All posts tagged opinion

Hand holding Apple TV

My iTV Prediction

By on February 10, 2012 in Apple, Hardware, iOS, Opinion with No Comments

I was asked recently about whether I think Apple will in fact release a TV.

Yes, I do.  That’s not really “news” though – just about every industry analyst thinks that Apple will release an actual HD TV.

But I’m going to go out on a limb here and prognosticate on a key feature of the device.  I’ve been thinking/saying this for several months now, but I’m going to put a stake in the ground here, for fun, to see if it holds up (or not) before I hear anyone else say what I’m about to say.  And by the way — I’m not claiming that nobody has said what I’m about to say, just that I have not heard it yet…

Ok, what is “it”?

I believe that Apple is going to release a consumer television, powered by Siri.

Steve Jobs made a statement that he felt that he found the missing piece that he needed to make a TV under the Apple brand.   It was a cryptic statement, and could mean many things.  Personally, I believe Siri is the missing piece.  In my opinion, the iPhone 4S was a proving ground for Siri. Notice that Siri is still referred to as a “beta.”  They’re working out the kinks.

Think about it:  Apple has all of the pieces.  They make flat screen displays.  They have iOS.  They have AppleTV working.  They have AirPlay and all the technology to make all of the devices in the house interoperable over WiFi.  They have iCloud and iTunes for content.

And now they have Siri.

I think Siri is the “missing link.”  And the magic!  I mean, they could have made a TV before.  They make flatscreens, and the AppleTV device has been out on the market for years. But it’s awkward and unwieldy to really control apps with the little TV remote.  When Netflix forgets my username and password, I cringe at having to hunt and peck it out again with the remote.  And besides, we have that now — Samsung and the other manufacturers already have apps integrated into their flat screen HD TVs.  A Samsung “Smart TV” is basically an HD TV with the equivalent of AppleTV (or Roku or whatnot) built-in.  That’s not revolutionary, it’s evolutionary.

Steve Jobs’ style was to transform industries, not just release yet another “me too” gadget.

And quite honestly, trying to control apps from a TV remote is a hassle and the average consumer does NOT want a keyboard to run their TV.  We’ve had that for years already, and they’re duds.

But imagine just TALKING to it!    “Turn to channel 10″ or “show CSI Miami”, and BAM!  It does it!

Now that is killer!

And, I think it’s going to be @?!*#$%! huge.

Not because I’m an “Apple fan boy.”  Because it just is.  Think about it.

classic cherry chapstick

How Chapstick Blew It, And Paid A Price

By on November 9, 2011 in Facebook, Marketing, News, Opinion, Social Media with No Comments

Chapstick evidently didnt “get it,” and they’ve paid a huge price while taking a big hit to their brand.  But the story serves as a great reminder for all business folks, albeit at Chapstick’s expense.

It all began when they started running an ill-conceived ad of an attractive woman losing her Chapstick behind the couch. The print ad was essentially a huge shot of her bent-over, skinny-jean-clad backend.

Regardless of whether you think the ad crossed beyond the line of good taste, or couldn’t care less one way or the other, the undeniable fact is that it caused a (negative) stir and consumers started saying so, posting negative feedback comments on the Chapstick Facebook fan page.

In this case it went viral in the worst sense — like its real world brethren, a contagion of negativity and dissent.

What happened next was downright shocking to anyone who works in social media: the folks at Chapstick started deleting the negative comments!

Presumably the folks managing the Facebook presence of a national mega-brand ought to know better!  This breaks one of the cardinal rules of social media. It’s like censoring a newspaper and removing any articles critical of the government or a certain person or business, for example.

Social media is supposed to be about engaging your audience and interacting with them. This would have been a non-issue (and non-story) if they had merely responded to the negative posts with empathy and a promise to rethink their approach.

A simple “gee, we’re sorry you were offended. We certainly didn’t mean that. We were just trying to be funny. We’ll pass along your comments and see if the creative team can rethink their approach” would have not just quelled the negativity, but in fact would have been a major “win” for the brand. The folks at Chapstick would have demonstrated that they listen to their customers, and are responsive and approachable.

That sort of approach would have been exactly what social media is all about — interacting and engaging your audience and being responsive.

Instead, by trying to cover up the problem by deleting the negative posts, they just inflamed the community. Now even the people who didn’t care about the original ad were taking up arms.  It wasn’t the ad that was the issue, it was the handling of the issue — the censoring of comments.

The story grew legs, so to speak. Facebook postings went thru the roof.  The Twitterverse went viral with the story. And even worse for Chapstick — it crossed over into the mainstream media!  It’s been a PR disaster.

Like Watergate, it was the cover-up that inflamed a citizenry.

Lest any reader get the wrong idea here, the takeaway from this is not to stay out of social media — do that at your own peril.  As I always say: the conversation is going to go on with or without you. If you don’t participate then you have no hope of ever steering it or, in times of trouble, “setting the story straight.”

No, rather the issue here is how one handles its presence.

