As always, it seems to early to go back to work. But it's also the right time to look ahead and get on with the year. A lot of companies have delayed their market budgeting and planning till the new year to see how the land lies, so now's also a good time to look at the industry environment and what marketing and PR are going to be most cost-effective. Our CEO Ralf Haller recently wrote his predictions for what will be hot in product marketing in 2009, and what not, and I think he's spot on. So rather than making my own, here are three from other industry experts that I found interesting.
The first one for me is vendors tackling enterprise-plus-consumer based social networks, a blended view of those. Enterprise-focused vendors are going to do more than simply sink info from public sites like Facebook. They're going to take that information and build into or out from the enterprise into those social networks and drive information from those. It's going to become a two-way street.
You're going to see folks like Facebook, and most notably, LinkedIn, working in the other direction themselves, and with third parties, to develop enterprise-bound social networks. Look for those to emerge next year.
And from Drupal CEO Dries Buytaert Social publishing (blogs, forums, wikis, social networks, etc.) will become more pervasive and continue to make inroads in organizations seeking to facilitate collaboration between teams and departments. These applications, while nothing new, make many aspects of business better, are here to stay, and will mature over time.
2. Brands get promoted directly via microblogging & social networking
Brands will use Twitter and some people will tolerate push communication.
Just as the original commercial Internet "pioneers" were eclipsed by corporate suits in regard to the continued development and exploitation of the Internet, brands will become a more dominant player in this tool. While the Innovators and Early Adopters who embraced Twitter may feel their "find" has been violated, this is just another stage in the product life cycle as the Early Majority and Late Majority get on board. Many of these later adopters will be complacent with one-way messaging, just as they have been while using other media...
As B2B buyers become less reluctant to use "consumer" apps in their daily work routine, they will accept this relatively new form of blogging as the primary means of communication with their vendors. (Personally, I doubt we will see Twitter etc. being the primary means in Europe this year, but interesting that it is taking off so fast in the US. )
3. New market entrants make fast impact using online marketing
We are going to see folks -- maybe IT people, or people who work for vendors and have been laid off -- have the ability to start their own business at a very low cost of entry. On the flip side of that, the whole social-networking and cloud-computing phenomena, companies have these tools as well to employ low-cost methods to reach their markets and to interact with their customers. We're going to see a lot more of that as well. A marketing campaign doesn't have to cost $200,000 to reach your customers. You can use the social network, the Web 2.0 tools, to interact and collaborate and find out what's going on in your markets at a very relatively low cost.
Jakob Nielsen is the website usability guru, and when he talks about usability, he is credited with complete authority. May seem strange when you visit his site -- it looks like sites of 10 or more years ago. But everyone knew how to use them. His point is not that all sites should be like his, but that they should be as functional: to know when to behave like a user manual (easy to use, easy to navigate, and has all you will need in it) and when like a magazine (visually impressive, surprising, involving).
What Nielsen thinks of online ads
Nielsen's ideas aren't based on personal impressions, but on a great deal of observational research of web users behaviour. Now, speaking at the inaugural Web Experience Forum in Boston, Mass. he has some important news for advertisers as reported by Alistair Croll at GigaOm: Forget banner ads, which are purely interruptive, so users ignore them. Go for search ads, which users click more often than generally thought. Nielsen in this case does not give figures for his survey, but according to Croll:
Jakob showed the audience at WEF08 several videos, including heat charts of eye movement, to demonstrate this process. Some testers skimmed picture ads that contained text — but only briefly...Pictures that are content get attention; pictures that are “fluff,” visitors treat as an obstacle course to bypass, particularly when it’s bland photographs of “smiling lady with a headset” or “guy who looks happy with a service.” ...He even produced an example of a gigantic rat on ask.com (celebrating the year of the rat) that testers didn’t recall seeing. And this thing was half the screen!
Is Nielsen right about banner ads?
Mostly, I think. Banner ads can and do work, but only if they draw the eye and are relevant to the user's reason to be there. Portals are an example, review sites another, and you could find others. But outside of these, when they are interruptive, they are mimicking the display ad world rather than the newspaper classified ads. Even in print media, it's the classified ads that pay for themselves, and that's why search-related ads do so well. Even then, billboards and newspapers often attract your attention when you aren't particularly doing something else -- e.g. waiting at the traffic lights or skimming through the pages -- whereas web users tend to be more purposive, so the bar is pretty high. So although it's too much to say they don't work, they've got to be attractive and relevant at the same time.
