Alright, this is the follow-up to a post where I went over the history of Sony’s Xperia line of smartphones. We went over some of the most note-worthy phones they brought to market and we learned that the first Xperia phones were actually released under the Sony Ericsson brand.
But it wasn’t until Sony took full control over the mobile company in 2012 that things really took off. So what happened? Why does a company that sold close to 40 million smartphones annually at its peak, now only sell a fraction of that? What could they have done differently? And is it too late to turn things around?
So what went wrong?
When taking a look at the entire history of Xperia phones, from the first models all the way to their current lineup, we see the same mistakes coming back throughout. Add some questionable decisions when things started to slow down and you’ve got a deadly mix.
What’s in a name?
One of the two main criticisms that keep coming back is their terrible naming schemes. They jumped from the Xperia X1 and X2 straight to the X10 when they released their first Android smartphone. When Sony took full control over the company, they switched it up, and launched the Xperia S, P and U. Followed by a lot of different models, each with their own letters assigned to them.
The total amount of different devices, without any apparent hierarchy in their name cause confusion among potential buyers. The fact that they had a lineup consisting of most of the alphabet and then decided to release some named devices — like the Xperia miro and Xperia tipo — didn’t help either.
They fixed this for a while by cutting down on the number of different models, focusing mostly on their Xperia Z flagship series and only a couple of other midrange devices. But this stability was shortlived as Sony Mobile went through an identity crisis after the Xperia Z line, with a quick succession of different naming schemes, design languages and decreasing sales before settling down on their current lineup.
And while we’re at the fifth iteration of that lineup already, it still isn’t perfect. You have some stability with the Xperia 1 being the absolute flagship with the best specifications, the Xperia 5 offering a similar package in a smaller form factor, and the Xperia 10 as a midrange option.
But using numbers also creates confusion on two fronts. For starters, there’s the way it looks on paper and how you pronounce it. It follows Sony’s camera naming conventions, and is pronounced Mark 5 for the fifth iteration. But unlike their cameras, these phones already have a number as their primary name and Sony Xperia 1 Mark 5 just looks and sounds a bit awkward.
Another downside to this naming scheme is the fact that it’s hinting at a hierarchy that doesn’t exist. You might think the Xperia 5 line is right in the middle between the Xperia 1 and Xperia 10 series, while it used to be pretty much an Xperia 1 in a smaller form factor and without the 4k display.
That changed slightly over the last two iterations, when the Xperia 1 introduced a variable optical zoom camera module last time around, where the Xperia 5 stuck with the previous camera setup, before dropping the optical zoom sensor entirely in its latest iteration.
So even more identity related issues. Some things never change. And the problems weren’t just related to their branding and naming conventions, either.
Faltering innovation
Sony was one of the first companies to introduce cameras on phones, LTE, full HD video recording, 1080p and 4k displays, IP ratings… They innovated constantly, and shaped the industry by pushing for things we now consider part of the very basics in a smartphone.
And the Xperia Z smartphones captured this perfectly. They were on top of the game and the reason for Sony Mobile’s peak. Ironically enough, the Z series was the reason for their downfall as well. They struck gold with the Xperia Z and its successors, and they didn’t want to change a winning formula.
So the Z line showed mostly incremental updates between successive models. A company that was known for pushing boundaries and introducing new features suddenly became reluctant to change.
They held on to the same design for too long, to the point where it started to be outdated. They stuck with big bezels while the industry was shifting towards taller aspect ratios, slim bezels and higher screen-to-body ratios. They were late to introduce wireless charging and follow other market trends like using OLED displays, offering a camera setup with multiple lenses and focal lengths, and high refresh rates.
While the build quality still felt premium, they typically offered less RAM and internal storage than their direct competitors and an overall lesser package feature-wise. This at a similar, premium price point while you had flagship killers come up and disrupt the market.
What could they have done differently?
It’s easy to say they should’ve just went with a better naming convention and adapted to market trends faster. That’s not what I’m going to do though, I’m going to go over two specific strategies brands used to grow their user base over the same period Sony lost their momentum.
Pricing and community
On the flagship front, you had Oneplus making waves with their flagship killers. They saw an opportunity when smartphones were getting more expensive year after year, and offered flagship level specifications at an affordable price.
