View Russell Fisher's profile
Filed under: marketing | Tags: Apple, innovation, Motley Fool, Microsoft, I'm a Mac, I'm a PC, competition
For some reason I have been talking a lot about Macs and PCs and Microsoft lately. Well, that’s because these subjects have piqued my interest. And that’s usually what I write about. It is easier that way.
Unless you have been paying more attention today to, oh, the death of the investment bank or the multiplicity of disheartening financial news, you may have noticed a little snippet in the press about the new “I’m a PC” ads.
It seems that the images were made on a Mac. Not so surprising, considering that Macs are prevalent throughout the creative industry. A little unwise, considering that these are responses to “I’m a Mac”, but I haven’t been as up in arms about this little revelation as others.
What is interesting to me is the fact that the mouthpiece for the PC is Microsoft. Yeah, they have been for years, but Macs now run both. Even though the ability for Macs to run both makes it possible for Microsoft to continue to succeed, they are fighting against the diffusion of this machine. The likely reasons for this are related: first, the near OS (and other software) monopoly is broken up for Microsoft when consumers can easily chose; second, they know that they can’t really compete with Apple’s OS and other software.
So what strategy should they chose: compete better or fight the transition so you don’t have to compete so directly?
What is good news is that competition like this is ultimately good for consumers and companies. This isn’t a price war, which, of course, leads to no real winners on the business side. This is a market-driven battle that lends to greater innovation and real and better benefits. For the retail consumer—this is a sign of good things to come.
Filed under: marketing | Tags: Apple, Ben McConnell, Bill Gates, Church of the Customer, Jerry Seinfeld, marketing, Microsoft
In light of the previous post’s comments on Apple, it is interesting to examine the Seinfeld and Gates videos from Microsoft. Ben McConnell from the Church of the Customer Blog writes:
There sure are a lot of “I don’t get it” comments out there about Microsoft’s ad campaign featuring Jerry Seinfeld and Bill Gates . . . The comments are everywhere . . . Which is part of the point . . . Microsoft is in the process of reframing the discussion about Microsoft. It is building a new persona.
At our place, the skits have generated a lot of, “huhs.” But they are totally watched with lively discussion afterward. We laugh a little, but mostly furrow our brows and discuss, “what is Microsoft trying to say?” “What are they trying to sell?”
Which is remarkable. Microsoft is now, again, a part of the discussion. This is a risky and sometimes gutsy strategy. They won’t be able to point to a definite ROI, but they have been oft-maligned over the last years, so it necessitates that it is time for them to become again a part of the discussion.
Features and benefits are important, but conversation is vital. What is most remarkable with their campaign is that that is what they have become. That is—they are worth, once again, talking about. Even if we don’t get it completely now, they have our attention and can, as McConnell points out, reframe our perceptions.
And now they have a bit more of a chance to win the perception battle.
UPDATE 9/19/2008: Second update today. I guess there has been an update on these ads. I really don’t believe either side (media or corporation) completely, but we are paying attention now.
Filed under: community, innovation | Tags: Apple, communities, Nicholas Carr, Nike
I can identify the time period that I became a fan of Nicholas Carr. It was the summer of 2005 that I read an article by him in strategy + business that really got me, for the first time, thinking about disruption and creation. I also like Clayton Christensen, so it interests me when Carr picks at Christensen’s work. These viewpoints give me a nice dyadic understanding of innovation.
It is worthwhile to read Carr’s blog, www.roughtype.com. Today he wrote about Nike + and Apple in which he castigated Apple’s approach to DRM in this space, finalizing with these words:
It used to be cool to be an Apple fanboy. Now it’s starting to be embarrassing.
Carr has spent a fair bit of time standing up for Apple, but now, after mistake after mistake and misstep after misstep, it is interesting to note that an advocate is starting to abdicate.
The same thing happened today as we met with our ad agency. One of our associates there mentioned the problems that he continues to have with the new iPhone, saying that he doesn’t know anyone that has had a good experience. This is during the same time that I gleefully and annoyingly point to the ability of my $50 mobile phone to send multimedia texts while they (the iPhone contingent) continue to be without that capability.
Apple’s community has been legendary. But, as they continue to put off and underwhelm their user base, they will quickly see that it is the community that has the power, not the brand.
