Apple iSlate? What's the Fuss?!? Apple TV would be news!

All of the world's financial analysts and journalists seem to be wetting themselves with excitement at the rumoured release of a new iSlate (or iPad, depending on who you choose to listen to) "tablet PC" from Apple on next Wednesday, the 27th of January (two days after they report quarterly earnings, which should see them come out well ahead of consensus estimates). According to one survey, even consumers are getting (somewhat) interested in it, equal to that of when Apple started selling PCs based on an Intel core architecture.

The Wall Street Journal is also reporting how Apple is trying to find new ways of generating income from traditional media by bringing it to a portable device (for more on that one click here), but to me this is all thinking inside of the box for a number of reasons:

1. Steve Jobs has an uncanny knack for surprising the world with new inventions, which are so well integrated in their entire user experience from device through to software and underlying content deals that it can take the world by storm - and, no disrespect meant to the analysts and journalists, the people who are so busy talking up what could be just have no imagination whatsoever...
2. When the iPod was released (many moons ago now, it was launched on October 23, 2001 if you can believe it), Apple in one fell swoop were able to succeed in a market where countless others had failed. Sure, MP3 players already existed but they were hampered by a lack of downloadable paid for content as the only online (legal) music services thended to have crap music by hitherto unknown bands. The key to the success of the iPod was two-fold: a. The UI on both the device and in iTunes was so simple you no longer needed to have a degree in astrophysics to operate the device and the computer software, and b. They had the distribution deals in place to secure the content that people actually wanted to listen to - and were willing to pay money for.
3. Apple bought lala.com in December 2009 to allow them access to a cloud based streaming platform (for more on the deal, click here) and rumours abound that they've been testing a video streaming service as well.
4. Apple already have a hardware box for in-home content streaming, the Apple TV, which is also integrated with iTunes and the deals, which have been made in recent years mean that TV shows and movies are now available for download (both rental and purchase).
5. Apple have a strong working relationship with Samsung, who supply everything from screens for computers and mobile devices to the ARM processors which power the iPods and the iPhones.
6. A large amount of users have become accustomed to using Apple's User Interfaces (UIs) over the last few years.
7. Competition is intense in the PC market, which Apple knows better than most with their ill-fated decision 30 years ago not to license their UI to other manufactures and allowing Windows to prevail as the de facto operating system on both business and personal PCs.
   

Based on the above indicators, and Apple's ability in the last decade to find new and profitable marketplaces with limited competition, I really wouldn't be surprised if the announcement on Wednesday was not that of a tablet PC, but of a... Television!

Not just any ordinary television, but one where you would have either a touch screen remote control similar to the iPhone/iPod Touch (or you can use the one you've already got) and/or an on-screen menu similar to the one already known from the aforementioned devices. Furthermore, due to the technologies already mentioned it would allow delivery of premium content via networked streaming as either rentals or purchases, and would also allow the users to access external storage devices (or even an-built one, which would function as both a HDD for TV and as a media library for all downloaded/copied content).

"Why on earth would Apple want to start selling televisions?" you might ask. Here are some compelling reasons, if you haven't already managed to deduce them from the comments above:

• Apple has a strong and loyal brand following, which also allows it to achieve premium pricing, As an article on Clickz.com put it: "Simply put, Apple understands people. It knows that people make emotional decisions, then use intellect to justify those decisions. Dancing shadow people with iPods aren't an intellectual argument for buying an iPod, they're raw emotional appeal." LandorAssociates placed it as the top Breakaway Brand in 2009, in a survey where they culled the data from Young & Rubicam Brands' Brand Asset Valuator.
• Apple already has the online and physical distribution network in place to allow it to make a massive splash - and with a lot higher visibility than "traditional" TV brands, generally sold through 3rd party retailers. But that it only one part of it - it also has the knowledge of how to position and market it as a lifestyle choice!
• Perhaps most importantly, Apple has access to the content that people are willing to pay for! By network-enabling the TVs and allowing them to access NAS devices, computers and linked HDDs and to access the content whether it's local - or downloaded - means that they will achieve something that none of the traditional consumer electronics brands have managed to do, and with an interface that people will actually be able to figure out!
  
• Apple is not afraid of "breaking the rules" as it has shown time and time again.
  
