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.

This Apple is bittersweet

The holidays are over. And, it’s back to work as usual.

This holiday season was pretty typical for my family. My kids received lots of gifts. And as usual, they each fell head over heels in love with one specific present that they were longing for. They absolutely adore their new iPod Touchs. In fact, they jumped for joy the second they found theirs under our tree. Then, for the next three hours, my wife moaned and groaned with frustration.

You see, my wife attempted to set up iTunes libraries for each of my kids on our two computers. The problem (which shouldn’t really be one) is that each of us has existing accounts already on our respective computers. What happened next was actually sad. A seemingly routine task of loading up an iPod turned into one that erased some of my files, synched all of our downloaded music/videos over and over again on each other’s accounts, and ultimately, had my wife pulling her own hair out in utter contempt for Apple. Even the Apple Help Desk couldn’t make it work (she actually called on Christmas, but was automatically hung up on twice because no one was working that day). When she went to visit the Apple store at our local mall the next morning, they informed her that this is not their domain. So, it was back to the Apple Help Desk…or some other alternative.

Sometimes, “some other alternative” ends up being the better answer (though) because my wife’s friend Barrie was finally able to explain how each account now has to be operated manually when downloading any new purchases. Although the manual download takes an infinite more time (and patience) than the normal way, it’s critically important to each individual library, or my seven year old son could be stuck listening to Led Zeppelin and watching The Departed. Not good…

I don’t get Apple. On the one hand, this company is simply incredible from an innovation standpoint. It continually leads the market place by developing really cool and amazingly appealing products that consumers and businesses simply don’t want to live without. Then on the other, it baffles customers by creating mind boggling, backwards technology protocols that are so frustrating and completely unfriendly to consumers. It truly makes no sense.

Either Apple is purposely trying to make it difficult for any one computer to have more than one account, or the company simply doesn’t give a damn.  I thought about those theories and then decided to research a few blogs to find out if others are having the same issue and why they believe Apple allows it to happen.  What I found were dozens of posts from many Apple and iPod haters (I actually didn’t realize so many are so disgusted with the company). More to the point of this post, I read through a mish mash of various points of view which educated me some, but didn’t paint an either/or conclusion on why Apple does this. Instead, the truth lies somewhere within both my theories.

According to many, Apple just doesn’t care. It has a monopoly on this category (iPods). And therefore, it knows that these frustrations will not repel the masses from continually buying the next greatest versions when they come out. Others write about the more reasonable business rationale that Apple really doesn’t want its library content to be shared among family and friends (or it will lose money on sales). That’s why it is extremely difficult for families to successfully load more than one account on any given computer.

My guess is that the latter viewpoint is more realistic. But, either way it stinks.  Companies that sell products/technology which aren’t consumer friendly lose market share quickly when true competition begins to heat up in their industry. 2011 should be the year that Apple faces just this. Let’s see what happens…

What’s in store for the future of communications?

As part of our on-going recognition of Peppercom’s 15th anniversary, my business partner, Steve, and I recently had a lively and thought provoking conversation with three premiere corporate communications leaders:  Monica Teague, Senior Manager, PR, Brand Business Teams, Whirlpool, Tom Topinka, Public Relations Leader, Genworth and Amber Harris, Manager of Digital Communications for Discovery Communications. 

I posted the first part of the podcast last week, as we focused on the existing state of our industry and what undercurrents drive our business today.

I now want to share the second part of our conversation wherein we look ahead and discuss what challenges and developments will plot our course into the future.  I hope you will enjoy listening to the conclusion of our dialogue as we discuss the digital age’s world domination and shaping of the potential of global communications.

Click on the gray bar below, to listen, and as always, I would like to hear your comments- good, bad or indifferent.

15th_Year Anniversary Podcast-Part 2

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.

Calling all employers- stay away from Germany!

Ever since I've been in the business world, Germany has been one of the worst countries for companies to do business in.

