In nearly every aspect of service delivery, service providers strive to attain certifications of agreed-upon minimum standards of knowledge and competence -- for example: of course there are technology certifications in technology categories (see Microsoft, Cisco).
If you look at all of the factors together, entrepreneurs, executives of established companies, and venture capitalists should be able to synthesize and grasp the business opportunity staring them in the face. Offer services to the right market tier - either a supplier to or a family member of this well-heeled population, and what you see is what you can get. Read the links and brainstorm the possibilities.
The GE-Intel alliance -- with an associated $250 million of joint investment over the next five years -- announced this past week could get everybody in the tech industry excited. Even the business pundits that watch them are all aflutter about the possibilities for aging in place technology.
Today, this is a non-blog blog entry: I am not targeting any specific vendors. But I think it has to be put out on the table. There is a not-so-fine line between offering products that assuage fear and pitching product offerings within a terrifying context. I saw such a pitch today and I was so upset, I had to leave the room.
Good NEWS! This week on Wednesday, you can access the 2009 Market Overview docs from this site. A download page will be presented to anyone who is willing to fill out a short contact form that we will then use to build the newsletter distribution list. If you want to comment, this blog entry will be the one to comment on.
So let's get right to the point -- why does this market overview matter?
It describes a real and viable market that is emerging now but will grow to match the need!
Vendors never want to miss a market, inadvertantly bypassing an audience that may love to buy their products -- if they only knew more about them. So why don't vendors with great potential in boomer and senior audiences -- and even some loving customers -- try harder to make this match clearer? Is it because in our youth-oriented product culture, they don't want to use the 'age' word? Is it because the product execs are too youth-oriented themselves? Fearful of alienating some by being specific about others?
