Measuring Up

A fruit that has clearly soured

Yesterday’s financial reports from RIMS, manufacturer of Blackberry devices wasn’t pretty. The Canadian technology company missed its earnings projections by a lot. Probably more importantly, its immediate future is unclear and the company plans to lay off thousands of employees as it ponders its next move to compete in the ever competitive mobile device marketplace. Based on my recent experience, I can’t say that I’m surprised.

I am far from an expert on this type of technology, or the latest products that have emerged.  Like many business professionals, I listen to the advice of my company’s IT professionals and often try the latest product based on what they recommend and some of the hype that other technology leaders create.  As a matter of fact, I’d probably consider myself to be the opposite of an early adopter of new technologies. Instead, I just want a product that will serve its basic functions for me well. And, if I can have the added benefits of some new, cool bells and whistles, then I’m one happy customer.

Peppercom has always been a Blackberry loyal company. Because on our client serving needs, we thrive on immediate email on a 24/7 basis and from a business standpoint and the easy to type keyboards work well with our style. Each and every new model has been accepted enthusiastically by our professionals. Then in trying to break into Apple’s ownership of the lucrative consumer iPhone market, RIMS finally released the Torch late last year. From what I’ve read (and understand), this product was released very quickly so that RIMS could showcase its newest foray into the consumer marketplace. Our IT professionals were a little weary of recommending it. But, because Blackberry has such a proven track record with creating high quality products for professional audiences, they suggested I try it to find out if it could work for me.

At first, I really enjoyed the product and experience I was having.  That’s because the Torch tries to integrate the best of both worlds–  the touch screen and ability to maneuver very quickly through many apps and files (like the iPhone), with a real key board that is pretty easy to type on (a critical part of the Blackberry experience). Unfortunately, that experience only lasted two days though, because all of a sudden, half my emails only came through in bits and pieces. They were unintelligible and that created immediate problems for obvious reasons. As this continued, I found that the system actually became sluggish and it took quite a bit of time for some applications to open after I clicked on the icon.

To make a long story short, our IT whizzes spend hours on the phone with Blackberry trying to fix the email problem. It seems that countless other customers were also experiencing this frustrating problem. What really surprised me (though) is that the RIMS gurus had no idea how to fix it. That just doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. After reading through numerous tech blogs on the topic and interviewing Peppercom’s IT professionals, it seems that one truism exists. RIMS was in such a hurry to enter the consumer market that the company didn’t create products that actually worked (or that they knew could work). The consumer experience failed and now we are seeing just how bad the fall out is (and will continue to be) for this once proud technology leader.

For me, well…I returned my Torch and actually decided to try an iPhone instead. So far, so good. I like it mainly due to most of those features that the Torch promised (but didn’t deliver on) are being realized with this product. The bad news for RIMS is that Blackberry loyalists (like me) will now think twice before using one of their new products in the future. Maybe more importantly, those in the know (like our IT professionals) feel much of the same. Deivis Baez, our Director of IT actually told me, “I feel let down because RIMS had plenty of time to come out with the right operating system for this product. Its failure to do quality control prior to launching is a real failure.”

Companies that are extending their brands into new areas need to understand that getting their first product launch right is so critical to ensuring that trust and confidence in their brand continue. The Blackberry failed to do this and its reputation has soured because of it.

Has this media empire out Foxed the rest?

Yesterday, Rupert Murdoch announced his next big media move. News Corporation introduced 'The Daily,' a digital-only daily newspaper.

Delivered as a news application designed for the iPad, Murdoch is taking a bold step forward by charging a monthly subscription rate of $39. According to his comments, he believes that this new venture will position News Corporation as the digital newsstand of the future.

The concept is quite interesting and controversial because it runs counter to how people consume their online news today. Instead of the ever popular push model where free RSS feeds and subscriptions allow any and all relevant news to be pushed on a 24/7 basis, this model literally creates a digital version of the USA Today model.

Murdoch believes that a more general interest, high- resolution color digital newspaper that offers readers news and gossip on dozens of topics will greatly entice them. He also claims that 'The Daily' will be the first to seamlessly bring photos, video and interactive features together, in this new “all in one place" format.

Murdoch's initial costs for this venture are purposely low. He hopes to build sales through subscriptions over time. No doubt the partnership with Apple will help. And if he's able to build circulation numbers, then advertisers should naturally flock to his outlet as well.

