This T3 is going to be a bit of a departure from my normal format. As product news cools off the heels of Black Friday, I'm going to focus on the issue of creating and nurturing your tribes. It is on the radio. And in store windows, city centres and coffee cups. That's right Christmas is just around the corner, or so they'd have you think. So is this going to be a season of cheer for consumers and marketers alike? Maybe, I certainly hope so. But with high sales expected in the wireless market, some might have more to cheer about than others: Android might have the best season of all.
Does Apple and the iPhone team have something to worry about? They managed to keep up (and arguably ahead in some aspects) with the likes of Nokia and Blackberry, but there is another threat that Apple needs to be keeping an eye on: Android.
Katherine Noyes in PC world thinks that Apple is feeling the heat now more than ever in her recent article. According to the article, Apple is hurriedly trying to build their legal team to develop both the "offensive and defensive capabilities" fight the likes of Nokia, HTC and maybe deter Android. In the third quarter of 2010, Noyes points out that Android powered phones accounted for just over 25% of smartphone sales, while Apples fell slightly based on the third quarter of 2009. Clearly, Apple sees the threat of the now No. 2 smartphone OS platform and is doing all they can to keep them at bay (including even banning an Android-centric e-magazine from the App Store).
So what is the appeal of Android? What makes it better or preferable to Apple's iPhone OS? Noyes believes that the iPhone's "restrictions are too numerous, its approach too condescending, and its choices too few to have the broad appeal it needs to succeed on a grander scale". And I think there is some merit here: that is an excellent and technical explanation for why consumers might choose Android over iPhone or Blackberry. But lets explore why consumers might want Android on that branding level.
I think there is an element of "Anti-Apple" going on, and this type of sentiment is an almost cyclical phenomenon. Brand is new and a bit alternative, then becomes the must-have product, then becomes the mainstream norm for products and soon becomes the big-guy overshadowing the little players who are a bit alternative. You can't have the light without the dark, there will always be the alternative to the mainstream option. But I think there is more going on here, and I think it has a lot to do with an idea from Seth Godin: tribes.
Android has created a tribe for their product. Godin maintains that "what people really want is the ability to connect to each other, not to companies" and that tribes are based on permission. As opposed to the traditional model of top-down brand management, Godin states that it's about seeking out services and products for your tribe: as a marketer you want "to build people who want to hear from the company because it helps them connect ... [and] it gives them a story to tell and something to talk about". I think Android understands this. Apple forces you to choose you Apps from them and only them, meaning you have no control over what you have access too. You cannot change the OS at all and Apple is okay with that. Sure, Apple is cutting edge but they aren't building the same kind of tribe that Android is. Android has an open-source element to help encourage development of the functionality, where as Apple must control every aspect of their operating system. Android makes hundreds of thousands of applications available on a wide-variety of media, Apple does not. Android can be run on a multitude of machines, Apple cannot. In this day and age, where customers want choice and control, consumers want to spend more time personalizing and customizing their brand experiences than having it shoved down their throat. Is it a problem that Apple doesn't give consumers as many options? Not necessarily, but for some it's a big deal. Apple has it's own tribe, but I am not sure that they aren't blurring the lines between consumers connecting with consumers, and consumers lining up to connect with Apple. Remember, as Godin says, "the challenge is to work for the tribe and make it something even better".
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
T3 Number 5
One of the coolest things I've heard about this past week was the announcement by YouTube that they were getting ready to debut a new way of advertising. The current system involves traditional banner ads, featured videos and more recently a video advert that plays before your selection plays.
It is this last feature that 'erked' me the most, both as a consumer of social media and a marketer. YouTube makes it's money by selling ad space, so it is logical that they would introduce this form of advertising. However, I feel that it violates one of the most important principles: permission. Banners and featured videos? I can choose engage in those forms of marketing, but when it comes to the forced video ads, I have no choice because it is 'interruption marketing', as Godin would have put it. This is where the new "TrueView" comes into affect: it is what Godin would have called permission marketing. Sort of.
Irina Slutsky reported on Adage that TrueView is a platformed "designed to give users the choice of which ad they watch - even if that choice is to watch none at all". This means that YouTube will no longer be interruptive but more permission based. The idea is that for short movies, a user might get an "in-stream" ad, which [they] can skip if [they] wish". For longer movies, consumers can have a choice: watch a "video with ad breaks or ad-free after watching one of three ads first", ads which may not be skippable. As a consumer, I am pleased because now I can enjoy my involvement without being pestered or frustrated. However, it's a more complex issue when it comes to the marketer in me: how do you attract companies to continue to use you as a medium for advertising when consumers can choose to skip your ad-space?
Slutsky explains that companies wouldn't have to pay for skipped ads, much the same way that pay-per-click works. Also, and possibly more importantly, Slutsky explains how TrueView will "allow you to reach the opted-in engaged audience at scale", rather than annoying an audience who is not engaged in your message. And I have to say, it makes sense for all parties: YouTube, companies and the end consumer.
This past week saw the return of Tiger Woods to Twitter. Why? I think this is the start of Woods trying to rebuild his image and personal brand, and that's pretty obvious. However, many people are writing off his attempts to rebuild his brand as a poor attempt with poor timing. Poor timing because he is starting this attempt near the 1 year anniversary of the car crash that brought the whole scandal to light. Poor attempt because just having a Twitter feed doesn't a new image make. But that is where I think they're wrong.
