The Sunday New York Times has an article on how despite the over 100,000 iPhone apps, relatively few are downloaded and then used regularly. Though the article notes that Apple doesn't disclose exact figures - beyond the requisite Steve Jobs presentation, where numbers like millions and billions are put on the projection screen alone - it's clear that a lot of companies are staking their fortunes on developing apps in the hopes of hitting the gold mine. It strikes me that one of the key lessons of that great book "The Curse of the Mogul" applies here. The Internet does lower barriers to entry for new business entrants, but that's not necessarily a good thing for everyone. It means that it's hard to achieve significant market share, given the sheer number of businesses and products made available.
With the innumerable number of apps available - as well as the number of smart phones and smart phone platforms available - it strikes me that a smart new business might focus on 'filtration'. With all of the various websites, cable TV channels, platforms, programs, apps, etc., how can one sort through it all? It helps users determine what's right for them without having to browse through a million options.
Some might argue that Amazon's suggestions and the very nature of search (e.g., Google) function as a filter, but I think there's another level that would be really useful. With the proliferation of media (content, news) and messages (email, text, postings), it just strikes me as being so critical to maintaining some degree of efficiency and sanity. "The 4 Hour Work Week" recommended a type of filtration - basically turning it all off - but I think there's a business in there somewhere.
But will it be worth developing given how relatively simple it is do start a business online? Or will there be a ton of filters, just as there are a ton of contraction timers for moms-to-be?
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Apple and Social Media: A Strategy to Live and Let Live?
Many of my clients, past and present, cite Apple as the preeminent brand and business. What's Apple doing? What would Apple do? Can we do social media like Apple? In many cases, I totally agree.
On that last question, I always have a laugh, because what's pretty clear to me is that Apple hasn't particularly ventured into social media. On Facebook, there appears to be a number of quite popular, fan developed pages, but none necessarily ordained by the company. Maybe it exists, but I haven't found an Apple-controlled YouTube page either; there certainly are plenty of videos, mostly by fans, some by haters. Apple is certainly tweeted about - about 3 times a minute in more exciting times - but I'm having trouble finding Apple-published tweets or an Apple-produced handle. The site doesn't appear to allow people to tweet its various product pages (or Digg them or post them to Facebook). Isn't that best practice? Maybe, but maybe not? Apple.com does have a vibrant and useful wiki-style tech forum.
So, what exactly is Apple's social media strategy? Could it be that it's "do nothing" and let the various consumers and communities say and do what they will, just give them fodder via commercials, pronouncements and insanely great products? It appears to be working, but generally when times are good.
Yesterday's much heralded announcement of the tablet seemed to be something of a sea change in the social media world for Apple. For the first time in my memory, beyond when Steve Jobs took a leave of absence, there were numerous pot shots posted, tweeted, retweeted and emailed. The iPad is a subject of controversy as much as before its announcement, it was a subject of speculation. Even Apple fans seem to be scratching their heads...at least according to their multiple status updates and tweets.
Does Apple need to venture forth and answer these social media pundits and dilettantes in their own world? Is that the right thing to do - to venture forth and set up social media outposts? Many marketing executives and social media acolytes would say yes.
I say absolutely not. Apple's mystique is part and parcel of its success; its products are obviously a critical component, but Apple has really demonstrated that a company shouldn't always enter the conversation to be conversed about. Just give the consumers something to talk about - great, innovative, well-thought through products. When they are not so great, make them better, quickly...or abandon ship.
That'll set the social media masses chattering in the right way.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=5306efde-c738-4958-aca3-b0bf2f3d0ca3)
On that last question, I always have a laugh, because what's pretty clear to me is that Apple hasn't particularly ventured into social media. On Facebook, there appears to be a number of quite popular, fan developed pages, but none necessarily ordained by the company. Maybe it exists, but I haven't found an Apple-controlled YouTube page either; there certainly are plenty of videos, mostly by fans, some by haters. Apple is certainly tweeted about - about 3 times a minute in more exciting times - but I'm having trouble finding Apple-published tweets or an Apple-produced handle. The site doesn't appear to allow people to tweet its various product pages (or Digg them or post them to Facebook). Isn't that best practice? Maybe, but maybe not? Apple.com does have a vibrant and useful wiki-style tech forum.
