I am now a happy owner of the “New” iPad. It helps that I was in Phoenix on the first day it launched rather than my home of San Francisco, where the tech-geek-per-square-mile density is off the charts. I ambled over to the local Target, picking up coffee on the way, and spend a pleasant fifteen minutes before it opened chatting to the other nine people in line. The Target salesperson came out and handed out tickets for the fifteen they had available, and, voila, by 8.15am I had my brand new 64g “New” iPad, a full two hours before anyone lining up at the local Apple store received theirs. And Target gives you 5% off for using their card. A very satisfied customer.

But this isn’t about my iPad. At least not mine in particular. Rather, I want to return to the comment I made in my last post about the surprise and disappointment many people felt over the lack of a real name. After all, calling it “new” hardly amounts to branding. I said:

I didn’t expect Apple to actually call it the “New iPad”! I’d love to know the logic behind that decision. It invites consumers to call the rest of the line “old” iPads. And what’s next – the “Newest iPad”?

Actually, quite a few people responded this way on Twitter, blogs, etc. We probably thought we were being clever, finally finding a flaw in the marketing strategy of the mighty Apple. I admit there was some of that in my comment.

I’ve since had a chance to think this through. When it comes to their hardware, Apple has near-perfect marketing radar. (I can’t say this about their software – big fails with MobileMe, and iTunes is pretty clunky.) So there must have been some logic behind the iPad no-naming decision. And therein are important clues as to what we can expect from the iPad in the future.

I am projecting that the iPad line will grow laterally rather than vertically through more generations. Rather than focus on incremental improvements to the existing iPad, it’s likely that Apple is working on extending the iPad line. And they will do this by introducing iPad flankers distinquished from the original by name not number. This is the strategy they used with Mac and with the iPod, and is more than likely the strategy they will use with the iPad.

I’m thinking that the line will eventually consist of four potential models:

1. (New) iPad: The third generation iPad is now fully realized in terms of its hard features. It has two cameras, 4G connectivity, a great retina display and lightning speed. With a screen size of 9.7 and thousands of apps, it is appropriate for many uses – a computer, portable TV, book reader, music and video player, gaming device, photo editor and library, notetaker, organizer, babysitter, even a phone with Skype. When asked, there are very few things that users say they want added in the way of hardware… maybe a USB connector and other marginal add-ons. Apple will continue to improve this product, but the big changes have probably already been introduced. And what would Apple have gained by  continuing the numbering of generations? It would have to stop sometime, and better now than later. Instead, going forward, we’ll have different generations identified by date and specs as is now the practice for the iMac and MacBook.

2. iPad Basic: So what can we expect if the emphasis shifts from vertical improvements to extending the line laterally? I think the first out of the gate will be a more basic iPad, stripped of some of the features that define the current iPad as the premium tablet. We can expect an iPad Basic, or some such name, that is designed for children and adults with simple needs. It will have all the features of the original iPad, the same screen size, but no rear camera and no connectivity beyond wi-fi. It will come in different colors, have a younger, less serious appearance and possibly a more rugged bumper. It will fit Apple’s emphasis on the education market, as well as provide a more economical alternative to the current iPad. Price around $250.

3. iPad Mini: I’m really not sure if Apple will ever introduce an iPad mini, though it’s a possibilty. It is probably less likely if the next generation iPhone and iPOD Touch have a larger screen. It may be that the iPhone will simply move up to 4G connectivity, but it’s also likely that screen size will increase since this is the feature most desired by users. Steve Jobs was not in favor of an iPad Mini, but time will tell.

4. iPad Maxi: Though Apple may not want to saddle a larger iPad with the Maxi iPad name! Here screen size could increase to 11 or 12 inches, putting it in a position to provide an alternative to an UltraBook, including the MacBook Air. Whether or not this model ever becomes a reality will depend on what happens with the UltraBook market which is now becoming crowded with competitors. But it does seem that the user experience for a large tablet is very different than for an UltraBook simply because it is based on touch. A larger iPad would probably lose the rear camera (hard enough to use now given the size) and gain a detachable bluetooth keyboard. I am not sure who the end user would be, but by the time this could be available, the composition of the potential market is likely to be very different from today.

So there you have it. Four possible models in the future iPad line – iPad, iPad Basic, iPad Mini and iPad Maxi – ensuring that Apple will continue to dominate the tablet market for years to come.

