Newsmaker: Panasonic's plasma pusher

(continued from previous page)

Our message to consumers is Panasonic is a plasma TV company. Since August 2004, we really reallocated marketing resources and human resources onto plasma. Until then, our market share was around No. 2, 3, 4. It depended on the week. But since September 2004, we've had the No. 1 position every month in the United States. This last Christmas season our market share went up to 40 to 50 percent in the U.S. The second manufacturer is at 12 to 15 percent. That's a factor of three.

Clear direction and focus certainly resulted in the gain of market share. We really kind of increased our brand awareness by focusing on one product category.

What do you think when you hear all of the analysts say that plasma is fading out and that the future belongs to the LCD or SED (surface-conduction electron emitter display)?
Yamada: They are not really seeing what's happening in the marketplace. Today more than 75 percent of consumers prefer plasma for large-screen flat-panel TVs. I'm talking about 37 inches and above. There are two technologies for flat screens: LCD and plasma. More than 75 percent of consumers are buying plasma (over 37 inches). Because once you are over 37 inches, there is no comparison.

There is a reason for that. Both technologies are getting better, but there are inherent weaknesses in the LCD, especially in (capturing and presenting) moving images. Plasma is the best technology for the large screen.

We can't use plasma for small screens. (He points to cell phone.) That is true.

From a manufacturing standpoint, plasma also has an advantage. Plasma only takes two days in processing. LCD takes one week. That creates a difference in manufacturing costs. That is going to be more severe when the size of the screen becomes larger. There are inherent technology issues and inherent manufacturing issues.

Some, though, question the reliability and durability of plasma. Energy consumption is also an issue.
Yamada: Those people have not studied it well. If it were five years ago, they could be right. But the technology has been changing every year. Today, power consumption is the same. Some people like to say plasma is more power hungry than LCD. Yes it was, five years ago. I agree. Today the technology has changed. Our plasma is on the eighth generation. If there are people who think plasma is behind LCD, he or she should study much harder.

What changes or improvements do you foresee for plasma?
Yamada: One is the size. We announced a 103-inch plasma with 1080p (progressive resolution), which means full high-definition. This is the direction we believe consumers want to see. If you look at the picture of those plasmas, you'll be surprised (at the picture quality). I was surprised when I first saw it. There is a big difference.

Unfortunately most of the consumers in the United States don't know how beautiful those pictures are. They are still watching poor-quality TV today. But once they see (high definition), I don't think they can go back. Until they see it, they maybe don't think they need it.

The fall sales-season of 2004 was interesting. There is a version called ED, extended definition, which is different than true high definition. In the fall season of 2004, the proportion of HD TVs among Panasonic's plasma TV sales was about 25 percent or less. The remaining was ED. I was shocked to see the results for fall 2005. The percentage of HD is now 75 percent. It flipped completely. I didn't expect that. I expected that about 50 percent would be HD. That was my forecast in January 2005 at CES last year. I was completely wrong, but in a good way.

One thing that's difficult about plasma is the size. I live in a home in San Francisco. You couldn't get a 103-plasma in there without an extensive remodeling job.
Yamada: Ah, but you could get a 65-inch one.

True, but how about screens below the 40-inch line. Do you have any interest in extending plasma down in size?
Yamada: We have a threshold at 37 inch. That is the line. Anything bigger than 37 inch we use plasma. For screens below that, we use LCD. I should say IPS (in-plane switching). It is a version of LCD, but it helps with the drawback LCD has, which is the response time. We are still using the word LCD, but I don't want to use it because it is confusing.

More Newsmakers

[rcrusoe]

Don't plasma's burn?

The biggest complaint against plasma's I've heard was that they burn, especially when watching non-HD programming. I've seen two plasma screens with permanent burns in the lower right due to the station logos. (these sets are always tuned to the same news stations)

Has that been fixed? Until it is I wouldn't think of buying a plasma.

[Earl Benser]

Plasmas are vulnerable...

Burn-in is a problem if brightness is set too high. Brightness
also can limit lifetime significantly. And once the plasma tube
goes, you're left with nothing worth salvaging. Maybe the eight
generation plasma is a way of saying that they are finally getting
it right?

I like DLP, now in 10080i format, but even 720p format looks
good. No burn-in problems. Lamp is replaced every few years
for about $100. DLP chip can be replaced if needed. Excellent
picture, no visible pixel structure, fast response, etc.

LCD projection is a remote possibility- but the LCD turns blue
with time.

LCD Direct View may be a winner but, as noted, display size
limits are a problem now.

[Kalsank]

Panasonic products vs service

If Panasonic needs to get back their credibiity in any new business, they need to beef up their customer service and really empower them to do what's right for customers. I had to write all the way upto the President for them to agree to fix my video camera's "dew detect" error at their expense.

[El Kabong]

Is half-life a problem?

I was told by a TV technician that plasmas have a half life of 5-7 years. Has anyone out there had one that long or longer that can dispute that? I can't imagine how those folks feel that paid more than $10,000 for this gizmo and now it's faded to the point of being unwatchable.

[Earl Benser]

At specified brightness levels....

.... for plasma tube of two year ago or so, that was the report.
Higher brightness levels shortened the life. But at the half life
point, the plasma tube would be just noticeably not as bright as it
was originally. Visually, this is a very minor loss. So a reasonable
plasma lifetime of at least 15 years was highly probable for the
average user.

Now things may be even better. Just don't over drive the
brightness!

[jjii]

Life

read a few of the Plasma comments and seems each is relaying old news and/or lingering myths about this technology. Facts are simple 1.Plasma tv's will last longer, with greater than 50% brightness, than most users will want them. Some tests outpreform tubes; 2. Burn-in, or aging, may have been a sympton of old, old first units, but not a problem as any imaging fades, just as in a tube; 3. Advantage-Plasma exhibit no motion artifacts like other flat panel tv's; 4.Advantage- Plasma's horzizontal and vertical viewing is better than any new technology on the market and as good as any tube, including Sony; 5. Advantage-Plasma contrast ratio and black level make it the best big screen home entertainment choice available.....enough said