So, what exactly is Apple's social media strategy? Could it be that it's "do nothing" and let the various consumers and communities say and do what they will, just give them fodder via commercials, pronouncements and insanely great products? It appears to be working, but generally when times are good.
Yesterday's much heralded announcement of the tablet seemed to be something of a sea change in the social media world for Apple. For the first time in my memory, beyond when Steve Jobs took a leave of absence, there were numerous pot shots posted, tweeted, retweeted and emailed. The iPad is a subject of controversy as much as before its announcement, it was a subject of speculation. Even Apple fans seem to be scratching their heads...at least according to their multiple status updates and tweets.
Does Apple need to venture forth and answer these social media pundits and dilettantes in their own world? Is that the right thing to do - to venture forth and set up social media outposts? Many marketing executives and social media acolytes would say yes.
I say absolutely not. Apple's mystique is part and parcel of its success; its products are obviously a critical component, but Apple has really demonstrated that a company shouldn't always enter the conversation to be conversed about. Just give the consumers something to talk about - great, innovative, well-thought through products. When they are not so great, make them better, quickly...or abandon ship.
That'll set the social media masses chattering in the right way.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Bundles of Cable / The New Yorker / Bob Lefsetz
Thanks to Bob Lefsetz' email, I read a New Yorker article by James Surowiecki about why cable companies bundle, which nicely illustrates the cable business model and why it might benefit the consumer. It so happens that if channels were unbundled, and we paid a la carte, the amount that we'd be charged for each channel would be so high that it would nearly approximate the total cost of bundle.
The article provides a good analysis, but I think it makes one logical step that I disagree with. Here's an excerpt:
So far, the task hasn’t been too difficult, in part because consumers haven’t shown much unbundling fervor. If there were sizable demand for à la carte, you’d expect at least one of cable’s competitors, like DirecTV, Dish Network, or Verizon’s FiOS, to offer it, but none do. You’d also think that, as bundles have grown more expensive, and as building your own TV experience has become easier—by watching online, downloading from iTunes, and getting high-definition network broadcasts via antenna—cable and satellite would have got less popular. But subscriptions continue to grow.
Demand does not necessarily inspire innovation or product offerings, particularly when it upsets the applecart of a business model, though the old adage goes "Necessity is the mother of invention." Often times, innovation creates demand or markets.
I believe at some point, there will be an a la carte offering for these products, but alas, I can't predict the future. It sure is fun though to try to!
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=07bc3f83-f424-48c0-88b0-bd3f3e88abc1)
The article provides a good analysis, but I think it makes one logical step that I disagree with. Here's an excerpt:
So far, the task hasn’t been too difficult, in part because consumers haven’t shown much unbundling fervor. If there were sizable demand for à la carte, you’d expect at least one of cable’s competitors, like DirecTV, Dish Network, or Verizon’s FiOS, to offer it, but none do. You’d also think that, as bundles have grown more expensive, and as building your own TV experience has become easier—by watching online, downloading from iTunes, and getting high-definition network broadcasts via antenna—cable and satellite would have got less popular. But subscriptions continue to grow.
Demand does not necessarily inspire innovation or product offerings, particularly when it upsets the applecart of a business model, though the old adage goes "Necessity is the mother of invention." Often times, innovation creates demand or markets.
I believe at some point, there will be an a la carte offering for these products, but alas, I can't predict the future. It sure is fun though to try to!
Friday, January 22, 2010
Pirates
Image via Wikipedia
I know this news doesn't bode well for the future of music, but I still think, which I've said dozens of times, that music subscription services will catch on. We just need a bit more patience.
Come on, Spotify! Come on, Apple!
