Traditsioonilised retseptid

Suurte kaubamärkide ebaõnnestunud tooted

Suurte kaubamärkide ebaõnnestunud tooted

Peamiste kaubamärkide ikooniliste floppide kogu

Doritos 3D on ajaloo üks kuulsamaid toiduainete floppe.

Mis teeb toote hitiks või puuduseks? Võib -olla kontseptsiooni ainulaadne olemus või see, et toode on parem kui kõik tema konkurendid. Või äkki on see geniaalne turunduskampaania, mis kajastab laiemat avalikkust ja enamasti aitab selle taga olev ettevõte toote edu ette kindlaks teha. Kuid nendel juhtudel ei piisanud emaettevõtete suurest edust toodete päästmiseks. Isegi suurimad ja säravamad tulevad mõnikord lühikeseks.

Kui McDonald’s otsustas 90ndate lõpus disainida burgeri, mis meeldiks keerukamale, täiskasvanud suulaele, pakkusid nad välja Arch Deluxe. Kontseptsioon on intrigeeriv, kuid tarbijatele oli algusest peale selge, et ettevõte muudab oma olemasoleva Big Maci võileiva lihtsalt ümber, tõstmata kvaliteeti olulise vahega.

Kelloggi arvamus, et nad teevad 1998. aastal oma hommikusöögikaaslaste avalikustamisel revolutsiooni haara-kaasa-hommikusöögiturul, kuid pole sugugi üllatav, et laiem avalikkus oli vähem põnevil ideest valada pakendatud, riiulil stabiilne toatemperatuur piima hommikusöögihelveste hulka. Flops juhtub isegi ajaproovitud kaubamärgiga toidukompaniide puhul.

Vaadake seda kollektsiooni ja meenutage, kuidas ajaloo parim toiduaine ebaõnnestub.


Kõigi aegade 10 halvimat toodet

Mida suurem on ettevõte, seda suurem on tema võime võtta riske. Kuigi miljonite dollarite valamine turu -uuringutesse ja reklaamikampaaniatesse võib kaasa tuua tohutu edu, võivad sellised ettevõtmised olla ka kõige õnnetumate ebaõnnestumiste valemiks.

Läbi aegade halvimate tootepakkumiste väljaselgitamiseks vaatas 24/7 Wall St. läbi Ameerika ja rsquose suurimate ettevõtete pärast 1950. aastat tutvustatud tooteid. Nimekirja koostamiseks oli ettevõttel vaja toote väljalaskmise aastal teha Fortune 500.

Ettevõtted käivitavad sageli uusi tooteid vastuseks konkurendi ja rsquose edukale ideele. Kuid sellised tooted ebaõnnestuvad, kui nad ei suuda konkurentsi mõõta või tarbijate tähelepanu pöörata. Microsoft & rsquos Zune töötati välja vastuseks edukatele Apple'i toodetele. Zune vaadati karmilt üle tehniliste probleemide osas, mis tarbijatel seadmega tekkisid. Samuti puudus sellel hõlpsasti kasutatav muusikapood.

Teised katsed, nagu McDonald & rsquos Arch Deluxe ja Pepsi Crystal, olid ettevõtte ja rsquose põhitoodete leiutised. Kuigi nende uute toodete tutvustamiseks oli mõjuvad põhjused, lükkasid tarbijad need peaaegu kohe tagasi.

Mõnel juhul pakkusid ettevõtted lihtsalt halba toodet. Frito-Lay & rsquos WOW! Näiteks kiibid olid alguses väga populaarsed, kuid põhjustasid lõpuks nii ebameeldivaid seedetrakti probleeme, et toode muutus täiesti päästetuks.

Mõni toode võib olla lihtsalt oma ajast ees. Newton MessagePad oli ehk esimene tahvelarvuti, mida tarbijatele turustati, tutvustades 1990ndate alguses ideed, mis sai väga populaarseks alles poolteist aastakümmet hiljem. Siiski oli Appleil probleeme tarbijate veenmisega mobiilse andmetöötluse väärtuses.

Need on kõigi aegade halvimad tooteflopid.

1. Edsel
& gt ettevõte: Ford
& gt Aasta: 1957
& gt Tulu a. vabastatud: 4,6 miljardit dollarit

Edsel ilmus & ldquoE-päeval ja mdashil ning & ldquoE & rdquo, mis seisab eksperimentaalse ja mdashi ees, oli Ford & rsquos katse pakkuda tipptasemel keskmise suurusega sõidukit uuendamist soovivatele tarbijatele. Auto sai nime Edsel B. Fordi, ettevõtte endise presidendi ja Henry Fordi ainsa poja järgi, kes suri 1943. aastal. Edsel läks Fordile maksma vähemalt 350 miljonit dollarit, mis tänapäeval on võrdne ligikaudu 2,9 miljardi dollariga. Ford reklaamis autot agressiivselt kallite teaserreklaamidega, mis võisid tarbijate ootuste tõstmisel liiale minna. Teletouchi nupukäigukast ja eriti Edsel & rsquos elektroonilised juhtseadised olid revolutsioonilised. Kahjuks olid uued funktsioonid ebausaldusväärsed. Auto oli ka üsna kallis, ulatudes 2500 dollarist 4-ukselise sedaani Edsel Pacer ja kuni 3 766 dollarini 2-ukselise kabrioleti eest. See võis olla järsu majanduslanguse ajal raske ja paljude teiste autofirmade, sealhulgas Buicki, Mercury, Dodge ja Pontiac, müük vähenes 1957. aastal. Pärast nelja mudeliaastat lõpetas Ford Edseli tootmise.

2. Puuteplaat
& gt ettevõte: Hewlett Packard
& gt Aasta: 2011
& gt Tulu a. vabastatud: 126,0 miljardit dollarit

2011. aasta juulis kasutusele võetud puuteplaat oli Hewlett Packardi ja rsquose katse konkureerida Apple'i ja rsquos iPadiga. Tänu võimsale videovõimele ja muljetavaldavale töötlemiskiirusele oli puuteplaat laialdaselt oodatud ainukeste toodete hulka, mis võiksid Apple'ile oma raha eest raha pakkuda. Vaatamata laiaulatuslikele pressiüritustele ja tutvustustele oli HP puuteplaat kolossaalne ebaõnnestumine ja see lõpetati peaaegu kohe. Puuteplaadi ja rsquose tõrke tagajärjel kustutas ettevõte 885 miljoni dollari väärtuses varasid ja kandis oma WebOS -i tegevuse lõpetamiseks täiendavaid kulusid 755 miljonit dollarit, lõpetades kogu töö puuteplaadi ja rsquose ebaõnnestunud operatsioonisüsteemiga. Sellest ajast alates on HP jätkuvalt vaeva näinud, et säilitada oma eelis arvutiturul. Kunagi domineerinud personaalarvutite ettevõte on mitmeaastase pöördeplaani keskel. Kuigi plaan võis hiljuti vilja kanda, on investorid endiselt ettevaatlikud.

3. Kristall Pepsi
& gt ettevõte: PepsiCo
& gt Aasta: 1992
& gt Tulu a. vabastatud: 19,8 miljardit dollarit

1992. aastal üritas PepsiCo oma selge, kofeiinivaba Crystal Pepsiga siseneda tolleaegsele õitsvale ja vanaaegsele jookide ja rdquo turule. Ettevõte reklaamis toodet tervisliku ja puhta dieediga joogina. Selle 40 miljoni dollari suurune reklaamikampaania sisaldas luba kasutada Van Haleni ja rsquose hittlaulu Right Now telereklaamides. Toonased turutestid andsid Crystal Pepsile nii positiivse väljavaate, et Coca-Cola avaldas sellega konkureerimiseks Tab Clear. Kuigi esimese aasta müük oli tugev 470 miljonit dollarit, olid paljud ostud tõenäoliselt uudishimu tõttu. Tarbijaid ei veennud mitte ainult Pepsi & rsquose tervisenurk, vaid paljud koolajoojad ootasid tumedamat jooki. Samuti kahjustab see Crystal Pepsi ja rsquose populaarsust: paljudele tarbijatele maitses see täpselt nagu originaal Pepsi.

4. Clairol Touch of Jogurt Shampoo
& gt ettevõte: Procter & amp; Gamble
& gt Aasta: 1979
& gt Tulu a. vabastatud: 8,1 miljardit dollarit

Jogurt ja muud kultiveeritud piimatooted võivad teie juustele tegelikult kasulikud olla. Nagu paljud ettevõtted, hakkas P & ampG 1970ndatel rõhutama oma toodetes sisalduvaid looduslikke koostisosi, et vastata omaaegsele looduse ja rdquo üldisele liikumisele. Oli tavaline, et paljud šampoonid sisaldasid erinevaid looduslikke koostisosi, sealhulgas mett, erinevaid ürte ja puuvilju. Kui P & ampG tütarettevõte Clairol 1979. aastal oma Touch of jogurti šampooni välja andis, ei võtnud kliendid aga piimanduse seostamist juuksehooldustoodetega. Toode tekitas mõnedes ka segadust. Oli mitmeid juhtumeid, kus inimesed ekslikult selle ära sõid ja selle tagajärjel haigestusid. Üllataval kombel ei olnud Touch of Yogurt Clairol ja rsquos ebaõnnestus esmakordselt piimapõhistes juuksetoodetes ja mdash kolm aastat varem üritas ta turustada šampooni nimega & ldquoLook of Petipiim. & Rdquo Mõlemad müüdi halvasti ja pole USA-s enam saadaval.