C’mon people, it’s not that hard. It’s like you were taught as a kid — honesty is always the best policy. If a bad situation arises, tackle it open and honestly, head on. Your customers will appreciate you for it.

That is the takeaway from this debacle.

netflix-logo

NetFlix Pricing Gaffe Followed Up With… Another Gaffe?

By on September 19, 2011 in Branding, Business, Marketing, News, Opinion with No Comments

It’s not the first time I’ve said this, but I just did NOT see this one coming!

Today NetFlix announced that their much-discussed and much-embattled price hikes were actually just the precursor to splitting out the DVD and Internet Streaming services as essentially two different companies with two different CEOs and separate respective teams running/focusing on each. The original NetFlix business will be rebranded “Qwickster” and the Internet Streaming service will retain the NetFlix brand.

Within the coming weeks, the two services will further split physically. Each brand will have its own dedicated web site and once and for all split apart the online features and functionality. The two services will no longer interact and work as one. You will no longer be able to log in and view your Instant Queue and your DVD Queue side by side.

Although Netflix is nowhere near the size of Coca Cola, for some reason this strikes me as a gaffe nearly on scale with Coca Cola’s changing of its formula in the 80′s. However, Coca Cola was able to issue a mea culpa and merely re-introduce original Coke as “Coca Cola Classic” side by side with “New Coke” and keep trucking — it was merely a product offering change. In this case, Netflix is changing it’s entire business operation and dealing a major blow to its brand. I doubt recovery will be so easy if it turns out to be a misstep.

And in my eyes, this is a massive misstep, to say the least. In one fell swoop they have just gutted the brand that they’ve spent years and millions (hundreds of millions?) to build. Not only that — they’ve done it at a time when that very brand is already battered and bruised from the massive upheaval caused by the pricing changes. After nearly a decade entrenching NetFlix as the leading player in DVD rentals, the company is now starting all over with $0 in brand equity in Qwickster. Aside from the fact that it’s a stupid, meaningless, forgetful name, in my opinion.

Add in the fact that NetFlix lost its rights to Starz content for the Internet streaming service as of February 2012, which is the source of the bulk of its most valuable new releases and top-line Hollywood titles.

In my opinion, Netflix has gone from an Internet darling to a slow motion train-wreck-in-progress in a matter of months. Can it be saved? Is it too little, too late? Are there any more surprises forthcoming?

I think they have completely destroyed hundreds of millions of dollars in brand equity, and disenfranchised millions of customers. I expect this latest announcement to be received about as well as the last one (the pricing changes) and I smell the death of the DVD business. I think it’s all over but the crying.

The chinks in the armor have been revealed, and it won’t be long before Blockbuster (which has been purchased by DISH Network and is being reincarnated to once again go after the Netflix mailorder DVD business) and Internet streaming companies such as Hulu jump on the bandwagon and start capturing market share from the once invincible Netflix.

As I’ve said, it’s just my opinion. But I see these moves as major brand gaffes.

Now Netflix is wounded. And it’s self-inflicted.

UPDATE: This blog entry was written as the news was unfolding. In hindsight, a month or so later, we now know that NetFlix has doubled-back on its plans, scrapping Qwikster entirely, and said: “Mea culpa! Don’t worry folks, we’ve listened and changed our minds — things will stay as they were.” As a customer, I’m thrilled. And as a pundit, I’m smiling… ;-)

401consulting_URL_QRCode

QR Codes – A Fad? I Think So…

By on June 8, 2011 in Marketing, Opinion, Social Media with No Comments

“So what do you think about QR Codes?”

Someone asked me this question recently.  My answer: “Not much.”

In case you didn’t know (and I wouldn’t be surprised — most consumers are NOT familiar with them), they’re the square little matrix barcodes you see in magazine ads these days, such as the example graphic accompanying this post (this hyperlink links back to this article online, in case you’re reading this in a news feed that doesn’t show the accompanying graphics).  Where as traditional barcodes (such as UPC codes you see on all of your grocery product packaging) are 1-dimensional (side to side), QR Codes are a 2D square matrix that packs more data into a smaller area.

I will be the first to admit that I’m a techie gadget lover.  And not just hardware gadgets, but I love software and web apps and all manner of cool techie toys.  I’m definitely an “early adopter” checking out the best and latest tools to use in my business as well as personally.  But I really don’t “get” QR Codes.   I think it’s a fad.  I could be wrong, and I’m not trumpeting this from the rooftops with any kind of missionary zeal.  Just saying…

It’s entirely possible that we’re just still in its infancy, on the leading edge of the new wave.  But somehow I don’t think so – I think it’s as mainstream as it’s going to get.  And that’s not very…   Sure, you see them in everything from People Magazine to coupon mailers, but taking a quick poll around my family friends, end consumers for the most part have no idea what they are.

The only people who love them and are using them are marketers.  I don’t know the last time I heard someone say “I saw this great ad and scanned the QR Code!”  In fact, there hasn’t been a first time either.

