There was no big conspiracy. It was a no-brainer product for no-brainers like me. I think they probably were trying to make an
appliance a seven year old latchkey kid could make dinner in (though they couldn't market it that way, of course.) It was also
probably imagined as a way a student could cook, sans water or utensils, on the desk in his dorm room.

It was the entire product category when it started. The other grills didn't compete - they were too complex. Their removable
plates were a PROBLEM the Foreman grill was trying to solve. They added complexity, cost, and were originally seen as harder to
clean. (The GF was sold in infomercials as something that a paper towel could clean. Not completely true, but before you owned it,
you didn't know that.)

But then:
- the product was a runaway success
- competitors were attracted, who differentiated by featurizing
- Salton was forced to add complexity, or get left behind.

No one imagined there would be so many spinoff products at the beginning, just as they never imagined the grill would be so
successful. That's the REAL reason they gave Foreman such a rich deal -- he got a percentage early on because they didn't want to
give him the cash. Foreman had a name, but he was in trouble. He was looking to stay off the streets. (The recent payout was just
a modification of the original deal.)



"Roger Zoul" wrote in message ...
Doug Freyburger wrote:
:: "Roger Zoul" wrote:
::: Pat wrote:
:::
::::: What I think is that this design was planned...For example: the
::::: first year the Foreman grills came out, there was no way to alter
::::: the temperature settings and the grids were fixed. The next year,
::::: the temperature control was introduced. Then, the removable grids
::::: were introduced. I think this was planned from the get-go----a
::::: sort of "arc" of the lifetime of the grill, just as TV shows have
::::: a development arc of their stories.
:::
::::: Count me as a skeptic...
:::
::: Why be a skeptic on a perfectly sound business model? What you're
::: saying doesn't sound far-fetched to me. They are into it to make
::: money and we only have to buy if we want to. Of course, they
::: probably didn't think that far ahead....they just realized they had
::: something and looked for ways to improve it to make even more $$$!
:::
::
:: My take is that simpler products usually sell better than complex
:: products,

"Lower cost models sell better than high cost models" would be another way to say that. Certainly, the initial outlay of funds
supports doing so.

:: so at first they trimmed it down to a tiny set of features. Since it
:: sold
:: well that way they started adding features and variety. I don't
:: think the
:: arch was planned in advance because they couldn't have known the
:: first model was going to sell well.

It very well could have been planned using the logic you wrote.

But once it did sell well the
:: arch of adding
:: features became obvious.

Which meant it was obvious even before. Frankly, I don't see an evil intent here. A lot of people didn't buy he first models.
So there were plenty of new customers to sell to.

::
:: About the only one that surprised me was the grill on a pedestal that
:: tries
:: to replace the charcoal/propane grill.

Hey, sometimes you never can tell for sure what will be a hit and what won't.