I'm currently reading a book by Mitch Joel called 'Six Pixels of Separation'. In it, Joel makes it clear that branding isn't an overnight phenomenon. Creating and strengthening a personal brand (or any brand of that matter) takes trust and loyalty. These things are earned slowly: months, years or even many years for that matter. You need to be consistent and create value, and create trust over time. In Woods' case, might take longer than others but with time, consistency and value, I think it's possible to rebound. So lets not judge him too quickly: these things take time so judging the attempt now is like calling the winner of the Stanley Cup from the pre-season.
Another big news item, and I have to admit a bit of a disappointment for me, was the announcement from Apple that the iTunes Store would now carry the Beatles. I know that last week I commented that it was likely that iTunes would announce this, but a little part of me wanted there to be something else. No, not a Beatles themed iPod like U2 had a while ago (although don't rule it out, anything is possible!). But I was kind of hoping something else would be announced in conjunction with the Beatles songs. They've been on such a roll lately, I guess my hopes were a bit high. But whose fault is that? If you're constantly hyping, consumers are going to be expecting you to constantly be delivering. Consistency is king: as Joel says, lean on the side of consistency and don't over promise. Failing to deliver on a promise is a worse fate then promising less and over delivering.
Does Apple 'over promise'? Well, maybe. Or maybe it's just that they have been doing so well in the marketing department that our expectations are that much higher. After all, they really are a 'one-of-a-kind' marketing machine nowadays.
It is this last feature that 'erked' me the most, both as a consumer of social media and a marketer. YouTube makes it's money by selling ad space, so it is logical that they would introduce this form of advertising. However, I feel that it violates one of the most important principles: permission. Banners and featured videos? I can choose engage in those forms of marketing, but when it comes to the forced video ads, I have no choice because it is 'interruption marketing', as Godin would have put it. This is where the new "TrueView" comes into affect: it is what Godin would have called permission marketing. Sort of.
Irina Slutsky reported on Adage that TrueView is a platformed "designed to give users the choice of which ad they watch - even if that choice is to watch none at all". This means that YouTube will no longer be interruptive but more permission based. The idea is that for short movies, a user might get an "in-stream" ad, which [they] can skip if [they] wish". For longer movies, consumers can have a choice: watch a "video with ad breaks or ad-free after watching one of three ads first", ads which may not be skippable. As a consumer, I am pleased because now I can enjoy my involvement without being pestered or frustrated. However, it's a more complex issue when it comes to the marketer in me: how do you attract companies to continue to use you as a medium for advertising when consumers can choose to skip your ad-space?
Slutsky explains that companies wouldn't have to pay for skipped ads, much the same way that pay-per-click works. Also, and possibly more importantly, Slutsky explains how TrueView will "allow you to reach the opted-in engaged audience at scale", rather than annoying an audience who is not engaged in your message. And I have to say, it makes sense for all parties: YouTube, companies and the end consumer.
This past week saw the return of Tiger Woods to Twitter. Why? I think this is the start of Woods trying to rebuild his image and personal brand, and that's pretty obvious. However, many people are writing off his attempts to rebuild his brand as a poor attempt with poor timing. Poor timing because he is starting this attempt near the 1 year anniversary of the car crash that brought the whole scandal to light. Poor attempt because just having a Twitter feed doesn't a new image make. But that is where I think they're wrong.
I'm currently reading a book by Mitch Joel called 'Six Pixels of Separation'. In it, Joel makes it clear that branding isn't an overnight phenomenon. Creating and strengthening a personal brand (or any brand of that matter) takes trust and loyalty. These things are earned slowly: months, years or even many years for that matter. You need to be consistent and create value, and create trust over time. In Woods' case, might take longer than others but with time, consistency and value, I think it's possible to rebound. So lets not judge him too quickly: these things take time so judging the attempt now is like calling the winner of the Stanley Cup from the pre-season.
Another big news item, and I have to admit a bit of a disappointment for me, was the announcement from Apple that the iTunes Store would now carry the Beatles. I know that last week I commented that it was likely that iTunes would announce this, but a little part of me wanted there to be something else. No, not a Beatles themed iPod like U2 had a while ago (although don't rule it out, anything is possible!). But I was kind of hoping something else would be announced in conjunction with the Beatles songs. They've been on such a roll lately, I guess my hopes were a bit high. But whose fault is that? If you're constantly hyping, consumers are going to be expecting you to constantly be delivering. Consistency is king: as Joel says, lean on the side of consistency and don't over promise. Failing to deliver on a promise is a worse fate then promising less and over delivering.
Does Apple 'over promise'? Well, maybe. Or maybe it's just that they have been doing so well in the marketing department that our expectations are that much higher. After all, they really are a 'one-of-a-kind' marketing machine nowadays.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Tuesday Three #4
This week's 'T3' coming up, let's jump in.
How could we ignore the news coming out about Facebook these days. Earlier this week, Mashable reported that arguably the biggest social media channel of them all could be worth around $41 Billion. This means that in comparison, Facebook is valued higher that eBay, which is hovering at around $39 Billion. That is an incredible (and somewhat arbitrary) statistic to think about, especially when you consider where Facebook was just a number of years ago.