Filed under: innovation, marketing | Tags: Apple, execution, Flickr, Google, marketing, Microsoft, perceptions, PhotoSynth
Yesterday Microsoft Live Labs did a consumer release for PhotoSynth, a cool photo, combining software. If you haven’t heard of it, it “stitches” images together
allowing users to create their own virtual scene from a series of 20 to 300 pictures (source: Wired).
As I started to try it out, I thought, “Is this really Microsoft?” I mean, this sort of innovation seems more like Apple, Flickr, or Google. I was pretty impressed with the concept, especially that Microsoft had come out with it.
And then I actually used it. I gave it an easy task: put three pictures of adjacent areas in a park near my home together.After crashing my application twice so far, and now still “in process” with my “synth”, I saw that Microsoft’s personality has come through; I am unsure if my project is in process or just stuck (there is no status bar).
Fair enough that they are probably overwhelmed (they have mentioned that a few times today), and I should give them some more time to work out the bugs. The concept is very cool, they simply weren’t ready for people to really try. It’s too bad; it really has lowered Microsoft’s chance to become a more creative company in consumers’ eyes. First impressions are important but not absolute—confirmations of previous perceptions are much more dangerous.
As much as we talk about mindshare and positioning and other high level strategies, proper execution is tantamount to success.
Filed under: community | Tags: Aaron Peirsol, Apple, baby name, Brendan Hansen, communities, Cubs, fire, gold medal, Jason Lezak, Michael Phelps, olympics, relay, Seth Godin, Triiibes
The afternoon my grandparents home burned to the ground was one of the coldest days on record for Western Idaho. Our pipes froze and then burst that morning, and my Mom thought that bursting was the reason that a family friend had remarked (while she was out shopping) that he was sorry about the “trouble we had had out on the farm.” By the time she was made it home, she could see that the small fire had moved from its origin (a heater beneath an engine block) to consume the entire structure. The firefighters’ hoses were ineffective in the cold against the blaze, and after experiencing increasingly dangerous conditions and the outset of hypothermia, they had give up the battle.
And yet, something was created that day. Dozens of helpers emerged spontaneously, saving pictures and heirlooms and furniture. In families and farm towns, grievances are known to fester, but on this day, they were forgiven through hugs and tears. On that day, the Tribe of the Fire was born, evermore connected by their mutual actions to support their fellow human, in this case, at risk of their safety and well-being.
The Tribe of Michael Phelps is incredible and massive. It crosses all social and economic divisions and is well worth examining has hero worship (of an atypical hero). But, in spite of this, I was more interested in a much smaller Phelps’ tribe. One of the most touching scenes of this year’s Olympic Games was following Phelps’ 8th gold medal, this final one in a relay, he, with overflowing thanksgiving, expressed his gratitude in words and an embrace to Aaron Peirsol, Brendan Hansen, and Jason Lezak—each member of that relay team. This team-led creation is powerfully bonding. Together they accomplished something that he, in his multiplicity of talents, could not. This Tribe of the Relay will always be bound by their striving together to do something greater. I, like I am sure others, have felt similar gratitude when being part of a successful team.
Last week, I issued a challenge for help on Seth Godin’s Triiibes; my wife and I hadn’t yet decided on our soon-to-be-born baby’s name. As I mentioned in the post, I wanted to experiment with what would happen if I asked for help. The results were fantastic. Seth wanted Dumbledore, Ed was incredulous about that suggestion. Multiple Triiibe members did some homework to find out what domains were available (Ted informed that AlistairFisher.com was available). There were many other comments (20 in total), some helpful, some not so much.
During the course of this little test, the little transient Tribe of Naming Our Baby was born. Rules began to be established (more than what I had set), for example, Steve said to have the given name as the first name, and Bernadette and Ted warned against too unique of names. Of course, one thing we will see is where the real power lies (in this case, my wife).
One way that tribes succeed is in the work for something beyond the individual members, and through this work, they become closer and more connected. The large tribes: Apple, Cubs, Michael Phelps—they have their leaders, rites, and rituals, but the strength of affinity is often no match for these spontaneously created tribes that are formed around the common motivation of something greater.
Investing just a little time in these outreaching efforts—it’s what binds us as humans; it is a transformative power to change crowds of people into communities of friends.
That is an incredible power to harness.
