Ques 4)

What was your assessment of the shift in branding by AMD to VISION?

Does it map onto consumers buying patterns for computers?
AMD had an assortment of microprocessors that were offered before VISION was
launched
To effectively market their product AMD had to successfully communicate to the
end user what value proposition each of the microprocessors offered
However, due to a non-simplistic nomenclature (which was mostly aimed at
mimicking Intels offering) and subtlety of differences between different
microprocessors the value of different products didnt get communicated to the
users thus not letting users match their needs with AMDs offerings
VISION was aimed at countering this problem by segregating the vast product
offerings into three categories, aimed at three different types of users:
Casual User
Digital Hobbyist
Content Creator

The above points in conjunction with the following insights from AMD PC
Purchasing Study: Representative Customer Responses and Key Implications
Gleaned necessitated the need for a change

Table 1: Insights from AMD PC Purhcaing Study (2008)

Insight #
01
Insight #
02
Insight #
03
Insight #
04
Insight #
05

Consumers already knew what they needed from the

computer they were buying
Consumers wanted a simple, straightforward way to choose
computers
The consumer wanted to know what it will really mean to
how they experienced the computer, i.e activities, games,
programs
Specifications were considered as POD but not necessarily
understood even at the purchase point
Delicate balance between explaining the technology and
reassuring the consumer that they didnt have to fully
understand the technology

Thus by moving to VISION branding system AMD was able to make the process
of purchasing/decision making simpler for the end users.
Moreover, the concept of moving towards a simpler branding system was even
imitated by Intel when it classified its processors as i3, i5 and i7.