Opened my diary this morning and noted it's the first week of December - the launch pad to silly season. I've got to say, previewing the week was a hell of a shock. Three school events within the next five nights. No agency or supplier parties. One visit to our agency - and that's first up on Tuesday morning! Not a long lunch in sight.
How many weeks to Christmas? Three that are meaningful. So what's derailed here? Has my social calendar been crunched by the GFC? Perhaps I got invitations for the 50-plus set that didn't look exciting enough. My peers are rubbing on hair restorer rather than letting their hair down.
I can't put my finger on what's changed. Companies send Christmas cards by email, the highlight of our year now being the face of someone's CEO dancing around our computer screen in an animated Santa suit. If they'd done that all year, they'd no longer require the blood pressure medication they doctor prescribed in February because they'd be several stone lighter!
It all seems so impersonal and unnecessarily frugal. Think of all the companies that used to depend on Christmas largesse to make a buck. I think we should write Christmas festivities into supplier contracts in future. Make it mandatory to have fun and actually share a few drinks or, to ensure tax deductability, organise a go-karting competition under the guise of team building.
Let's become rabid consumers and party animals at least once a year. Restore business confidence at a personal level. Renegotiate next year's contract with a nudge and a wink while we order another McLaren Vale red. Mutually assure each other for 2010 with a few good Aussie 'she'll be right mates'. Turn the GFC into 'Great Festive Cheer'! Who's with me on this?
Monday, November 30, 2009
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Taking a byte out of life
Having an iPod in my ears yesterday evening got me thinking about how we compress everything these days to get more out of life.
As a poor man's audiophile, I was actually evaluating the quality of the sound out of the iPod relative to what I have experienced through my years via stereo, quadrophonic (remember that!), surround sound, vinyl, cassette tape, CD, and now, of course, digital. This is a continuation of an age-old debate that arises every time there is a tech evolution. I remember very lofty arguments with school mates over whether cassette tapes delivered the same audio experience and quality as reel-to-reel. Now you wouldn't bother with either!
The mpeg files that drive iPods are made possible by removing digital information to make the file size compressible and manageble. It's the audio version of jpeg files, which derive from much larger eps, tiff and other graphic files. There is no doubt that in both cases, we sacrifice quality for convenience. The sound out of that iPod yesterday was a convenient, mobile sound, with nowhere near the quality of either of the modest sound systems inside my home.
It is a sign of the times. This is a product that shows we're prepared to lower our standards, even our enjoyment levels, to fit everything into our busy schedules. We become more volume-driven rather than quality-driven. We commoditise everything, even trample over copyright and IP laws in the rush to pleasure ourselves. This is something the music, movie and fashion industries are battling with as I write.
It will mean a dramatic change in the type of consumer with whom we'll be communicating as Gen Z and beyond increase their buying power. These will be generations whose experiential benchmarks will be set by iPod sound, jpeg images, fake designer fashions and so on. They will have unprecedented access to a range of, shall we say, compromised sensory experiences.
This is a challenging scenario for brands that have traditionally invested in innovation, quality and durability when they address consumers who are pursuing volume, price and disposability. Issues of quality will take second place in the value hierarchy of the 'whateva' generations, just as the hollowness of Britney's lip-synced concerts is lost on them. Their values are being built, not on quality, but on accessibility and convenience.
As marketers and communicators, we will need to understand this changed value set and focus on instant gratification rather than Instant Karma.
As a poor man's audiophile, I was actually evaluating the quality of the sound out of the iPod relative to what I have experienced through my years via stereo, quadrophonic (remember that!), surround sound, vinyl, cassette tape, CD, and now, of course, digital. This is a continuation of an age-old debate that arises every time there is a tech evolution. I remember very lofty arguments with school mates over whether cassette tapes delivered the same audio experience and quality as reel-to-reel. Now you wouldn't bother with either!
The mpeg files that drive iPods are made possible by removing digital information to make the file size compressible and manageble. It's the audio version of jpeg files, which derive from much larger eps, tiff and other graphic files. There is no doubt that in both cases, we sacrifice quality for convenience. The sound out of that iPod yesterday was a convenient, mobile sound, with nowhere near the quality of either of the modest sound systems inside my home.