• Apple would break away from heavy competition and into an industry, which has been stuck in a rut for years, with little brand loyalty and consumer apathy meaning price is often the only deciding factor for the purchase decision. Apple's strong brand loyalty and great designs would mean that an Apple TV would suddenly be seen as a cheaper option (with a much better design and User Interface) than say B&O, who seem to have lost touch with the marketplace completely in recent years, and whose designs are stuck in a time-warp until they get rid of David Lewis as their primary designer. Apple's TV could even retail at a premium compared with traditional consumer electronics powerhouses Sony and Pioneer, who might not have the requisite skills to compete on brand against Apple, whether or not their products (as "pure" TVs) are superior.

Even if Apple decide to release the iSlate to please analysts and add another $1 to EPS, it probably wouldn't become a huge mainstream consumer success, as the price would likely be too high and the question would always be: what is its primary use? Is it a direct competitor to the Amazon Kindle and Sony eBook readers? Is it a bigger version of the iPod Touch, which also doubles as an eBook reader? Is it a "design" version of a Netbook (at, presumably, a much higher price)? Is it all of the above, but with no real USP?

Furthermore, Apple have already paved the way for a foray into a much wider mainstream consumer arena than they have previously managed to. In this respect, perhaps the most interesting analyst's opinion was written in 2006, when Apple launched the Apple TV device, by Bear Stearns' Andy Neff, who wrote the following:

"Ultimately, Apple's goal is to create a product that customers would want (as opposed to creating new technology merely for the sake of technology), while focusing on areas where it can differentiate," he wrote. "Apple noted that it has a number of products currently in development that are likely to be introduced over several years."

Although Apple would not disclose additional specifications of iTV, Neff said the company highlighted that the device fits within its vision of simplifying consumers' use of content.

"Though details remain sketchy, Apple emphasized [the] focus of iTV [is] to improve user experience by leveraging its software expertise and implied that there may be features beyond the mere streaming of video content," the analyst wrote.

Apple has already acknowledged that the device will also be capable of streaming photos, music and podcasts. But during the meeting it also hinted at additional features such as an "internal hard disk drive for storage" and "advanced user interface software."

At least, I don't think Apple are dumb enough to believe the hype being spouted by some devoted followers, and will know that a lot of work needs to be done going forward whether they venture into the cross-category "be all and end all" portable device or the "old medium" of television.

In other words, even if Apple don't decide to start moving into the home entertainment market right now, the likelihood that they will at a later stage is looking greater by the day. It will be interesting to see what happens over the next 18 months.

As a note to potential investors, it should also be mentioned that no matter what product is showcased on Wednesday, a lot of the stock's expected upward movement in the next few months can be explained by Apple finally showing their hand, and their true financial strength, in the changing of their accounting methods, which will show the revenues for the iPhones instantly - rather than spreading it over 24 months as per the length of the mobile/cellular carrier contract, thereby giving a more realistic view of the company's revenues. For more on that story, head on over to CNet.

(DISCLOSURE: The author owns a limited amount of stock in Apple - 95 shares. This opinion is based on a mixture of analysis, common sense and relationships in companies which may or may not be directly related to Apple. It should not be viewed as a financial analyst's opinion to form the basis for any investment decision - it is purely the view of a marketer working in the field of media.)

Has N.Y. Times (finally) Cracked the Code?

In a long anticipated announcement, N.Y. Times are (once again) trying to crack the online paid for content model - the good news for readers is that it won't happen until 2011 (some analysts had suspected it would be later on this Spring).

The idea is that you can still read a number of articles for free every month, but that anything above and beyond that you'll have to pay for. Will it work? I guess the jury is still out on that one, but it will be interesting to see what happens.

Unbreakable? Dangerous Claim to Make...

This is good for a smile to start the week on. BBC reporter Dan Simmons was at the Consumer Electronics Show (CES) in Las Vegas where he was challenged to break the new and "unbreakable" Sonim (no, it's not a spelling error) ultra rugged phone. You can guess where this one is going... Hope you all have a good week ahead!

Bringing CSR Into Car Advertising

I must admit that it's been a very long time since a TV ad really blew me away the first time I saw it. As with all good advertising it must have that certain je ne sais quoi, and this advert definitely has IT. Not exactly a bad thing considering that it's a French company who are the brand behind the advert: Renault.

In the automotive world it's common to release teaser pictures and even allow opportunities for "spy shots" to ensure that the car mad public are kept tantalised by the prospect of the new, hopefully, mouth watering vehicle that is being added to the range. However, this is the first time I've seen an advert for a car which isn't being released until more than a year down the line.

