I guess my feelings are that, sure, the Outlaw stuff could look better, but IMO the topic is severly overstating the 'problem' - the stuff isn't really ugly IMO, just has room for work.

Add that to the secondary nature of cosmetics to me and that's pretty much my stance - I'd prefer a better looking unit, but looks alone won't be a deal maker or breaker. YMMV.

It is not an overstatement Charlie. If you read the discussion on the same topic on other forums such as AVS you will see that many more see this as a major issue.

They say opinions are like noses .....

Call me wierd but I like the original logo better. The green button could be black, but that really doesn't bother me either. Maybe it's a east coast / west coast thing. With the people out west not being bothered by the logo as much as the easterners.

TPS

This was originally posted by Trancethereal at AVS forum. I posted it here because I find it to be it an excellent take on this issue.

"Wouldn't it be weird if some people's opinion while different, are equally valid.... ooohhh some really transcendental thinking.

yea.. right! Hmmm... I am sure that in a beauty contest, you would be equally right if your choice was Roseanne Barr, or if you think the Pontiac Aztec is design nirvana, or even that short sleeve reversible suits are a designer's dream.

While opinions are just that (and everyone has one), it is undeniable that some seem to fall pretty wide on the bell curve...

Again - we all accept the impeccable performance and technical merits of the Outlaw product and are amazed when the price is factored. So no one is placing aesthetics above performance - because the performance is already there! We are merely suggesting that the looks *could and should* match its technical merits.

One point was already highlighted - which I assumed was obvious - that Outlaw is a direct to consumer product. Given this, looks become a bigger factor - as it is the first experience the user will have *before* making a purchase. There is no tactile experience to further draw the customer in...

Call it superficial - but it does matter and in Outlaw's case could be an "X" factor. It could be the difference between a sale and no sale. Judgments and perceptions can be influenced negatively very quickly.

This discussion seems to divide people into three groups:

Those who think looks have no bearing - so why show the product at all? Those that claim specs only matter - wouldn't need pictures. Can you imagine buying a product that you never saw? I am sure their opinion has little weighting.

Those that put the product behind a smoked entertainment center or tucked away in a media closet - aren't you being a little disingenuous participating in the discussion - cause in the end - if it looked ten times better or worse, it would still be out of view. Again, this opinion would have little weighting.

That leaves the rest - those that desire or prefer a nice looking product or whom a nice looking product has an influence on their decision. (Again - we have already put to rest the decision based on functionality and performance!) These opinions will have greater weighting.

How many buyers or potential buyer fall in the third group? 60-80%??

And from Outlaw, the company's, perspective, if the increase in cost (if even necessary) yields higher sales, then it makes good business sense. No one has even factored what the percentage of "lost" sales are attributed to the product.

While I don't think the logo is bad - I do think the whole look and feel of the product leaves much to be desired.

It seems like there are lot who don't like the looks and little saying they can't imagine the looks could be improved upon.

If I was Outlaw, I would be concerned that my product has generated this much discussion (one way or another) on its look.

As I said before - Outlaw can hang with the best technically on a budget - so why is it so hard to design the aesthetics with the same verve?"



[This message has been edited by eskendir (edited January 22, 2003).]

Interesting. If you haven't looked, check out my HT page on my web site. You'll notice that my Outlaw Audio equipment is right out in the open, fully visible in both my dedicated HT and my living room listening set up. Since I happen to like the look of Outlaw Audio's equipment and am so strange as to not hide it, I guess I "fall pretty wide of the bell curve", eh?

It's one thing to disagree. It's another to say that anyone who doesn't agree with you is "wide of the bell curve". In fact, that strikes me as rather insulting.

------------------
pat----

email: pat@sklenar.info ---===--- home page: Grumpy's Lair

You know, one comment those complaining about the logo often make is "how come so many are complaining and so few standing up for it?". It dawns on me that perhaps the two or three other people who like the logo (because based on all the complaining there can't be more than 3 or 4 of us who like it) have gotten tired of being told they don't know what looks good and that their opinions are wrong.

pat----

Well, FWIW I always thought the old logo was a bit cheesy, but I like the new one. Just one data point, and I'm used to being out at the end of the bell curve anyway (GDR)

Psklenar - Sorry if my comments seemed insulting... that wasn't my intentions.

However, before you get all teary-eyed, please re-read my post. We both agree we like the logo.

I respect your opinion that you *like* the looks. Out of curiosity, do you think they could be improved upon? What would you change differently?

Additionally, I am not sure you are appreciating the additional and unnecessary burden those who DO NOT like the looks have:

"That some how, we seem to put aesthetics over performance." So - if we don't like the way it looks, our opinion becomes discounted?

The thread could be more clinical with a vote option only - but that wouldn't be as much fun!

Soundhound sez: "All HT equipment should look like this"



6 of the above required for 5.1......

[This message has been edited by soundhound (edited January 23, 2003).]