5. Coors Rocky Mountaini gaseeritud vesi
& gt ettevõte: Ettevõte Adolph Coors
& gt Aasta: 1990
& gt Tulu a. vabastatud: 1,8 miljardit dollarit

Coors on aastakümneid reklaaminud oma õlut kui & ldquocold, mis on pruulitud puhta kivise mägiveevee ja rdquoga. Ilmselt on seda vett kasutatud Coorsi õlle valmistamiseks alates aastast 1873. Vastuseks tendentsile mõõduka alkoholitarbimise ja pudelivee segmendi märkimisväärse kasvu suunas otsustas ettevõte müüa allikavett ja müüa oma esimese mittealkohoolse joogi pärast keeldu. Kuigi otsus sai kasu ettevõtte ja rsquose olemasolevast villimislogistikast ja turustamisest, ei aidanud Coorsi kaubamärk pudelivett müüa. Coors Rocky Mountaini gaseeritud vesi kasutas Coorsi õlle sarnast nime ja silti, mis võis tarbijaid segadusse ajada ja isegi hirmutada. Ka Budweiseri tootja Anheuser-Busch hakkas sel ajal Coorsit kritiseerima selle eest, et see omistas mägiallikavette suurepärase kvaliteedi, mis Anheuser-Buschi väitel oli lõigatud Virginia veega. Coors tühistas oma pudelivee kaubamärgi 1997. aastal.


Kõigi aegade 10 halvimat toodet

Mida suurem on ettevõte, seda suurem on tema võime võtta riske. Kuigi miljonite dollarite valamine turu -uuringutesse ja reklaamikampaaniatesse võib kaasa tuua tohutu edu, võivad sellised ettevõtmised olla ka kõige õnnetumate ebaõnnestumiste valemiks.

Läbi aegade kõige hullemate tootepakkumiste väljaselgitamiseks vaatas 24/7 Wall St. läbi tooteid, mida Ameerika ja rsquose suurimad ettevõtted tutvustasid pärast 1950. aastat. Nimekirja koostamiseks oli ettevõttel vaja toote väljalaskmise aastal teha Fortune 500.

Ettevõtted käivitavad sageli uusi tooteid vastuseks konkurendi ja rsquose edukale ideele. Kuid sellised tooted ebaõnnestuvad, kui nad ei suuda konkurentsi mõõta või tarbijate tähelepanu pöörata. Microsoft & rsquos Zune töötati välja vastuseks edukatele Apple'i toodetele. Zune vaadati karmilt üle tehniliste probleemide osas, mis tarbijatel seadmega tekkisid. Samuti puudus sellel hõlpsasti kasutatav muusikapood.

Teised katsed, nagu McDonald & rsquos Arch Deluxe ja Pepsi Crystal, olid ettevõtte ja rsquose põhitoodete leiutised. Kuigi nende uute toodete tutvustamiseks oli mõjuvad põhjused, lükkasid tarbijad need peaaegu kohe tagasi.

Mõnel juhul pakkusid ettevõtted lihtsalt halba toodet. Frito-Lay & rsquos WOW! Näiteks kiibid olid alguses väga populaarsed, kuid põhjustasid lõpuks nii ebameeldivaid seedetrakti probleeme, et toode muutus täiesti päästetuks.

Mõni toode võib olla lihtsalt oma ajast ees. Newton MessagePad oli ehk esimene tahvelarvuti, mida tarbijatele turustati, tutvustades 1990ndate alguses ideed, mis sai väga populaarseks alles poolteist aastakümmet hiljem. Siiski oli Appleil probleeme tarbijate veenmisega mobiilse andmetöötluse väärtuses.

Need on kõigi aegade halvimad tooteflopid.

1. Edsel
& gt ettevõte: Ford
& gt Aasta: 1957
& gt Tulu a. vabastatud: 4,6 miljardit dollarit

Edsel ilmus & ldquoE-päeval ja mdashil koos & ldquoE & rdquo'ga, mis seisab eksperimentaalse ja mdashi ees. Edsel oli Ford ja rsquos katse pakkuda tipptasemel keskmise suurusega sõidukit uuendada soovivatele tarbijatele. Auto sai oma nime Edsel B. Fordi, ettevõtte endise presidendi ja Henry Fordi ainsa poja järgi, kes suri 1943. aastal. Edsel läks Fordile maksma vähemalt 350 miljonit dollarit, mis tänapäeval võrdub ligikaudu 2,9 miljardi dollariga. Ford reklaamis autot agressiivselt kallite teaserreklaamidega, mis võisid tarbijate ootuste tõstmisel liiale minna. Teletouchi nupukäigukast ja eriti Edsel & rsquos elektroonilised juhtseadised olid revolutsioonilised. Kahjuks olid uued funktsioonid ebausaldusväärsed. Auto oli ka üsna kallis, ulatudes 2500 dollarist 4-ukselise sedaani Edsel Pacer ja kuni 3 766 dollarini 2-ukselise kabrioleti eest. See võis olla järsu majanduslanguse ajal raske ja paljude teiste autofirmade, sealhulgas Buicki, Mercury, Dodge ja Pontiac, müük vähenes 1957. aastal. Pärast nelja mudeliaastat lõpetas Ford Edseli tootmise.

2. Puuteplaat
& gt ettevõte: Hewlett Packard
& gt Aasta: 2011
& gt Tulu a. vabastatud: 126,0 miljardit dollarit

2011. aasta juulis kasutusele võetud puuteplaat oli Hewlett Packardi ja rsquose katse konkureerida Apple'i ja rsquos iPadiga. Tänu võimsale videovõimele ja muljetavaldavale töötlemiskiirusele oli puuteplaat laialdaselt oodatud ainukeste toodete hulka, mis võiksid Apple'ile oma raha eest raha pakkuda. Vaatamata laiaulatuslikele pressiüritustele ja tutvustustele oli HP puuteplaat kolossaalne ebaõnnestumine ja see lõpetati peaaegu kohe. Puuteplaadi ja rsquose rikke tagajärjel kustutas ettevõte 885 miljoni dollari väärtuses varasid ja kandis oma WebOS -i tegevuse lõpetamiseks täiendavaid kulusid 755 miljonit dollarit, lõpetades kogu töö puuteplaadi ja rsquose ebaõnnestunud operatsioonisüsteemiga. Sellest ajast alates on HP jätkuvalt vaeva näinud, et säilitada oma eelis arvutiturul. Kunagi domineerinud personaalarvutite ettevõte on mitmeaastase pöördeplaani keskel. Kuigi plaan võis hiljuti vilja kanda, on investorid ettevaatlikud.

3. Kristall Pepsi
& gt ettevõte: PepsiCo
& gt Aasta: 1992
& gt Tulu a. vabastatud: 19,8 miljardit dollarit

1992. aastal üritas PepsiCo oma selge, kofeiinivaba Crystal Pepsiga siseneda tolleaegsele õitsvale ja vanaaegsele jookide ja rdquo turule. Ettevõte reklaamis toodet tervisliku ja puhta dieediga joogina. Selle 40 miljoni dollari suurune reklaamikampaania sisaldas luba kasutada Van Haleni ja rsquose hittlaulu Right Now telereklaamides. Toonased turutestid andsid Crystal Pepsile nii positiivse väljavaate, et Coca-Cola avaldas sellega konkureerimiseks Tab Clear. Kuigi esimese aasta müük oli tugev 470 miljonit dollarit, olid paljud ostud tõenäoliselt uudishimu tõttu. Tarbijaid ei veennud mitte ainult Pepsi & rsquose tervisenurk, vaid paljud koolajoojad ootasid tumedamat jooki. Samuti kahjustab see Crystal Pepsi ja rsquose populaarsust: paljudele tarbijatele maitses see täpselt nagu originaal Pepsi.

4. Clairol Touch of Jogurt Shampoo
& gt ettevõte: Procter & amp; Gamble
& gt Aasta: 1979
& gt Tulu a. vabastatud: 8,1 miljardit dollarit

Jogurt ja muud kultiveeritud piimatooted võivad teie juustele tegelikult kasulikud olla. Nagu paljud ettevõtted, hakkas P & ampG 1970ndatel rõhutama oma toodetes sisalduvaid looduslikke koostisosi, et vastata omaaegsele looduse ja rdquo üldisele liikumisele. Oli tavaline, et paljud šampoonid sisaldasid erinevaid looduslikke koostisosi, sealhulgas mett, erinevaid ürte ja puuvilju. Kui P & ampG tütarettevõte Clairol 1979. aastal oma Touch of jogurti šampooni välja andis, ei võtnud kliendid aga piimatooteid juuksehooldustoodetega seostama. Toode tekitas mõnedes ka segadust. Oli mitmeid juhtumeid, kus inimesed ekslikult selle ära sõid ja selle tagajärjel haigestusid. Üllataval kombel ei olnud Touch of Yogurt Clairol ja rsquos ebaõnnestus esmakordselt piimapõhistes juuksetoodetes ja mdash kolm aastat varem üritas ta turustada šampooni nimega & ldquoLook of Petipiim. & Rdquo Mõlemad müüdi halvasti ja pole USA-s enam saadaval.

