Hang on a second.

Feedback process SHOULD be in the top 3. See, your response is actually indicative of what I see to be the problem in Nokia. There seems to be this perception that "closing the loop" just isn't that important. Even worse, that input from those impacted by developments is irrelevant.

This isn't something I say lightly or out of left field, Ragnar. This was a HUGE problem identified not just by Nokia US operations but by a significant number of US consumers.

Nokia has a reputation for not listening. Can this be quantified? Sure:

Just check Nokia's US market share.

That's where I'm coming from with this. I live in the US. I know what customers here want. I know what GOOD data was available. I know what the responses were to feedback provided.

The result is very clear, and the numbers don't lie. Nokia lost the smartphone business to Apple and RIM. My point is this did NOT have to happen. We had the information and the means in US operations to prevent this, or at least mitigate it.

Absolutely! And how much of the decision-making process should be based on opinion, anyway? Very little (not zero though). Again, much of what I have to say is not for public consumption but my point still stands and you are reinforcing it with those statements: the Nokia process was broken for the US. Apple and RIM took advantage of that.

I'd rather avoid even mentioning the obvious stuff.

Nooo... awareness is the FIRST step. So... where is it? I encountered a resistance to awareness. No company can operate that way and prosper. Conversely, Apple is HIGHLY aware of what it needs to satisfy its targeted demographic. Other than developing regions, Nokia does not seem to know how its target demographics are defined-- despite, as you say, a "wealth" of information.

Understand that my role in Nokia was highly analytical. It was my job to sift the treasure from the trash in the vast sea of information. To subsequently see such efforts disregarded, and Nokia suffer severe loss of market share, was painful.