Filed under: community, leadership, online media, politics | Tags: Animaniacs, Apple, Austin, Bad Idea, blogging, Dirk Diggler, Electronic Privacy Information Center, First Amendment, Good Idea, Human Race, iPod, Larry Godwin, Lillie Coney, Medtronic, Melbourne, Memphis Police Department, MPD Enforcer, Mr Skullhead, Nike, public relations, publicity, Willie Herenton
Mr Skullhead was one of the greatest characters on Animaniacs, and, in addition to his brilliant Hamlet performance, it was his Good Idea, Bad Idea shorts that were among the more brilliant of the show.
Whistling is just one of the many things that you can do well or very poorly. Take public relations. You can do what Nike has done with their Human Race campaign (from the Herald Sun):
On August 31, one million people will run for charity. Twenty-five cities will hold a 10km run – including Los Angeles, New York, London, Madrid, Paris, Istanbul, Shanghai, Sao Paulo and Vancouver. Each race will start on the same day, with the first starting in Taipei and the last in LA.
This is a race that is quite simply cool. Not only can you participate in these selected cities, but you can even race on your home street in unselected Boise, Idaho—if you have the proper gear. This effort will build Nike’s & Apple iPod “+” brand, by association and by sales, already culminating into a movement that makes even participating cities feel simply honored to be graced with Nike’s presence.
Or you can be like the Memphis Police Department that is trying to use coercive powers to go after a blog site that has been critical of the internal practices and policies of the department. Of course, this is based on just what I read, and I am sure there is another side. Even so, it is unfortunate for MPD that it appears in the public’s eye (through traditional and nontraditional media) that these officers are happy to protect citizen’s rights, as long as the expression of these freedoms don’t make them look bad. As noted in the previously referenced article:
‘Dirk Diggler’ [...] (the collective pseudonym of the bloggers who write on the site) has posted copies of the subpoena sent to AOL that seeks any and all identifying information for the blogger in question. In another blog post, Dirk Diggler wrote, ‘It pains us to believe that we live in America and a Director of Police Services can use his position (and possibly tax payers dollars) to launch a personal vendetta against this site and the 1st Amendment.’
[...]
If the case proceeds, it seems unlikely that the MPD will be very successful in unearthing the information it wants. In 2005, the Delaware Supreme Court overturned a lower court’s decision requiring an ISP to turn over the identity of an anonymous blogger who was heavily critical of local politicians.
[...]
Free speech advocates believe that the same principles apply to this case. ‘You can complain about the government, and you should be able to do that without fear of retaliation or threatening actions on the part of the people in these positions,’ Electronic Privacy Information Center associate director Lillie Coney told the Memphis Commercial Appeal. ‘I guess they’ve kind of annoyed them at some level, but you really don’t want to see law enforcement or government resources spent in this way.’
You’d hope that the police department isn’t simply annoyed and trying to silence any dissidents; if this is their approach, that’s really just a bad idea. The government officials are, of course, insisting that that is not the case, as noted on a local site:
Memphis Mayor Willie Herenton said today there are ’serious issues’ behind police Director Larry Godwin’s legal quest to uncover the identities behind a blog critical of the police department.
‘There’s no attempt to try to squash, you know, whistleblowers or that kind of thing,’ the mayor said in response to reporters’ questions during an event at Medtronic. ‘There’s some serious issues here that I think will surface as it moves forward.’
What these serious issues are, it is unclear. Until they come forward, the message communicated again and again is likely a reaffirmation in many minds about the abusive powers of the local officials. Instead of trying to create a groundswell of support (as seen with Nike), they are creating a barrier of negative sentiment that they will have to break through.
Filed under: design, innovation | Tags: Apple, design, Java, Palm, Motley Fool
Motley Fool writes:
Is Steve Jobs’ ongoing denial of Java a smart move to control the iPhone ecosystem? Or will he orphan the iPhone into a land of fringe applications, as competing devices lure away users?
For a time, PDAs were Palms, but Palm gave up their early, and seemingly insurmountable position, primarily by a strategically short-sided decision to not embrace a larger technological ecosystem. In so doing, they lost market share and, though are still surviving, are simply another “Me-Too” in the evolving handheld marketplace (now as Smart Phones).
With the appearance of significant threats to the iPhone, one would hope Apple would be very careful about what technologies they are stymieing with their more closed product. Design is not just about how aesthetically appealing a product is and is used, but how it interacts with the users’ world. In trying to push customers toward Apple products, Apple hopefully won’t continue to push their consumers away from their familiar and favored technologies.
