Posts Tagged: ken segall

Advertising / Creative / Strategy — 5 Comments
9
Mar 10

Palm Pre: hanging on for dear life

This video was embedded using the YouTuber plugin by Roy Tanck. Adobe Flash Player is required to view the video.

It would be tough for Palm CEO Jon Rubenstein to have nightmares scarier than his everyday reality. Under-budgeted and under-technologied, he must do battle with iPhone, BlackBerry and the League of Android.

Yet the show must go on. So the ad agency is tasked with somehow stirring up interest for the Palm Pre Plus, making enough noise to give this little fella a fighting chance. What would you do? Rhetorical question. But I’m pretty sure it wouldn’t be the above.

This ad, creatively entitled Features, is exactly that: a fairly dry list of features. This wisp of an idea is actually more of prayer: maybe, possibly, if we list enough distinguishing features, people will start lining up to buy this thing.

Sorry Palm, it doesn’t work that way. First, if these really are your best features, you might as well hang it up right now. Signature styling? Smart notifications? Integrated calendar view? An app that turns your phone into a mobile hot spot? Oh. Well that last one’s actually pretty cool. But a single shiny thing is hardly going to steal your quarry from the clutches of iPhone or Android. Second, creativity is your friend. At least it should be. You just made a movie with an email-sized idea.

This spot is further proof of something that hardly needs more proving: most companies do not take risks at times of crisis — even if that might be their best chance for recovery. They operate on logic. They play it safe when, more than anything, they need to capture people’s imaginations. There is no imagination-capturing going on here. Spots like this are born of rooms filled with nervous people.

Only a creative idea can command attention and change perceptions. Or, I should say, a creative idea with a budget that lets you play with the big boys. The more Palm churns out harmless ads like this, the farther into the hole they sink.

Advertising / Creative / Strategy — 20 Comments
8
Mar 10

iPad commercial ships early

This video was embedded using the YouTuber plugin by Roy Tanck. Adobe Flash Player is required to view the video.

iPad may not be shipping for another three weeks, but the commercial made a sooner-than-expected debut on the Oscars last night. After the mixed reactions to the product itself, it was interesting to see how Apple plans to present iPad to the masses.

First reaction here: not exactly shocked.

A little background first. Most who don’t see the big deal in iPad criticize it for being “just a bigger iPhone.” My personal opinion is that iPad is going to be a very big deal — because it’s “just a bigger iPhone.” The iPhone OS, multitouch and the App Store are the key ingredients for revolution. iPad delivers what was missing: a bigger screen and better processor. By doing this, it will liberate developers, revitalize the publishing industry and, for a great many people, make everyday uses of a computer happier.

So back to the commercial. I find it interesting that iPad’s commercial is, well … a bigger version of an iPhone commercial.

It’s basically the same shtick, amped up. We get more screens, more content, more uses, more fingers, all set to the same kind of soundtrack. Instead of being cradled by Mr. Hand, iPad is nestled in Mr. Lap.

It happens fast, so you need to watch it a few times to get the full range of what iPad can do. The truly curious may do this, but for most the message is simple: iPad can do a whole lot of cool stuff. That may well be enough, since the buzz is what’s going to sell this thing in big numbers — as soon as the influencers start getting it in their hands.

As a believer, though, this spot leaves me with the same lament I had after the iPad launch. I love the product, but Apple’s telling of the tale doesn’t feel big enough yet. I was hoping this commercial would breathe some fire into it. Maybe that’s in the next one.

Don’t get me wrong, I still believe iPad is another revolutionary device, on the same level with iPod and iPhone. I still believe the critics will end up feeling a bit foolish. For the moment, though, this revolution remains fairly well disguised.

Creative / Naming / Observatory — 8 Comments
4
Mar 10

Vivaz arrives: beware, miscreants!

Sony-Ericsson is about to ship their newest entry into the smartphone market — a Symbian-based little fella.

Not sure about the phone yet, but clearly S-E senses a pending attack by the world’s copyright infringement community. That moniker is sporting as horsey a TM as I’ve ever seen in my life.

Hint to Sony: there’s no legal requirement that your TM be visible from across the room. And with a name like Vivaz … well, I think it’s safe to go on low-alert with this one.

Strategy — 10 Comments
3
Mar 10

Apple fires a shot over the bow

Apple to Android: may we have your attention please

They grow up so fast, don’t they?

It was just three years ago that Apple introduced iPhone. That was when, in one little aside, Steve Jobs gleefully noted that this new bundle of joy was patented out the wazoo.

Well, yesterday those patents got their first good workout. Apple filed a lawsuit against HTC claiming 20 violations. In doing so, Apple has stepped over an interesting line. That scrappy young revolutionary is now officially playing with the big boys — adding a little aggression to their arsenal of tricks.