The labor laws are so egregiously one sided (supporting employee interests) that one has to wonder how companies there actually survive. I remember a few years ago when we actually looked at the possibility of opening up an office there. After a week of being educated, the decision to stay out became the easiest call in Peppercom's 15 year history.

Some reasons include the fact that there seems to be more holidays for employees throughout the year then actual days they are supposed to go to work. Paternity leave laws are also absurd in this land of high performance cars and great beer. Don't get me wrong. I'm all for giving new mothers as much time off as they need. But, if memory serves, fathers are also guaranteed upwards of a year off at half pay as well. And, their job has to be held open upon returning to the workforce as well. Come on... give me a break. That is a real unnecessary hardship for businesses (especially small ones).

And now, this latest news that employers cannot leverage some social media tools like Facebook to learn more about potential employees throughout the hiring process, just takes the cake.

Yes, we all understand why German society is so focused on pro-employee (or consumer) rights. When a culture goes through an event as monumental as the Holocaust, one can understand how it needs to stay committed to being at the other end of the human rights/privacy spectrum. Germany has done just that by demonstrating to the world that its people will be treated with the utmost care concerning any and all privacy and human rights issues. But, it's now 65 years later. I wonder if some of these laws/regulations actually make sense any more.

The Facebook law also makes me think that the arm of the German government which made this decision simply isn't in-tune with the transparently digital world we live in today. This ruling greatly handicaps businesses that need to compete with the best international companies in fast moving and ultra challenging marketplace environments. As an employer, we try to leverage every tool available to understand (as best as possible) whether a candidate's skill set and personality would match well with our culture and the services we provide. If a candidate uses Facebook and/or other social networking sites to showcase an irresponsible (or worse) behavior, then that person has tipped a key hand about himself.

Understanding all of this, it doesn't really matter though. The other reality is that Facebook has obvious privacy controls which don't let just anyone see a person's profile or page unless permission is granted.  So, even with these tools, it just isn't all that easy to leverage them by HR folks in the hiring process.

The plain reality (though) is that we don't need democratic governments imposing new, stringent laws that reign in transparency. Protecting employees/consumers' rights is a good thing. The German government should think about how to do this the right way in a modern 21st century open information architecture world.

How do you measure PR success?

That’s a never ending question for my industry. Ask 100 executives and there is a chance that you might actually hear 100 different answers (well, maybe 75 would be closer to the truth).

I’ve found that too many professionals continue trying to isolate the public relations discipline (or the value it provides) from the rest of the communications/marketing mix. In this day and age, this makes little sense. I’ve also continued to watch with amazement how more often than not, the discipline (itself) is still only equated to “old time” media relations concepts…especially as it refers to measurement.

Like many others, I joined a few Linkedin industry group discussions a while back. Usually, there are too many topics covered to actually keep up on a regular basis. But, every once in a while a thread of a conversation or debate catches my eye. Here’s one professional’s take on the issue at hand How Do You Measure Your PR Success? . While he makes some valid points, I’ll refer back to the problems I just laid out to respectfully disagree with many of Drew’s assertions. 

For starters, I disagree with his theory that PR campaigns cannot be measured based on sales achieved or rate or return. I’m paraphrasing, but Drew elaborates by stating that PR is a long term investment that can increase awareness of a product/service/expertise. But, that doesn’t mean skyrocketing sales will be the result.

There’s no doubt that PR professionals need to be careful when over promising that any individual campaign/program will lead directly to sales. This is especially the case if the product/service being marketed is not really unique, or the market is already saturated with competitive look a likes, or if the company behind it has almost no visibility (which means a lack of credibility with target audiences). That said, I’ve witnessed many recent campaigns leverage the integration of very creative social media, traditional media and experiential disciplines to generate real, honest to goodness sales.

One great example from a few years back is Crocs- children’s rubber shoes that have became a huge phenomena. I remember when the company made a tremendous outreach to mommy bloggers and national media years ago. If memory serves, the specialists behind Crocs created some type of online contest to draw moms in…and it worked! At that early point in the company’s growth, it spent very little on advertising. So, public relations really helped to directly impact the bottom line, as well as create a longer term, trusted reputation with moms everywhere.

