Product Analysis: Philip Starch Juicer - Case Study Example

Philip Starch Juicer and Philip Starch Juicer Introduction The access FM method involves a ive evaluation of a product. The method involves a consideration of its aesthetics, cost, customer, environment, safety, size, function and the material used to make the product (accessfm.com 2014). It is necessary to focus on the Philip Starch Juicer. The product is a kitchen accessory that can be used in the production of juice for household consumption. The invention of the product was informed by pressing a fruit over a squid (Watson-Smyth 2014). However, the juicer resembles a spider. Although it serves its core purpose, there is a feeling that it is driven primarily by an appreciation of art as opposed to an innate desire to squeeze juice. The product pioneered the modernist approach to industrial design where a deliberate effort is made to ensure that products are created not just with functionality in mind but also with their form as a major consideration (house to home 2014). Aesthetics The Philip stark juicer represents a product with a beautiful design. The consumer can clearly see that a lot of effort went into manufacturing product that not only served its intended purpose but also appealed to the consumer. The product is polished. In addition, it is made with aluminum with an elaborate finish that ensures it sparkles. The cone shaped head makes it possible for the juicer to be used as an ornament in most kitchens. It is possible to think that its aesthetic beauty is one of the key factors that differentiate it from other products. However, the use of stainless steel as opposed to aluminum could have made it a better product. The use of aluminum means that the user has to wash it in running water after using it in order to prevent tarnishing. Aluminum is used because it is resistant to acids. Cost The cost of the product is relatively expensive for many consumers. For instance, the cost of a pack of four products is $ 102.00 on Amazon (Amazon.com 2014). The price means that the price of the product is around $25.50. For most consumers that is a high cost for a kitchen product. However, the fact that it is a pack shows an attempt by the manufacturer to ensure that the consumer gets value for their money. In addition, the four packs means that they can be used over a prolonged period. The retail price is justified by the feeling of quality evoked by its superb construction. Furthermore, the product is constructed in such a way that it would last for a long period. The move justifies the high pricing. In addition, the cost of manufacturing products from aluminum is high. As a result, the manufacturer is forced to pass on the cost of making the product to the consumer. Having a juicer encourages the user to adopt a healthy behavior. The consumption of fresh juice plays a critical role in establishing a healthy life style. The move also keeps the household from consuming synthetic juices that are composed of derivatives that are not good for health. However, the cost is high in a category where other cheap products exist. Customer The Philip Stark juicer appeals to a wide range of consumers. Firstly, it is clear that it is meant for a household. Individuals with a family would benefit from purchasing the product. The observation is informed by the fact that it is used to make juice, a beverage that is good for the health of a family. Secondly, the relatively high cost of the product shows that it is meant for individuals with a source of income. The observation can be attributed to the fact that it would be difficult to envision a college student or an unemployed person spending such a large of money on a household product. Thirdly, the aesthetics of the product shows that is designed to appeal to individuals with a great taste. Juicers can be designed in a less elegant manner and they would still be able to perform their functions. Consequently, it is clear that the product would appeal to consumers who place a lot of value on the aesthetic qualities of a product. An evaluation of the product shows that it is designed for consumers who have a deep appreciation for class. The Philip Stark Juicer is not just a tool for making juice. Instead, it is an appreciation of art. Indeed, there is a copy of a similar juicer in the New York Museum of Art (All Modern 2014). The observations show that the product is a work of art for the kitchen. However, most users complain that using the juicer splashes the juice all over. The complaints show that the functionality of the product is not its biggest selling points. Instead, it is evident that the most important things that make it desirable is its beauty. Individuals who have a unique way of looking at the world may claim that the product is not merely meant to produce juice. Rather, it is supposed to act as a catalyst for starting conversations. The product was designed next to a sea, a testament to the creative genius that went into its production (Sparck 2014). Family members and friends often give the product as a gift (Graham-Cumming 2012). Environment The Philip Stark Juicer is meant to work in a kitchen environment. However, it is important to appreciate the fact that the product is meant for households that have a kitchen that demonstrates a certain level of sophistication. The observation can be attributed to two factors. Firstly, the high cost of the product. Secondly, the great design of the product. Although it is difficult to envision the product in a college dormitory or in low-income homes, it is possible that a segment of this market uses the product. The product has a strong presence in Europe due to its Italian roots. Safety The Philip Stark juicer is a safe product for consumers. Although the user has to press the fruit against the tip, the product does not involve a lot of physical energy. Consequently, elderly