I’m not saying this is a bad thing. In a global market worth countless billions, it’s bound to get a bit rough. Companies will try anything they can to gain an advantage or strip away the other guy’s advantage. Give them an inch, they’ll take a mile.

Obviously Apple believes they have a case against HTC. But just as obvious, there’s a far, far greater goal here. Apple wants the whole unruly gang of Androiders to think long and hard before they borrow/steal even a glimmer of the technology that sets iPhone apart. That includes hardware, software and philosophy. The message is: don’t even think about it.

Apple is demonstrating that they have the brains and brawn to fight in any arena, whether consumers be the judge or judges be the judge.

Yes, I do get a little wispy whenever another piece of the original, lovable Apple falls by the wayside. But the kid needs to grow up sometime, and it’s hard to be cute when you need to be intimidating.

Unlike some, I really don’t worry about Apple turning into the kind of company they’ve always fought against. Their moral compass remains one of the biggest reasons for their success.

Strategy / Technology — 5 Comments
26
Feb 10

Battle of the androids

Now now, Google - play nice

Back when Google launched its Nexus One phone, I thought it was odd that Google had chosen to compete with its own partners.

It’s interesting that after the Droid (the best Android phone) came the Nexus One (the best Android phone), and now, just announced at the Mobile World Congress, we have HTC’s Desire (the best Android phone). And yes, that’s the same HTC that builds Google’s Nexus One.

Of course on one level this is a silly thing to point out. After all, hundreds of PCs run Windows, and the fact is some PCs are better than others for a hundred different reasons. That’s called choice. The only difference is that Microsoft does not manufacture PCs. They don’t serve up the “best” version of the same product they’re asking their partners to make. That’s called evil.

Absolutely, competition is good. Customers benefit as the various Android-makers try to outdo each other with new reasons to buy their own devices. But for all of Google’s “partners,” there is something extremely unholy about competing with the guy who controls the OS your product depends on, and knows every new feature that’s on the drawing board.

It hurts a little to see Google move in this direction. We were all rooting for them for so long. The brainiest, coolest company out there. This is starting to feel like the end of the movie, when we find out that the least likely person in the room turns out to be the serial killer.

Naming / Strategy — 7 Comments
24
Feb 10

The case of the missing monikers

Do you know this thing?No one denies the power of brands. We silly humans are just happier buying from “the better brand.” That’s why companies like Archos struggle to get noticed in the shadow of stronger brands like HP. And a brand like Apple can more easily venture into new markets with such fanfare.

Some companies have sub-brands that are as just as powerful as the master brand. For example, iPod is as big a deal for customers as Apple. While Vostro is but a distant echo of Dell.

There are endless ways to build a brand or sub-brand. One old favorite is to stick the word right in your customer’s face. Put it on the product where people have to stare at it every day. Interesting to note, though, that some of the stronger sub-brands don’t even bother.

iMac is a good example. For all of Apple’s design elegance, this baby had long touted the super-sized “iMac” on its backside, big enough to be seen from a block away. Now it’s gone altogether. All we get is an Apple logo under the front bezel. Still fairly jumbo, but no iMac word. Yet no one overlooks the fact that Apple sells iMacs.

In fact, you don’t see a product name on any of Apple’s desktop computers, from Mac mini to Mac Pro. Just a logo. Is that because Apple is actively shifting us to think of Apple first, and the sub-brand second? Or simply because the sub-brand has become so powerful, it doesn’t need to be so flagrant anymore? Once you figure that out, you can start wondering why MacBook, iPod and iPhone are clearly labeled by both product name and Apple logo.

Obviously, the way you adorn your products reflects an overall strategy. It says something about how you wish your customers to think of you — but it also demonstrates how you think of your customers. If you respect them enough, you’ll treat them to a little simplicity.

Strategy / Technology — 10 Comments
17
Feb 10

Android: desperately seeking numbers

Quantity again stalks its old nemesis, quality

Hard to believe iPhone ever existed without apps, isn’t it? Especially since apps have become the biggest differentiator between Apple and its competitors. At last count, iPhone boasted about 150,000 apps to Android’s 20,000.

(Ironic that Apple should wield such a lopsided advantage here, since it was stuck on the pathetic side of the app equation in the early days of the PC wars.)

So what do you do if your mission in life is to get Android’s numbers closer to iPhone’s? Well, one quick fix is to simply lower your standards. Even better, you can nix your standards altogether.

Sensing opportunity when critics started attacking Apple for its flawed app approval process, Android simply did away with those pesky approvals. You develop ’em, they’ll sell ’em. Power to the people.