Give us something great in the US.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=5d591fd8-fa26-4930-a484-1e750437b2e0)
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Starbucks Undercover: The Great Comeback or the Great Fakeout
The New York Times today has an article on Starbucks turnaround under its founder Howard Schultz. A couple of remarkable points:
1. THE VALUE OF FOUNDERS: Founders are often the right people to lead companies. They are visionaries, not functionaries, and Schultz is one of those former types, clearly. Rob Kalin at Etsy is another who has recently taken the helm of his company again; I hope he can figure out how to monetize it.
2. THE VALUE OF ADS?: Locality beats mass marketing any day. I don't care what anyone says: the ads did not get people to reconsider Starbucks in a new light, and quite frankly, the Pikes Peak roast wasn't very good. Starbucks felt it had to advertise simply because McDonalds was advertising its espresso, and Dunkin Donuts had upped its game. I wonder whether there's any way to determine the value of it. Having high traffic and volume locations wins the day if you know how to leverage your stores (and not have too many of them cannibalizing each other's business, which Schultz quickly curtailed).
3. FAKING INDY CRED: I really think Schultz' strategy around localization is smart, as Gen Y doesn't care about the Starbucks brand, which is thinks of as a higher end McDonalds for coffee. It appears that Starbucks is toying with opening more coffee shops under names other than Starbucks even though they are fully owned and operated by Starbucks. What I think could really be interesting would be to start properly franchising Starbucks - not just allowing cafes to buy the Gold Coast beans (which used to be really good), but properly offering an array of higher end, niche specialty coffees along with choices of food stuffs to independent cafe owners. Right now, those in the know, know that Stumptown, Great Barrington, Blue Bottle, etc. have better quality control over their coffee. I'm a coffee snob; it's just true. It tastes better.
The one thing that troubles me as much as I admire Schultz' vision, is that I feel these different named, Starbucks-owned cafes are somewhat dishonest. They are not independent; they are ersatz indy hip. Maybe it's just me, but I don't love when big corporations "go small" in these ways. I feel tricked. Nike has relationships with numerous small shoe stores around New York City, and when it want to pull up the velvet rope, it creates a design lab on Elizabeth Street. It's Nike, and you know its Nike. That's ok. Another example is J. Crew's mens store in Tribeca, which has a different name, Liquor Store, but openly advertises that its owned by J. Crew; it has a lot of J. Crew merchandise and some other vintage stuff (not unlike Ralph Lauren).
But if it called itself something else to hide what it actually was, it would give me pause. I think it would also give pause to others.
In any case, here's to great coffee, wherever we might find it!
1. THE VALUE OF FOUNDERS: Founders are often the right people to lead companies. They are visionaries, not functionaries, and Schultz is one of those former types, clearly. Rob Kalin at Etsy is another who has recently taken the helm of his company again; I hope he can figure out how to monetize it.
2. THE VALUE OF ADS?: Locality beats mass marketing any day. I don't care what anyone says: the ads did not get people to reconsider Starbucks in a new light, and quite frankly, the Pikes Peak roast wasn't very good. Starbucks felt it had to advertise simply because McDonalds was advertising its espresso, and Dunkin Donuts had upped its game. I wonder whether there's any way to determine the value of it. Having high traffic and volume locations wins the day if you know how to leverage your stores (and not have too many of them cannibalizing each other's business, which Schultz quickly curtailed).
3. FAKING INDY CRED: I really think Schultz' strategy around localization is smart, as Gen Y doesn't care about the Starbucks brand, which is thinks of as a higher end McDonalds for coffee. It appears that Starbucks is toying with opening more coffee shops under names other than Starbucks even though they are fully owned and operated by Starbucks. What I think could really be interesting would be to start properly franchising Starbucks - not just allowing cafes to buy the Gold Coast beans (which used to be really good), but properly offering an array of higher end, niche specialty coffees along with choices of food stuffs to independent cafe owners. Right now, those in the know, know that Stumptown, Great Barrington, Blue Bottle, etc. have better quality control over their coffee. I'm a coffee snob; it's just true. It tastes better.