Yet, I wonder if 'The Daily' is still a few years ahead of its time. I do believe that many (including this blogger) would happily subscribe to this app if it was free. But, with so much other free content available at my finger tips, what motivating factor will compel me to want to offer up my credit card for this content? Thirty nine dollars isn't a lot. It's just the difference between having to go that extra step with a payment for content, versus continue to use my favorite model– free.

In the end, I believe that 'The Daily 'will need to provide some incredible value to generate mass subscriptions in this day and age.

I applaud Murdoch's moxy and continued innovative mind set. He failed big time acquiring soon to be 'has-been' My Space a few years back. This time, he's done a complete 180 degree change by establishing a first mover status. I just believe that unless 'The Daily' is offered as part of a larger package (i.e. buy an iPad and receive a six month subscription for free), with Apple consuming the cost, it will be a long and difficult climb to grow sales for News Corp.

Dinner and a movie redefined

My wife and I took nearly a dozen 11-year olds to the movies this weekend to celebrate our son’s birthday. We  had heard a lot about AMC Movie Theaters’ progressive, new offering "Fork and Screen" which includes actually eating a ‘gourmet’ dinner while watching the movie. Naturally, everyone was wondering how the set-up, food choices and overall experience would change from what had always been the norm. Here’s my own Siskel and Ebert review on the New AMC experience.

For starters, there’s no doubt that this is a true transformative change to the consumer movie experience.
For those who’ve yet to experience those first theaters that have been altered, AMC recreated its lobby to look more like a swanky bar. And, its theater has been completely redone to feel more like a dark lounge where one might come to listen to Robert Goulet or Burt Bacharach perform their singing acts versus watching  an action flick (like the Green Hornet). There is definitely a more positive upbeat vibe about the theater, as well. The seats are much more comfortable leather recliners. Every row has long, black tables in front of them and because they’ve removed probably about forty percent of the seats, there’s enough leg room to make you believe you’re not in a move theater anymore.

Then there’s the menu. That’s the biggest change. Lobster ravioli and steak tips. Fancy drinks and high end beers. And, cheesecakes and mousses for desserts. Of course, they offer run of the mill appetizers (potato skins, wings) and the typical popcorn, candy and soda for everyone who comes to the movies expecting some of the same.

I thought it was all pretty cool.  We never tried any of this new fare, but some of the guests near us commented that it beats the Olive Garden. Of course, that comment could be taken many different ways (for the record, we represent T.G.I Friday’s, a competitor in the marketplace).  Even the overall price of everything combined was appealing. The movie itself now cost $20-$23 per ticket.  That seems awfully expensive. But, it isn’t once you realize that the theater also provides a $10 credit on each ticket for food. Since 11 kids really only ate popcorn, some candy and sodas, I probably saved a little money in the end. My guess is that AMC’s real target here are adults who will eat more substantively and drink numerous alcoholic beverages. That’s probably the money maker for them.

The most bizarre part (because my senses just didn’t expect it) was the waiters delivering pints of beer, margaritas and full entrees throughout the movie to various tables. It didn’t interfere with my movie experience, although I found myself on half a dozen occasions staring at trays, wondering what beverages or foods people were ordering.

The only negative experience we had (and it did take away from the movie) was the service. In the past, it was pretty simple. I bought popcorn and soda in the lobby and then went directly to my seat and started eating during previews and throughout movie. Now, they take your orders when you’re in the seats before the movie starts. First we received our drinks, but that wasn’t until after the previews had ended. Then, everyone was handed popcorn about 10 minutes into the movie. Finally, the kids received their candy approximately 15 minutes after that. Kind of a buzz kill from a desired eating standpoint. And, instead of watching the movie, you’re left staring at the doors wondering when the rest of your food will arrive.

At Peppercom, we’ve started focusing more and more on how our clients’ customers experience their brand and how that may differ from the messages and overall positioning that the client is currently communicating. It’s really fascinating to see how and where break downs typically occur. My guess is that AMC is still in the early stages of tinkering with this new business model. It’s clearly a game changer for the industry.  By understanding the good and bad of these first customer experiences, AMC can clearly create a more consistent, appealing  and successful consumer offering moving forward.  Let’s see if they utilize these comments to improve.

My review so far, two thumbs up.

Do you miss Hooters Air, too?