Once the giddiness subsides, however, reality sinks in. If you think Apple’s huge library of apps contains a few clunkers, wait till you see what qualifies for sale in the Android Market. Without a vetting process, they’re not just welcoming bad apps. They’re welcoming nasty apps. Even outright dangerous apps. But they sure are pumping up the numbers.

Maybe Apple isn’t so big-brotherly after all? Maybe there’s something to be said for that quaint idea of quality control — for letting customers buy with a degree of confidence.

The fact is, the App Store is not perfect. No one’s ever sold software on this scale before, and surely Apple will make some mistakes along the way. I do hope they invent ways to make the approvals process more fair — but I’m grateful they have an approvals process in the first place.

Strategy / Technology — 7 Comments
16
Feb 10

Ain’t so easy this time

This one may take a little work

Some people look at iPad and see the future. Others radiate less happy thoughts, ranging from “ho hum” to “major dud.”

Gee. Whatever happened to that air of inevitability, that “instant hit” thing that came along with iPod and iPhone?

Personally, I believe iPad will shake things up in a hundred different ways. But even those who agree with me can’t escape the feeling that something is different this time around. That avalanche of positive vibes didn’t quite materialize.

Two reasons for this:

For starters, iPad isn’t here yet. It’s a bit hard to judge this kind of technology by analyzing specs. Multiple multitouches are required.

Far more important: market conditions for iPad are strikingly different from those encountered by iPod and iPhone.

iPod actually sneaked in the back door. Music players were becoming popular, but the category was leaderless and uninspired. Apple swooped in with its irresistible combination of fun, cool and easy.

iPhone’s entrance was the antithesis of this. Thanks to iPod’s success, iPhone was hotly anticipated. This time the category was filled with heavyweights — but the natives were restless and anxious for something better. The competition awaited Apple’s entrance, then started copying their little hearts out. Droid, Storm, Pre, none of them would exist were it not for iPhone.

iPad faces entirely different circumstances. It was also hotly anticipated, but given the success of iPhone’s touch technology and the App Store, it wasn’t too hard to figure out where Apple was headed. A legion of competitors has met iPad with new ideas for netbooks, tablets and hybrids. The fact that some are in concept form is made less pitiful by the fact that iPad isn’t a real product yet either.

Google's take: looks cool, but still vaporous

HP has a neat idea, Google is previewing tablet concepts, the JooJoo tablet is making some waves, and Microsoft continues to taunt us with its Courier tablet.

Apple’s competitors are not uninspired — they’re duly inspired by Apple’s previous successes and motivated never to let such a nasty thing happen again. Though the odds are that it will — simply because Apple continues to enjoy its multi-part unfair advantage:

• Great design/superior software
• The world’s undying attention
• Far better marketing
• 150,000 apps
• A sea of developers chomping at the bit to get in on iPad’s ground floor

Looking forward to all of this becoming less theoretical in the coming months…

Naming / Strategy — 7 Comments
11
Feb 10

When good names go bad

Was this really necessary?

Congratulations to Comcast on taking the #1 position in Time’s “Top 10 Worst Corporate Name Changes.”

Unlike those who seem to have been made physically ill by the name Xfinity, I actually don’t have a problem with it — even if it does sound like a Hugh Hefner production. Lots of successful companies have names that get scorched in their fledgling state. My problem is the basic idea of it. The obvious question being: why bother? It’s a massive, costly effort for no apparent reason. The kind of thing shareholders get very nasty about.

Instead of investing their money to polish a brand with instant name recognition, Comcast will now squander untold millions to re-educate customers by advertising, repainting countless vans, and revamping systems and materials across the organization. It’s such an odd decision, you start wondering if there’s some deep, dark secret we don’t know about. On the circumstantial evidence, we’ll have to find Comcast guilty of brand-squandering in the first degree.

Another item on Time’s list is a personal favorite. Last fall, Sci-Fi Channel changed its name to Syfy.

Ah, this changes everything

Unlike Comcast, these guys were facing a real marketing issue. Their audience growth rate had hit a ceiling. They needed to extend their programming beyond conventional sci-fi to attract a more varied audience — but the name Sci-Fi Channel was a turn-off to the non-dweeb crowd. They needed an idea.

That brilliant idea was a new name that’s pronounced exactly like the old name — just spelled differently. I can only imagine the conversations that result. “You gotta see this great new show tonight — it’s on Syfy Channel,” followed by, “Nah, I hate sci-fi.” Even when you see a promo on TV, you still pronounce it “sci-fi” in your head. Oh, to have been a fly on the wall when someone pitched this idea.

Other interesting tales on Time’s Top 10 Worst Corporate Name Changes pages.

← Older Entries