At the same time, it's a thought provoking advert that shows that Renault are thinking about a "greener future", thereby showing their Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), and really works because of the combination of the message and the outrageous designs of the cars. These cars truly bring car design into the 21st century and for the first time, we're starting to see the "future" of car design as was predicted in the early 1980s. Hats off to Renault for not only having the balls to bring these cars to the market, but also in starting to market them broadly already now. For the first time ever, I have to admit that I'm tempted to buy a new French car (so far my interest stretches to the classic Citroen SM and DS) and the "feelgood" factor just makes the compulsion stronger. Now, if only Toyota had thought about a double-whammy like this in producing and marketing the Prius...

Will Google Nexus One Even Make a Dent in Smartphone Market?

It's here! Google have unveiled their Nexus One smartphone, which they hope will be able to gain market share from the likes of Apple's iPhone and RIM's Blackberry.

There is already a lot of speculation about their chances and I thought I would just give my quick thoughts on why I think it will FAIL.

1. Lack of traditional retail channels
Google doesn't have the widespread distribution of the iPhone and Blackberries and will struggle to make any impact on the US market unless they can add to the Best Buy distribution deal and the rumoured carrier contract with T-Mobile. In international markets this will be an even bigger problem.

2. Lack of unique content
These days a phone is more than just, well, a phone. Part of the reason for the popularity of the iPhone is the tremendous amount of applications available - and, not least, iTunes, which allows users to download music, TV shows and movies. Google doesn't have any of these things (for now) and even if applications are ported/developed at a much faster clip than currently, they'll struggle. Having the obvious YouTube integration isn't enough to make any executives at Apple have sleepless nights for the foreseeable future.

3. Interface
Apple have 30 years of experience in GUIs and Google have just over 1 - and it shows. Whereas Android might be great for a few tech boffins, most consumers are amazed by how easy it is to use any Apple product and this is going to be a key issue: if consumers have the opportunity to play around with both handsets I'd be surprised to see any significant percentage of them choosing the Nexus One. One could argue that they are trying to aim more for the Blackberries of this world, but if that's the case they've shot themselves in the foot by making it a touchscreen phone rather than including a hardware QWERTY keyboard. Nokia have tried to release several generations of their business smart phones with better sound quality, better navigation (at least several years ago) and with the added benefit of having instant recognition for users who upgraded from one of their "traditional" handsets. However, they completely failed to recognise that the one thing that makes the Blackberry immensely powerful in the hands of a user is the quality of its keyboard allowing you to type out email messages much faster than on any other device.

4. Design
If you're looking at big corporate deals this doesn't matter in the least: it will be the purchase price and running costs, which will determine who you go with. Not so in terms of the consumers. Here I also believe that most people will opt for the iPhone as it's sexy and cool, whereas the Nexus One is, erm, geeky? No offence, but you can probably imagine an engineer in Mumbai or Chennai walk around with a Nexus One, but a young adult in New York, London or Tokyo? I don't think so.

5. Focus (or lack of it)
Microsoft haven't exactly had an easy time after it went into hardware production with e.g. the XBox and I think that Google might have the same problems. Google's strategy has always been to try and own as much of the users' share of mind as possible and this has been the catalyst for the development of online apps and its purchases of companies in the past. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that and the value of the data they have about their users is immense and can be used in so many ways. However, by trying to also control the devices which the users access the content and applications on is, probably, going a step too far and I have to question whether this will add any short or long-term value to the company. I doubt it.

It's going to be interesting to see what happens, but I just feel Google are getting a bit too big and are starting to lack focus in what they are doing - and the Nexus One is yet another example of this. It almost brings to mind the infamous "peanut butter manifesto" leaked from Yahoo! a few years ago. Google should stick to what makes it a great company and focus their resources on ensuring continued dominance in the online field rather than try to become all things to everybody.

UPDATE (Jan 8th, 2010): I must say that the checkout process for purchasing a phone is incredibly user-friendly and something that a lot of companies (not just mobile/cell phone resellers) can learn from. This is a great way of ensuring that even people who find the Internet confusing can actually buy something online and not feel overwhelmed by the experience of doing so.

Discovery Channel Completely Undermine Their Authority

Yesterday I was unfortunate enough to watch Discovery Channel's show "Blitzkrieg" where the claim was made that Adolf Hitler came to power in 1932. As any (slightly) historically interested person focused on this period would be able to tell you, Adolf Hitler wasn't made Reich Chancellor until January 30th, 1933. By making such a simple factual mistake, I believe that Discovery Channel have seriously undermined their reputation for delivering objective and informative programming to the public and if that is to be the quality of future programming you might as well watch Big Brother in order to understand history in the future.

