Actually, and most possibly, product has a point as long as it satisfies the minimum requirements. (let’s say biological constants) But rest is up to “emotional benefit” that segment of ONE individual will get from by using it. So how to uncover it ? Ethnography ?
You wrote :
“How can subjective experiences be represented ?”
That’s my question. How do we know what we know about the subjective experience of an individual ? Do you know FOR SURE any other individual’s subjective emotions other than YOURSELF ?
I think the only way to succeed in this realm is to BE your design subject. Kind of method acting. I am sure you know what I mean. By the way, I like poetry.

Does the product have “no point”? Hmm. Even in the 20th century, I think it does. New Coke anyone? “Hard data” isn’t available. Ever. Call me a cynic. No wait, call me an interpretivist. I don’t believe in empirical data on sociological phenomena or even on some psychological data. Sure we can generate it. But is it meaningful? How can subjective experiences be represented?

A segment of one. That’s poetry, man.

Great article. I guess you will find the following train of tought very familiar :

How about designing for “emotional subtelities”
What do we need to uncover an emotional NEED and address it through a specific design idea ?
This question really bothers me for a long time as emotions are the ultimate LONG TAIL.
Observing ones life to get the clues (basic etnography) may end up in finding the needs of a segment of ONE. As I am still working for a 20th century Fordist factory, I have to know that I am able to generalize such findings to a substantial number of people. Through averaging ?
This brings me to a point that product itself may have no importance as I am averaging the emotional needs in fact. Find an average product, shower it with some emotional clues, there you got a winner. Or not ?

Do we buy Prius because of hard data or the emotional need ? Same is true for Hummer too.

I could go on about Fordist mass production equalling “appointment television” or 20th century production models being blown apart. But I think the essential point is that more detail is required to speak to consumers in interactive ways. Broad-brush demographics don’t convey deep meaning and we now need deep meaning in such a fragmented reality.

Apple Computer, for instance hasn’t succeed through niche microtargeting, but through general brand appeal with a particular set of “perceived cool” and first-adopter demographics, as well as through strategic platform dominance in certain sectors.

Most focus groups today focus less on actual product design, and more on advertising concepts related to overall brand appeal. And that’s not going away anytime soon in a global branding marketplace.