5. Coors Rocky Mountaini gaseeritud vesi
& gt ettevõte: Ettevõte Adolph Coors
& gt Aasta: 1990
& gt Tulu a. vabastatud: 1,8 miljardit dollarit

Coors on aastakümneid reklaaminud oma õlut kui & ldquocold, mis on valmistatud puhta kivise mägiveeallikavee ja rdquoga. Ilmselt on seda vett kasutatud Coorsi õlle valmistamiseks alates aastast 1873. Vastuseks tendentsile mõõduka alkoholitarbimise ja pudelivee segmendi märkimisväärse kasvu suunas otsustas ettevõte müüa allikavett ja müüa oma esimese mittealkohoolse joogi pärast keeldu. Kuigi otsus sai kasu ettevõtte ja rsquose olemasolevast villimislogistikast ja turustamisest, ei aidanud Coorsi kaubamärk pudelivett müüa. Coors Rocky Mountaini gaseeritud vesi kasutas Coorsi õlle sarnast nime ja silti, mis võis tarbijaid segadusse ajada ja isegi hirmutada. Ka Budweiseri tootja Anheuser-Busch hakkas sel ajal Coorsit kritiseerima selle eest, et see omistas mägiallikavette suurepärase kvaliteedi, mis Anheuser-Buschi väitel oli lõigatud Virginia veega. Coors tühistas oma pudelivee kaubamärgi 1997. aastal.


Kõigi aegade 10 halvimat toodet

Mida suurem on ettevõte, seda suurem on tema võime võtta riske. Kuigi miljonite dollarite valamine turu -uuringutesse ja reklaamikampaaniatesse võib tuua tohutu edu, võivad sellised ettevõtmised olla ka kõige õnnetumate ebaõnnestumiste valemiks.

Läbi aegade halvimate tootepakkumiste väljaselgitamiseks vaatas 24/7 Wall St. läbi Ameerika ja rsquose suurimate ettevõtete pärast 1950. aastat tutvustatud tooteid. Nimekirja koostamiseks oli ettevõttel vaja toote väljalaskmise aastal teha Fortune 500.

Ettevõtted käivitavad sageli uusi tooteid vastuseks konkurendi ja rsquose edukale ideele. Kuid sellised tooted ebaõnnestuvad, kui nad ei suuda konkurentsi mõõta või tarbijate tähelepanu pöörata. Microsoft & rsquos Zune töötati välja vastuseks edukatele Apple'i toodetele. Zune vaadati karmilt üle tehniliste probleemide osas, mis tarbijatel seadmega tekkisid. Samuti puudus sellel hõlpsasti kasutatav muusikapood.

Teised eksperimendid, nagu McDonald & rsquos Arch Deluxe ja Pepsi Crystal, olid ettevõtte ja rsquose põhitoodete leiutised. Kuigi nende uute toodete tutvustamiseks oli mõjuvad põhjused, lükkasid tarbijad need peaaegu kohe tagasi.

Mõnel juhul pakkusid ettevõtted lihtsalt halba toodet. Frito-Lay & rsquos WOW! Näiteks kiibid olid alguses väga populaarsed, kuid põhjustasid lõpuks nii ebameeldivaid seedetrakti probleeme, et toode muutus täiesti päästetuks.

Mõni toode võib olla lihtsalt oma ajast ees. Newton MessagePad oli ehk esimene tahvelarvuti, mida tarbijatele turustati, tutvustades 1990ndate alguses ideed, mis sai väga populaarseks alles poolteist aastakümmet hiljem. Siiski oli Appleil probleeme tarbijate veenmisega mobiilse andmetöötluse väärtuses.

Need on kõigi aegade halvimad tooteflopid.

1. Edsel
& gt ettevõte: Ford
& gt Aasta: 1957
& gt Tulu a. vabastatud: 4,6 miljardit dollarit

Edsel ilmus & ldquoE-päeval ja mdashil koos & ldquoE & rdquo'ga, mis seisab eksperimentaalse ja mdashi ees. Edsel oli Ford ja rsquos katse pakkuda tipptasemel keskmise suurusega sõidukit uuendada soovivatele tarbijatele. Auto sai oma nime Edsel B. Fordi, ettevõtte endise presidendi ja Henry Fordi ainsa poja järgi, kes suri 1943. aastal. Edsel läks Fordile maksma vähemalt 350 miljonit dollarit, mis tänapäeval võrdub ligikaudu 2,9 miljardi dollariga. Ford reklaamis autot agressiivselt kallite teaserreklaamidega, mis võisid tarbijate ootuste tõstmisel liiale minna. Teletouchi nupukäigukast ja eriti Edsel & rsquos elektroonilised juhtseadised olid revolutsioonilised. Kahjuks olid uued funktsioonid ebausaldusväärsed. Auto oli ka üsna kallis, ulatudes 2500 dollarist 4-ukselise sedaani Edsel Pacer ja kuni 3 766 dollarini 2-ukselise kabrioleti eest. See võis olla järsu majanduslanguse ajal raske ja paljude teiste autofirmade, sealhulgas Buicki, Mercury, Dodge ja Pontiac, müük vähenes 1957. aastal. Pärast nelja mudeliaastat lõpetas Ford Edseli tootmise.

2. Puuteplaat
& gt ettevõte: Hewlett Packard
& gt Aasta: 2011
& gt Tulu a. vabastatud: 126,0 miljardit dollarit

2011. aasta juulis kasutusele võetud puuteplaat oli Hewlett Packardi ja rsquose katse konkureerida Apple'i ja rsquos iPadiga. Tänu võimsale videovõimele ja muljetavaldavale töötlemiskiirusele oli puuteplaat laialdaselt oodatud ainukeste toodete hulka, mis võiksid Apple'ile oma raha eest raha pakkuda. Vaatamata laiaulatuslikele pressiüritustele ja tutvustustele oli HP puuteplaat kolossaalne ebaõnnestumine ja see lõpetati peaaegu kohe. Puuteplaadi ja rsquose rikke tagajärjel kustutas ettevõte 885 miljoni dollari väärtuses varasid ja kandis oma WebOS -i tegevuse lõpetamiseks täiendavaid kulusid 755 miljonit dollarit, lõpetades kogu töö puuteplaadi ja rsquose ebaõnnestunud operatsioonisüsteemiga. Sellest ajast alates on HP jätkuvalt vaeva näinud, et säilitada oma eelis arvutiturul. Kunagi domineerinud personaalarvutite ettevõte on mitmeaastase pöördeplaani keskel. Kuigi plaan võis hiljuti vilja kanda, on investorid endiselt ettevaatlikud.

3. Kristall Pepsi
& gt ettevõte: PepsiCo
& gt Aasta: 1992
& gt Tulu a. vabastatud: 19,8 miljardit dollarit

1992. aastal üritas PepsiCo oma selge, kofeiinivaba Crystal Pepsiga siseneda tolleaegsele õitsvale ja vanaaegsele jookide ja rdquo turule. Ettevõte reklaamis toodet tervisliku ja puhta dieediga joogina. Selle 40 miljoni dollari suurune reklaamikampaania sisaldas luba kasutada Van Haleni ja rsquose hittlaulu Right Now telereklaamides. Toonased turutestid andsid Crystal Pepsile nii positiivse väljavaate, et Coca-Cola avaldas sellega konkureerimiseks Tab Clear. Kuigi esimese aasta müük oli tugev 470 miljonit dollarit, olid paljud ostud tõenäoliselt uudishimu tõttu. Tarbijaid ei veennud mitte ainult Pepsi & rsquose tervisenurk, vaid paljud koolajoojad ootasid tumedamat jooki. Samuti kahjustab see Crystal Pepsi ja rsquose populaarsust: paljudele tarbijatele maitses see täpselt nagu originaal Pepsi.

4. Clairol Touch of Jogurt Shampoo
& gt ettevõte: Procter & amp; Gamble
& gt Aasta: 1979
& gt Tulu a. vabastatud: 8,1 miljardit dollarit

Jogurt ja muud kultiveeritud piimatooted võivad teie juustele tegelikult kasulikud olla. Nagu paljud ettevõtted, hakkas P & ampG 1970ndatel rõhutama oma toodetes sisalduvaid looduslikke koostisosi, et vastata omaaegsele looduse ja rdquo üldisele liikumisele. Oli tavaline, et paljud šampoonid sisaldasid erinevaid looduslikke koostisosi, sealhulgas mett, erinevaid ürte ja puuvilju. Kui P & ampG tütarettevõte Clairol 1979. aastal oma Touch of jogurti šampooni välja andis, ei võtnud kliendid aga piimatooteid juuksehooldustoodetega seostama. Toode tekitas mõnedes ka segadust. Oli mitmeid juhtumeid, kus inimesed ekslikult selle ära sõid ja selle tagajärjel haigestusid. Üllataval kombel ei olnud Touch of Yogurt Clairol ja rsquos ebaõnnestus esmakordselt piimapõhistes juuksetoodetes ja mdash kolm aastat varem üritas ta turustada šampooni nimega & ldquoLook of Petipiim. & Rdquo Mõlemad müüdi halvasti ja pole USA-s enam saadaval.