However, the biggest news about Facebook was the heating up of their battle against other online service providers, such as Yahoo! or Google. As Geoffrey Fowler and Amir Efrati reported in the Wall Street Journal, Facebook has "unveiled a messaging service to compete for the loyalty of millions of Internet users". This new messaging system looks to build upon the large network already existing amongst the Facebook community by introducing many new communication tools, including a facebook.com email address for users. Facebook is looking to become a one-stop-shop for communications as the more "fun and more valuable" way of keeping in touch.
So is Facebook a 'Gmail Killer'?
In a word, no. In many words, it's not meant to replace the function of 'proper' e-mails systems like Gmail or Yahoo. Mark Zuckerberg admitted during the launch that they don't expect "anybody to wake up tomorrow and say 'OK, I will shut down my Yahoo or Gmail account and switch exclusively to Facebook,'". Fowler and Efrati point out that while Google and Facebook have different core businesses, they've been set onto a 'collision course' by trying to both secure supremacy over the online activity and user data market, a critical need for the 'future of targeted ads online, already a $26 Billion industry in the U.S." alone. Both Zuckerberg and Google CEO Eric Schmidt seem to agree that their products are close to each other, but not replacements for each other. The functionality of Facebooks messaging system is to put traditional e-mail, instant and SMS messaging together in one place, sending messages using whatever method works best. On the other hand, Google's Gmail is a great platform for receiving formal e-mail correspondence. Zuckerberg was quoted as saying "Gmail is a really good product", while Schmidt was quoted saying that it "is basically good to have more competition in the space," and that Facebook "appear[s] to be taking a different approach".
So can we take from this? Facebook is certainly on the way to trying to take a stranglehold on the way consumers interact with the internet. By putting all of these services together, it's hard to see how consumer's won't slowly shift to using Facebook for all of their casual conversations online. It might be too early to make any conclusions, but this seems to be a big step forward towards making Facebook a powerhouse in the targeted ad market as well.
How could we ignore the news coming out about Facebook these days. Earlier this week, Mashable reported that arguably the biggest social media channel of them all could be worth around $41 Billion. This means that in comparison, Facebook is valued higher that eBay, which is hovering at around $39 Billion. That is an incredible (and somewhat arbitrary) statistic to think about, especially when you consider where Facebook was just a number of years ago.
However, the biggest news about Facebook was the heating up of their battle against other online service providers, such as Yahoo! or Google. As Geoffrey Fowler and Amir Efrati reported in the Wall Street Journal, Facebook has "unveiled a messaging service to compete for the loyalty of millions of Internet users". This new messaging system looks to build upon the large network already existing amongst the Facebook community by introducing many new communication tools, including a facebook.com email address for users. Facebook is looking to become a one-stop-shop for communications as the more "fun and more valuable" way of keeping in touch.
So is Facebook a 'Gmail Killer'?
In a word, no. In many words, it's not meant to replace the function of 'proper' e-mails systems like Gmail or Yahoo. Mark Zuckerberg admitted during the launch that they don't expect "anybody to wake up tomorrow and say 'OK, I will shut down my Yahoo or Gmail account and switch exclusively to Facebook,'". Fowler and Efrati point out that while Google and Facebook have different core businesses, they've been set onto a 'collision course' by trying to both secure supremacy over the online activity and user data market, a critical need for the 'future of targeted ads online, already a $26 Billion industry in the U.S." alone. Both Zuckerberg and Google CEO Eric Schmidt seem to agree that their products are close to each other, but not replacements for each other. The functionality of Facebooks messaging system is to put traditional e-mail, instant and SMS messaging together in one place, sending messages using whatever method works best. On the other hand, Google's Gmail is a great platform for receiving formal e-mail correspondence. Zuckerberg was quoted as saying "Gmail is a really good product", while Schmidt was quoted saying that it "is basically good to have more competition in the space," and that Facebook "appear[s] to be taking a different approach".
So can we take from this? Facebook is certainly on the way to trying to take a stranglehold on the way consumers interact with the internet. By putting all of these services together, it's hard to see how consumer's won't slowly shift to using Facebook for all of their casual conversations online. It might be too early to make any conclusions, but this seems to be a big step forward towards making Facebook a powerhouse in the targeted ad market as well.
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Lest We Forget
Please observe a moment of silence at 11am, where you are, as a mark of respect for those who risked and gave everything for the freedom of others.
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Tuesday Three #3
Let's get rolling.
A big news item I saw on the National Association of Convenience Stores website was something I didn't expect to take this long: Facebook has launched a location-based media service. Foursquare has been one of the biggest social media channels involving geographic locations, and Facebook needed to introduce a similar to keep up. Facebook's new addition is called Deals and allows individuals to 'check-in' into stores and locations, and by doing so they make themselves available for rewards by the owners of these stores.
Reggie Bradford, the CEO of Vitrue, a social-media marketing firm, told the NACS website that Deals is “a massive validation of location-based marketing" and that it's “a huge sea change in terms of the way location-based services are going to hit critical mass fast". Bradford cites that millions of Facebook users already use Facebook's Places tool, and with the widespread use of mobile devices for accessing Facebook, Deals could really take hold in the marketplace.