I am still awaiting a response to the email I have sent to Discovery about this error.

COMMENDATION: ComparetheMarket.com

I couldn't help but be pleased by the new "Compare the Meerkat/Compare the Market" adverts on TV. Far too often we see companies change their entire marketing universe as a new Marketing Director, eager to put his stamp on proceedings, appoints a new agency/changes the communication just so he can say, two years down the line, "I did that" when he goes for his next job interview. Unfortunately, this often means that all of the expensive and extensive groundwork has often been wasted. Therefore, it is great to see that Compare the Market are sticking with the overall creative idea of Aleksandr Orlov (Twitter profile) and his band of meerkats. If you haven't visited comparethemeerkat.com, I'd highly recommend it. It is a great example of an integrated campaign and one where you really get the benefit of a teasing call to action on TV executed in a digital channel. What is great about it is also that it keeps on getting updated to reflect their communications in other channels. Several other current advertisers could really learn from this approach for a number of reasons:

1. Research shows that cross channel campaigns have a higher degree of effectiveness, but marketers feel that they are being held back by current technology. My personal opinion on this is that the marketers are not able to define their targets clearly enough as there are already very good technology solutions to measure cross media/channel impact.
2. Creating a brand universe/recognisable situations (whether through imagery, audio etc.) is more likely to increase brand recognition, i.e. keeping on "hammering home the message" is more likely to lead to a sale. In e.g. cosmetics, research shows that brand recognition is the most important purchase factor with 73% of survey respondents rating brand recognition as the most important factor in the purchase decision.
3. Understanding the traditional metrics in terms of advertising also means that we will gain a better understanding of how to use integrated media. As you can see from the figure below, the overall effectiveness of TV advertising decreases after 3 exposures and confidential (as well as country specific data) from media agencies confirm that the internet is a very cost-effective way of increasing the effectiveness of advertising campaigns.

If you want to understand why the idea of keeping an idea alive in branding terms is so incredibly important, just think about Christmas and how you associate Santa Claus with a onlder fat man with a full white beard. This is also an image which is inexorably linked with Coca-Cola - and with good reason... Read the story of Coke's Father Christmas campaigns here.

However, buyer beware, if you don't know how to do integrated campaigns... JUST DON'T! Currently we're seeing the Visit California TV ads in the UK again, but when they first aired the website didn't even resolve without the use of "www." and there were loads of 404 errors as they obviously hadn't even bothered to check that the links were working. In that respect, using digital actually damaged the very positive image they presented in their TV adverts. Another example, which was recently brought to mind, is Virgin Atlantic's 25th anniversary TV ad, which has recently started airing again on British TV. I commented on this almost 10 months ago and bemoaned the fact that there was absolutely no link with anything they did online when they launched their anniversary sale. These days there is absolutely nothing to even recreate a visual link between the TV adverts and the web site when you visit Virgin Atlantic. Unfortunately, as a marketer, I've got to question the sanity of this - considering the relatively low implementation costs of doing so.

Most of all, though, this just continues to illustrate the difference in marketing thinking between
an innovative (Compare the Market) and a staid company (Virgin Atlantic) when it comes to understanding the demands of their customers - and how they respond to mass communications in the 21st century. Whereas Virgin, unconvincingly, try to communicate that they're still at the forefront of the customer service game by relying on retro advertising to try and recreate 1984; Compare the Market keep on tantalising their prospective customers by using different channels to guide them to different digital experiences (Twitter, Facebook, fake web sites etc.), which all serve to enhance the customer experience and hammer home the brand name. Well done, Aleksandr and your little army of meerkats! I salute you, and bestow upon you my first marketing commendation of 2010.

As for Virgin (or, to be specific, your ad agency (no point in naming the shamed...)), it's back to the drawing board and, I'd recommend, trying to get back in touch with your customers and understanding their needs - not just onboard, but in every single touch-point with your customers.

Visit Marketing magazine's web site in order to see the effectiveness of the Compare the Meerkat campaign so far.

Pearl Jam - New Music Marketing Or Past It?