5. Coors Rocky Mountaini gaseeritud vesi
& gt ettevõte: Ettevõte Adolph Coors
& gt Aasta: 1990
& gt Tulu a. vabastatud: 1,8 miljardit dollarit

Coors on aastakümneid reklaaminud oma õlut kui & ldquocold, mis on valmistatud puhta kivise mägiveeallikavee ja rdquoga. Ilmselt on seda vett kasutatud Coorsi õlle valmistamiseks alates aastast 1873. Vastuseks tendentsile mõõduka alkoholitarbimise ja pudelivee segmendi märkimisväärse kasvu suunas otsustas ettevõte müüa allikavett ja müüa oma esimese mittealkohoolse joogi pärast keeldu. Kuigi otsus sai kasu ettevõtte ja rsquose olemasolevast villimislogistikast ja turustamisest, ei aidanud Coorsi kaubamärk pudelivett müüa. Coors Rocky Mountaini gaseeritud vesi kasutas Coorsi õlle sarnast nime ja silti, mis võis tarbijaid segadusse ajada ja isegi hirmutada. Ka Budweiseri tootja Anheuser-Busch hakkas sel ajal Coorsit kritiseerima selle eest, et see omistas mägiallikavette suurepärase kvaliteedi, mis Anheuser-Buschi väitel oli lõigatud Virginia veega. Coors tühistas oma pudelivee kaubamärgi 1997. aastal.


Kõigi aegade 10 halvimat toodet

Mida suurem on ettevõte, seda suurem on tema võime võtta riske. Kuigi miljonite dollarite valamine turu -uuringutesse ja reklaamikampaaniatesse võib kaasa tuua tohutu edu, võivad sellised ettevõtmised olla ka kõige õnnetumate ebaõnnestumiste valemiks.

Läbi aegade kõige hullemate tootepakkumiste väljaselgitamiseks vaatas 24/7 Wall St. läbi tooteid, mida Ameerika ja rsquose suurimad ettevõtted tutvustasid pärast 1950. aastat. Nimekirja koostamiseks oli ettevõttel vaja toote väljalaskmise aastal teha Fortune 500.

Ettevõtted käivitavad sageli uusi tooteid vastuseks konkurendi ja rsquose edukale ideele. Kuid sellised tooted ebaõnnestuvad, kui nad ei suuda konkurentsi mõõta või tarbijate tähelepanu pöörata. Microsoft & rsquos Zune töötati välja vastuseks edukatele Apple'i toodetele. Zune vaadati karmilt üle tehniliste probleemide osas, mis tarbijatel seadmega tekkisid. Samuti puudus sellel hõlpsasti kasutatav muusikapood.

Teised eksperimendid, nagu McDonald & rsquos Arch Deluxe ja Pepsi Crystal, olid ettevõtte ja rsquose põhitoodete leiutised. Kuigi nende uute toodete tutvustamiseks oli mõjuvad põhjused, lükkasid tarbijad need peaaegu kohe tagasi.

Mõnel juhul pakkusid ettevõtted lihtsalt halba toodet. Frito-Lay & rsquos WOW! Näiteks kiibid olid alguses väga populaarsed, kuid põhjustasid lõpuks nii ebameeldivaid seedetrakti probleeme, et toode muutus täiesti päästetuks.

Mõni toode võib olla lihtsalt oma ajast ees. Newton MessagePad oli ehk esimene tahvelarvuti, mida tarbijatele turustati, tutvustades 1990ndate alguses ideed, mis sai väga populaarseks alles poolteist aastakümmet hiljem. Siiski oli Appleil probleeme tarbijate veenmisega mobiilse andmetöötluse väärtuses.

Need on kõigi aegade halvimad tooteflopid.

1. Edsel
& gt ettevõte: Ford
& gt Aasta: 1957
& gt Tulu a. vabastatud: 4,6 miljardit dollarit

Edsel ilmus & ldquoE-päeval ja mdashil koos & ldquoE & rdquo'ga, mis seisab eksperimentaalse ja mdashi ees. Edsel oli Ford ja rsquos katse pakkuda tipptasemel keskmise suurusega sõidukit uuendada soovivatele tarbijatele. Auto sai oma nime Edsel B. Fordi, ettevõtte endise presidendi ja Henry Fordi ainsa poja järgi, kes suri 1943. aastal. Edsel läks Fordile maksma vähemalt 350 miljonit dollarit, mis tänapäeval võrdub ligikaudu 2,9 miljardi dollariga. Ford reklaamis autot agressiivselt kallite teaserreklaamidega, mis võisid tarbijate ootuste tõstmisel liiale minna. Teletouchi nupukäigukast ja eriti Edsel & rsquos elektroonilised juhtseadised olid revolutsioonilised. Kahjuks olid uued funktsioonid ebausaldusväärsed. Auto oli ka üsna kallis, ulatudes 2500 dollarist 4-ukselise sedaani Edsel Pacer ja kuni 3 766 dollarini 2-ukselise kabrioleti eest. See võis olla järsu majanduslanguse ajal raske ja paljude teiste autofirmade, sealhulgas Buicki, Mercury, Dodge ja Pontiac, müük vähenes 1957. aastal. Pärast nelja mudeliaastat lõpetas Ford Edseli tootmise.

2. Puuteplaat
& gt ettevõte: Hewlett Packard
& gt Aasta: 2011
& gt Tulu a. vabastatud: 126,0 miljardit dollarit

2011. aasta juulis kasutusele võetud puuteplaat oli Hewlett Packardi ja rsquose katse konkureerida Apple'i ja rsquos iPadiga. Tänu võimsale videovõimele ja muljetavaldavale töötlemiskiirusele oli puuteplaat laialdaselt oodatud ainukeste toodete hulka, mis võiksid Apple'ile oma raha eest raha pakkuda. Vaatamata laiaulatuslikele pressiüritustele ja tutvustustele oli HP puuteplaat kolossaalne ebaõnnestumine ja see lõpetati peaaegu kohe. Puuteplaadi ja rsquose rikke tagajärjel kustutas ettevõte 885 miljoni dollari väärtuses varasid ja kandis oma WebOS -i tegevuse lõpetamiseks täiendavaid kulusid 755 miljonit dollarit, lõpetades kogu töö puuteplaadi ja rsquose ebaõnnestunud operatsioonisüsteemiga. Sellest ajast alates on HP jätkuvalt vaeva näinud, et säilitada oma eelis arvutiturul. Kunagi domineerinud personaalarvutite ettevõte on mitmeaastase pöördeplaani keskel. Kuigi plaan võis hiljuti vilja kanda, on investorid endiselt ettevaatlikud.

3. Kristall Pepsi
& gt ettevõte: PepsiCo
& gt Aasta: 1992
& gt Tulu a. vabastatud: 19,8 miljardit dollarit

1992. aastal üritas PepsiCo oma selge, kofeiinivaba Crystal Pepsiga siseneda tolleaegsele õitsvale ja vanaaegsele jookide ja rdquo turule. Ettevõte reklaamis toodet tervisliku ja puhta dieediga joogina. Selle 40 miljoni dollari suurune reklaamikampaania sisaldas luba kasutada Van Haleni ja rsquose hittlaulu Right Now telereklaamides. Toonased turutestid andsid Crystal Pepsile nii positiivse väljavaate, et Coca-Cola avaldas sellega konkureerimiseks Tab Clear. Kuigi esimese aasta müük oli tugev 470 miljonit dollarit, olid paljud ostud tõenäoliselt uudishimu tõttu. Tarbijaid ei veennud mitte ainult Pepsi & rsquose tervisenurk, vaid paljud koolajoojad ootasid tumedamat jooki. Samuti kahjustab see Crystal Pepsi ja rsquose populaarsust: paljudele tarbijatele maitses see täpselt nagu originaal Pepsi.

4. Clairol Touch of Jogurt Shampoo
& gt ettevõte: Procter & amp; Gamble
& gt Aasta: 1979
& gt Tulu a. vabastatud: 8,1 miljardit dollarit

Jogurt ja muud kultiveeritud piimatooted võivad teie juustele tegelikult kasulikud olla. Nagu paljud ettevõtted, hakkas P & ampG 1970ndatel rõhutama oma toodetes sisalduvaid looduslikke koostisosi, et vastata omaaegsele looduse ja rdquo üldisele liikumisele. Oli tavaline, et paljud šampoonid sisaldasid erinevaid looduslikke koostisosi, sealhulgas mett, erinevaid ürte ja puuvilju. Kui P & ampG tütarettevõte Clairol 1979. aastal oma Touch of jogurti šampooni välja andis, ei võtnud kliendid aga piimanduse seostamist juuksehooldustoodetega. Toode tekitas mõnedes ka segadust. Oli mitmeid juhtumeid, kus inimesed ekslikult selle ära sõid ja selle tagajärjel haigestusid. Üllataval kombel ei olnud Jogurti puudutus Clairol ja rsquos ebaõnnestus esimest korda piimapõhistes juuksetoodetes ning kolm aastat varem üritas ta turustada šampooni nimega & ldquoLook of Petipiim. & Rdquo Mõlemad müüdi halvasti ja pole USA-s enam saadaval.

5. Coors Rocky Mountaini gaseeritud vesi
& gt ettevõte: Ettevõte Adolph Coors
& gt Aasta: 1990
& gt Tulu a. vabastatud: 1,8 miljardit dollarit

Coors on aastakümneid reklaaminud oma õlut kui & ldquocold, mis on valmistatud puhta kivise mägiveeallikavee ja rdquoga. Ilmselt on seda vett kasutatud Coorsi õlle valmistamiseks alates aastast 1873. Vastuseks tendentsile mõõduka alkoholitarbimise ja pudelivee segmendi märkimisväärse kasvu suunas otsustas ettevõte müüa allikavett ja müüa oma esimese mittealkohoolse joogi pärast keeldu. Kuigi otsus sai kasu ettevõtte ja rsquose olemasolevast villimislogistikast ja turustamisest, ei aidanud Coorsi kaubamärk pudelivett müüa. Coors Rocky Mountaini gaseeritud vesi kasutas Coorsi õlle sarnast nime ja silti, mis võis tarbijaid segadusse ajada ja isegi hirmutada. Ka Budweiseri tootja Anheuser-Busch hakkas sel ajal Coorsit kritiseerima selle eest, et see omistas oma mägiveeveele suurepärase kvaliteedi, mis Anheuser-Buschi väitel oli lõigatud Virginia veega. Coors tühistas oma pudelivee kaubamärgi 1997. aastal.