In terms of reaching consumers, this is a great platform. Stores can reach their customers in a way they have never seen before, allowing for a connection to be made over the Internet even before the consumer enters the store. With the growth of Places and of sites like Foursquare, many social media consumers are buying into the idea of sharing their location with friends and supporters: we've seen it used within friends, organizations and even politicians. I think of a scene in the movie Minority Report. Do you remember when Tom Cruise is walking through the Mall and all the stores scan his eyes, allowing the store to tailer their posters just for him? I have no doubt that at some point, marketers will know who we are, what we've bought before and what we'd likely be interested in at some point in the future. Deals is a step in that direction. But will it work when consumers have to share it with companies? I think it might, but it's hard to know. Clearly, many social media users are not shy to sharing this kind of information but in an age of ever increasing skepticism, it's hard to know how comfortable individuals will be with giving this information to marketers.
It comes to an idea from Seth Godin: Deals is about permission marketing. Users have to 'check-in' to stores through Deals, so the consumer is choosing to engage with the brand and allow the company to market to them. As long as Deals remains permission based, I think it has great opportunity for success.
If you want to read the article yourself, you can find it here.
My friend Shaminda has some great thoughts on this very subject in his posting on this past Sunday. He notes that the Deals platform is an important news item for Facebook, but equally important are their new partnerships "with companies like Loopt, Zynga, Groupon and Yelp, to offer mobile users a 'single-sign on'". What do these partnerships mean? To Shaminda, it means two things: if you can't beat them, join them. And if you're the smaller guy, can you afford not to join with Facebook?
I think there is a lot of merit to both points. The most interesting debate can be found with the second point: can you afford not to? There is no arguing that Facebook is absolutely massive, and perhaps a bit more contentious to say they are the premier social networking site. If the success if your company would be in intertwined with the success of your partner, you want to back the winning horse. With Facebook being as strong as it is, and there is no major reason to think they will be dethroned soon, can you afford not to bunk up with them? I don't think so.
Go ahead and read Shaminda's thoughts on this, it's a good read that makes you think. I'm sure we'd both like to hear what you think.
On an aside, did you hear? The Queen (and the Monarchy for that matter) are on Facebook now. With a new group site, fans can now follow the Monarchy, events and news. Want to be friends with the Queen? Well, unfortunately you won't be able to be friends with Her Majesty, but this is an interesting example of how relationships and communications are changing with social media. Read about the Queen and her presence on Facebook here.
The last year has seen the roll out of tens of 3-D TV technologies and models. With the pile of movies coming out in theatres in 3-D, and the rising demand for 3-D technology at home, it's hardly surprising that manufacturers are looking for other avenues for this technology. But have you ever looked at your phone and thought, 'yeah, I'd like my phone's screen to be 3-D'. Well, neither have I but Sharp thinks otherwise. It was announced this week on Mashable that Sharp will be launching 3-D phones late this year and early next year in Japan.
The phones look pretty pedestrian and from first glance, be easily confused with touch-screen and full-keyboard smart-phones. However, the screens and technology are very different. According to the article, the phones will feature 3-D screens that don't require glasses or anything, so you won't need to do anything different to use them then any other phone. They will also feature top-of-the-line cameras and the platform for the next generation of mobiles games.
To me, this is a logical step for product development. It might turn into other of those things we don't think we need, but it becomes a basic feature we expect from new products. Don't think so? Did you ever think you needed a colour-screen? How about a built-in radio or MP3 capability? Touch screen? High quality camera (or any camera at all)? Video conferencing? But when you go to buy a phone now, these are features we look for and demand from our phones. We've seen all these technological improvements, leaving limited avenues for product developers to go down. 3-D screens seems like the next step for the next generation of phones, but I am not entirely sold. When I am trying to use my phone, the less glitz and confusion the better. I don't know if this is a good idea, but it all depends on what the phone will be used for. For personal use and entertainment, it might be a winner. But in a business application, maybe not so helpful. Then again, I never though putting MP3 technology or video conferencing would take off for main stream consumption. 3-D could be the next big thing. To read the full article, find it here.
Finally, a product hit the news this past week that can protect you... from you. We've all seen it before: someone has a good time on the town and gets a hold of their Facebook or Twitter account when they get home. Not being of complete mind, these people usually end up saying things a) not in the words or order of letters they wanted b) they didn't want to really say to someone or c) that make them look and sound like an idiot. My good friend Shaminda wrote that article not too long ago about being your own brand manager: that you are the gate keeper to creating and maintaining a strong personal brand with those around you. This means you need to control how you communicate and interact with others, and this also means controlling your presence electronically.
Have no fear though. If you need something to protect you from you, George Stroumboulopoulos found a product to help you out. Webroot has created the Social Media Sobriety Test. This program forces you to pass a sobriety test before allowing you to enter your social media application. If you're of sound enough mind to pass the test, it will allow you into it to go about your business. However, failing the test means you can't get into your Facebook and do something stupid.