It is a sign of the times. This is a product that shows we're prepared to lower our standards, even our enjoyment levels, to fit everything into our busy schedules. We become more volume-driven rather than quality-driven. We commoditise everything, even trample over copyright and IP laws in the rush to pleasure ourselves. This is something the music, movie and fashion industries are battling with as I write.
It will mean a dramatic change in the type of consumer with whom we'll be communicating as Gen Z and beyond increase their buying power. These will be generations whose experiential benchmarks will be set by iPod sound, jpeg images, fake designer fashions and so on. They will have unprecedented access to a range of, shall we say, compromised sensory experiences.
This is a challenging scenario for brands that have traditionally invested in innovation, quality and durability when they address consumers who are pursuing volume, price and disposability. Issues of quality will take second place in the value hierarchy of the 'whateva' generations, just as the hollowness of Britney's lip-synced concerts is lost on them. Their values are being built, not on quality, but on accessibility and convenience.
As marketers and communicators, we will need to understand this changed value set and focus on instant gratification rather than Instant Karma.
Friday, November 27, 2009
Whew! The air just gets hotter and hotter
While the Aussie Liberal Party tears itself apart over the ETS (Emissions Trading Scheme) bill before the Senate, divisions have emerged elsewhere, notably within the US Chamber of Commerce. Apple announced its resignation as a member over the Chamber's position on the Waxman Bill. Other companies like Nike and Pacific Gas and Electric have either withdrawn their memberships or reduced their level of engagement with the Chamber over the issue. And boy, have these moves generated passionate discussion on the web!
The bottom line is that these companies have accused the Chamber of an anti-science stance in its opposition to the Waxman Bill, which is the US version of the Australian ETS. There are remarkable similarities in the arguments for and against these pieces of legislation. Beneath the rhetoric of climate change advocacy and denial, the core issue relates to the commercial and community cost of implementing climate change legislation and, indeed, if there is to be legislation, whether the management models are appropriate.
Apple, Nike and others have put their brands on the line by taking their strong public stances. Both Apple and Nike have faced battles of their own in the past on environmental and labour issues. Both clearly believe now that they have cleaned up their act and are now setting about cleaning up the rest of the world.
But there is a risk. Take the Apple case, where the company is accused of supporting legislation that will penalise US commerce and favour China, where most Apple computers are manufactured. Detractors argue that Apple has relocated its manufacturing to China to bypass the constraints and costs of US regulations. Advocates argue that Apple is being true to its values, evangelised by its charismatic leader in a recent BusinessWeek interview.
In order to maintain their brand integrity, I believe the key thing for Apple and other companies taking this stance is to ensure that they uniformly apply environmental policies and manufacturing controls no matter where they locate their operations. Brands that can be proven opportunistic and not authentic will be damaged if they fail to do this.
For me, an interesting facet of the debate ahead of the climate meeting in Copenhagen for me is the assumption by detractors that China will be a laggard in climate change negotiations. Who is to say that China will fail to recognise the opportunity to adopt a global leadership position in relation to this? Their rapid economic and civic development is underpinned by a better understanding of the need for resource planning than was the case for any of the countries arising from processes and societies established during the Industrial Revolution.
And, if you don't believe the Chinese will be motivated to progress climate change measures, take a look at this article in The Times relating to glacial loss in China. No matter where Apple and others manufacture their goods, there is a growing prospect that they will find political and community expectations for environmental management might be rapidly aligning.
The bottom line is that these companies have accused the Chamber of an anti-science stance in its opposition to the Waxman Bill, which is the US version of the Australian ETS. There are remarkable similarities in the arguments for and against these pieces of legislation. Beneath the rhetoric of climate change advocacy and denial, the core issue relates to the commercial and community cost of implementing climate change legislation and, indeed, if there is to be legislation, whether the management models are appropriate.
Apple, Nike and others have put their brands on the line by taking their strong public stances. Both Apple and Nike have faced battles of their own in the past on environmental and labour issues. Both clearly believe now that they have cleaned up their act and are now setting about cleaning up the rest of the world.
But there is a risk. Take the Apple case, where the company is accused of supporting legislation that will penalise US commerce and favour China, where most Apple computers are manufactured. Detractors argue that Apple has relocated its manufacturing to China to bypass the constraints and costs of US regulations. Advocates argue that Apple is being true to its values, evangelised by its charismatic leader in a recent BusinessWeek interview.
