What Display Daily thinks: This week, Samsung launched its 110-inch MicroLED ultra-luxurious TV into the Indian market. The price? About $135,000. We just saw, today, LG launched a so-called wireless 97-inch OLED TV in South Korea. The price? Around $35,000.
There is limited data on what the real market for ultra-luxurious TVs could be. The Consumer Technology Association (CTA) categorizes the segment as being any TV costing over $10,000, and based on its numbers, sales could be as high as 900,000 units a year. Given that what Samsung and LG are offering here are so far ahead of that, you can probably assume that the sale of TVs over $30,000 is a fraction of that figure, and the sale of TVs over $100,000 is an even smaller fraction of that. Could it be hundreds? Or even tens of units. It’s definitely a market for the one-percenters of the world.
So, it might seem a little tone-deaf during a time of inflation, when there is less than positive consumer sentiment and a general stagnation in TV viewing, that companies would let their marketing departments lead with products that are beyond aspirational.
It’s tricky. For one thing, you could argue that you showcase the best of our technology and let the consumer buy in at a price point that they can afford, assuming that they are buying into the same sort of technology from the same brand. That doesn’t always work that well. No one wants an affordable Mercedes or Ferrari.
What seems to be happening is that companies are flexing as much for each other, the press, and investors than they are flexing for customers. The press part is easy to understand because any time your brand is connected to the best in technology, it has to be a net positive gain in attention. Samsung’s MicroLED monster is a concept TV for the future. Eventually, we may all be able to afford a 110-inch MicroLED TV, maybe not for another 10 years, but still, it’s good to know what that $400 Amazon purchase of a Samsung TV puts us on the path to a better TV in our future. Humans tend to get very fuzzy on the space–time continuum when blinded by lust.
I tend to be of the opinion that we are in the middle of what could be a major attention-slump for TV watchers. The strike in Hollywood and belt-tightening on subscription services means that there is a paucity of market drivers for TV upgrades. It may be why people seem to be returning to movie theaters, not just because of summer blockbusters like Barbie and Oppenheimer, but also because they have had two or three years of binge-watching since the pandemic kicked in, and they need to find other ways to amuse themselves.
That means you have a few questions to ask yourself:
- Does a return to movie theaters means that there is a possible uptick in interest in home theaters?
- Does a $100,000 TV, or even a $20,000 TV really sell SKUs that are positioned way down the line?
- Could there be a negative association between luxury branding campaigns and consumer sentiment during a time of economic uncertainty?
The TV industry probably needs to reset itself to try and figure out what it wants to be in light of what is happening on the content side. It’s also worth noting that if consumers are moving to ad-supported subscriptions, which they are (there is ample evidence to suggest), it means that prudence is necessary.
I don’t think Samsung’s PR for a $135,000 TV launch in India was the best use of its resources. Does the company really need to do much to get noticed in the press? Are emerging markets really looking for Ferrari showrooms that mostly sell Alfa Romeos (I am not good with cars so this analogy may suck; I apologize)? TV value propositions probably need to get more sophisticated than just pointing to the most expensive, biggest screen there is, and hoping that is enough. We live in a multi-display, multi-device world.
Another interesting point about outrageously expensive TVs: they are usually bought by people who will hide them from general view and only unveil them when necessary, meaning that they don’t form any focal point for the kind of household that can afford them. Unless the TV is the central hub of the home, it has to fit into a world of other displays. You rarely see that cross-display market approach. Maybe it’s time to think of TVs as being the cousins of much better smartphone displays than their superiors or parents. Maybe the next marketing campaign should be about how your TV is from the same company that makes your phone’s display.