Doing my best to follow up on my previous promise of ensuring that I update my blog a lot more regularly in 2010 than I did during 2009, I picked up the story earlier today that Pearl Jam have moved on from using MySpace to using Twitter in trying to broaden their fan base. TechCrunch have the full story here. Is this just a cynical marketing ploy by cynical marketing executives wondering how to squeeze any value out of a band who clearly seem past it, or is it a viable way forward in terms of marketing for bands?

The next question that springs to mind is whether or not Pearl Jam's key target audience are Twitter users, and if they are... how do they use it? Will they even see it or should this type of marketing be left to agencies promoting bands targeting a much younger audience? I'll now try retweeting it and see if people actually click on the link. Would love to hear your feedback on this one.

If you feel like getting a copy of the song for yourself, just tweet the info at http://twitter.com/PearlJam

Happy New Year!

Dear readers, I'm sorry that 2009 turned out to be so scatty in terms of updates. I don't personally believe in the idea of resolutions for the turn of the year, but I am hoping to be able to provide you all with at least 3 - 4 useful updates every week as I now feel I have more time/am making a conscious effort to do so. Also, I'd encourage you all to follow my "micro blog" posts on Twitter if you'd like to find out more about my daily thoughts on everything from marketing through to food, philosophy and life.

P.S. Judge me at the end of the year - and if I don't reach somewhere between 156 - 208 blog posts in 2010, you can personally come by and flog me with the 2010 Xmas mistletoe. Ask for my address around December 15th...

Online eTail is/Seems to be Stuck in the Last Century

Supposedly 2009 is the year that online retailing is really meant to come of age as sales continue to grow at the expense of physical retail locations. However, nobody seems to have told the retailers to actually shape up for this... Today (and over the last couple of weeks) I've tried doing my Xmas shopping online and in the end have decided to pretty much go back to the old fashioned way of shopping as, for various reasons (mostly bad system design or complete lack of maintenance/support), I've been unable to buy from Muji, Links of London, LastMinute.com and Molton Brown. Since I'm so seriously hacked off with my experiences with these retailers I refuse to boost their Google page ranks by actually linking to them.

Below is the catalogue of frustration:

• Muji (for whatever reason) failed to show the secure confirmation page for Visa to allow me to confirm my identity.
• Links of London kept on giving me different excuses (everything from system problems to my transaction being declined and an aborted session).
• LastMinute.com sold me a couple of, what I thought would be, straight forward spa vouchers... except for the fact that they've since just dumped me in the lap of the provider who 1) Sent me the wrong vouchers; 2) Took 2 emails (6 days apart) to even respond to my complaint; 3) Sent out a correct voucher, but NOT the two that I had ordered and paid for, and; 4) Have still to respond to my last email about this issue. If I had known that the Purity Spa at Hilton Park Lane was such an administrative shambles, I'd probably have taken my business elsewhere to begin with...
• Molton Brown sent me an email on November 9 saying they had dispatched my products... all fine and dandy, except for the fact that more than 2 weeks later I've not received them. Postal strike or not - that's just not good enough!

At least I had one positive shopping experience today when I received a confirmation of shipping from Amazon.co.uk for a printer I had ordered barely two hours previously. I must mention that Amazon have made several major screw-ups in the past, but at least they've made provisions for the misguided souls at Royal Mail and have found ways of guaranteeing delivery. I just wish that had been the case 7 years ago when I decided to do all of my Xmas shopping with them and the products arrived 2nd week of January despite me having ordered them at the beginning of November...

KEY LESSON: Even if we have moved into a digital age, there are still way too many amateurs when it comes to eCommerce and their projected customer service images don't fit in any way with the reality when it comes to dealing with them virtually. Even simple things like ensuring that URLs resolve without having to type in "www." seems to be an issue for at least one of the aforementioned sites and considering that a solution became commonplace at the turn of the century this shows us one of two things:
Either the marketing/customer service/sales people still don't "get" the Internet (or downplay its value - very dangerous in the times of social media where bad word of mouth can spread like wildfire), or;
The techies/agencies responsible for building the sites are either technically incompetent/lazy - and, even more worryingly, nobody on the client side has either the skills or the inclination to bother doing any kind of quality control

What baffles me as a marketer is the way these brands either don't seem to care about their customers or their brand and cannot seem to fathom the rule of lowest common denominator. If this is the experience I've had with Brand X online why should I trust in that brand to deliver a better experience in any other channel?

I wish you all a Happy Thanksgiving - and Black Friday. Personally, even as an Internet veteran and digital marketer for a decade and a half, I'd urge you to consider doing your shopping in person this year.