Strategy

Strategy / Technology — 5 Comments
14
Jun 10

Dell exposes itself in public

In case anyone missed the news, Dell is entering the tablet market — sort of — with a mini-5-inch touchscreen device called the Streak.

The name is actually perfect. Just as “streakers” used to run through public places stark naked, the Streak does a darn good job of exposing the real Dell: a company that wishes it could innovate, but lacks a few essential ingredients.

Let’s back up a bit to fully appreciate this one. We’ve got phones and we’ve got laptops. Apple just shook things up by putting a brand new product — iPad — in that space between a phone and laptop.

Now Dell comes along and puts the Streak in some imagined space between a phone and an iPad. Might they next put a product between a phone and the Streak? With a little luck, this could go on forever.

The Streak is too big to be a good phone and too small to be a good tablet. It is truly the Dell version of innovation — a faint echo of someone else’s good idea.

Dell’s problem is that they’re not an innovator, they’re a money-making machine. And unfortunately, they’re a money-making machine that doesn’t make any money. The revolution they created — the direct sales model — has long since been bettered by others. With an almost invisible profit margin, they can only make money when they sell products by the zillion. And that’s not so easy these days.

“If only we could be seen as an innovator,” Dell thinks, “then people would be willing to pay more for our products.” Bingo. That’s Apple’s not-so-secret secret. But wishing you could be an innovator doesn’t make you one. Dell has been wishing for a few years now, and all we get are wild colors for our laptops, me-too smart phones and a super-thin computer that costs too much and impresses too little.

What Dell really needs is a product that will stand out from their current product line. By all appearances, the Streak is going to fit right in.

Bookmark and Share
Apple News / Strategy / Technology — 5 Comments
3
Jun 10

Steve @ D8: even better than email

You know, it was really good to see Steve Jobs take questions at D8 on Tuesday. Not because he elaborated on interesting topics (which he did) — more because he did a pretty good job of being human.

It’s one thing to see glimpses of the real Steve in his responses to customers’ emails (and the simple fact that he answers emails at all). But this was far more revealing: an informal conversation with a guy most people know only from what others write about him.

Watching these videos won’t make you Steve’s best buddy. However, his off-the-cuff remarks will definitely give you a greater appreciation for what makes him tick.

A few of my own reactions to his remarks:

The thrill factor. I felt all warm and fuzzy when Steve mentioned how thrilled he was to receive an email from some guy in the UK who’d just bought an iPad and thinks it’s the coolest thing he ever brought home. This is the real Steve. He loves knowing that people love his products. Ask Michael Dell what gives him the biggest thrill.

Apple values. Steve took care to point out that Apple’s values haven’t changed over the years. I know this is true, and I know this is what makes Apple’s success different. They are not easily sidetracked, and they don’t know how to compromise. They will actually spend more to get something right. You probably know how rare this is.

The lost prototype. When the iPhone prototype went missing, Steve said he had received advice from people he trusts to the effect of “let it slide.” After careful thought, he decided he couldn’t let it slide. He’d rather quit. This is compatible with the preceding point about Apple’s values. When you let one thing slide, there will always be another and another — and pretty soon you’re making “okay” products instead of great ones. Thank you, Steve, for having conviction.

The publishing revolution. Talking about iPad’s potential impact on publishing, Steve says he doesn’t want to see us “descend into a nation of bloggers,” that the world needs great editorial. Hear, hear. Not to trash my blogging brothers, but honestly — man cannot live on blogs alone. (Whoops, two male references in a single sentence.) Editorial is hugely important.

Retiring the PC. I agree 100% with Steve’s assessment of the future for iPads and PCs (meaning non-Macs and Macs). As iPads and other devices mature, the need for PCs will fade. Those with vested interests in PCs will indeed become “uneasy” with this, and that’s putting it nicely. No doubt Apple and Steve will be attacked mercilessly for pushing things ahead — and no doubt they will be proven right in the end.

The We factor. Okay, I do have one bone to pick. Talking about how the tablet idea actually came before the iPhone, Steve broke the cardinal rule of teamwork: “Always say we, never say I.” He took an awful lot of credit there with comments like “I saw this,” “I thought that” and “then I decided” leading up to these decisions. I’m sure he’s technically correct — but in the past he has gone out of his way to be we-oriented. Watch it, Steve.

