Issue: When should organizations abandon existing technology in light of new, more energy efficient options?
James Dyson has built a career on making everyday products work better. His line of vacuum cleaners has taken a unique market position by providing greater suction and cleaning ability than major competitors. One of Dyson’s latest innovations is the Airblade. The Airblade is a hand dryer like the ones you see in public and corporate restrooms that blows filtered, unheated air through a narrow opening the width of an eyelash at 400 miles per hour. Your hands are dried in just 12 seconds, and the Airblade uses 80 percent less energy than conventional dryers. The downside, if there is any, is that each unit costs $1,400 - about three times as much as traditional hand dryers.
Dyson admits to the unique challenge in marketing the Airblade. If you want a better vacuum cleaner, for example, you go out and buy one. But what business wants to remove perfectly adequate, functioning technology in their restrooms and replace them with "superior" technology? To spur interest and create some buzz about the product, Dyson gave away 1,000 machines (costing $840 each to manufacture). These giveaways were placed in high-traffic locations, such as the London Eye, a popular tourist spot. Current Airblade customers include the Le Parker Meridien New York Hotels; Advocate Lutheran General Hospital in Park Ridge, Illinois; and AMC movie theaters. The National Sanitation Foundation called the Airblade the world’s first "hygienic hand dryer," thanks to its Hepa filter. The hard part is selling your better, cleaner product at a higher price when capital expenditures on such an item are not necessary? Should companies feel pressured to innovate in this way?