Ferrit, proof that advertising is the cost for not being remarkable

AdMedia's David Gapes started the year by asking his subscribers what they thought of Ferrit's demise.

Here's what I said:

Ferrit ... nobody I talked to was much surprised about the demise of Ferrit. A couple of reasons why:

• Site wasn't that usable or easy to navigate (that's hearsay from me, I don't think I ever visited there)
• Price premium when compared with retail, which makes sense for the
  business, but sure as hell doesn't make a compelling argument for the
  customer
• Not the knitting that Telecom should have been sticking to
• A big corporation trying to run what was essentially a startup ...
  hmmm. Culture clash? (that's a guess, but I'd hazard it's pretty
  accurate)

But my biggest pick on why Ferrit didn't work is:

• Who's it for? It seemed to be all things to all people, and
  therefore nothing to anyone. The ads were kind of cool, but they always
  seemed to be just a money-spending exercise.
  

Which again
comes back to a corporate not thinking like a startup. As Seth Godin or
someone else said, advertising is the price you pay for having an
unremarkable product. And as the chaos and noise gets louder, even the
well-funded will go under.


Here's what everyone else said, and why at least one person thinks there's life in the old dog yet!

(image filched from Ben.geek.nz)