Products as “packages.” Everyone needs to appreciate what Steve said about product design. With every new product, Apple has to pick and choose which technology to include. Going with the cheapest or most popular is a very Dell-like thing to do. Apple instead seeks out the technologies that have the most life ahead of them — and Flash didn’t make the cut. Abandoning Flash surely wasn’t an easy decision. But then losing the floppy drive wasn’t either.

Let the customers decide. As Steve points out, it’s up to the customers to decide if Apple has put together the right package of technologies. If they don’t like it, they won’t buy it, and then Apple would have to rethink its decisions. If it sells like hotcakes, then they must have gotten it right. I think this is the only real answer to the critics who feel varying degrees of outrage over Flash, App Store approvals or whatever. If Apple has made some gruesome mistake, they’re going to pay for it. Chances of that happening: slim.

Good seeing you, Steve. Let’s do it again soon.

Bookmark and Share
Strategy — 3 Comments
1
Jun 10

Evil’s new career in marketing

From the I/O fest — Google tries to out-1984 Apple

Evil never had to look too hard to find work. It did just fine hanging out with dictators and oil companies.

Still, it never hurts to pick up some extra cash. So, as you probably noticed, Evil recently entered the marketing biz.

It showed up at Google’s recent I/O conference, playing the part of Apple. It was a juicy role, exposing Apple’s plot to suck the last bits of independent thought from our brains. Evil represented Apple’s tightly controlled mobile platform vs. Google’s wide-open Android platform.

But clearly Evil is not signing exclusive contracts these days. Just weeks before, it grabbed the lead role in Adobe’s new “We (heart) Apple” campaign. Adobe, like Google, has issues with Apple’s unbridled lust for power, and needed Evil to cast Apple in the proper light.

It’s ironic that Evil is working against Apple these days, considering Apple actually gave Evil its start in advertising 26 years ago. Evil proudly stood up and played the part of Big Brother, a surrogate for big bad IBM, in the famous 1984 launch commercial for Macintosh. Apple and Evil were all buddy-buddy in those days, so in a way it’s sad to see Evil turning on its old friend like this. But hey, if there’s one thing you can’t do with Evil, it’s trust.

I’m not normally big on conspiracy theories, but part of me wonders if Google has signed Evil to this deal just to protect itself. After being attacked for invading privacy with Google Buzz and being investigated for monopolistic practices in Europe, Evil was already giving Google that knowing wink. Creating a new partnership to go after Apple might just be the protection Google needs.

I can’t help feeling that Evil is secretly scratching its scaly head over this whole situation, and is probably just “doing it for the money.” After all, the fact that Apple and Android have different philosophies is what gives people true freedom of choice. Slamming Apple for not being like Android is pretty pointless.

Kudos to Evil for reinventing itself, but I’m not sure where it will go from here. There’s always Microsoft, I suppose. But they may be too like-minded for it to work…

Bookmark and Share
Strategy / Technology — 4 Comments
19
May 10

Adobe’s theater of the absurd

Companies do show their character when they enter into combat as Adobe and Apple have done. In theory, high-stakes pressure brings out the best in both sides.

Just a theory, mind you.

Apple gave us a straightforward open letter. Adobe rants about defending freedom, trots out the founders and even summons the ghost of Flash past.

On their truth about Flash page, Adobe “sets the record straight” and “clears up the misconceptions” — starting with this:

Touch. The Adobe Flash Player runtime was actually originally created as a technology for tablets with touch interfaces, and today, it has support for working on touch-based devices.

Wow. Shocker. Didn’t know that. Eager to learn more about Flash’s touch-DNA, I clicked read more, which whisked me to the personal, non-Adobe blog of Flash product manager Mike Chambers. Mike addresses the Top Flash Misconceptions, his first being that Flash doesn’t work on touch screens. “Ironic,” he says, because “Flash was originally created specifically for tablets with touch inputs.”

Yes. So I’ve heard. But again, there’s no further info, so I click yet another link to go deeper. Now I’m at Adobe’s official The History of Flash. However, I’m dumped in the middle of a story that obviously started elsewhere, where the writer speaks in first person but is never identified. Summoning my formidable detective skills, I check the address bar and see the name John Gay, a pioneer of Flash.

He’s talking about his work in pen computing, which had its origins in 1993, and how Macromedia’s Flash still contained much of the code that was written for pen computers. Okay. Thanks for sharing.

It’s interesting that Adobe opens its argument with the flourish that Flash was originally created for touch-based tablets — when the connection is so tenuous and so totally irrelevant to the issues today. Compare this again to the way Apple has presented its argument against Flash. Crisp and to the point.