UPDATED: March 7th. Looks like my expectations for the new iPad were accurate, although I didn’t expect Apple to actually call it the “New iPad”! I’d love to know the logic behind that decision. It invites consumers to call the rest of the line “old” iPads. And what’s next – the “Newest iPad”?

But I’m very impressed by the product itself and the updates to the apps, especially iPhoto. I’m hoping my argument in the post below is also one being made within the company. There is definitely room for a less expensive iPad with the specs of the original – no camera – but a younger vibe. At the very least, more than basic black. Perhaps this is on the drawing board. No need to go smaller – just cheaper and simpler.

ORIGINAL POST: Here we go again. Spring is in the air and so are rumors of the coming of the next generation iPad. Not sure if this will be dubbed the iPad3 or the iPad2S. But by next month, all will be revealed. And one thing is certain – the latest iteration will follow the standard Apple strategy of piling new features on top of the standard features of the previous model, consigning the older model to the “clearance” or “reconditioned” heap.

There seems to be something very wrong with this relentless march to the tune of more-is-better. I still own and love my original iPad, numberless since it was the first. It may be slightly slower than the iPad2 but is plenty fast enough for me. It plays videos flawlessly, and gives me access to the thousands of apps developed for all the iPad models.

What it lacks I don’t want. It doesn’t have a camera, front or rear. If I want a camera, I am happy with the one on my iPhone4S, which is so much more camera-ish than a large tablet. I don’t think I’m alone in this. Most iPad owners do not use the device as a camera, let alone a video camera. It’s too awkward. So, Apple, don’t bother upgrading the cameras and expect this to add significant value.

My original iPad is also slightly fatter than the iPad2, which matters not at all since it is always in its leather case with the handy little easel. The weight difference is negligible mainly because the iPad is not hand-held like a phone, and is still much lighter than the lightest Ultrabook.

The new iPad3, or whatever it will be called, is expected to have a faster quad-core processor and a screen with higher resolution. And maybe support for 4G if you happen to be in an area that supports it. And no doubt there are millions of potential buyers who will be happy to pay a premium for these features. Not that the base price is likely to go up. Rather, Apple will probably hold the base at $499, or even less, and offer the earlier version at a discount, if history is anything to go by.

But here’s an idea – one that might have appealed to Steve’s less-is-more Zen side. Why not reintroduce the original iPad at a price point to compete with the Kindle Fire – say $249? No camera, but all the great features that created a whole new category of gadgets. And distinguish it from the premium model by making it colorful and fun.  Not everyone cares about processor speed, connection beyond Wi-Fi and a clunky camera. But most people do seem to value access to the universe of iPad apps and the simplicity of a device that is comfortable for users from 2 to 102.

So come on Apple. Stop being so darn innovative for once and rediscover what many of us already know. The original iPad is a great product, and should we ever need to replace it, we would rather not have to search for a used one on Craigslist.

Memorial Day is almost here, bringing with it the many delights of summer. I hope you have some time away from work to enjoy some lazy days and mindless fun.

This summer, I need to take a break and take care of a health issue that I have been putting off for too long. I won’t be updating this blog or my social media accounts. Truly a break. I hope I find you here when I return which will be after Labor Day. I’m going to be attending the AMA Marketing Research Conference in Orlando in September as well as speaking at the QRCA Conference in Las Vegas in October.

Thank you so much for reading this blog and for your support. And have a great summer!

Lenny Murphy is one of the smartest (and nicest) people in the market research business. He is Editor-in-Chief of the Greenbook Blog and has a unique perspective on the industry. Recently I have been working with the AMA on a qualitative study concerning the future of market research, and I naturally turned to Lenny as the publisher of the GreenBook Research Industry Trends Study, the oldest study in the industry devoted to tracking changing trends in MR. And I’m so glad I did.

Lenny has generously allowed me to share his thoughts with you here. I know you will find this stimulating and timely. Here goes:

What changes do you see happening now in the market research industry that will have a significant impact on its members in the years to come? In other words, where is the market research industry heading?

The Market Research industry is undergoing the greatest realignment in its history due to 5 converging stressors:

1. New Competition: Business Intelligence and CRM platforms, DIY data collection, Agencies and Consultancies bringing “insight generation” in house, and social media agencies leveraging “listening” technologies
2. Client Demand: greater ROI, integration of MR with internal data channels, a focus on implications and outcomes vs. data interpretation
3. Consumers: they demand engagement, socialization, rewards, and fun. In the age of mobile/social games and networking, traditional quant and qual models hold little appeal
4. Technology: social media, mobile ubiquity, media convergence, and an infinite amount of data from virtually all touch points are not just efficiency makers; they are aspects of an evolutionary shift in human culture and communications
5. Economics: The old refrain of Cheaper|Faster|Better means more now than ever before, and all participants in the MR value chain understand and demand it.