Filed under: innovation, marketing | Tags: Apple, Clayton Christensen, diffusion, Everett Rogers, Frank Bass, innovation, iPhone, iPod, iterative innovation, John Gourville, Nicholas Carr, Seth Godin
Seth Godin writes:
As marketers, we’re tempted [...] to optimize for the peak performances
[...] It’s way more profitable to encourage each of your existing customers to spend $3 than it is to get a stranger to spend $300. It’s also more effective to get the 80% of your customer service people that are average to be a little better than it is to get the amazing ones to be better still.
Though Seth focuses on “the floor” (which reminds a bit of Clayton Christensen’s research), I have have had similar thoughts on how this concept of little steps helps us to understand diffusion and innovation. These small changes are often culturally defined. When John Gourville wrote on compatibility, the second of “Rogers’ Five Factors,” (see following paragraphs for Rogers citation) he noted, “compatibility is the degree to which ‘an innovation is perceived as consistent with existing values and experiences of the potential adopter’ […] with previously introduced ideas, with values and beliefs, or with one’s needs.”*
This factor has a greater impact on the likelihood of adoption than we may usually assume. Consumers bring their life experiences with them when it comes to the consuming and trading of goods and services, and this concept of compatibility helps innovations fit with how individuals culturally dictate how the world should work. Agreeing with this, Gourville continues, “An innovation that is compatible with existing concepts is less threatening, seems more familiar, and fits more closely with a person’s impression of the way things ought to be.”
We have understood for some time that product or service adoption has much to do with an individual’s place in society. Over 35 years ago Bass wrote, “Apart from innovators, adopters are influenced in the timing of adoption by the pressures of the social system.”** In addition, Rogers highlighted the reasons for this need when discussing weak ties in a paper during the mid 1970s. He mentioned, “An innovation is diffused to a larger number of individuals and traverses a greater social distance when passed through weak ties rather than strong.”***
More recently, strategy + business’s Nicholas Carr has something say on this subject as well—“some of the greatest and most lucrative innovations are essentially conservative. They are brought to market by companies that are as adept at looking backward as looking forward, and that have the skill and patience to achieve the most commercially attractive balance between the old and the new.”^ In this article, he recommends facilitating adoption by pairing familiar technologies with innovations. I would expand on that concept and argue for a stepped strategic approach to help promote in adoption, a process which I call iterative innovation.^^
This can be seen in, for example, in the iPhone launch. Apple has appeared to take a calculated and iterative approach with their expansion from computers to music players to phones. In fact, a iPhone launch advertisement may reveal inside details about Apple’s strategy with this segment. The ad shows an iPhone, and the voice over announcer makes the following observations:
“There has never been an iPod that can do this…”
(Ad shows iPhone’s “cover flow” capabilities)
“…or this…”
(Ad shows a widescreen movie playing)
“…or this…”
(Ad displays user scrolling through photos)
“…or for that matter…”
(Ad shows iPhone ringing and call being received)
“…this.”
If there is any internal fear about cannibalization from the iPods to iPhones, the video showed quite the opposite; cannibalization was actually encouraged. I couldn’t help wondering if the previous years of the iPod were simply iterative steps as Apple helped prepare users for the iPhone—recognizing that the future of information technology centered on mobile use. When presenting at the launch of iPhone, Steve Jobs referenced the years of development around the phone, particularly with their partnership with Cingular/at&t, and when comparing the phone to the more recent editions of the iPod (flash memory, thinner units, video capabilities)—it appears that each edition acted as almost a testing ground for the in-pipeline development of the iPhone.^^^
It is often through little steps, these iterations, that market changers change the world. It only seems dramatic to those who missed seeing it coming; it’s just so much more tempting to try and create overnight successes. But, as we have often read, overnight successes never quite happen overnight.
*Gourville, John T.; “Note on Innovation Diffusion: Rogers’ Five Factors,” Harvard Business School, 9-505-075
**Bass, Frank M.; “A New Product Growth for Model Consumer Durables,” Management Science, Jan 1969, Vol. 15, No. 5, p 215 – 227
***Rogers, Everett M.; “New Product Adoption and Diffusion,” The Journal of Consumer Research, Mar 1976Vol. 2, No. 4, p 290 – 301. The research on weak ties is summarized in this paper as “The informational strength of dyadic communication relationships is inversely related to the degree of homophily (and the strength of attraction) between the source and the receiver.” Rogers also states that, “This homophily and close attraction facilitate effective communication, but they act as a barrier preventing new ideas from entering the network.”