While it’s often hard to separate where public relations and other marketing disciplines begin and end these days (because of the Internet), my point rests on the fact that the digital world has created real sales opportunities for companies that leverage PR the right way, where they never existed before.

Drew also tries to provide clarity on the difference between the value of an ad and an editorial article. I agree with his premise that an article tends to be more credible, but I’m not really sure how he came to the scientific number that it’s worth 3 to 10 times more than an ad Regardless, I think this debate should be put to rest for ever. Because it simply isn’t relevant anymore.

Today, communications disciplines (and what their end products create) matter much less than making sure that target consumers are communicated with when they want and how they want it. Again, the Internet creates a real blur between disciplines and the channels we use. The value of an article versus and ad isn’t relevant anymore. Now, we should only care about how a client’s messages might resonate. If that means combining a steady blogging campaign, with hard hitting in-market events, where target media might then write about your product (because they saw it talked about in blogs and through online media buys), so be it.

The latest buzz phrases in our industry are “channel and discipline agnostic.” The premise is spot on. We need to worry less about defending public relations against advertising because we’re all treading on each other’s turf now anyways. The article, by itself, is dead (as is the ad). Reaching the consumer through messages that are indeed in motion are what matter now.   

Can social media bring divided factions together?

Anyone who’s ever worked inside a large company understands that corporate politics and turf battles are almost always a reality of day-to-day business. From our consultant viewpoint, we’ve pretty much seen all of the ways companies get stuck in their own inertia. One run-of-the-mill infrastructure issue we often see involves functional departments competing over budget sizes and resource allocations. And, within departments, managers often jockey for control over specific projects/campaigns or groups of employees. In these cases, the end goal (whatever it might be) is typically sacrificed because of power battles.  My least favorite (though) is when great ideas (that have the ability to “move the needle”) are killed for no other reason than because of petty personal insecurities (i.e. it didn’t come from me, and I don’t want that guy to look good).

We were discussing many of these issues last week during a day-long workshop that Peppercom co-led with CableFax, the cable industry trade publication, and Access Intelligence (its parent company). The workshop focused on how cable and media companies can learn to leverage social media more effectively within their current internal and external communications/marketing efforts. No surprises really came from this group. In many cases, even the largest companies are just dipping their toes into the digital water right now. Others haven’t created a social media strategy due to lack of resources, expertise or because their organization is still figuring out where this new functional discipline should be housed internally.

We also had two excellent guest speakers, a research team from MTV Networks who discussed how their organization is using social media research to serve its many properties (i.e. MTV, VH1, Nickelodeon, etc.) from a content and marketing standpoint. What I found most interesting, though, is how they’ve leveraged social media to unite so many different business functions within the organization. In their experience, this still misunderstood medium can bring many factions within a company together for the first time. And that’s exciting.

How is this possible? Well, after applying some logical analysis, it makes sense. What we heard is that most companies (at least in the cable and media industries) have not yet created one social media function or division within the organizational chart that runs across the company. Instead, various resources are often siphoned from different departments within the organization to take the lead on figuring out social media. These people are then deemed “social media experts.”  I’m sure that outside specialists are also brought in to show the way in many cases as well. But the point for MTV Networks is that, because its many business lines, brands and marketing areas are all intently trying to learn how to apply social media to their communications/marketing/audience engagement efforts, these factions find themselves opening up, integrating and simply working better with each other to learn and leverage best practices. More specifically, our guests discussed how social media research serves to play this unifying role (i.e. everyone wants it to make better decisions about specific campaigns/projects that should be created or not based on this first-time research).

In essence, because social media is so new and still somewhat mysterious (at least to its ultimate effect), it can actually serve to change the unwritten political rules that govern how internal behavior works within large organizations. Of course, this was but one example from one workshop. But, the possibilities are still pretty exciting.

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.