A good product? If you're someone who needs to be prevented from getting on Facebook when you've had a few, absolutely. But maybe the better idea is not to go near social media when you've had a good time and save yourself a few bucks. Must be said, if you need this, maybe buying a product to stop you from entering your site isn't the real solution. A 'Breathalyzer' doesn't correct drunk driving, and neither will this.
A big news item I saw on the National Association of Convenience Stores website was something I didn't expect to take this long: Facebook has launched a location-based media service. Foursquare has been one of the biggest social media channels involving geographic locations, and Facebook needed to introduce a similar to keep up. Facebook's new addition is called Deals and allows individuals to 'check-in' into stores and locations, and by doing so they make themselves available for rewards by the owners of these stores.
Reggie Bradford, the CEO of Vitrue, a social-media marketing firm, told the NACS website that Deals is “a massive validation of location-based marketing" and that it's “a huge sea change in terms of the way location-based services are going to hit critical mass fast". Bradford cites that millions of Facebook users already use Facebook's Places tool, and with the widespread use of mobile devices for accessing Facebook, Deals could really take hold in the marketplace.
In terms of reaching consumers, this is a great platform. Stores can reach their customers in a way they have never seen before, allowing for a connection to be made over the Internet even before the consumer enters the store. With the growth of Places and of sites like Foursquare, many social media consumers are buying into the idea of sharing their location with friends and supporters: we've seen it used within friends, organizations and even politicians. I think of a scene in the movie Minority Report. Do you remember when Tom Cruise is walking through the Mall and all the stores scan his eyes, allowing the store to tailer their posters just for him? I have no doubt that at some point, marketers will know who we are, what we've bought before and what we'd likely be interested in at some point in the future. Deals is a step in that direction. But will it work when consumers have to share it with companies? I think it might, but it's hard to know. Clearly, many social media users are not shy to sharing this kind of information but in an age of ever increasing skepticism, it's hard to know how comfortable individuals will be with giving this information to marketers.
It comes to an idea from Seth Godin: Deals is about permission marketing. Users have to 'check-in' to stores through Deals, so the consumer is choosing to engage with the brand and allow the company to market to them. As long as Deals remains permission based, I think it has great opportunity for success.
If you want to read the article yourself, you can find it here.
My friend Shaminda has some great thoughts on this very subject in his posting on this past Sunday. He notes that the Deals platform is an important news item for Facebook, but equally important are their new partnerships "with companies like Loopt, Zynga, Groupon and Yelp, to offer mobile users a 'single-sign on'". What do these partnerships mean? To Shaminda, it means two things: if you can't beat them, join them. And if you're the smaller guy, can you afford not to join with Facebook?
I think there is a lot of merit to both points. The most interesting debate can be found with the second point: can you afford not to? There is no arguing that Facebook is absolutely massive, and perhaps a bit more contentious to say they are the premier social networking site. If the success if your company would be in intertwined with the success of your partner, you want to back the winning horse. With Facebook being as strong as it is, and there is no major reason to think they will be dethroned soon, can you afford not to bunk up with them? I don't think so.
Go ahead and read Shaminda's thoughts on this, it's a good read that makes you think. I'm sure we'd both like to hear what you think.
On an aside, did you hear? The Queen (and the Monarchy for that matter) are on Facebook now. With a new group site, fans can now follow the Monarchy, events and news. Want to be friends with the Queen? Well, unfortunately you won't be able to be friends with Her Majesty, but this is an interesting example of how relationships and communications are changing with social media. Read about the Queen and her presence on Facebook here.
The last year has seen the roll out of tens of 3-D TV technologies and models. With the pile of movies coming out in theatres in 3-D, and the rising demand for 3-D technology at home, it's hardly surprising that manufacturers are looking for other avenues for this technology. But have you ever looked at your phone and thought, 'yeah, I'd like my phone's screen to be 3-D'. Well, neither have I but Sharp thinks otherwise. It was announced this week on Mashable that Sharp will be launching 3-D phones late this year and early next year in Japan.
The phones look pretty pedestrian and from first glance, be easily confused with touch-screen and full-keyboard smart-phones. However, the screens and technology are very different. According to the article, the phones will feature 3-D screens that don't require glasses or anything, so you won't need to do anything different to use them then any other phone. They will also feature top-of-the-line cameras and the platform for the next generation of mobiles games.
To me, this is a logical step for product development. It might turn into other of those things we don't think we need, but it becomes a basic feature we expect from new products. Don't think so? Did you ever think you needed a colour-screen? How about a built-in radio or MP3 capability? Touch screen? High quality camera (or any camera at all)? Video conferencing? But when you go to buy a phone now, these are features we look for and demand from our phones. We've seen all these technological improvements, leaving limited avenues for product developers to go down. 3-D screens seems like the next step for the next generation of phones, but I am not entirely sold. When I am trying to use my phone, the less glitz and confusion the better. I don't know if this is a good idea, but it all depends on what the phone will be used for. For personal use and entertainment, it might be a winner. But in a business application, maybe not so helpful. Then again, I never though putting MP3 technology or video conferencing would take off for main stream consumption. 3-D could be the next big thing. To read the full article, find it here.