Today's guest post is by Peppercommer Matt Purdue.

What do all of these have in common?
•    Hooters energy drink
•    Colgate Kitchen Entrees
•    Google Print Ads
•    Willie Nelson biodiesel fuel
•    Ben-Gay aspirin

That's an easy one. They are examples of brand extensions gone horribly wrong. Yes, these are real products and services that once upon a time came to market. Thankfully, we've forgotten most of them. But imagine the millions of dollars and thousands of hours wasted on these.

From a PR perspective, it is one of the most difficult challenges: helping a client with a trusted brand break into a new market. Public relations is essentially based on trust. When a PR agency is tasked with promoting a brand extension, the first questions to ask are: Why should key influencers trust that our client knows enough about this new market to succeed? Why should key influencers trust that the brand really cares about the end-consumer?

As a former journalist, whenever I was pitched by a PR agency about a brand extension or partnership, my B.S. meter lit up like a Christmas tree. Any smart journalist believes that a brand extension has one, and only one, ultimate goal: to make even more money for the company behind the successful brand. So, as a reporter, I was always loathe to give any of these companies what amounted to free advertising.

So how to convince the ever-skeptical journalist that your client's brand extension is worth covering? Check out Procter & Gamble's latest foray: Tide-branded dry-cleaning stores. P&G's PR machine landed the project on the front page of the New York Times business section in what William Randolph Hearst used to call a "puff" piece. What made P&G so successful?

1. Don't tell me, show me: P&G already has four Tide stores up and running. What better proof of concept is that? A press release announcing a brand extension filled with nothing but projections, hopes and dreams isn't worth the digital ink it's written with, so have some real-world evidence ready to go.

2. Let me experience it: It’s clear from the NY Times article that the reporter visited a Tide store and had unfettered access to customers and neighboring businesses. No press junkets here. There’s nothing like firsthand experience to get a reporter on your side.

3. Lift the lid: Clearly, P&G walked the reporter through the entire process of choosing the dry-cleaning industry for their latest brand extension. “Four years ago, FutureWorks began considering franchise opportunities…,” the journo writes. That type of background gives the reporter the perception that he is getting the scoop on his rival scribes.

4. Push the benefits, not the brand: When you pitch, forget for a moment that you’re pitching a well-known brand. Pitch the project as if it is a stand-alone program. That means emphasize the benefits of the new product or service over the brand. The NY Times’ coverage of Tide Dry Cleaning notes features like 24-hour pick-up, drive-through windows and eco-friendly cleaning products. The Times bought it hook, line and sinker.

While no one can predict whether or not Tide Dry Cleaning will end up in the dustbin of marketing history alongside Donald Trump steaks, no one can argue that they’ve achieved a PR coup.

Oh, how the mighty have fallen

Blockbuster, the one-time business growth success story and king of the video industry, is heading into bankruptcy.

Although the company’s fall has steadily been in the works for years, it will become a classic text book example of how new, disruptive technologies can take down what seemed like an invincible business giant. What happened is pretty simple. While this industry leader continued to expand by opening dozens and dozens of new video stores around the country, upstarts like Netflix understood that the entire model supporting video distribution was about to change forever. Because of this, it innovated by bridging the gap by offering consumers a better distribution method (receiving DVD’s through the mail) and more importantly, it understood that the creation and distribution of content via the web would soon trump everything else. So, it signed a variety of deals to secure content partnerships where consumers could stream online video so much easier.

Then, of course, we all became customers of Amazon and Apple because their customer-centric content offerings brought that much more convenience to consumers across the globe.

Blockbuster is a victim of its own success. It failed to see these emerging trends. And, while the company also made a variety of bad decisions along the way, ultimately, it just waited too long to jump aboard this bandwagon. That lack of strategic vision, foresight (or just plain complacent attitude) made Blockbuster an extremely late entrant into a competitive field. Thus, it never could capture significant market share, all the while it continued to consistently plummet with its traditional video business.

Clayton Christenson, the renown author of Innovator’s Dilemma, professor at Harvard Business School (and a former Peppercom client), wrote a lot about how companies need to constantly look into the future to understand the power of new game changing technologies. He believed that the difference between success and failure was pretty simple. These technologies could be leveraged to reinvent or change companies’ business models to meet the coming demands of consumers. In these cases, upstarts like Google, Netflix or Amazon could actually topple their largest and most successfully long standing competitors. Or, these technologies would only serve to disrupt and ultimately kill those businesses because they became irrelevant to their customers.  