Where banners win over search ads, though, is in catching people who didn't already see themselves as potential customers. If a small number of clicks are converted into high value sales as a result, banner ads can pay for themselves many times over. The other important case where banners work is sponsorship, i.e. promotion rather than advertising. Their purpose is brand enhancement, rather than selling, so they don't have to interrupt, just get the name noticed.
A good PR tip from Nielsen's site
While it's worth looking at the resources on Nielsen's main site, it's also worth looking at his biography page - which, despite a bit less navigation than I would like, does a very good job of publicizing him- I particularly like a couple of the spoofs he links to: Jakob Nielsen Declares the Letter "C" Unusable and Davezilla's Jakob Nielsen’s Usability Fighting Styles (as shown above). Not only are they fun to read, but Nielsen's listing them makes his otherwise rather austere presence much friendlier.
Microsoft has decided to drop the ads with Jerry Seinfeld. Personally, I think this is a big mistake - it looks like the company is messing up the biggest-spending campaign most people have heard of, and that's going to confirm many people's impressions that the company are just not getting it right these days. Yes, the adverts were a bit kooky, and Seth Godin may have a point that there is something a little bit fake about it all.
For more than twenty years, Microsoft has relentlessly commodified itself and the software it makes. It has worked to become a monopoly, a semi-faceless organization that cranks out very good (or pretty good) software that gets a job done for the middle of the market. It's been a profitable strategy. But now they have Apple envy.
But from my point of view, Microsoft had made a good start to a difficult but limited job. Basically, they needed to show the benefits of ubiquity and affordability, i.e. that they had brought computing and communication between computers to huge numbers of ordinary folk. At the same time they needed to defuse Apple's advertising message without giving Apple more ammunition. I thought they put across the message in a funny and oblique way, even if it was not hugely accessible. They just needed to move it a little further to show that they have done a pretty good job that no-one else could have done, and they will carry on doing a good job for ordinary folks.
Instead they decided to go head-to-head with Apple, which always looked like a no-no to me. It sends the wrong message: That Apple are setting the agenda and Microsoft doesn't like it. The new ad is trying to imply that Apple ads are disrespectful to the people that use Microsoft. But by doing so, they've put the ball in Apple's court and, on past evidence, I doubt Apple will waste their chance.
I can imagine the Apple guy in the guise of the therapist, for example. A user worries, "My friends think I bought my Mac to look cool, but I just wanted a computer I could use without having to call the helpline all the time". The response could remind them the user that "Apple just doesn't see why you have to do it all the hard way. That's why we introduced the desktop and mouse to personal computing all those years ago - which everyone else copied. Anyway, why shouldn't you enjoy looking at your computer? It's a great machine. It should look good." OK, I'm not an ad copywriter, but you get the idea. Apple can just tone down the cool, emphasize reliability and that they see the user as a friend. They've done it before, and it worked. Now's they've got the chance to do it all over again.
One week on, and another ad from Microsoft, courtesy again of Bill and Jerry, and the long version weighs in at a whopping 4 minutes. I really wanted to see how I'd done with my predictions, and essentially, I think I wasn't too far off. Except that Microsoft was way ahead of me. I thought the odd couple would end up in a diner talking about the common man. In fact they ended up having dinner with the common family.
I think the new ad is both subtle and funny. They've come to stay with a "typical" family to get back in touch with what life is really like for average folks, with all its little moments of awkwardness and embarrassment, of which there are plenty. This episode wrong-footed all the pundits: Jerry, rather than being yesterday's comedian trying to be today's, something for which Microsoft was widely ridiculed, actually says, (more or less), "look at us Bill, you in your Moon House and me with so many cars I'm driving in my own traffic jam - we both need to get back in touch with everyday folks". Clever concept, clever casting.
From the comments I saw, the ad people got it, no problem, and commentators from the ITU world, such as Michael Arrington ("I remain confused"), just scratched their heads and wondered what Microsoft was thinking of. They're doing something funny, and bits of this one wouldn't be out of place (IMHO) in the Seinfeld creator Larry David's own cult series, Curb Your Enthusiasm - of which I am a big fan. In this one, Bill actually takes a real part in the comedy duo. First one, I thought he just got away with being geeky and saying almost nothing; this one I think you fall for his understated wry style.
I think a lot of IT people still hold the opinion that Microsoft is simply trying to rehabilitate Vista. As I said last week, it's a much bigger exercise than that, it's about the company. Getting more acceptance of Vista is more than a side-effect, but still essentially a bonus. The ads are making the admission that Microsoft is out of touch, but in a way that actually shows the opposite - i.e. "we have been out of touch, but we're not any more". Putting the founder in very humbling circumstances really takes the wind out of Apple's sails, too, because the success of those ads depends on Microsoft's perceived arrogance. This series - which will have a massive audience - may well succeed in creating sympathy for the Microsoft geek in the Apple adverts and making the cool apple guy look that little bit snobbish. In a way, the ad out-cools Apple in its post-modern sensibility, something few brands manage, including Apple and Steve Jobs (not that this seems to have hurt them so far). All in all, well done Microsoft.