Kõigi aegade 10 halvimat toodet

Mida suurem on ettevõte, seda suurem on tema võime võtta riske. Kuigi miljonite dollarite valamine turu -uuringutesse ja reklaamikampaaniatesse võib kaasa tuua tohutu edu, võivad sellised ettevõtmised olla ka kõige õnnetumate ebaõnnestumiste valemiks.

Läbi aegade halvimate tootepakkumiste väljaselgitamiseks vaatas 24/7 Wall St. läbi Ameerika ja rsquose suurimate ettevõtete pärast 1950. aastat tutvustatud tooteid. Nimekirja koostamiseks oli ettevõttel vaja toote väljalaskmise aastal teha Fortune 500.

Ettevõtted käivitavad sageli uusi tooteid vastuseks konkurendi ja rsquose edukale ideele. Kuid sellised tooted ebaõnnestuvad, kui nad ei suuda konkurentsi mõõta või tarbijate tähelepanu pöörata. Microsoft & rsquos Zune töötati välja vastuseks edukatele Apple'i toodetele. Zune vaadati karmilt üle tehniliste probleemide osas, mis tarbijatel seadmega tekkisid. Samuti puudus sellel hõlpsasti kasutatav muusikapood.

Teised katsed, nagu McDonald & rsquos Arch Deluxe ja Pepsi Crystal, olid ettevõtte ja rsquose põhitoodete leiutised. Kuigi nende uute toodete tutvustamiseks oli mõjuvad põhjused, lükkasid tarbijad need peaaegu kohe tagasi.

Mõnel juhul pakkusid ettevõtted lihtsalt halba toodet. Frito-Lay & rsquos WOW! Näiteks kiibid olid alguses väga populaarsed, kuid põhjustasid lõpuks nii ebameeldivaid seedetrakti probleeme, et toode muutus täiesti päästetuks.

Mõni toode võib olla lihtsalt oma ajast ees. Newton MessagePad oli ehk esimene tahvelarvuti, mida tarbijatele turustati, tutvustades 1990ndate alguses ideed, mis sai väga populaarseks alles poolteist aastakümmet hiljem. Siiski oli Appleil probleeme tarbijate veenmisega mobiilse andmetöötluse väärtuses.

Need on kõigi aegade halvimad tooteflopid.

1. Edsel
& gt ettevõte: Ford
& gt Aasta: 1957
> Revenue yr. released: $4.6 billion

Released on &ldquoE-Day &mdash with &ldquoE&rdquo standing for experimental &mdash the Edsel was Ford&rsquos attempt to offer a higher-end, mid-sized vehicle for consumers looking to upgrade. The car was named after Edsel B. Ford, the company&rsquos former president and Henry Ford&rsquos only son, who died in 1943. The Edsel cost Ford at least $350 million, which in today&rsquos dollars is equal to roughly $2.9 billion. Ford promoted the car aggressively with expensive teaser ads, which may have gone too far in raising consumer expectations. A Teletouch pushbutton transmission and the Edsel&rsquos electronic controls in particular were said to be revolutionary. Unfortunately, the new features were unreliable. The car was also quite expensive, ranging from $2,500 for the Edsel Pacer 4-door sedan to $3,766 for the 2-door convertible. This may have been difficult during a steep economic downturn &mdash sales were down in 1957 for many other car companies, including Buick, Mercury, Dodge, and Pontiac. After four model years Ford stopped producing the Edsel.

2. TouchPad
> Company: Hewlett Packard
> Year released: 2011
> Revenue yr. released: $126.0 billion

Introduced in July 2011, the TouchPad was Hewlett Packard&rsquos attempt to compete with Apple&rsquos iPad. With powerful video capability and impressive processing speeds, the TouchPad was widely anticipated to be among the only products that could give Apple a run for its money. Despite large scale press events and promotions, the HP TouchPad was a colossal failure and was discontinued almost immediately. As a result of the TouchPad&rsquos failure, the company wrote off $885 million in assets and incurred an additional $755 million in costs to wind down its webOS operations, ending all work on the TouchPad&rsquos failed operating system. Since then, HP has continued to struggle to maintain its edge in the PC market. The once-dominant PC company is in the midst of a multi-year turnaround plan. While the plan may have recently begun to bear fruit, investors remain cautious.

3. Crystal Pepsi
> Company: PepsiCo
> Year released: 1992
> Revenue yr. released: $19.8 billion

In 1992, PepsiCo attempted to enter the then-flourishing &ldquonew-age beverages&rdquo market with its clear, caffeine-free Crystal Pepsi. The company promoted the product as a healthy and pure diet beverage. Its $40 million advertising campaign included permission to use Van Halen&rsquos hit song Right Now in TV advertisements. Market tests at the time gave Crystal Pepsi such a positive outlook that Coca-Cola released Tab Clear to compete with it. While sales over the first year were a strong $470 million, many of the purchases were likely due to curiosity. Not only were consumers not convinced by Pepsi&rsquos health angle, but many cola-drinkers expected a darker beverage. Also hurting Crystal Pepsi&rsquos popularity: to many consumers it tasted just like original Pepsi.

4. Clairol Touch of Yogurt Shampoo
> Company: Procter & Gamble
> Year released: 1979
> Revenue yr. released: $8.1 billion

Yogurt and other cultured dairy products may actually be beneficial for your hair. Like many companies, P&G began emphasizing the natural ingredients in its products in the 1970s to answer the overall &ldquoback to nature&rdquo movement of the time. It was common for many shampoos to contain a variety of natural ingredients, including honey, various herbs, and fruits. When Clairol, a subsidiary of P&G, released its Touch of Yogurt Shampoo in 1979, however, customers did not take to associating dairy with a hair product. The product was also confusing to some. There were a number of cases of people mistakenly eating it and getting sick as a result. Surprisingly, Touch of Yogurt was not Clairol&rsquos first failed foray into milk-based hair products &mdash three years earlier it had attempted to market a shampoo called the &ldquoLook of Buttermilk.&rdquo Both sold poorly and are no longer available in the U.S.

5. Coors Rocky Mountain Sparkling Water
> Company: Adolph Coors Company
> Year released: 1990
> Revenue yr. released: $1.8 billion

Coors has advertised its beer as &ldquocold brewed with pure rocky mountain spring water&rdquo for decades. Apparently, this water has been used to brew Coors beer since 1873. In response to a trend towards moderate alcohol consumption and significant growth in the bottled water segment, the company decided to sell spring water &mdash its first nonalcoholic beverage since Prohibition. While the decision benefited from the company&rsquos existing bottling logistics and distribution, the Coors brand didn&rsquot help sell bottled water. Coors Rocky Mountain Sparkling Water used a similar name and label to that of Coors beer, which may have confused and even spooked consumers. Anheuser-Busch, maker of Budweiser, also began criticizing Coors around that time for attributing superior quality to its mountain spring water, which Anheuser-Busch claimed was cut with water from Virginia. Coors cancelled its bottled water trademark in 1997.


The 10 Worst Product Fails of All Time

T he larger the company, the greater its capacity for taking risks. While pouring millions of dollars into market research and advertising campaigns can lead to tremendous successes, such ventures can also be a formula for the most miserable failures.

To identify some of the worst product flops of all time, 24/7 Wall St. reviewed products introduced after 1950 by America&rsquos largest companies. To make the list, the company needed to make the Fortune 500 the year the product was released.

Companies often launch new products in response to a competitor&rsquos successful idea. But such products fail if they cannot measure up to the competition or capture consumers&rsquo attention. Microsoft&rsquos Zune was developed in response to successful Apple products. The Zune was harshly reviewed for technical problems consumers had with the device. It also lacked an easy-to-use music store.

Other experiments, such as the McDonald&rsquos Arch Deluxe and Pepsi Crystal, were reinventions of a company&rsquos staple. While there were good reasons to introduce these new products, consumers rejected them almost immediately.

In some cases, companies simply offered a bad product. Frito-Lay&rsquos WOW! chips, for example, were very popular at first but ended up causing such unpleasant gastrointestinal problems that the product became completely unsalvageable.

Some products may have just been ahead of their time. The Newton MessagePad was perhaps the first tablet marketed to consumers, introducing in the early 1990s an idea that became very popular only a decade and a half later. However, Apple had trouble convincing consumers of the value of mobile computing at the time.

These are the worst product flops of all time.

1. Edsel
> Company: Ford
> Year released: 1957
> Revenue yr. released: $4.6 billion

Released on &ldquoE-Day &mdash with &ldquoE&rdquo standing for experimental &mdash the Edsel was Ford&rsquos attempt to offer a higher-end, mid-sized vehicle for consumers looking to upgrade. The car was named after Edsel B. Ford, the company&rsquos former president and Henry Ford&rsquos only son, who died in 1943. The Edsel cost Ford at least $350 million, which in today&rsquos dollars is equal to roughly $2.9 billion. Ford promoted the car aggressively with expensive teaser ads, which may have gone too far in raising consumer expectations. A Teletouch pushbutton transmission and the Edsel&rsquos electronic controls in particular were said to be revolutionary. Unfortunately, the new features were unreliable. The car was also quite expensive, ranging from $2,500 for the Edsel Pacer 4-door sedan to $3,766 for the 2-door convertible. This may have been difficult during a steep economic downturn &mdash sales were down in 1957 for many other car companies, including Buick, Mercury, Dodge, and Pontiac. After four model years Ford stopped producing the Edsel.

