factor (Kinect proves it, Sony not marketing too much about camera and all proves it), using a sort of toy version of a tablet to play on the TV doesn't seem fun, and that's why it's hard to market as fun. A lot of the Wii customers just forgot about their Wii they use once in a while with friends, and don't see a point in a new version, ask one of your casual friend if he want a new Wii.

I am anything but biased. If that was the case I would have stated that the Wii U would have sold an absurb amount of consoles in correlation with the Wii's sales over it's first 18 months. Instead I provided a logical assumption of where Wii U sales would be had they named the console with what I beleive would be a more casual friendly title (Wii 2), which as I stated we would have seen figures closer to 11-12 million instead of the current 6 million the Wii U has sold to date.

The problem is not the power. The Wii itself was not much more powerful than the original Xbox which was released in 2001. The Wii was less of a jump in power over the Xbox than the Wii U is over PS3/360.  At the time the Wii was relased it was more expensive than the Xbox so unfortunately your statement of "The problem is selling a product more expensive and not significantly better than what competion is selling for 7 years" is not factual based on both the examples that I have given.

First of all the Wii never moved 120 million units of hardware. Secondly I phone is followed by numerical numbers which include S (for example Iphone 5S). Experia is a good name in comparison with Wii U, however experia does not generate substantial sales in comparison to Iphone. As for the CPU and and graphics cards you mentioned, there is a niche market that is able to differentiate iterations in hardware. That was a really terrible comparison.

The so called hardcore fanbase never jumped shipped with the Wii to begin with and constantly ridiculed the console. It did not have the internet buzz to begin with, the console was predetermined as a failure amongst many media outlets yet it managed to move a substantial amount of hardware. I do not see how that would even apply to this argument.

Again with the 120 million, please advise where you are getting these figures from. I'm also not trying to be rude but the last paragraph seemed nonsensical at best. I'm not sure if I have to list more articles or link numerous threads but the avergae consumer who does own a Wii, stil believes the Wii U is an add on and does not realize that there is a new console. Go into your local Gamespot, Walmart, etc and ask speak with the employees about how many people have come in trying to purchase Wii U games when they only own a Wii and who have though as I have stated that the gamepad is a peripheral. To deny that the name/marketing is not a substantial factor in sales is to be in complete and utter ignorance.