My guess is that Clayton (or some other professor) at Harvard Business School will be discussing Blockbuster in class today, as a prime case in point of how disruption worked this very week.

Should we call it 'digital driving'?

OnStar announced today a new application where drivers can soon communicate on their Facebook page with just a push of a button.

From what the company's president discussed on MSNBC this morning, this new capability is almost entirely hands free. Drivers simply need to push a new button on their OnStar devices and then talk into the microphone. That voice monologue will then be automatically turned into text that will appear on his/her Facebook page.

Pretty wild, huh? If you're stuck in a frustrating traffic jam, all your Facebook fans can read about it as it's happening. Or, maybe you've just past something of interest on the road. Once again, everyone you care about will soon read about it.

What I found most illuminating about this announcement though is what the OnStar president said about other possible coming features/applications. He mentioned technologies that could allow for live video conferencing and even the ability to do much more social networking on the Internet. Of course, he also reinforced numerous times that his company focuses on safety first. That's why all of these applications are (or will be) virtually hands free.

When I first watched this story, I thought this is pretty cool because these new breakthrough technologies have come so far. But, then something in my mind didn't add up when I combined the objective of driving safely with the reality that by leveraging new gadgets such as these, drivers will have to focus on so many other variables that don't include the road (or the car in front of them). That spells potential disaster.

We all know that texting, emailing and, generally, having conversations on PDAs while driving causes many more accidents these days. OnStar's new apps might be quasi hands free, but that won't help many drivers who fumble about figuring out how to make their connection to Facebook work (while they drive).

I also wonder about when enough is enough. In this case, do new boundaries need to be mandated? For example, do we (as a society) really need to be completely connected to our friends/fans every single minute of the day?  And, although video conferencing could certainly provide another twist to making business more accessible and personal, what's so appealing about watching someone stare at the road ahead versus just listening to him/her on a phone call. Some technology innovations like that simply add very little appeal.

No, it seems to me that the automobile should be one place where safety and common sense need to take precedence over accessibility and efficiencies. That means the concept of digital driving should really be limited to playing a Wii video game at home. Not an OnStar application that probably will have more of a negative impact than positive benefits.

Still relevant or digital relic?

When's the last time you discussed the social networking site MySpace with friends? And, when it came up, was it discussed in a positive light or as a passé online destination that lost its mojo many moons ago? For me, the answers are: probably six months ago and it's kind of a joke representing any company that lost its relevance.

Here's an interesting article in AdWeek (MySpace: Still Here) that surprisingly portrays this once dominant entity as still strangely relevant. In fact, MySpace actually attracts 61 million unique users per month, second only to Facebook (which still dwarfs any other networking site with 146 million users).

According to this article, MySpace has assumed a much more focused role as a sharing site versus its larger nemesis which really has become the ultimate communications platform. To capitalize on its positioning, MySpace has developed numerous programs around music and has built a following of over 5 million bands on the network. It has leveraged sponsorships with the likes of Wendy’s to build brand awareness for MySpace "Music's Get Close Program," a competition that gives fans the chance to see the net's featured musicians perform live.

It's interesting to see how this once proud leader is making a valid push to revive its relevance among young people. Still, I wonder if these efforts fall under the heading: Too Little, Too Late.

While clearly the site has many fans, MySpace lost its cool factor (and more importantly) its buzz three years ago. I spent 15 minutes conducting my own informal, non-scientific research (I asked half a dozen teens and 20-somethings their perceptions of MySpace). The answers were uniformly consistent – “not interested and my friends aren't either.” That told me a lot.

As superficial as it sounds, buzz is critical for digital survival as well. It brings advertisers in and it creates the perception of success, which ultimately breeds more (real success), if managed correctly.

These days, Twitter and Facebook are the clear kings on the mountain. New entrants such as FourSquare are also creating real buzz and excitement. Of course, there will always be one or two other new players who challenge their buzz supremacy by offering the newest and latest cool networking or communications tool, as well. Understanding all of this, my belief is that it's next to impossible for forgotten brands (such as MySpace) to stage any type of real comeback, regardless of what unique offering they develop or how they reposition their value proposition.