2. TouchPad
> Company: Hewlett Packard
> Year released: 2011
> Revenue yr. released: $126.0 billion

Introduced in July 2011, the TouchPad was Hewlett Packard&rsquos attempt to compete with Apple&rsquos iPad. With powerful video capability and impressive processing speeds, the TouchPad was widely anticipated to be among the only products that could give Apple a run for its money. Despite large scale press events and promotions, the HP TouchPad was a colossal failure and was discontinued almost immediately. As a result of the TouchPad&rsquos failure, the company wrote off $885 million in assets and incurred an additional $755 million in costs to wind down its webOS operations, ending all work on the TouchPad&rsquos failed operating system. Since then, HP has continued to struggle to maintain its edge in the PC market. The once-dominant PC company is in the midst of a multi-year turnaround plan. While the plan may have recently begun to bear fruit, investors remain cautious.

3. Crystal Pepsi
> Company: PepsiCo
> Year released: 1992
> Revenue yr. released: $19.8 billion

In 1992, PepsiCo attempted to enter the then-flourishing &ldquonew-age beverages&rdquo market with its clear, caffeine-free Crystal Pepsi. The company promoted the product as a healthy and pure diet beverage. Its $40 million advertising campaign included permission to use Van Halen&rsquos hit song Right Now in TV advertisements. Market tests at the time gave Crystal Pepsi such a positive outlook that Coca-Cola released Tab Clear to compete with it. While sales over the first year were a strong $470 million, many of the purchases were likely due to curiosity. Not only were consumers not convinced by Pepsi&rsquos health angle, but many cola-drinkers expected a darker beverage. Also hurting Crystal Pepsi&rsquos popularity: to many consumers it tasted just like original Pepsi.

4. Clairol Touch of Yogurt Shampoo
> Company: Procter & Gamble
> Year released: 1979
> Revenue yr. released: $8.1 billion

Yogurt and other cultured dairy products may actually be beneficial for your hair. Like many companies, P&G began emphasizing the natural ingredients in its products in the 1970s to answer the overall &ldquoback to nature&rdquo movement of the time. It was common for many shampoos to contain a variety of natural ingredients, including honey, various herbs, and fruits. When Clairol, a subsidiary of P&G, released its Touch of Yogurt Shampoo in 1979, however, customers did not take to associating dairy with a hair product. The product was also confusing to some. There were a number of cases of people mistakenly eating it and getting sick as a result. Surprisingly, Touch of Yogurt was not Clairol&rsquos first failed foray into milk-based hair products &mdash three years earlier it had attempted to market a shampoo called the &ldquoLook of Buttermilk.&rdquo Both sold poorly and are no longer available in the U.S.

5. Coors Rocky Mountain Sparkling Water
> Company: Adolph Coors Company
> Year released: 1990
> Revenue yr. released: $1.8 billion

Coors has advertised its beer as &ldquocold brewed with pure rocky mountain spring water&rdquo for decades. Apparently, this water has been used to brew Coors beer since 1873. In response to a trend towards moderate alcohol consumption and significant growth in the bottled water segment, the company decided to sell spring water &mdash its first nonalcoholic beverage since Prohibition. While the decision benefited from the company&rsquos existing bottling logistics and distribution, the Coors brand didn&rsquot help sell bottled water. Coors Rocky Mountain Sparkling Water used a similar name and label to that of Coors beer, which may have confused and even spooked consumers. Anheuser-Busch, maker of Budweiser, also began criticizing Coors around that time for attributing superior quality to its mountain spring water, which Anheuser-Busch claimed was cut with water from Virginia. Coors cancelled its bottled water trademark in 1997.


The 10 Worst Product Fails of All Time

T he larger the company, the greater its capacity for taking risks. While pouring millions of dollars into market research and advertising campaigns can lead to tremendous successes, such ventures can also be a formula for the most miserable failures.

To identify some of the worst product flops of all time, 24/7 Wall St. reviewed products introduced after 1950 by America&rsquos largest companies. To make the list, the company needed to make the Fortune 500 the year the product was released.

Companies often launch new products in response to a competitor&rsquos successful idea. But such products fail if they cannot measure up to the competition or capture consumers&rsquo attention. Microsoft&rsquos Zune was developed in response to successful Apple products. The Zune was harshly reviewed for technical problems consumers had with the device. It also lacked an easy-to-use music store.

Other experiments, such as the McDonald&rsquos Arch Deluxe and Pepsi Crystal, were reinventions of a company&rsquos staple. While there were good reasons to introduce these new products, consumers rejected them almost immediately.

In some cases, companies simply offered a bad product. Frito-Lay&rsquos WOW! chips, for example, were very popular at first but ended up causing such unpleasant gastrointestinal problems that the product became completely unsalvageable.

Some products may have just been ahead of their time. The Newton MessagePad was perhaps the first tablet marketed to consumers, introducing in the early 1990s an idea that became very popular only a decade and a half later. However, Apple had trouble convincing consumers of the value of mobile computing at the time.

These are the worst product flops of all time.

1. Edsel
> Company: Ford
> Year released: 1957
> Revenue yr. released: $4.6 billion

Released on &ldquoE-Day &mdash with &ldquoE&rdquo standing for experimental &mdash the Edsel was Ford&rsquos attempt to offer a higher-end, mid-sized vehicle for consumers looking to upgrade. The car was named after Edsel B. Ford, the company&rsquos former president and Henry Ford&rsquos only son, who died in 1943. The Edsel cost Ford at least $350 million, which in today&rsquos dollars is equal to roughly $2.9 billion. Ford promoted the car aggressively with expensive teaser ads, which may have gone too far in raising consumer expectations. A Teletouch pushbutton transmission and the Edsel&rsquos electronic controls in particular were said to be revolutionary. Unfortunately, the new features were unreliable. The car was also quite expensive, ranging from $2,500 for the Edsel Pacer 4-door sedan to $3,766 for the 2-door convertible. This may have been difficult during a steep economic downturn &mdash sales were down in 1957 for many other car companies, including Buick, Mercury, Dodge, and Pontiac. After four model years Ford stopped producing the Edsel.

2. TouchPad
> Company: Hewlett Packard
> Year released: 2011
> Revenue yr. released: $126.0 billion

Introduced in July 2011, the TouchPad was Hewlett Packard&rsquos attempt to compete with Apple&rsquos iPad. With powerful video capability and impressive processing speeds, the TouchPad was widely anticipated to be among the only products that could give Apple a run for its money. Despite large scale press events and promotions, the HP TouchPad was a colossal failure and was discontinued almost immediately. As a result of the TouchPad&rsquos failure, the company wrote off $885 million in assets and incurred an additional $755 million in costs to wind down its webOS operations, ending all work on the TouchPad&rsquos failed operating system. Since then, HP has continued to struggle to maintain its edge in the PC market. The once-dominant PC company is in the midst of a multi-year turnaround plan. While the plan may have recently begun to bear fruit, investors remain cautious.

3. Crystal Pepsi
> Company: PepsiCo
> Year released: 1992
> Revenue yr. released: $19.8 billion

In 1992, PepsiCo attempted to enter the then-flourishing &ldquonew-age beverages&rdquo market with its clear, caffeine-free Crystal Pepsi. The company promoted the product as a healthy and pure diet beverage. Its $40 million advertising campaign included permission to use Van Halen&rsquos hit song Right Now in TV advertisements. Market tests at the time gave Crystal Pepsi such a positive outlook that Coca-Cola released Tab Clear to compete with it. While sales over the first year were a strong $470 million, many of the purchases were likely due to curiosity. Not only were consumers not convinced by Pepsi&rsquos health angle, but many cola-drinkers expected a darker beverage. Also hurting Crystal Pepsi&rsquos popularity: to many consumers it tasted just like original Pepsi.

4. Clairol Touch of Yogurt Shampoo
> Company: Procter & Gamble
> Year released: 1979
> Revenue yr. released: $8.1 billion

Yogurt and other cultured dairy products may actually be beneficial for your hair. Like many companies, P&G began emphasizing the natural ingredients in its products in the 1970s to answer the overall &ldquoback to nature&rdquo movement of the time. It was common for many shampoos to contain a variety of natural ingredients, including honey, various herbs, and fruits. When Clairol, a subsidiary of P&G, released its Touch of Yogurt Shampoo in 1979, however, customers did not take to associating dairy with a hair product. The product was also confusing to some. There were a number of cases of people mistakenly eating it and getting sick as a result. Surprisingly, Touch of Yogurt was not Clairol&rsquos first failed foray into milk-based hair products &mdash three years earlier it had attempted to market a shampoo called the &ldquoLook of Buttermilk.&rdquo Both sold poorly and are no longer available in the U.S.