The one thing that troubles me as much as I admire Schultz' vision, is that I feel these different named, Starbucks-owned cafes are somewhat dishonest. They are not independent; they are ersatz indy hip. Maybe it's just me, but I don't love when big corporations "go small" in these ways. I feel tricked. Nike has relationships with numerous small shoe stores around New York City, and when it want to pull up the velvet rope, it creates a design lab on Elizabeth Street. It's Nike, and you know its Nike. That's ok. Another example is J. Crew's mens store in Tribeca, which has a different name, Liquor Store, but openly advertises that its owned by J. Crew; it has a lot of J. Crew merchandise and some other vintage stuff (not unlike Ralph Lauren).
But if it called itself something else to hide what it actually was, it would give me pause. I think it would also give pause to others.
In any case, here's to great coffee, wherever we might find it!
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Digital Atomization: The Cream of the Crop vs. The End of Patience
Image via Wikipedia
Digital culture is increasingly atomized - samples of the entire 'thing', whatever that thing might be. It is also the "cream of the crop", though the cream is often determined by mass tastes simply because that's what receives most prominence on home pages and on Top 10 Pages. Susan Boyle receive 35MM views on YouTube, and interestingly the clip itself was a cut of the actual TV show - a hype real of sorts. Most viewers didn't have to sit through a single commercial or pay attention to a banner ad. We got the best or the worst on demand...depending on your perspective.
Digital atomization has its benefits: if someone on the Okayplayer forum recommends a song or an artist, I can generally view it immediately. The world of content is incredibly searchable and accessible. Yet, longer forms, along with the business models that derived sustanance from them, might be fewer and far between. Certainly, we'll have blockbuster films and books - the Avatars and Harry Potters - but more niche, longer cultural forms might, well, become more niche. There will be even fewer operas or 3 hour plays. Books that required serious thought to read might still be written, but perhas less frequently read.
I suppose this topic is on my mind, because I wonder how it will impact my 6 week old daughter. Will she have the patience to slog it though the cultural forms - mass and niche - that I encountered and were part of my intellectual and social development? How will that impact her? Will she have the patience I sometimes have to read her "Goodnight, Moon", or will she want the Cliff Notes version? Will she skip through the film version of "The Wizard of Oz" to see the Yellow Brick Road and Oz? Will she prefer "That's Entertainment" over "Top Hat"?
These are the things that are on my mind. I guess only time will tell the personal and professional implications.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=745d3f84-0082-4ae1-be1b-f27500c865c6)
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
eMarketer: Report on Music Streaming from the Cloud
Image via Wikipedia
First, it is written as if the "musical cloud" is some new invention. Actually, it's existed for nearly 10 years. What's truly changed is the ability to access that cloud from different touchpoints, especially mobile ones. (In fairness to Mr. Verna, he does discuss Rhapsody, Napster, etc., which he rightly claims underperform against expectations).
Second, it doesn't take into account that Rhapsody's mobile offering, which comes as part of its subscription package, is decidedly buggy and doesn't allow for "tethered" downloads. In other words, for those of us who like to listen to music on the subway, we're unable to access music via wireless, because there's no mobile phone signal, and we can't download DRM-protected tracks to our phones for untethered listening. I find this unbelievably frustrating.
The sad part of it all is the projected total revue for the music business. To put it simply, times is tough. As digital increases as a percentage of total music spend, the total music spend figure decreases. As with other media, the physical drives more revenue than the virtual. When placing this figure against expected inflation, it's pretty clear that more people are going to lose their jobs.
With all of this continuing negativity, as I've said numerous times, I'm an optimist. Who will be the first company to offer a great mobile music offering? Will it be Spotify? Will it be Apple...or maybe one of the telecoms? Perhaps a partnership with a bunch of them. I think the winner will ultimately not be an advertising-supported model, because that can't support the music business' model, not even close; it will instead be a good offering that actually works (imagine that!) and that people pay for as part of their phone bills. I mean, how many advertising supported models - with no other revenue source like cover prices - can there be in media?
I still believe there's a chance for cloud based music to succeed. It's just the offering still isn't very good. Let's remember that until Apple released the iPod (and then not even immediately), MP3 players were pretty terrible, and no one thought they had a future.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=178224fb-406e-4890-871e-e7b7ecdf6f20)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