A great example of this is Yahoo. Yahoo was the pioneer and dominant force in internet search for a good long time. Then, it was googled by Google and life was never the same. While it has found some relevance in the online advertising arena, it lost any real search relevance forever because Google consistently out maneuvered it.

Regardless of what AdWeek writes, MySpace has fallen into the digital relic category. It may still attract a unique audience, but there's a big difference between being a compelling Internet player that so many are buzzing about versus just being there, while no one really cares.

Say goodbye to the easiest interview on earth

Earlier this week, Larry King called it quits after 25 years as the host of CNN’s “Larry King Live.”

Larry is an iconic figure who will always be remembered. This man found a unique way to straddle the fence between the lightest of light hearted broadcast journalism and pop culture/entertainment talk show reporting. You could always count on the fact that each evening Larry would be interviewing someone who was either front and center in the news, or simply was viewed as the latest political, business or cultural phenomena/superstar of the day. Love him or hate his style, the fact is that Larry’s show (up until recently) was unique because it reached millions of people who crossed a multitude of demographics across our society. This diverse viewership made Larry’s show incredibly appealing to my industry.

There’s no doubt that the public relations world will greatly miss Larry. Sure, many entertainment publicists loved to book their hot Hollywood clients on his show. But, that’s not what I’m getting at here. You see, “Larry King Live” was the dream interview for our clients who faced the deepest public crises of the moment. I can remember many times throughout my career when a client was being torn apart by national media for some controversial business or personal scandal and it was critical to find a way to “get our client’s real story out” through a kinder and gentler format. Larry was that desperate, much maligned client’s salvation.

You may not have ever noticed this, but in many cases Larry actually allows his guest to interview themselves. Sure, he’ll start the interview off with a few relevant questions about the crisis at hand. But, the beauty behind Larry’s style is that he then allows the interviewee to take over from there. I’ve watched former heads of state, indicted CEOs, accused murderers and others (who should be sitting on the hottest of hot seats) simply dance around that opening tough question and then spend the next 15-20 minutes offering up a one sided monologue, rebutting all the negatives that other tough journalists had properly written about before. There were even times when Larry was so lax in his questioning that it seemed like he (Larry, that is) was empathizing with the interviewee. Just think about how powerful this opportunity can be for someone who has basically been indicted and found guilty through the media. Larry King provides an on-air asylum that can influence millions like no one else.

Let’s not forget the other side of Larry. The man has this lackadaisical (mostly forgetful), folksy style that should have gotten Larry in deep trouble many moons ago. But, instead, after each embarrassing moment, he simply shook it off with little care and moved on. Larry committed some legendary blunders and some consider him a laughable joke because of these. For example, there was the time when he interviewed the two remaining Beatles a year ago (Ringo and Paul). Of course, Larry had no idea what their names were as he started referring to Ringo as “George” (as in now deceased George Harrison). After Larry did this three or four times, Paul finally spoke up making fun of Larry and his cluelessness. Then there was the time a few years back when Jerry Seinfeld was being interviewed on the show. Larry actually asked Jerry if it’s true that his show would be ending soon (referring to “Seinfeld” which had been off the air for more than a decade). Being the good natured comedian, Jerry had some fun and responded by asking Larry if this was indeed CNN and was he actually on The Larry King Show.

My PR World is now in mourning for losing Larry. In essence, he is/was a critically important crisis communications delivery vehicle when the calamity of the day had reached a breaking point. I think everyone who watches Larry recognizes that his show has become old, he looks tired and it’s time for him to ride off into the sunset.  Although I’m sure Larry’s next career move will allow him to stay in the limelight in some fashion, there goes the easiest prime time interview on earth. Larry you will be missed.

It's all just more of the same

Today I was doing some client research. What I found is really appalling.

In reviewing about a dozen web sites, collateral and sales material, I couldn't find one competitor (to this client) that didn't describe its business in either of one the following three ways:

1) a full-service solutions provider
2) cost-effective, end-to-end solutions
3) a provider of value added services

It made me think blah, blah, blah... because it doesn't just sound the same. It is the same.

I decided to have some fun and did a quick Google search on these phrases. Get this: 47,000 companies use full-service solutions provider to describe themselves. Cost-effective, end-to-end solutions had 95,000 results. But, the big winner is clearly a provider of value added services with over 600,000 matches.