5. Coors Rocky Mountain Sparkling Water
> Company: Adolph Coors Company
> Year released: 1990
> Revenue yr. released: $1.8 billion

Coors has advertised its beer as &ldquocold brewed with pure rocky mountain spring water&rdquo for decades. Apparently, this water has been used to brew Coors beer since 1873. In response to a trend towards moderate alcohol consumption and significant growth in the bottled water segment, the company decided to sell spring water &mdash its first nonalcoholic beverage since Prohibition. While the decision benefited from the company&rsquos existing bottling logistics and distribution, the Coors brand didn&rsquot help sell bottled water. Coors Rocky Mountain Sparkling Water used a similar name and label to that of Coors beer, which may have confused and even spooked consumers. Anheuser-Busch, maker of Budweiser, also began criticizing Coors around that time for attributing superior quality to its mountain spring water, which Anheuser-Busch claimed was cut with water from Virginia. Coors cancelled its bottled water trademark in 1997.


The 10 Worst Product Fails of All Time

T he larger the company, the greater its capacity for taking risks. While pouring millions of dollars into market research and advertising campaigns can lead to tremendous successes, such ventures can also be a formula for the most miserable failures.

To identify some of the worst product flops of all time, 24/7 Wall St. reviewed products introduced after 1950 by America&rsquos largest companies. To make the list, the company needed to make the Fortune 500 the year the product was released.

Companies often launch new products in response to a competitor&rsquos successful idea. But such products fail if they cannot measure up to the competition or capture consumers&rsquo attention. Microsoft&rsquos Zune was developed in response to successful Apple products. The Zune was harshly reviewed for technical problems consumers had with the device. It also lacked an easy-to-use music store.

Other experiments, such as the McDonald&rsquos Arch Deluxe and Pepsi Crystal, were reinventions of a company&rsquos staple. While there were good reasons to introduce these new products, consumers rejected them almost immediately.

In some cases, companies simply offered a bad product. Frito-Lay&rsquos WOW! chips, for example, were very popular at first but ended up causing such unpleasant gastrointestinal problems that the product became completely unsalvageable.

Some products may have just been ahead of their time. The Newton MessagePad was perhaps the first tablet marketed to consumers, introducing in the early 1990s an idea that became very popular only a decade and a half later. However, Apple had trouble convincing consumers of the value of mobile computing at the time.

These are the worst product flops of all time.

1. Edsel
> Company: Ford
> Year released: 1957
> Revenue yr. released: $4.6 billion

Released on &ldquoE-Day &mdash with &ldquoE&rdquo standing for experimental &mdash the Edsel was Ford&rsquos attempt to offer a higher-end, mid-sized vehicle for consumers looking to upgrade. The car was named after Edsel B. Ford, the company&rsquos former president and Henry Ford&rsquos only son, who died in 1943. The Edsel cost Ford at least $350 million, which in today&rsquos dollars is equal to roughly $2.9 billion. Ford promoted the car aggressively with expensive teaser ads, which may have gone too far in raising consumer expectations. A Teletouch pushbutton transmission and the Edsel&rsquos electronic controls in particular were said to be revolutionary. Unfortunately, the new features were unreliable. The car was also quite expensive, ranging from $2,500 for the Edsel Pacer 4-door sedan to $3,766 for the 2-door convertible. This may have been difficult during a steep economic downturn &mdash sales were down in 1957 for many other car companies, including Buick, Mercury, Dodge, and Pontiac. After four model years Ford stopped producing the Edsel.

2. TouchPad
> Company: Hewlett Packard
> Year released: 2011
> Revenue yr. released: $126.0 billion

Introduced in July 2011, the TouchPad was Hewlett Packard&rsquos attempt to compete with Apple&rsquos iPad. With powerful video capability and impressive processing speeds, the TouchPad was widely anticipated to be among the only products that could give Apple a run for its money. Despite large scale press events and promotions, the HP TouchPad was a colossal failure and was discontinued almost immediately. As a result of the TouchPad&rsquos failure, the company wrote off $885 million in assets and incurred an additional $755 million in costs to wind down its webOS operations, ending all work on the TouchPad&rsquos failed operating system. Since then, HP has continued to struggle to maintain its edge in the PC market. The once-dominant PC company is in the midst of a multi-year turnaround plan. While the plan may have recently begun to bear fruit, investors remain cautious.

3. Crystal Pepsi
> Company: PepsiCo
> Year released: 1992
> Revenue yr. released: $19.8 billion

In 1992, PepsiCo attempted to enter the then-flourishing &ldquonew-age beverages&rdquo market with its clear, caffeine-free Crystal Pepsi. The company promoted the product as a healthy and pure diet beverage. Its $40 million advertising campaign included permission to use Van Halen&rsquos hit song Right Now in TV advertisements. Market tests at the time gave Crystal Pepsi such a positive outlook that Coca-Cola released Tab Clear to compete with it. While sales over the first year were a strong $470 million, many of the purchases were likely due to curiosity. Not only were consumers not convinced by Pepsi&rsquos health angle, but many cola-drinkers expected a darker beverage. Also hurting Crystal Pepsi&rsquos popularity: to many consumers it tasted just like original Pepsi.

4. Clairol Touch of Yogurt Shampoo
> Company: Procter & Gamble
> Year released: 1979
> Revenue yr. released: $8.1 billion

Yogurt and other cultured dairy products may actually be beneficial for your hair. Like many companies, P&G began emphasizing the natural ingredients in its products in the 1970s to answer the overall &ldquoback to nature&rdquo movement of the time. It was common for many shampoos to contain a variety of natural ingredients, including honey, various herbs, and fruits. When Clairol, a subsidiary of P&G, released its Touch of Yogurt Shampoo in 1979, however, customers did not take to associating dairy with a hair product. The product was also confusing to some. There were a number of cases of people mistakenly eating it and getting sick as a result. Surprisingly, Touch of Yogurt was not Clairol&rsquos first failed foray into milk-based hair products &mdash three years earlier it had attempted to market a shampoo called the &ldquoLook of Buttermilk.&rdquo Both sold poorly and are no longer available in the U.S.

5. Coors Rocky Mountain Sparkling Water
> Company: Adolph Coors Company
> Year released: 1990
> Revenue yr. released: $1.8 billion

Coors has advertised its beer as &ldquocold brewed with pure rocky mountain spring water&rdquo for decades. Apparently, this water has been used to brew Coors beer since 1873. In response to a trend towards moderate alcohol consumption and significant growth in the bottled water segment, the company decided to sell spring water &mdash its first nonalcoholic beverage since Prohibition. While the decision benefited from the company&rsquos existing bottling logistics and distribution, the Coors brand didn&rsquot help sell bottled water. Coors Rocky Mountain Sparkling Water used a similar name and label to that of Coors beer, which may have confused and even spooked consumers. Anheuser-Busch, maker of Budweiser, also began criticizing Coors around that time for attributing superior quality to its mountain spring water, which Anheuser-Busch claimed was cut with water from Virginia. Coors cancelled its bottled water trademark in 1997.


The 10 Worst Product Fails of All Time

T he larger the company, the greater its capacity for taking risks. While pouring millions of dollars into market research and advertising campaigns can lead to tremendous successes, such ventures can also be a formula for the most miserable failures.

To identify some of the worst product flops of all time, 24/7 Wall St. reviewed products introduced after 1950 by America&rsquos largest companies. To make the list, the company needed to make the Fortune 500 the year the product was released.

Companies often launch new products in response to a competitor&rsquos successful idea. But such products fail if they cannot measure up to the competition or capture consumers&rsquo attention. Microsoft&rsquos Zune was developed in response to successful Apple products. The Zune was harshly reviewed for technical problems consumers had with the device. It also lacked an easy-to-use music store.

Other experiments, such as the McDonald&rsquos Arch Deluxe and Pepsi Crystal, were reinventions of a company&rsquos staple. While there were good reasons to introduce these new products, consumers rejected them almost immediately.

In some cases, companies simply offered a bad product. Frito-Lay&rsquos WOW! chips, for example, were very popular at first but ended up causing such unpleasant gastrointestinal problems that the product became completely unsalvageable.

Some products may have just been ahead of their time. The Newton MessagePad was perhaps the first tablet marketed to consumers, introducing in the early 1990s an idea that became very popular only a decade and a half later. However, Apple had trouble convincing consumers of the value of mobile computing at the time.

These are the worst product flops of all time.

1. Edsel
> Company: Ford
> Year released: 1957
> Revenue yr. released: $4.6 billion

Released on &ldquoE-Day &mdash with &ldquoE&rdquo standing for experimental &mdash the Edsel was Ford&rsquos attempt to offer a higher-end, mid-sized vehicle for consumers looking to upgrade. The car was named after Edsel B. Ford, the company&rsquos former president and Henry Ford&rsquos only son, who died in 1943. The Edsel cost Ford at least $350 million, which in today&rsquos dollars is equal to roughly $2.9 billion. Ford promoted the car aggressively with expensive teaser ads, which may have gone too far in raising consumer expectations. A Teletouch pushbutton transmission and the Edsel&rsquos electronic controls in particular were said to be revolutionary. Unfortunately, the new features were unreliable. The car was also quite expensive, ranging from $2,500 for the Edsel Pacer 4-door sedan to $3,766 for the 2-door convertible. This may have been difficult during a steep economic downturn &mdash sales were down in 1957 for many other car companies, including Buick, Mercury, Dodge, and Pontiac. After four model years Ford stopped producing the Edsel.