women and teenagers can use it. The relatively large size makes it difficult for children to swallow it. However, there is a real danger that they could hurt themselves if the pointed edges press against them. In addition, it can be used as an object in a violent confrontation. However, the product is generally safe and does not pose any significant danger to the members of a household. Size The size of the Philip Stark is one of its fascinating features. The approximate size is 11.5” (nova68 2014). The juicer is tall enough to stand over a big mug or cup. The size of the product is a feature that must have been deliberately decided on. The statement is informed by the belief that the creator and the organization needed to create a juicer that is big enough to stand over a big cup but not so big that it is uncomfortable for the user to make good use of it. However, the large size means that it takes up excessive space in cupboards that many people cannot afford to spare (Ehrlich 2014). Functionality The functionality of the Philip Stark juicer is informed by a simple function. A user exerts pressure on a lemon in order to force its juice and pulp from the rind. Then the juice and pulp are allowed to move through the filter (Vertigo.com 2014). The fact that it allows both the juice and the pulp to pass through the sieve is one of the key things that differentiate it from the rest (Powerhouse Museum Search 2014). The squeezer is forced to resist the pressure. Consequently, soft materials that can be easily deformed should not be used. Because the user could use lemons in some instances, the materials should be resistant to acids. The Philip Stark juicer operates in a mechanical manner. The user crushes the fruit against a stationery central projection. The juicer uses long handles in order to gain the mechanical advantage of working as a lever. Moreover, the product derives a significant advantage because it is a singular Piece (Richmond Cook shop 2014). As a result, the user does not have to fiddle with many pieces. Critics of the Philip Stark juicer believe that the product should be considered as a decorative tool as opposed to a functional tool. The argument is informed by the difficulty when using the product (Tielman 2014). The squeezer sprays juice over the counter or table when in use. In addition, the juicer looks like a spider (Exit art 2014). Moreover, the mechanical aspect makes it an inefficient tool when compared with other products in the same category such as blenders. According to the Gate (2014), some consumers buy the product for its aesthetic beauty only. An analysis of all the available literature on the subject shows some people do not like the design (Glover 2008). Moreover, a user can only produce a single glass at a time (Bloomingdales 2014). Material The Philip Stark Juicer is constructed using aluminum. The choice can be informed by the need to use a material that is resistant to acids. Some fruits such as lemons have acidic properties that may corrode some materials. The choice is material is essentially expected to provide longevity. In addition, it adds a sparkle that serves to highlight the beautiful design that goes into creating the product. Conclusion The Philip Stark Juicer is a great product. The juicer involves an interesting design. A person may mistake it for a piece of art as opposed to a kitchen tool. The product is meant to disrupt the simplicity and mundane nature of most kitchens. In addition, it highlights the class of the consumer. An evaluation of the product using the ACCESS FM shows that it has a unique proposition for consumers. However, there was a deliberate focus on form over function. The fact that it has managed to inspire consumers shows that the public has a deep appreciation for products that focus on excellent design (Design within Reach 2014). The juicer has been a huge commercial success for the organization (Rawsthorne 2008). An evaluation of the comments by the consumers shows that its commercial success is bound to increase. The product was one of the most controversial and inspiring industrial designs in the 20thcentury (hive 2014). According to the Detroit Institute of Arts (2014), the product is iconic. List of References Accessfm.com 2014, Tool 1.0 – Product Analysis & Product Awareness. Accessfm.com. [Online] Available at Tool 1.0 – Product Analysis & Product Awareness [29thDecember 2014]. All modern 2014, Philippe Starck Juicy Salif Citrus Squeezer. [Online] Available at http://www.allmodern.com/Alessi-Philippe-Starck-Juicy-Salif-Citrus-Squeezer AAS1030.html [29th December 2014]. Amazon.com 2014, Alessi Juicy Salif Citrus Juicer by Philippe Starck.[Online] Available at http://www.amazon.com/Alessi-Citrus-Juicer-Philippe-Starck/dp/B001QPCE0W. [29th December 2014]. Bloomingdales 2014, Alessi Philippe Starck Juicy Juicer. [Online].Available at http://www1.bloomingdales.com/shop/product/alessi-philippe-starck-juicy-juicer?ID=72126. [29th December 2014]. Detroit Institute of Arts 2014, Alessi Citrus Juicer Juicy Salif by Philippe Starck. [Online] Available at http://www.diashop.org/servlet/the-1573/Alessi-Citrus-Juicer-Juicy/Detail [29th December 2014]. Design within Reach 2014, Philippe Starck.[Online]. Available at . [29th [December 2014. Nova68 2014, Philippe Starck: Alessi Juicy Salif Citrus Squeezer Juicer. nova68. [Online].Available at . [29th December 2014]. The Gate 2014, Starck Raving. [Online]. Available at http://thegateworldwide.com/london/2014/08/04/starck-raving/ [29th December 2014]. Watson-Smyth, K 2010, The Secret History Of: Philippe Stack’s lemon squeezer. The Independent. [Online]. Available at http://www.independent.co.uk/property/interiors/the-secret- history-of-philippe-starcks-lemon-squeezer-1972849.html [29th December 2014]. Vertigo.com 2014, Philippe Starck Juicer. [Online]. Available at . [29th December 2014]. Read More