The many reactions to the new Microsoft ad with Bill Gates and Jerry Seinfeld are mostly pretty negative. Some also remark on the other hand that the number of reactions is itself a good thing, especially as a series starts. The fact that the whole campaign is to cost $300 milllion is pretty much guaranteed to make everyone talk, anyway, so maybe that strategy pays for itself!
Add the fact that it is for Microsoft, one of the biggest brand challenges there is, and it's interesting to speculate where the campaign will go. At least for PR companies like us it's a useful exercise, too. David Webster, general manager of brand and marketing strategy at Microsoft, outlines the plan:
"Windows is a product that's been around for a long time," said David Webster. "It's well-known and part of people's everyday lives. What people don't know is that Windows has kept pace with the changes in people's lives today. We thought it was a good time to catch people up with what windows was doing."
But that last sentence hides a mammoth task -- defusing the hostility surrounding MS, establishing some degree of warmth and trust so they will listen, and then presenting the benefits. I don't believe what commentators say about this being primarily an attempt to rehabilitate Vista, but about rebuilding the brand. Sure, revenues and users are being lost. But the bigger problem is loss of confidence in MS, and though helping Vista's image will restore confidence, it is not enough, and it is too risky to put it all on one product, no matter how central.
So, taking the hint from Webster, I predict the campaign will point out the positives from the company history and culture, showing how they've helped users, getting "a PC in every home" and taking some of the sting out of the bad publicity of Vista. Then they'll turn to the vision. And even though Webster says they won't go head-to-head with Apple -- which Apple would love -- they will be consciously trying to undermine their message of "cool guy vs. clueless control freak", while denying Apple any obvious ammunition. I think the first ad points to how they'll do that already -- showing how ordinary they are. They'll pitch Apple, by implication, as the computer for the elitist, while the PC, enabled by Microsoft, was the affordable, beige, "computer for the rest of us", that just got on with the job without trying to be creative or win prizes. Perfect for doing the everyday stuff like writing letters and doing the tax returns. The point gained, that's when we'll hear just how much Microsoft has done, is doing, will do for the ordinary guy.
So far it goes - Jerry Seinfeld, the star of a witty sitcom that is purely observational, inconsequential comedy, walks past the Circus Shoe store, spots Bill Gates trying on discount shoes, walks in, and the two have an inconsequential conversation. At one point, Bill Gates shows Jerry his Circus Shoes Clown card. "Platinum", he says, at the same time coy and proud. It's a sight gag, which no-one seems to have really picked on. Gates is a clown. He's awkward, he's nerdy. And he's a genius. You can't help having some sympathy. "Bill's just like the rest of us. Give the guy, and his company, a chance. They're trying."
Future episodes: Bill and Jerry get talking
Jerry gets really interested, and keeps the conversation going with lots of quirky, non-threatening remarks.
Predicted storyline: They'll go to a cafe. Maybe a funfair or circus, where Bill's Platinum Member Circus Shoes Clown card will come in handy. At some point Jerry will see the HQ and get the history. And meet lots of other Microsoft folks (Bill is not going to keep the audience engaged through a whole series). Jerry will then get a privileged look into "Bill's World" - not the luxury version of one of the world's wealthiest men, but the geek version with the future vision. He'll see how in the past, that vision meant offering great value and bringing computing to regular folks, enabling the "PC in every home" and the Internet revolution. And then Jerry'll see all the stuff you can already do with Microsoft (Vista and Silverlight will be key), but don't know it. Jerry will be like a kid in a toy factory, and will ask funny questions that give Bill a chance to correct misunderstandings about Microsoft. Then there'll be the vision of the future.
Final episode: Weird, funny, unforgettable
The last episode will be completely tangential to the rest and is there to create buzz, memorability and maybe even a catchphrase.
My predicted messages:
"Bill Gates and Microsoft, they're kind of out of fashion. But remember, they've done a lot for us. And they'll do a lot more for us in the future."
"A lot of people hate MS because it's the biggest and most successful computer company of all time. But that hurts our feelings - we only got to be the biggest by making the most popular software of all time. We can't help it if people want to buy our stuff!"