2. TouchPad
> Company: Hewlett Packard
> Year released: 2011
> Revenue yr. released: $126.0 billion

Introduced in July 2011, the TouchPad was Hewlett Packard&rsquos attempt to compete with Apple&rsquos iPad. With powerful video capability and impressive processing speeds, the TouchPad was widely anticipated to be among the only products that could give Apple a run for its money. Despite large scale press events and promotions, the HP TouchPad was a colossal failure and was discontinued almost immediately. As a result of the TouchPad&rsquos failure, the company wrote off $885 million in assets and incurred an additional $755 million in costs to wind down its webOS operations, ending all work on the TouchPad&rsquos failed operating system. Since then, HP has continued to struggle to maintain its edge in the PC market. The once-dominant PC company is in the midst of a multi-year turnaround plan. While the plan may have recently begun to bear fruit, investors remain cautious.

3. Crystal Pepsi
> Company: PepsiCo
> Year released: 1992
> Revenue yr. released: $19.8 billion

In 1992, PepsiCo attempted to enter the then-flourishing &ldquonew-age beverages&rdquo market with its clear, caffeine-free Crystal Pepsi. The company promoted the product as a healthy and pure diet beverage. Its $40 million advertising campaign included permission to use Van Halen&rsquos hit song Right Now in TV advertisements. Market tests at the time gave Crystal Pepsi such a positive outlook that Coca-Cola released Tab Clear to compete with it. While sales over the first year were a strong $470 million, many of the purchases were likely due to curiosity. Not only were consumers not convinced by Pepsi&rsquos health angle, but many cola-drinkers expected a darker beverage. Also hurting Crystal Pepsi&rsquos popularity: to many consumers it tasted just like original Pepsi.

4. Clairol Touch of Yogurt Shampoo
> Company: Procter & Gamble
> Year released: 1979
> Revenue yr. released: $8.1 billion

Yogurt and other cultured dairy products may actually be beneficial for your hair. Like many companies, P&G began emphasizing the natural ingredients in its products in the 1970s to answer the overall &ldquoback to nature&rdquo movement of the time. It was common for many shampoos to contain a variety of natural ingredients, including honey, various herbs, and fruits. When Clairol, a subsidiary of P&G, released its Touch of Yogurt Shampoo in 1979, however, customers did not take to associating dairy with a hair product. The product was also confusing to some. There were a number of cases of people mistakenly eating it and getting sick as a result. Surprisingly, Touch of Yogurt was not Clairol&rsquos first failed foray into milk-based hair products &mdash three years earlier it had attempted to market a shampoo called the &ldquoLook of Buttermilk.&rdquo Both sold poorly and are no longer available in the U.S.

5. Coors Rocky Mountain Sparkling Water
> Company: Adolph Coors Company
> Year released: 1990
> Revenue yr. released: $1.8 billion

Coors has advertised its beer as &ldquocold brewed with pure rocky mountain spring water&rdquo for decades. Apparently, this water has been used to brew Coors beer since 1873. In response to a trend towards moderate alcohol consumption and significant growth in the bottled water segment, the company decided to sell spring water &mdash its first nonalcoholic beverage since Prohibition. While the decision benefited from the company&rsquos existing bottling logistics and distribution, the Coors brand didn&rsquot help sell bottled water. Coors Rocky Mountain Sparkling Water used a similar name and label to that of Coors beer, which may have confused and even spooked consumers. Anheuser-Busch, maker of Budweiser, also began criticizing Coors around that time for attributing superior quality to its mountain spring water, which Anheuser-Busch claimed was cut with water from Virginia. Coors cancelled its bottled water trademark in 1997.


The 10 Worst Product Fails of All Time

T he larger the company, the greater its capacity for taking risks. While pouring millions of dollars into market research and advertising campaigns can lead to tremendous successes, such ventures can also be a formula for the most miserable failures.

To identify some of the worst product flops of all time, 24/7 Wall St. reviewed products introduced after 1950 by America&rsquos largest companies. To make the list, the company needed to make the Fortune 500 the year the product was released.

Companies often launch new products in response to a competitor&rsquos successful idea. But such products fail if they cannot measure up to the competition or capture consumers&rsquo attention. Microsoft&rsquos Zune was developed in response to successful Apple products. The Zune was harshly reviewed for technical problems consumers had with the device. It also lacked an easy-to-use music store.

Other experiments, such as the McDonald&rsquos Arch Deluxe and Pepsi Crystal, were reinventions of a company&rsquos staple. While there were good reasons to introduce these new products, consumers rejected them almost immediately.

In some cases, companies simply offered a bad product. Frito-Lay&rsquos WOW! chips, for example, were very popular at first but ended up causing such unpleasant gastrointestinal problems that the product became completely unsalvageable.

Some products may have just been ahead of their time. The Newton MessagePad was perhaps the first tablet marketed to consumers, introducing in the early 1990s an idea that became very popular only a decade and a half later. However, Apple had trouble convincing consumers of the value of mobile computing at the time.

These are the worst product flops of all time.

1. Edsel
> Company: Ford
> Year released: 1957
> Revenue yr. released: $4.6 billion

Released on &ldquoE-Day &mdash with &ldquoE&rdquo standing for experimental &mdash the Edsel was Ford&rsquos attempt to offer a higher-end, mid-sized vehicle for consumers looking to upgrade. The car was named after Edsel B. Ford, the company&rsquos former president and Henry Ford&rsquos only son, who died in 1943. The Edsel cost Ford at least $350 million, which in today&rsquos dollars is equal to roughly $2.9 billion. Ford promoted the car aggressively with expensive teaser ads, which may have gone too far in raising consumer expectations. A Teletouch pushbutton transmission and the Edsel&rsquos electronic controls in particular were said to be revolutionary. Unfortunately, the new features were unreliable. The car was also quite expensive, ranging from $2,500 for the Edsel Pacer 4-door sedan to $3,766 for the 2-door convertible. This may have been difficult during a steep economic downturn &mdash sales were down in 1957 for many other car companies, including Buick, Mercury, Dodge, and Pontiac. After four model years Ford stopped producing the Edsel.

2. TouchPad
> Company: Hewlett Packard
> Year released: 2011
> Revenue yr. released: $126.0 billion

Introduced in July 2011, the TouchPad was Hewlett Packard&rsquos attempt to compete with Apple&rsquos iPad. With powerful video capability and impressive processing speeds, the TouchPad was widely anticipated to be among the only products that could give Apple a run for its money. Despite large scale press events and promotions, the HP TouchPad was a colossal failure and was discontinued almost immediately. As a result of the TouchPad&rsquos failure, the company wrote off $885 million in assets and incurred an additional $755 million in costs to wind down its webOS operations, ending all work on the TouchPad&rsquos failed operating system. Since then, HP has continued to struggle to maintain its edge in the PC market. The once-dominant PC company is in the midst of a multi-year turnaround plan. While the plan may have recently begun to bear fruit, investors remain cautious.

3. Crystal Pepsi
> Company: PepsiCo
> Year released: 1992
> Revenue yr. released: $19.8 billion

In 1992, PepsiCo attempted to enter the then-flourishing &ldquonew-age beverages&rdquo market with its clear, caffeine-free Crystal Pepsi. The company promoted the product as a healthy and pure diet beverage. Its $40 million advertising campaign included permission to use Van Halen&rsquos hit song Right Now in TV advertisements. Market tests at the time gave Crystal Pepsi such a positive outlook that Coca-Cola released Tab Clear to compete with it. While sales over the first year were a strong $470 million, many of the purchases were likely due to curiosity. Not only were consumers not convinced by Pepsi&rsquos health angle, but many cola-drinkers expected a darker beverage. Also hurting Crystal Pepsi&rsquos popularity: to many consumers it tasted just like original Pepsi.

4. Clairol Touch of Yogurt Shampoo
> Company: Procter & Gamble
> Year released: 1979
> Revenue yr. released: $8.1 billion

Yogurt and other cultured dairy products may actually be beneficial for your hair. Like many companies, P&G began emphasizing the natural ingredients in its products in the 1970s to answer the overall &ldquoback to nature&rdquo movement of the time. It was common for many shampoos to contain a variety of natural ingredients, including honey, various herbs, and fruits. When Clairol, a subsidiary of P&G, released its Touch of Yogurt Shampoo in 1979, however, customers did not take to associating dairy with a hair product. The product was also confusing to some. There were a number of cases of people mistakenly eating it and getting sick as a result. Surprisingly, Touch of Yogurt was not Clairol&rsquos first failed foray into milk-based hair products &mdash three years earlier it had attempted to market a shampoo called the &ldquoLook of Buttermilk.&rdquo Both sold poorly and are no longer available in the U.S.

5. Coors Rocky Mountain Sparkling Water
> Company: Adolph Coors Company
> Year released: 1990
> Revenue yr. released: $1.8 billion

Coors has advertised its beer as &ldquocold brewed with pure rocky mountain spring water&rdquo for decades. Apparently, this water has been used to brew Coors beer since 1873. In response to a trend towards moderate alcohol consumption and significant growth in the bottled water segment, the company decided to sell spring water &mdash its first nonalcoholic beverage since Prohibition. While the decision benefited from the company&rsquos existing bottling logistics and distribution, the Coors brand didn&rsquot help sell bottled water. Coors Rocky Mountain Sparkling Water used a similar name and label to that of Coors beer, which may have confused and even spooked consumers. Anheuser-Busch, maker of Budweiser, also began criticizing Coors around that time for attributing superior quality to its mountain spring water, which Anheuser-Busch claimed was cut with water from Virginia. Coors cancelled its bottled water trademark in 1997.