^Carr, Nicholas G., “Bridging the Breakthrough Gap,” strategy + business, Issue 37, Winter 2004
^^I first defined this concept during my graduate studies at Oxford in June 2007
^^^See image and advertisement video available at www.apple.com/iphone/ads/ and www.apple.com/iphone/keynote/ as of June 2007
Filed under: brands, marketing | Tags: Amnesty International, AOL, Apple, Beijing 2008, Brand Tags, branding, Discovery Channel, Evian, Exxon, Firefox, GE, Google, Greenpeace, Halliburton, Harley-Davidson, Internet Explorer, Marlboro, McDonalds, MSN, olympics, Oxfam, reputations, The Consumerist, Tibet, Toyota, Wal-Mart, Whole Foods, World Wildlife Fund
The Consumerist (read more below) reports on the 10 best and worst reputations in corporate America. As I looked at Google (best) and Halliburton (worst), my thoughts turned to Brand Tags, a cool site that decodes what big brands actually mean (as viewed by people who visit the Brand Tags website). As is often stated: companies don’t own brands, consumers do. That is, people will chose what a brand means and there is little that a company can say to change that image (often, it is up to what they do).
When looking at what brands are most often rated “good”, Firefox and Google are second and tenth after do-gooder Amnesty International and among Oxfam, Greenpeace, WWF (not WWE), Whole Foods, Toyota, and the Discovery Channel. MSN, AOL, and Internet Explorer were third, fifth, and seventh in the “bad” listings among Wal-Mart, Exxon, Marlboro, and McDonalds. Evian is “pure”, Apple is “cool”, Harley-Davidson is “wild”, GE is “light”, and Beijing 2008 has significant issues (as shown below in a sampling of the website’s output, misspellings and all):
Like most great Internet tools, this application is painfully open and honest. It strongly exposes brands for what they are; for what they are is how they are perceived in the consumers’ minds. If you are lucky enough to have a brand that is featured on this website, use it to change your perceptions (through your actions and offerings). If not, talk to your customers and hope that they are honest with you. These insights are invaluable.
Filed under: brands, community, marketing | Tags: Apple, branding, Csikszentmihalyi, Easter Eggs, Google, Linda Scott, Rochberg-Halton
Brains on Fire report that hidden treasures really do add to the customer experience.
So many brands keep their communities (or their illusion of one) at arms length – especially the “crazy fans.” But what would happen if it was the opposite? What would happen if you left those secret Easter Eggs out there especially for those highly passionate fans to find?
This works very well in a B2C space, and what makes it most effective is the hidden “treasure’s” ability to help in creating a persona for the brand. Linda Scott (Fresh Lipstick 2005, p. 220) calls this personification “fetishization”. In addition to explaining how an inanimate object is “imbued with animate properties”, Scott conveys that a fetish “is not arbitrarily magical or religious, but helps to accomplish a variety of cultural tasks”. Compare this to when Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg-Halton (1981, The Meaning of Things) explained that “things contribute to the cultivation of the self when they help create order in consciousness at the levels of the person, community, and patterns of natural order”.
The objects that we use frame our experiences and shape our selves; objects are signs of status, of belonging, of social integration, and are essential part of socialization and the relationship between people and things is fundamental. This is why this personifying of a product or service (specifically, the brand since the actually offering cannot easily be made animate) is essential to success. In many objects, it creates an easier space for adaptation into a cultural exchange.
Apple and Google add these hidden touches well, such as with Apple’s famous “Do Not Eat iPod Shuffle” in its terms and conditions (thanks to firewheeldesign.com for the image)
and Google’s map routing from, say, Kentucky to Germany (thanks to ghacks.net).
Both removed them after it became public knowledge and you would hope that they would continue to add to little Easter Eggs to enhance the brand experience. Think about your brand; what touches can you add to better tell the brand story and enhance the customer’s interaction with your offering?
Update
Google may have stopped you from swimming across the Atlantic, but I guess they are fine with you kayaking across the Pacific. My co-worker found this today when he accidentally put in the wrong information when trying to get directions.
Update 2 (2008 June 12)
Seth Godin seems to agree with me.