I know... that is just crazy. What does it say when hundreds of thousands of companies are describing their core business differentiators as the same? My belief is that it means our society really has issues with trying to be original. Instead, like sheep mindlessly following the flock, most companies (or those who run them) feel safe, secure or some measure of comfort using messages that have been widely accepted versus taking risks by creating new and untried phrases to separate themselves and their products.

There is a catch (however). These phrases aren't really accepted. Instead, they're simply ignored, kind of like the way the same dull wallpaper or paint in a house just isn't noticed anymore. We've been walking past it and not really noticing the pattern or colors for so long, that it's just easily forgettable.

The reality is that if you care about your company and/or product, then you should care just as much about how you describe it. In almost every case, a company makes its first impression with all audiences through words. Sure, a creative and sophisticated design will catch someone's attention, but words and the stories that utilize them, really make the most bottom line impact.

Think about this the next time you're three seconds away from approving the same, commoditized messages for your web site or press release boiler plate. Today's overused buzz words just take up space on a page. But, companies with a personality and a point of view want to communicate something different. They have a story to tell and they find a way to communicate it effectively by using words which are written to be read.

I marvel at Apple

The other week, I was in an Apple store in a New Jersey mall. My 10 year old son’s iPod Touch wouldn’t charge because the charging component inside the device had been bent just enough to ensure that the little rectangular charging component would not fit squarely inside. My wife and I both knew that my son was the culprit here. He loves that iPod. And, I’m sure in his typical haste to give it optimum battery time each day, he clumsily pushed it to a breaking point. Still, we had purchased a three year warranty and I intended to bring out the salesman in me with an Apple representative to convince him to either cover the damage by fixing the iPod or replacing it.

I was just about to leave for the Apple retail store, when my wife explained to me that I can’t just walk in and receive service on the spot. No, instead (like thousands of others) I had to set an appointment, online via my Apple account. When she told me this, my first thought was, “What a royal pain in the butt.” I complained to my wife that I didn’t want to deal with any retailer that has gotten this big and bureaucratic; I started having visions of what it’s like to deal with cable and phone company service and that just didn’t make me happy.

My complaints really didn’t make a difference once my son gave me that sad look, which often leads to a few tears. So, I conceded, went online and made an appointment to see a service representative at 11am, on a Saturday morning, two days later.

Anyone who has been in an Apple store understands  the branding experience that customers receive there. (I won’t provide the obvious explanation about that.) What was interesting about my experience was just how service oriented the entire process was.  I checked in with a lead customer service representative. He asked me to sit anywhere I wanted  and within a few minutes,  a personalized technician (named Bill) would be at my service. And, that’s exactly what happened. After explaining the problem and walking the technician through my warranty, I asked him if this tiny little problem could be fixed. He smiled and told me no. The iPod was ruined because no charger or device to download tunes on it, could be attached. Then, he told me that my warranty only covers “problems that Apple is responsible for. Not those that a 10 year old boy created himself.’

I was just a second or two away from trying my used car salesman pitch (and then groveling if necessary) to get some relief on this product, when Bill surprised me. He explained that Apple wants to do right by its customers and he has no problem replacing it with a new iPod Touch. I would just need to pay the $20 warranty fee. I was completely psyched and appreciative. The next few words out of my mouth were “Thank you. Really appreciate it. You’re a great guy, Bill.”

Apple came through in a major way for me. Clearly, the company is devoted to ensuring that customers experience that brand promise (ease of use, innovation and being customer friendly) that is so heavily marketed every day.  The irony here (though) is that Apple creates these products knowing that most will break down and die within a 12-18 month period. Most iPods are not fixable. That’s a very smart go-to-market strategy for Apple. The company hopes (or in this case knows) that its customers will just keep coming back to purchase the next latest (and trendier) model. It works because most customers never really ever question why these products aren’t built to last longer.  And, to my earlier point, consumers (like me) are even willing to make appointments two days in advance to have their products serviced.

Very few brands have this type of powerful impact and control over consumers everywhere. Over the last decade, Apple has become the de facto standard in how to build a mainstream brand. It has worked so well that many consumers don’t even wait until their current model is broken. They just want the next greatest version as soon as it is released. The next big question for Apple is how long can the company stay on top. Most leaders typically fall from grace after any number of years because it’s so difficult to maintain that same level of innovation, quality and service (think of Dell, HP, Sony, etc.). But, I continue to marvel at Apple because it seems to keep getting better and better, each and every year.