Finally, a product hit the news this past week that can protect you... from you. We've all seen it before: someone has a good time on the town and gets a hold of their Facebook or Twitter account when they get home. Not being of complete mind, these people usually end up saying things a) not in the words or order of letters they wanted b) they didn't want to really say to someone or c) that make them look and sound like an idiot. My good friend Shaminda wrote that article not too long ago about being your own brand manager: that you are the gate keeper to creating and maintaining a strong personal brand with those around you. This means you need to control how you communicate and interact with others, and this also means controlling your presence electronically.
Have no fear though. If you need something to protect you from you, George Stroumboulopoulos found a product to help you out. Webroot has created the Social Media Sobriety Test. This program forces you to pass a sobriety test before allowing you to enter your social media application. If you're of sound enough mind to pass the test, it will allow you into it to go about your business. However, failing the test means you can't get into your Facebook and do something stupid.
A good product? If you're someone who needs to be prevented from getting on Facebook when you've had a few, absolutely. But maybe the better idea is not to go near social media when you've had a good time and save yourself a few bucks. Must be said, if you need this, maybe buying a product to stop you from entering your site isn't the real solution. A 'Breathalyzer' doesn't correct drunk driving, and neither will this.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Still Amazes Me
I know that the way marketers can reach the consumer in today's world is vastly different from 10 or 15 years ago. I know that, thanks to advances in the availability and depth of technology, marketers are able to communicate with consumers quicker and in a more focused way than ever before. I know that thanks to social media, brands can now (almost instantly) reach, respond and interact with consumers like we have never seen before.
I know all this. But I still was in awe of just how far this interaction has come when it happened to me. Yesterday, I discussed the Chevy Cruze, about consumer skepticism and how this product could be the turning point the American car manufacturer needs to compete with the market leaders. I wanted the brand to succeed and when I visit the Toronto Auto Show early next year, I wanted Chevy to follow through on the branding promise they've delivered. Within hours of my blog post, my thoughts were responded to personally by the Chevrolet Cruze Twitter account. I replied on Twitter and was soon replied back to again.
Now I know I shouldn't be surprised, this is what today's marketing world looks like and Chevrolet is staying on top of managing their new model's brand in social media, just as they should be. But until it happens to you, you don't really feel the magic behind it. I understand now, better than ever, that social media is going to be a major tool for any brand wishing to manage, interact and influence their brand experience and value.
I know all this. But I still was in awe of just how far this interaction has come when it happened to me. Yesterday, I discussed the Chevy Cruze, about consumer skepticism and how this product could be the turning point the American car manufacturer needs to compete with the market leaders. I wanted the brand to succeed and when I visit the Toronto Auto Show early next year, I wanted Chevy to follow through on the branding promise they've delivered. Within hours of my blog post, my thoughts were responded to personally by the Chevrolet Cruze Twitter account. I replied on Twitter and was soon replied back to again.
Now I know I shouldn't be surprised, this is what today's marketing world looks like and Chevrolet is staying on top of managing their new model's brand in social media, just as they should be. But until it happens to you, you don't really feel the magic behind it. I understand now, better than ever, that social media is going to be a major tool for any brand wishing to manage, interact and influence their brand experience and value.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Tuesday Three #2
It's another week and another Tuesday, which means it's time for another Tuesday three!
It has been a busy week in marketing and social media. One of the biggest news items from the past week was the launch of the new MySpace design. MySpace, which seems to have played second or third fiddle to Facebook for a number of years now, updated their design to focus more on the entertainment side of social media. Among the worst things an organization can do is change their look, brand or logo because they are bored of it or feel like it's time for a change. If you're re-branding, you do so with a purpose or a reason, a reason that is supported by your choose re-branding strategy. Mashable is quick to point out that MySpace is not just changing the wallpaper, that their updates are "the start of a fundamental shift in focus" for the website. That focus? According to their coverage of the event, the shift is toward making MySpace a “social entertainment destination".
As according to Mashable, MySpace's new target demographic is Gen Y, the 13 to 35 year-old segment, and is looking to become a premier destination for connecting with entertainment-oriented "fans and curators". To me, this move takes a lot of sense. I think that MySpace understands that they are no longer the premier social networking site and that their model needed to be focused on a need that was not being fully satisfied. Sites, such as Facebook and LinkedIn, are excellent platforms for connecting with friends and colleagues and building on connections. Twitter is a brilliant idea-sharing and quick messaging platform for meeting industry leaders and like-minded individuals. However, MySpace realized that there was no platform adequately catering to the sharing of music, videos and entertainment. Mentally, I have always associated MySpace with music: how many bands have presented themselves there. Further, how many of had a break there? I think a lot of MySpace's potential success lies in their ability to nourish up and coming artists and giving them the platform they need to get exposure.
There is one thing that still concerns me. We cannot forget that there is one platform that is already giving many musicians and artists exposure: YouTube. YouTube doesn't allow for the same networking that is possible through a site like MySpace, but I wouldn't be surprised if this improves in the near future. Members can subscribe, like and rate other's content. If MySpace doesn't blow us out of the water, there is a chance their move has come too late.