After following these convoluted links, I’m actually more amazed with Flash than I was before. I was under the impression this technology had only been failing with touch devices for about three years. Turns out it’s more like 17.

Bookmark and Share
Strategy / Technology — 7 Comments
13
May 10

Microsoft: creating an alternate reality

I suppose it makes sense. If your current reality seems sufficiently gloomy, why not just create a new one?

Microsoft did.

With Windows Phone 7 delayed till next year, competitors leaving them in the dust, and no one exactly clamoring for Microsoft to save the day — they decided to invent their own market.

Not only did Microsoft imagine their own group of hungry consumers, they invented a phone to sell to them. Two phones, actually. These are the new Kin One and Kin Two that I blogged about a while back — phones designed especially for the “social generation.”

Now comes a study that takes a long, detailed look at the social habits of teens. Its message to Microsoft: better get cracking on Kin Three.

Two of the survey’s key findings don’t bode well for a Kin landslide. Or even a Kin trickle, for that matter. Text messaging, at 72%, is by far the #1 way for teens to connect. It is also the #1 missing feature on both Kins.

46% play games, which are also nonexistent on the Kins. No apps either. What Kin offers is a camera and connections to three social networking sites chosen by Microsoft. Even then, it only connects to the Internet every 15 minutes.

In my own survey of random respondents in this dimension, I find that people might be interested in a less-featured smartphone if it were priced way below the others. However, indications are that the Kins will sell for near the price of a $99 iPhone and require a normal data plan.

So the social generation will likely have to choose between a phone that truly does what they do (and is infinitely expandable with apps), and a Kin that does little of what they do. How agonizing a decision that will be.

In an alternate universe somewhere, I’m sure they’ll be lining up around the block to buy a Kin. Microsoft should take solace in that — and leave this reality to those who know how to innovate.

Bookmark and Share
Creative / Strategy — 7 Comments
10
May 10

Thinking about AT&T’s rethinking

AT&T, the one sour note in iPhone’s symphony, has been running a new brand campaign called Rethink Possible for about month now (via agency BBDO). Of course, this is much bigger than AT&T Mobile. This is about AT&T revamping their overall image across the spectrum of things they do: mobile, phone, Internet and TV.

When I look at marketing from companies like AT&T, I have two questions. Is it creative? And will it do them any good?

My cheery weekend spirit requires me to start with the positive: Damn, I love this campaign launch commercial. We see dozens of new animation techniques every year, but this one is so beautifully simple and mesmerizing, I never get tired of it — which is fortunate, because I seem to see it everywhere.

I’ve honestly never liked the Pure Imagination song from Willie Wonka, as I’ve seen it used before and it’s always felt corny and lame. Here it feels like genius. Layering such an innocent song over this combination of live action and animation works really well. And then the one line of copy at the end of the spot is near perfect. (I can only say “near” because I was trained long ago that perfection, like the speed of light, is unattainable.)

Go to the AT&T Rethink Possible website and you’re greeted by animated text, again well written. There you can view the other commercials in this campaign, which, especially when viewed in sequence, start feeling like typical, slick, big-agency BBDO-style commercials. Unlike the launch spot, the humanity in these spots is more expected and sappier.

Happily, with this campaign AT&T seems to be putting the bad memory of Luke Wilson and all that juvenile back-and-forth with Verizon out to pasture. Kudos for that.

It’s when you start thinking about the reality of AT&T’s situation that things get significantly less happy. What about this strategy? How believable is it to cast AT&T as the company that can really “rethink possible”?

AT&T certainly has the right to revamp its image. You can’t expect them to tie themselves to a post and accept 40 lashes. (Well, maybe it wouldn’t hurt to ask.) But I don’t imagine a lot of viewers will be leaping from their chairs eager to follow AT&T down the golden path. The company is held responsible for a a great many telco evils, iPhone’s network performance being only one.

If AT&T sees itself as the innovation leader, most will see that for what it is: pure imagination. Having read their entire site, I don’t see a single thing I’m not already getting from Verizon.

Basically, AT&T is a monolith doing what monoliths do. They’re trying to convince us they’re innovative by telling us they’re innovative — when they should instead be demonstrating it with fresh ideas and products.

This campaign changes nothing. Rethink possible is a great employee motivation campaign and T-shirt. To the outside world, it’s just a lot of fluff. But I have to admit — in the launch commercial, it’s truly first-class fluff.