So *why* am I so pessimistic on QR Codes?

I can understand the benefits of a 2D code to pack more data and meaning into a “barcode”. More data density.  Sure.  I can see them useful in behind-the-scenes business applications, for inventory management or recording SKU details and more.  Similar to RFID tags and UPC symbols that are very useful for business applications.  UPC symbols (traditional 1 dimensional barcodes) are hugely helpful for inventory management at retail, but the average user doesn’t own a UPC scanner or really interact with them directly very much.  It’s more of an internal thing for retail stores to scan at the register for price lookups and recording sales & inventory transactions, or for scanning inventory asset tags, and so forth.  But end consumers don’t walk around with UPC scanners.

Similarly, QR Codes require a scanner, most commonly in the form of a smartphone app that uses a camera to capture the image for processing and interpretation.  Then the app launches a web browser to pull up the appropriate URL.

But  let’s break this down.  While cell phone penetration is high (over 90%), not everyone has a cell phone.  Of those that do, only about 1/3rd of the U.S. cell phone customers have a smartphone capable of handling QR Codes.  This is about 20% – 25% of the total target audience of, say, a magazine (i.e. including people who don’t even have a cell phone to begin with).  What percentage of those use apps and actually have a QR Code reader on their smart phone? I don’t have an actual statistic to back this up, but anecdotally I’d have to say it runs about 2%.

So why are we wasting valuable space, cluttering up an ad with a QR code that is only accessibly by 2% of the target audience, just to encode a URL?  Print the darned thing right there in the ad and you reach 100% of your target audience!   And “…because it can encode lengthy, complex URLs” is not an answer: that’s what friendly URLs (and URL re-writing) are for. Problem solved.

QR Codes in consumer marketing (B-To-C) seems like just a fad.  We do it because it’s cool and we look all modern and hip and stuff.   But in reality, it just creates more ‘friction’ in the marketing process in my opinion.

To encode more data into a driver’s license, or plane tickets and other such behind-the-scenes business uses? Sure.  But for consumer marketing purposes, I just don’t see the need.  At 401 Consulting, we *can* generate QR Codes (see the one attached to this article), and we will include them in the print media we design for our clients if it’s a requirement for the project.  But in my personal opinion, I just don’t see the value.

Quite honestly, the only people I see excited about (and using) QR Codes are marketers.

 

 

microsoft-logo

Why Microsoft is Doomed to Fail

By on May 10, 2011 in Business, Microsoft, Opinion with 1 Comment

You’ve probably seen the announcement by now:  Microsoft is buying Skype.

I like Skype.  A lot.  I’m depressed.

My initial thought was:  how long before Microsoft runs it into the ground?  Microsoft has been all over the road.  Ray Ozzie, their supposed visionary, has left the building.  They’re increasingly being seen as an dinosaur.  The large, nimble giant is now a lumbering, aimlessly wandering giant.  And Steve Ballmer’s answer?  Bury your head in the sand, and just keep pounding the same Windows beat…

I was pondering all of this after hearing the Skype news and had a revelation.

I used to be a big Microsoft fan.  I made my living for 25 years by developing Windows software.  I hated Macs and wished they would just go away already.  Today I work on OSX exclusively and wouldn’t use a Windows machine if it were GIVEN to me.   What changed?  What happened?   I think I know.  And it’s a huge, fundamental problem.  I have not seen anyone pick up on this yet — this is entirely my opinion, right or wrong.  Here goes:

They reached their goal, and have no clear vision anymore!

That’s it.  That’s the problem:  they’re done.

Allow me to explain.

Since the earliest days of Microsoft, when they were just a handful of guys teetering on the verge of bankruptcy in dusty New Mexico, they had a vision.  A vision driven by their Founder, Bill Gates:   A computer on every desktop, running Microsoft software.

That was their mantra.  And they worked towards global domination.

But a funny thing happened:  they achieved it!    Now what?  There’s no “new” vision.  Now all they’re doing is trying to hang on.  Maintain marketshare.  Maintain earnings.  Please Wall Street.

If you stop and look at the “movers and shakers”, they are all on a mission to accomplish something.   Facebook wants to connect everyone in the world and create the social web.  Google is out to make it easier for individuals to find stuff.  And so forth.

So Microsoft is out chasing Google.  What’s Google doing?  They’re trying to help people find stuff faster, easier.  Why did they buy YouTube?  Because it’s one of the largest search engines on the planet outside of Google.  People searching for videos.   Why did they launch Google Maps?  To help people find places.  Why are they getting into mobile?  To help people find stuff faster and easier on the go.  And so forth.

Microsoft really does not have a clear vision or raison d’etre anymore, and they can only hold on to marketshare for so long, fending off the wolves.  They have massive cash reserves (that are about $8 billion lighter now), so they can wait it out a while yet. And they do have some cash cows still.  But their heyday has long since passed.   Mark my words.  It’s all downhill from here.

← Older Entries