INNOBLOG

There have been a couple recent articles (Washington Post story, RR) about the launch of single-use camcorders. The hope behind companies introducing the products is that they mimic the use of single-use still cameras. Believe it or not, there were more than 200 million single-use still cameras sold in the United States last year " about two per household.

The company that has introduced the camcorder, Pure Digital Technologies, has done its part. Wall Street Journal reviewer Walter S. Mossberg (RR) praised its product as simple and convenient, exactly the words you would want associated with a disposable product. He did note that the quality of the product lacks in some circumstances. Thats not a big deal however, since people who purchase these devices are going to compare them to no recorded video at all. Something with spots of mediocrity is almost always better than nothing.

So will the product be a big success? My hunch is that it will not. The basic reason for this assessment is the sense that the save my memories when Im on the go space has a number of established competitors. Sure, video has some advantages over still images, but there still is vastly more consumption of still cameras than video cameras. Additionally, many digital cameras and cellular phones with cameras have rudimentary video capabilities, which could very well be good enough for target users.

Because Pure Digital Technologies has optimized around the right variables for a compete-against-nonconsumption play it has a fighting chance of success. The big question will be whether it truly does compete against nonconsumption, or if consumers compare it to disposable cameras and their cell phones and think, What Ive got is actually good enough.

Any thoughts about this? Am I offbase?