Another huge piece of news to come to light was that, for the first time ever, Apple overtook RIM and the Blackberry in the heated-battle that is the smart phone market. According to Michael Babad in the Globe and Mail, citing new research by International Data Corp., reported this past week that Apple's iPhone enjoyed sales that "eclipsed those of RIM's BlackBerry in the third quarter for the first time", with Apple shipping 14.1 million to RIM's 12.4 million. Both companies enjoyed growth however, with Apple's market share reaching 4.1% in the quarter, up from 2.5%, while RIM enjoyed a quarterly increase of 0.7% market share, up to 3.6%. This growth was helped by two new products: The Blackberry Torch for RIM and the iPhone 4 for Apple, two products which have brought smart phones to the next level for many consumers.
So what does that mean? It could mean that Apple is starting to get a stronger foot hold into what has been a predominately been Blackberry territory: the business application. In recent years, I feel that Apple iPhone and RIM Blackberry have been closing on meeting in the middle. In 2007, Blackberrys were business machines: efficient, productive but not stylish or particularly attractive. In 2007, Apple came out with the iPhone: a stylish and attractive phone, but not particularly effective or efficient for business applications. With the most recent models, the line between business machines and stylish devices is blurred, both products being strong media and business performers. However, as Apple delves deeper into the business world, Blackberry will need to respond to the Apple threat through marketing and their product development.
Or do they? A friend and fellow graduate of mine at Laurier, and employee of RIM, informed me that the data cited by Babad may not reflect the truth. According to my friend, due to the different in quarters-ended, the sales numbers quoted do not include the month of September for RIM, which is traditionally a big sales month for them. If this is the case (I have his word, but have no found any publicly available information to confirm the numbers independent of each other), then these numbers may not reflect anything at all. They serve only to remind us that the battle is far from other, and hotter than ever before. (Author's note: if you do know where this information is available, please let me know on Twitter, I'd be most interesting in finding out more! @andrewbasker).
This week also saw our first peek at the new Samsung Galaxy Tab. However, I am not going to talk about it here. Not yet at least, not until I have the opportunity to see it in person. More over, I want to be able to experience all three of the big players in this market: the iPad, the Playbook and the Galaxy. I have experienced the iPad but was not instantly won over. As I have discussed before here, I am an iPod Touch owner and see no need or desire to have an iPad (apart from the data, something readily available through the iPhone (and it lets you make phone calls), or those who want to access the Internet but lack the knowhow to use a full computer OS). However, I only spent a few fleeting moments with the machine in a Bestbuy. Why Bestbuy? Have YOU tried spending any time in an Apple store to see one? Yeah, exactly. Watch this space for a review of all three machines, something I am aiming to do as soon as I can.
However, there is something I want to talk about before this post is over. That is the Chevy Cruze. For years, Chevrolet has been known for making very affordable but depressingly poorly build vehicles. I have attended the Toronto Auto Show for the last number of years and every time I go, I always make a point of checking out the GM stands to see how the cars feel and look. Five years ago, you could sit in a Cadillac and find buttons plucked directly from the Pontiac Sunfire. Even a couple years ago, their new vehicles like the Traverse were build better, but still suffering from poor build quality and cheap materials. Chevrolet would like us to think differently about them now though, as they being their new car to Canada and the US: the Cruze. GM spent a lot of money to make the first genuine 'global car', excluding cars made my Suzuki under the Chevy brand. 'Global' cars refers to having one design sold around the world, something many car companies have been doing for a long time: Audi, Mercedes, BMW, Mazda and starting in 2012 Ford as well. Chevy is also spending a gigantic sum of money updating their factories and marketing their new product heavily. Using traditional media, and slowly breaking into social media, Chevy is putting a lot of their future in the success of this new, more technological and quality-driven vehicle. If you want to learn more, check out this good article from autoobserver.com.
Will it work? Well, I'd like it to work but I am cynical. I've seen these promises before from GM, I the skeptical consumer inside me doesn't want to believe everything I see or read. This is one of the most worrying aspects of being a marketer in today's market: the levels of skepticism are higher than ever before. You can't simply say you're the best, consumers are looking for you to prove it.
So go on then Chevy. People want you to fail, and it'd be convenient if you did. But if you want to slug it out with your competitors, you need to prove you belong.
*** Author's Note: Shortly after this post was published, I got this response from Chevy:
It has been a busy week in marketing and social media. One of the biggest news items from the past week was the launch of the new MySpace design. MySpace, which seems to have played second or third fiddle to Facebook for a number of years now, updated their design to focus more on the entertainment side of social media. Among the worst things an organization can do is change their look, brand or logo because they are bored of it or feel like it's time for a change. If you're re-branding, you do so with a purpose or a reason, a reason that is supported by your choose re-branding strategy. Mashable is quick to point out that MySpace is not just changing the wallpaper, that their updates are "the start of a fundamental shift in focus" for the website. That focus? According to their coverage of the event, the shift is toward making MySpace a “social entertainment destination".
As according to Mashable, MySpace's new target demographic is Gen Y, the 13 to 35 year-old segment, and is looking to become a premier destination for connecting with entertainment-oriented "fans and curators". To me, this move takes a lot of sense. I think that MySpace understands that they are no longer the premier social networking site and that their model needed to be focused on a need that was not being fully satisfied. Sites, such as Facebook and LinkedIn, are excellent platforms for connecting with friends and colleagues and building on connections. Twitter is a brilliant idea-sharing and quick messaging platform for meeting industry leaders and like-minded individuals. However, MySpace realized that there was no platform adequately catering to the sharing of music, videos and entertainment. Mentally, I have always associated MySpace with music: how many bands have presented themselves there. Further, how many of had a break there? I think a lot of MySpace's potential success lies in their ability to nourish up and coming artists and giving them the platform they need to get exposure.