I’ve been working on a visual representation of these forces as part of my presentation at the Technology Driven Market Research event and in conjunction with the release of the GreenBook Research Industry trends report for Fall/Winter 2010, so this is very timely! Here is how I see it:

The deck is being reshuffled now across the board, and we’ll see an awful lot of winnowing out, consolidation, and repositioning over the next few years in response to those trends. We already are, although it’s early still. Overall I see these changes producing a “teeter-totter” effect, with traditional, survey driven quantitative research suppliers being forced to rapidly adjust their business models and value proposition to compete, while qualitative researchers experience an upswing due to the need to have smart consultants who can connect the dots and tell a story from disparate data points and sources.

Launching a traditional boutique MR firm in this climate would be slow financial suicide. To be successful in the future, MR firms must have some combination of either true strategic consulting bench strength, proprietary and cutting edge technology offerings or a unique use of existing technology, and recurring revenue streams via highly desired and critically useful products or services. Some firms may be stronger in one area than others and that will power their growth and guide their evolution; in some cases, they may not even be what we think of as MR firms. Being a “me too” company, regardless of how you spin it, won’t be a recipe for long term growth and success.

We are in the beginnings of a transition phase from the traditional model of market research as practiced for the last 50 years to a new model that will look very different:

Ultimately I see the industry segmenting into three broad groupings:

1. Tech Providers (including DIY and field/data collection services)
2. Insight Consultancies (strategic focused, methodologically agnostic)
3. Niche Providers (Neuromarketing, Advanced Analytics & Modeling, etc..)

The vast majority of current MR suppliers are already working to reposition themselves as Insight Consultancies, and failing due to their commodity positioning with clients.

I think this realignment of the MR industry will take 2-5 years, possibly less as the forces of social media and mobile migration speed up the pace of consumer cultural change and the concomitant demand from clients to engage with and understand global markets using insight generation methods that offer real ROI across the organization.

We may see the largest firms combat these trends by purchasing these new tech firms in order to replace their rapidly shrinking primary research revenue streams and by having two different internal divisions: data collection technology services and strategic insight consulting.

Many smaller MR firms will find it difficult or impossible to compete effectively under this scenario and will either:

1. Be absorbed into the corporate Goliaths
2. Refocus on niche market offerings
3. Develop their own innovative offerings that capitalize on the evolving needs of clients
4. Fold up shop

I suspect the fourth option will impact many of the current small to mid-size data collection-centric suppliers.

All of these changes have far reaching implications on human capital strategies, skill set profiles, business models, revenue plans, technology infrastructure, market valuations, etc… across the industry. It truly is a paradigm shift and will require a massive restructuring and positioning of the global industry. There are already efforts underway at many of the largest organizations and we should continue to monitor companies such as WPP, Omnicom, Google, Facebook, SalesForce, and Alterian as leading indicators of this realignment and emerging business models.

But there is good news for qualitative research. Just to be clear: I think these trends will primarily have a challenging disruptive impact on the quant side of the industry. Certainly new technologies will have (and are already having) a major affect on qual, but my experience is that qualitative researchers are not nearly as fixated on methodological orthodoxy, are more creative and open to exploration by nature, have many of the ideal skills necessary for successful meta-researchers/consultants, and also have business models that are not largely dependent on data collection as a source of profit. I think it’s a good time to be a qualitative researcher, although not necessarily for a focus facility owner!

It’s going to be a bumpy ride, but savvy and creative business leaders will be able to navigate these turbulent times if they start now. Waiting until we’re on the rocks will be too late.

About the Author Leonard Murphy:

In addition to his work with GreenBook, Lenny is a seasoned and respected industry leader with an entrepreneurial drive. He has been called a visionary and is renowned as an innovator. He has successfully established several companies in the MR space including Rockhopper Research, a leading full service global research firm and MDM Associates, a MR consulting firm, before founding his current companies: BrandScan 360 and his consulting practice LMC group (www.asklmcg.com). Lenny serves on the Board of The Market Research Global Alliance, the premier social network for the global MR profession.  He is on the Advisory Boards of the Festival of NewMR and The Merlien Institute. He is also the Chairman of the IIR Technology Driven Market Research conference.

Lenny can be reached at lmurphy@brandscan360.com and @lennyism on Twitter.