According to Coalition president Jim Palumbo, that result, along with buyers’ expression of satisfaction with plasma’s picture resolution and screen-size options, “validates what we already suspected.”
And those “plasma positives” are being driven home to customers in the 50,000 high-quality, shirt-pocket-size, crib-sheet-style brochure handouts labeled “Plasma HDTV: Simply the Best Picture,” which the group had jointly produced and distributed this spring through a total of about 125 trainers to retail sales floor personnel. The brochures offer easy-to-convey talking points on topics like a plasma display’s life expectancy – the equivalent of up to 48 years at six hours’ use per day, before a set reaches half its original brightness. By comparison, traditional, large-screen tube TVs can only boast a 15-year life expectancy before reaching the half-brightness plateau.
Palumbo said that consumer satisfaction over life expectancy was one of the most surprising findings of the canvass – and that energy efficiency, also a factor in the “plus” column for plasma, “was not yet top of mind as a consideration” for those who were polled. He said he expected that might loom larger as a motive for purchase in future, and that the Coalition members’ 2008 model rosters boasted TVs in the most popular screen sizes – 42 and 50 inches – that were anywhere from 10 to 20 percent more energy-efficient than earlier models. Palumbo said he thought that “with the new EPA labeling on TVs, our members will probably talk about energy savings a little more” in their promotional efforts. “But energy savings are a byproduct of companies’ technology improvements. They’re not selling energy, they’re selling performance.” Plasma technology, for all its engineering advances of late, is only at 65 to 70 percent of its development curve, he added.
The average screen size owned by respondents was 49 inches, and about 70 percent were replacing a 32- or 36-inch direct-view TV with their buy; 11 percent said they had replaced an LCD TV with a plasma set.
On the retail side, said Palumbo, respondents cited in-store displays and sales personnel as purchase influences, along with the Internet, news articles and publications that evaluate product performance. Most influential in buying decisions, however, were word-of-mouth recommendations.
Burn in is the key problem. A lot of content is STILL SD 4:3 stuff and the only way its watchable is to watch it native - which means black bars - which means eventual burn in. If Plasma TV covered this in their warranty (which they don't), then I would buy one. Until then, no way.
Even after 1 year I get surprised every day, by the beautiful picture quality from my 50 inch hdready Panasonic plasma.
Not 1 full hd lcd of what brand whatsoever comes even close! That is why I don't understand why people are buying the lcd's. It is time they get informed by the manufacturers.
People are fund of specs, so show them that all specs from plasma are much better than lcd's.
You know what I find funny. These idiots should have already have KNOWN that plasmas PQ is better then LCD instead of "validates what we already suspected". They work in the industry for god sakes. Even I know this and I'm just a consumer.
I also know that plasmas have excellent response time and better black levels.
What plasma makers have to improve is the brightness, burn in and more importantly the energy efficiency.
Oh yeah, get Pioneer to get real with their pricing. Pioneer is getting its lunch handed to them by Panasonic ;-)