Bookmark and Share
Strategy / Technology — 3 Comments
19
Apr 10

Sony shoots its brand in the foot

I wouldn’t exactly call myself a Sony Vaio enthusiast. However, I do have a general sense of the Vaio brand. Right or wrong, my perception is that Vaio represents much of what’s good in the PC world — solid PCs with a sense of style.

This, of course, is the power of a brand. A good one gives even outsiders like myself a sense of its positives. That’s a very valuable thing.

But last week the Vaio brand was suddenly attacked — by none other than Sony itself.

The company has announced that it’s going to split the Vaio laptop line into Division One and Division Two. (Maybe Sony was that impressed with Microsoft’s Kin One and Kin Two?) Laptops from Division One will be designed and built by Sony. Laptops from Division Two will be designed and built by other manufacturers.

Say again?

Not to worry, says the deputy president of the Vaio business group. The design of those non-Sony Vaios will still be approved by Sony. Therefore, they will have “a taste of Vaio” and “the style of Vaio.” This structure will allow Sony to perfect its new technology in Division One, then pass the know-how over to Division Two.

As it was explained, this dual-division approach is more efficient than creating a new brand, and less of an investment. It is for the sake of the customer that Sony is “enhancing the identity of Vaio more and more.”

Ah, I get it. Sony will be enhancing the identity of Vaio by renting out the name to other manufacturers, and by putting the Vaio logo on machines they don’t even build. Clever.

Not that Sony has demonstrated tremendous branding brains in recent years, but this move seems to defy logic. If the company is that determined to create a tier of lower-cost Vaios, you’d think they’d have the resources to simply build it themselves.

It’s pretty basic: if Vaio represents Sony’s PC goodness, it can’t simultaneously represent a handful of other manufacturers as well. This is a move made by efficiency experts, not marketing experts.

Bookmark and Share
Strategy / Technology — 8 Comments
16
Apr 10

Microsoft unveils Thing One and Thing Two

Microsoft President of Entertainment and Devices Robbie Bach, holding his new pride and joy

Actually, it’s Kin One and Kin Two. I had my heart set on a “next of kin” joke, but I came up empty.

No matter, Microsoft has been throwing out plenty of straight lines this week with the Kin intro. These two phones are aimed at “the social generation” — further defined as the 15-30s who are “social networking enthusiasts.”

As such, the world of Kin is not a very grown-up place. It’s built with parts of Zune and the possibly soon-to-come Windows Phone 7. These phones are designed especially for the young ’uns — you know, with all that cool stuff the kids like to do.

They offer “the Zune experience,” except for one glaring omission: apps. So there will be no game-playing around these parts. Flash? Uh-uh. Kins are simply designed to be the perfect tool for social networking. Except for one other glaring omission: instant messaging.

But then that’s understandable, because they only connect to the Internet every 15 minutes. That interval is unchangeable (though you can force a manual connection). Hey, what’s a 15-minute delay between friends.

Watching the video demo, the interface does have some interesting features for its intended audience. And both models have pretty good cameras (although no photo or video editing). You can upload to any site that Microsoft chooses to enable — which currently does not include Twitter. Well, who uses Twitter, really.

To me, the two Kins just feel like a misread of the market. They don’t seem to be all that good at the one thing they’re supposed to do. More important, I question the need for a “kiddie” phone in the first place. The social networking crowd has plenty of great smartphones to lust after already, all of which provide a ton more capability. A Kin may be enough for a 15-year-old, maybe. For the 30-year-old, no way.

One thing these models will offer is an excess of logos. They’ll come wearing the badges of Windows Phone, Sharp and either Verizon & Vodaphone. I’m not sure if they’re all trying to take credit — or just spreading out the blame.

Bookmark and Share
Advertising / Creative / Strategy — 2 Comments
9
Apr 10

No campaign lives forever

There’s a sad story circulating about Apple’s Mac vs. PC campaign. In an interview, Justin I’m-a-Mac Long says he “thinks they might be done.”

Who knows how true that is. But just in case, let’s pause for a moment of appreciation. Apple has had some amazing single advertising moments, but as a complete campaign, this is the granddaddy of them all. It started in 2006 and Apple/Chiat has been churning them out ever since. The list of Mac vs. PC spots on Wikipedia was so long, I didn’t want to hurt myself counting.

Obviously it wasn’t about quantity. This campaign succeeded on multiple levels. In the past, Apple had often searched for the right way to slam Windows (anyone remember “the hard way vs. the easy way”?), but traction was tough to come by.