In order to maintain their brand integrity, I believe the key thing for Apple and other companies taking this stance is to ensure that they uniformly apply environmental policies and manufacturing controls no matter where they locate their operations. Brands that can be proven opportunistic and not authentic will be damaged if they fail to do this.
For me, an interesting facet of the debate ahead of the climate meeting in Copenhagen for me is the assumption by detractors that China will be a laggard in climate change negotiations. Who is to say that China will fail to recognise the opportunity to adopt a global leadership position in relation to this? Their rapid economic and civic development is underpinned by a better understanding of the need for resource planning than was the case for any of the countries arising from processes and societies established during the Industrial Revolution.
And, if you don't believe the Chinese will be motivated to progress climate change measures, take a look at this article in The Times relating to glacial loss in China. No matter where Apple and others manufacture their goods, there is a growing prospect that they will find political and community expectations for environmental management might be rapidly aligning.
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Rupert tries to Bill Microsoft
I am intrigued by Rupert Murdoch's negotiations with Microsoft. Now Rupe's track record in business is somewhat stronger than mine, but what I see here is a guy hell-bent on converting content to cash negotiating with an organisation equally desperate to sting Google with Bing.
That Microsoft would consider paying for 'exclusive' news content to trump the world's most successful search engine is curious, when it is more than likely that consumers will continue to use Google to track news from publishers still willing to churn out free content. The strategy from Bing's perspective is not compelling.
You've got to ask how two aggregators of content, News Corp and Microsoft, can add value to each others' business. I suppose Rupe thinks that if Bill G's outfit is willing to pay for content, then it matters not how Microsoft intends to recoup its outlay through Bing. But if News wants to distribute content through user-pays channels, surely it is better to forge alliances with distributors - telcos .
Rupe could negotiate with telcos for a share of the mobile download charges. Mobile communications are the way of the future. Cloud, voice recognition and other technologies will ultimately make the traditional desktop PC redundant.
This would really be charging for content by stealth, but it capitalises on what never ceases to amaze me - consumer willingness to pay for almost anything they get on a mobile device. Compare this with consumer resistance to paying for content via a PC, and the psychology just doesn't add up. Perhaps it's convenience. Perhaps it's because the phone user often doesn't end up paying - the cash cows being either parents or employer.
The bonus of the mobile distribution idea is that it piggy backs on telco systems, which can already track the downloads and collect and allocate the revenue to content providers.
But Rupe and his troops should know this. They already have the model for it - pay television.
That Microsoft would consider paying for 'exclusive' news content to trump the world's most successful search engine is curious, when it is more than likely that consumers will continue to use Google to track news from publishers still willing to churn out free content. The strategy from Bing's perspective is not compelling.
You've got to ask how two aggregators of content, News Corp and Microsoft, can add value to each others' business. I suppose Rupe thinks that if Bill G's outfit is willing to pay for content, then it matters not how Microsoft intends to recoup its outlay through Bing. But if News wants to distribute content through user-pays channels, surely it is better to forge alliances with distributors - telcos .
Rupe could negotiate with telcos for a share of the mobile download charges. Mobile communications are the way of the future. Cloud, voice recognition and other technologies will ultimately make the traditional desktop PC redundant.
This would really be charging for content by stealth, but it capitalises on what never ceases to amaze me - consumer willingness to pay for almost anything they get on a mobile device. Compare this with consumer resistance to paying for content via a PC, and the psychology just doesn't add up. Perhaps it's convenience. Perhaps it's because the phone user often doesn't end up paying - the cash cows being either parents or employer.
The bonus of the mobile distribution idea is that it piggy backs on telco systems, which can already track the downloads and collect and allocate the revenue to content providers.
But Rupe and his troops should know this. They already have the model for it - pay television.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Turnbull - not turncoat
Sorry for posting yet another political blog in this branding space, but I think personal brands are interesting. The case in point is Liberal Party leader, Malcolm Turnbull (for those outside Australia, Turnbull is parliamentary Opposition Leader). I should say up front that I am not his biggest fan, but I have to give credit where I believe it's due.