"Microsoft loves the fact that there are so many new Internet companies doing browsers and email and search and who knows what else. We invented a lot of that stuff - and we're going to invent a whole lot more. But of course we're more than an Internet company."
"So Vista has been misunderstood, and hasn't worked with all your old stuff first time. But it's new, and takes some getting used to. There are lots of great things it can do, and it will run great on the new PC you're thinking of buying." Some of the Mojave stuff may sneak in here, but not enough to give Apple ammunition.
"Anyway, there's a lot more to Microsoft than Vista. Ever heard of Microsoft Word? How many people do you know that use anything else? Even on the Mac you used in your show. And look at all the other stuff we've given you over the years."
"Just look at what you can do on XBox3! Look what Silverlight can do for you! And Windows Mobile!! (And, and...)" At some point Jerry will have to get Bill or whoever it is to calm down so the enthusiasm doesn't endanger their health.
"We've done so much, but there's so much more for us to do. So many cool things that no-one else is going to do for you. We thought of it all because we're nerdy. And if you find that funny, we're cool with you laughing at us. "
Will it work?
This could be perfect timing - Vista has made a humbler more human Microsoft appear credible, and Google has shown that real competition exists. Given the budget, I actually think this could work. The acid test for me will be whether Apple's ads, which must get under Microsoft's skin like nothing else, are made to appear snobbish and spiteful rather than witty and creative. That would really be a success. Despite being mostly a Mac user, I wish the campaign well.
A number of articles -- notably this one from Don Reisinger of Arstechnica -- have recently suggested that Apple could gain significant OS market share by licensing to third-party suppliers. That idea probably gives Steve Jobs nightmares. Here are 5 reasons why Apple should not do it.
Reason 1. Apple is a successful hardware company. Yes, it is also a software company, and its users do go on about its ease-of-use and cleverness. But most of Apple's hardcore customer base is as much in love with the look and feel of the product as the software on it. And this is where their profit base lies.
Reason 2. Apple is not a strong enough software company to compete with everyone. The software world is hugely competitive, with the really big players, Microsoft, Google, and to some extent Adobe, locked in battle. Mac's only potential killer app is the OS, which may be threatened in the foreseeable future by a combination of e.g. Ubuntu and Chrome (see Reason 5). Competing with everybody – Adobe (Flash, Macromedia etc.), Google (iGoogle, Google Apps, Chrome, Android etc.), Sun (OpenOffice etc.), Mozilla (Firefox etc.), not to mention MS itself, is not a viable option. Partnership is the word.
Reason 3. Apple can't beat Microsoft. The reason Microsoft can maintain sufficient stamina on all these fronts (Office, IE, SQLServer, .net, Silverlight...) is vast revenues from licensing for consumer and business OSs. Not only is Windows on the majority of PCs shipped, but the Office suite, too. That also gives Microsoft a lot of leverage in the market, and a lot of power over distributors and partners. When Michael Dell said he was keen on getting the Mac OS on Dell PCs, was he thinking about really big increases in sales, or just enough to pressurize Microsoft into a better deal? He is not, after all, known as a friend to Apple.
Reason 4. Been there, done that, nearly went out of business.Apple tried it in the mid-90's with Power Computing, Motorola and others. Where Microsoft has cash, Mac has huge brand loyalty, and that it what kept the company afloat. Buying a cloned Mac looked like getting a second-rate product, and in a way that was true (not always, though -- some of the Macs of the time were fairly poor). Certainly, Mac users are likely to think of a Mac clone as second rate, which will put pressure on the price -- and users who are bargain-hunting are not likely to appreciate the Mac's smaller and more expensive range of available software. But the big danger is that it dilutes the brand.
Reason 5. Apple can play the same niche in different market segments. Apple customers are consciously buying a premium product with a cool design. Long-term, Android could power a far larger market share than iPhone apps. And a stylish, user-friendly laptop running Ubuntu -- perhaps with Chrome offering great ease of use and finally delivering the promise of Google Apps -- could significantly affect sales of MacBooks. But the niche, and the hard core of Mac fans will remain, because of the styling, the "vision", and the sense of exclusivity. If anything it is probably better to think of Mac as an electronic communication and lifestyle company, as clearly implied in the "Your Life, To Go” tag. Getting embroiled in software wars detracts from this message.
Perhaps the best way to summarize the argument is to say that Apple's whole strategy has been built around being the "better alternative". They have almost written the book on how to be a successful number two in the marketplace -- take a developing market, work in stealth to provide features that the other manufacturers aren’t quite delivering, go in high with undeniably cool products and then build market share. As long as networkable consumer products exist, Apple should be able to find these niches. But not as a software company.