They also pushed the community aspect as part of their marketing, with an invite system that activated people to talk to each other and help each other get an invite to buy their first device: the Oneplus One. This also created a sense of exclusivity, you were one of a select group of happy few, and a trendsetter if you knew about it. Let alone if you actually had one.
The combination of this flagship killer approach and the invite system made the Oneplus One an overnight success and they sold a million units in the first 8 months after launch.
I’m not saying Sony should have priced their flagships as aggressively as Oneplus, but I do think it would’ve been interesting to see what a better price/quality ratio would’ve done with the price elasticity of demand.
This is also in stark contrast with what actually went down, as they went through a bit of an identity crisis after their Z series and launched the Xperia X and X performance, which offered mediocre specs at higher prices compared to their direct competitors.
Android One
The second strategy we’re going to look at is Google’s Android One initiative. Via this program, Google partnered with OEMs to offer clean, stock Android, 2 years of guaranteed OS updates and 3 years of security updates.
It was initially targeted at developing markets to tackle the entry-level segment. But we’re going to look at how HMD used Nokia’s brand power and Android One to gain market share in established markets via entry-level and predominantly mid-range devices.
HMD announced they would bring back Nokia to the smartphone world, and that every device they release would be part of Google’s Android One program. This meant secure, up-to-date and easy-to-use smartphones, at an affordable price point.
They started with a limited lineup consisting of the Nokia 3, 5 and 6 at the beginning of 2017, and added the Nokia 2, 7 and 8 towards the end of that same year. By the end of 2017, they managed to sell close to 9 million smartphones.
And they doubled those sales figures the next year, when they introduced new models as well as iterations of their existing lineup. By the end of 2018, they were the 9th largest smartphone vendor worldwide. And their strategy was simple: decent products and great value for money.
Now, Android One wasn’t perfect and the program appears to have died a quiet death since. But Nokia’s success and the Google Pixel series’ limited availability mean that there was a window of opportunity for Sony to come in and offer a Pixel-like, flagship experience. Especially in the countries that Google didn’t sell the Pixel.
Their software is already close to stock. And going the Android One route would’ve helped them focus their resources on things like camera performance.
Is it too late to make a change?
Both Oneplus and HMD built on that momentum and are now established players in the market. Their sales figures eclipse Sony’s.
But instead of thinking what Sony could’ve done differently, let’s focus on the things they can still do now to turn things around. And just like how the problems were rooted in their branding, marketing and strategic approach, the solutions can be found there as well.
Back to the future
Xperia smartphones sell just a fraction of what they did a decade ago, so drastic measures are in place. And there are a couple of different directions Sony could take to revitalize their mobile division.
Let’s start with branding. HMD showed brand names hold value, and there aren’t many brands that can put their name next to Nokia. But Sony Ericsson was one of those. And bringing that name back would definitely set expectations and get people’s attention.
Bringing Sony Ericsson back could bring its own set of challenges with it, but a similar effect could be achieved by playing into that heritage with a new logo based on the old Sony Ericsson one. That’s a more subtle way to generate a similar kind of interest and get people talking.
Another drastic opportunity to change Sony Mobile’s perception would be dropping the Xperia sub-brand. I personally always liked the Mirai name, which has come up a couple of times before in rumors and is Japanese for future.
This new sub-brand could be coupled with the Sony Ericsson (soft) revival, for a perfect harmony between the successful legacy and the exciting future of the brand. This contrast would also lend itself perfectly to build marketing campaigns around.
A clear identity
One of the things Sony does well at the moment, is focus. They achieve this by having a limited but clear lineup. There’s still room for improvement, though. And this on multiple fronts. On the one hand, you have the naming scheme. On the other, you have the products on offer. So let’s break it down.
For the naming scheme, Sony can take a look at some of their most successful products in another sector: their α cameras.
Taking this as inspiration to use Greek letters for different models, it only seems fitting to use that α [alpha] identification for flagships. Similar to the Pixel A-series, the σ [sigma] could be used for a more budget friendly model in the lineup. And it’s a nice nod to the Xperia S that started Sony’s post-Ericsson journey.