At yesterday's internal party showdown over whether to pass the Government's carbon trading scheme legislation, Turnbull was true to brand in every sense. Having a few weeks ago set the scene for this meeting by saying he wouldn't lead a party not committed to doing something about climate change, he was put to the test yesterday. Not only did he have to gain majority support for the legislative changes negotiated with the Government, he reportedly offered to spill the party's leadership positions several times.
Under pressure, he held his position on both the proposed legislation and his earlier stance on the leadership. Although the intensity of feeling at the party meeting was immense and there may still be a push to replace him as leader, he has done the only thing credible - remained true to brand. In my humble view, the Aussie public will score him highly for this, whether or not they agree with the carbon trading scheme legislation, or his crash-through or crash leadership style.
At yesterday's internal party showdown over whether to pass the Government's carbon trading scheme legislation, Turnbull was true to brand in every sense. Having a few weeks ago set the scene for this meeting by saying he wouldn't lead a party not committed to doing something about climate change, he was put to the test yesterday. Not only did he have to gain majority support for the legislative changes negotiated with the Government, he reportedly offered to spill the party's leadership positions several times.
Under pressure, he held his position on both the proposed legislation and his earlier stance on the leadership. Although the intensity of feeling at the party meeting was immense and there may still be a push to replace him as leader, he has done the only thing credible - remained true to brand. In my humble view, the Aussie public will score him highly for this, whether or not they agree with the carbon trading scheme legislation, or his crash-through or crash leadership style.
Check out the eyebrow movement
Do you ever watch the US television series, Lie to me? Most of the storylines are basic, the interest being created by the weekly clues to body language and facial twitches that give you away if you're lying. We suspect our politicians tell us fibs occasionally. This is why we're all closely examining the eyebrow movements and searching for other indicators of self-incrimination that we have learned as students of Lie to me, as we listen to South Australian Premier, Mike Rann, deny allegations of sexual liaisons with parliamentary waitress, Michelle Chantelois.
We're different than our American cousins in our reaction to sex and politics. We're equally fascinated but, frankly, are pretty blase about whether or not our pollies are sexually outperforming in the bedroom, or any other venue - more akin to the French or Italian perspective than the American. But what public reactions are clearly indicating is that if something has gone on, as alleged, between the SA Premier and Ms Chantelois, we don't want Mr Rann lying about it.
Mike Rann is a very popular Premier and, according to opinion polls, will win the SA state election in a few months at a canter if there is no adverse fallout from this affair. Public reaction is telling us that the issue that would lose the election would be if he has told lies about sexual liaisons with Ms Chantelois, not the fact that the events had taken place as alleged.
So the successful handling of the issue relates solely to the integrity of 'brand Rann'. After all, the guy wasn't even married when the liaisons were alleged to have taken place, so there's no suggestion that he was cheating on his wife. The problem now of course is that, if he has been lying, it's too late to change his public position. If there is substance to Ms Chantelois's allegations and they can be proven, Mike Rann's in big trouble and his personal brand is trashed. On the other hand his stocks - and votes - may rise substantially if his highly regarded personal brand has been wrongfully attacked.
We're different than our American cousins in our reaction to sex and politics. We're equally fascinated but, frankly, are pretty blase about whether or not our pollies are sexually outperforming in the bedroom, or any other venue - more akin to the French or Italian perspective than the American. But what public reactions are clearly indicating is that if something has gone on, as alleged, between the SA Premier and Ms Chantelois, we don't want Mr Rann lying about it.
Mike Rann is a very popular Premier and, according to opinion polls, will win the SA state election in a few months at a canter if there is no adverse fallout from this affair. Public reaction is telling us that the issue that would lose the election would be if he has told lies about sexual liaisons with Ms Chantelois, not the fact that the events had taken place as alleged.
So the successful handling of the issue relates solely to the integrity of 'brand Rann'. After all, the guy wasn't even married when the liaisons were alleged to have taken place, so there's no suggestion that he was cheating on his wife. The problem now of course is that, if he has been lying, it's too late to change his public position. If there is substance to Ms Chantelois's allegations and they can be proven, Mike Rann's in big trouble and his personal brand is trashed. On the other hand his stocks - and votes - may rise substantially if his highly regarded personal brand has been wrongfully attacked.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)