Mac and PC had exactly the right personalities. Although the deeply anti-Mac crowd sees Apple arrogance in every message, the characters were charmingly human. This campaign has allowed Apple to pummel their competition brutally, but do it with the sweetest smile.

It has also been supremely effective. It made the differences between Mac and PC part of our public conversation. That was the modest goal at the start, and it succeeded beyond Apple’s dreams.

Few campaigns can last four years without going terribly wrong, becoming completely irrelevant or just losing the public’s interest. Mac vs. PC remained fresh. When a new commercial comes out, it still gets talked about.

Readers of this blog know that I have criticized the iPhone campaign for its three-year run. Yet I’m sitting here lavishing love on a campaign that’s run even longer. What’s with that? Easy to explain. First, I’m a bad person. Second, this has to do with a campaign’s depth, not its longevity.

Mac vs. PC has continuously evolved in interesting ways — every commercial makes a different point. There’s tension. Costumes change, we see new props, guest characters, etc. Even with your TV muted, you can tell you’re seeing a new spot. The campaign also thrives in the digital world. The Mac vs. PC web banners are far more entertaining than the pages they live on, always finding ways to surprise us.

Contrast that with the iPhone commercials, which basically use the same template every time out. They’re pleasant, informative, very Apple — and they deserve to die.

That’s because “good enough” has never, ever been good enough for Apple. The company has no problem killing off a successful product to replace it with something better. That’s been its attitude about advertising as well.

The iPhone campaign totally works. Sales are through the roof. But there is a huge difference between “it works” and “holy cow.” Apple has never believed in coasting with its ads, it has always evolved in unexpected ways. It’s part of their DNA.

iPhone ads just don’t distinguish themselves anymore. It’s become difficult to tell one from the next. Considering the huge role iPhone has in Apple’s future plans, and the narrowing gap between iPhone and its competitors, it’s actually surprising that iPhone advertising remains so formulaic.

So a tip of the hat to Mac vs. PC and its creators at Chiat/Day. If the campaign really is soon to end, I hope they have one hell of a send-off party. Maybe this will give them added incentive to start casting for the “I’m an iPhone, I’m a Droid” campaign.

Bookmark and Share
Advertising / Strategy — 6 Comments
8
Apr 10

The under-hyping of iPad

iPad ad in Wednesday's NY Times (excuse the bleed-through from the page behind)

Many of our fellow humans were underwhelmed after the iPad launch in January. Overall, they thought it was just too over-hyped.

Personally, I thought iPad was a very big deal. My only lament was that the launch event didn’t feel like a very big deal. It just didn’t seem like we’d witnessed a major moment in history. This isn’t a technology thing, it’s a marketing thing.

Not the end of the world, I figured. Surely things would change once the advertising kicks in. Being one of the most important launches in the history of Apple, something very special must be just around the corner.

Instead, it seems like the over-hype is being followed by under-hype.

The commercial that ran on the Academy Awards was a variant of the iPhone ads we’ve been seeing for three years. And in yesterday’s NY Times, Apple ran a full-page ad for iPad: just one word over the image of someone using iPad to view a photo collection.

If there’s a revolution in here, it’s pretty well hidden.

Looking at this ad, I wondered where the other half was. Maybe there was supposed to be an opposite page, a grid of six iPads featuring one seductive app after another. Or maybe the headline fell off. That one witty Apple line that makes us smile as it captures the importance of the moment. Hell, where’s the word “magic” when we need it?

It strikes me as odd, because iPad already does amazing things, and it will only become more amazing with the inevitable flood of imaginative apps to come. It’s a story of almost unbelievable magnitude — being doled out by the spoonful.

Obviously, there is boldness in buying a large space and keeping it so minimalist. I’m a huge fan of elegance and clarity. I just want to see people raising their eyebrows, ripping out the page and tweeting “cool Apple ad!”

I’ll cross my fingers that this is the first of 20 such ads, and equivalent billboards will be springing up everywhere. But a lot of people (like yesterday’s NY Times readers) only see what’s in front of them. And I’m pretty sure this story is a bit bigger than a photo gallery.

[Update 4.8.10 5:50pm EDT] Okay, more iPad ad sightings are now coming in. Here we have posters for Mail, iBooks and Safari. I’m assuming many different apps will be featured in many locations, which will make the launch feel more like an event. The no-copy approach works well in posters — but I do miss the Apple wit.


Bookmark and Share
← Older Entries
Newer Entries →