- Sony Mirai α
- Sony Mirai σ
Depending on where the σ sits, there might be place for a third model in the lineup. In the meantime, the α and σ should be a great start for this new direction. Future iterations could be identified in a similar way as their current lineup, with the Roman numerals.
Sony tried something new in 2021 and released a camera-focused professional model based on the Xperia 1 III. It had a different camera setup, different — and textured — frame for better grip, a programmable button next to the dedicated shutter button and just overall great build quality.
And I fully support this. They’re back to innovating and trying new things, while also staying true to their core business by focusing on the camera aspect.
That’s what they should do. The flagship α-series lends itself perfectly to do something similar and launch a pro-version based on a similar design. But they shouldn’t stop there.
Smartphones have become kind of boring, with every single one following the same general design language. It’s time to try and shake things up. It’s time to bring back some style into smartphone design.
I imagine the σ-series to bring back some curves found in some of the earliest Xperia phones, more specifically the Sony Ericsson Xperia Neo and Arc models. Using cheaper materials — like a plastic coating similar to the one found on the Pixel 5 — would help with both form and price.
And looking at Asus’ success with their Zenfone models, I think it’s time to bring back a true compact version as well. It’s something Sony did really well, and part of their mobile identity.
This means the full lineup would exist of up to 4 models, 2 versions in each product line:
- Sony Mirai α Pro || Sony Mirai α
- Sony Mirai σ || Sony Mirai σ Compact
Android One+
This limited hardware lineup gives Sony the opportunity to focus on what really matters, offering a compelling package. And software is a massive part of that.
Enter Android One+. Sony already runs a clean and near-stock version of Android. But if there’s one thing better than that, it’s Google’s own take on it. I’m talking about the minimal Pixel Launcher. And a partnership could go even further than just sharing software, they could share Google’s Tensor chip as well.
Working this close with Google for the software would allow Sony to focus on their strengths. And there are some things they already do really well. Things like battery life and battery health, but also things like display and audio settings, gaming, video recording…
The only question that remains is why Google would share this software with Sony? That’s an understandable question. Sony’s mobile business is struggling, and has been for a decade now. Fortunately, Sony is so much more than their mobile division. And they’re still very present in the smartphone industry via Sony Semiconductor Solutions and their image sensors. In other words, smartphone cameras.
Something Google builds its entire Pixel brand around. Google combines great hardware with the best software processing in the Android scene. But great isn’t good enough. Through a partnership with Sony, they could get exclusive access to the best image sensors in the industry.
And while their camera software and image processing is top notch for pictures, they could still improve video recording. This too is one of Sony’s strengths. So it’s clear this wouldn’t just be a one-way street, and a strategic partnership like this could make sense for both Sony and Google.
Gaining Moment(um)
Sony is a major player in the entertainment industry. They should use this to their advantage to push their mobile division. They have some of the biggest stars in their portfolio, both in the music industry as well as in tv and film. They’re one of the biggest players in the gaming industry.
So why not use that in their marketing campaigns. Or release limited editions of their smartphones, like they do with their PlayStation consoles.
But they shouldn’t just look at their in-house stuff. The last strategy I’m going to look at is acquiring Moment, the marketplace for photographers and filmmakers. Moment has phone cases, custom lenses and filters to elevate the smartphone camera experience.
This means effectively doubling down on their heritage in the camera industry, and it also fits in with their focus on professional camera smartphones.
There are plenty of options to build marketing campaigns around, gain momentum and grow the mobile division. Both in-house and external, through acquisitions and strategic partnerships. There are obviously other factors in play, like the pricing. But in the end, it’s all a matter of having a clear strategy and the execution to make it a reality.
And if done right, the future looks bright again.
Wrap up
Sony is a company I like, so I really enjoyed making this short series where I took a look at the history of their mobile division and tried to find out the turning point, as well as ways to fix things through solid branding and strategic partnerships.
I am a problem solver first and foremost, and it’s nice to take a look at problems that go beyond the digital product space once and a while. So what do you think? How would you save Sony Mobile?
Feel free to leave a comment or give some claps if you liked it. Or reach out if you have any problems that need to be solved.
I’ll see you in the next one.
Pro tip: try holding down the claps-icon.