There is one thing that still concerns me. We cannot forget that there is one platform that is already giving many musicians and artists exposure: YouTube. YouTube doesn't allow for the same networking that is possible through a site like MySpace, but I wouldn't be surprised if this improves in the near future. Members can subscribe, like and rate other's content. If MySpace doesn't blow us out of the water, there is a chance their move has come too late.
Another huge piece of news to come to light was that, for the first time ever, Apple overtook RIM and the Blackberry in the heated-battle that is the smart phone market. According to Michael Babad in the Globe and Mail, citing new research by International Data Corp., reported this past week that Apple's iPhone enjoyed sales that "eclipsed those of RIM's BlackBerry in the third quarter for the first time", with Apple shipping 14.1 million to RIM's 12.4 million. Both companies enjoyed growth however, with Apple's market share reaching 4.1% in the quarter, up from 2.5%, while RIM enjoyed a quarterly increase of 0.7% market share, up to 3.6%. This growth was helped by two new products: The Blackberry Torch for RIM and the iPhone 4 for Apple, two products which have brought smart phones to the next level for many consumers.
So what does that mean? It could mean that Apple is starting to get a stronger foot hold into what has been a predominately been Blackberry territory: the business application. In recent years, I feel that Apple iPhone and RIM Blackberry have been closing on meeting in the middle. In 2007, Blackberrys were business machines: efficient, productive but not stylish or particularly attractive. In 2007, Apple came out with the iPhone: a stylish and attractive phone, but not particularly effective or efficient for business applications. With the most recent models, the line between business machines and stylish devices is blurred, both products being strong media and business performers. However, as Apple delves deeper into the business world, Blackberry will need to respond to the Apple threat through marketing and their product development.
Or do they? A friend and fellow graduate of mine at Laurier, and employee of RIM, informed me that the data cited by Babad may not reflect the truth. According to my friend, due to the different in quarters-ended, the sales numbers quoted do not include the month of September for RIM, which is traditionally a big sales month for them. If this is the case (I have his word, but have no found any publicly available information to confirm the numbers independent of each other), then these numbers may not reflect anything at all. They serve only to remind us that the battle is far from other, and hotter than ever before. (Author's note: if you do know where this information is available, please let me know on Twitter, I'd be most interesting in finding out more! @andrewbasker).
This week also saw our first peek at the new Samsung Galaxy Tab. However, I am not going to talk about it here. Not yet at least, not until I have the opportunity to see it in person. More over, I want to be able to experience all three of the big players in this market: the iPad, the Playbook and the Galaxy. I have experienced the iPad but was not instantly won over. As I have discussed before here, I am an iPod Touch owner and see no need or desire to have an iPad (apart from the data, something readily available through the iPhone (and it lets you make phone calls), or those who want to access the Internet but lack the knowhow to use a full computer OS). However, I only spent a few fleeting moments with the machine in a Bestbuy. Why Bestbuy? Have YOU tried spending any time in an Apple store to see one? Yeah, exactly. Watch this space for a review of all three machines, something I am aiming to do as soon as I can.
However, there is something I want to talk about before this post is over. That is the Chevy Cruze. For years, Chevrolet has been known for making very affordable but depressingly poorly build vehicles. I have attended the Toronto Auto Show for the last number of years and every time I go, I always make a point of checking out the GM stands to see how the cars feel and look. Five years ago, you could sit in a Cadillac and find buttons plucked directly from the Pontiac Sunfire. Even a couple years ago, their new vehicles like the Traverse were build better, but still suffering from poor build quality and cheap materials. Chevrolet would like us to think differently about them now though, as they being their new car to Canada and the US: the Cruze. GM spent a lot of money to make the first genuine 'global car', excluding cars made my Suzuki under the Chevy brand. 'Global' cars refers to having one design sold around the world, something many car companies have been doing for a long time: Audi, Mercedes, BMW, Mazda and starting in 2012 Ford as well. Chevy is also spending a gigantic sum of money updating their factories and marketing their new product heavily. Using traditional media, and slowly breaking into social media, Chevy is putting a lot of their future in the success of this new, more technological and quality-driven vehicle. If you want to learn more, check out this good article from autoobserver.com.
Will it work? Well, I'd like it to work but I am cynical. I've seen these promises before from GM, I the skeptical consumer inside me doesn't want to believe everything I see or read. This is one of the most worrying aspects of being a marketer in today's market: the levels of skepticism are higher than ever before. You can't simply say you're the best, consumers are looking for you to prove it.
So go on then Chevy. People want you to fail, and it'd be convenient if you did. But if you want to slug it out with your competitors, you need to prove you belong.
*** Author's Note: Shortly after this post was published, I got this response from Chevy:
@CruzeMore - Chevy Cruze
@andrewbasker I belong! I belong! You said it yourself: I'm quality-driven :)
I sincerely hope 'you' are, because if it's true 'you' could be the turning around point for Chevy as a brand.***
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)