Archive for category Product Marketing
Hubris
Posted by Sam Kale in Product Marketing on July 1, 2011
In classical mythology, the concept of hubris is often illustrated by the story of Icarus. The son of the master craftsman Daedelus, Icarus let his pride overpower his humility and paid dearly for his mistake. Wikipedia says it best:
Before they took off from the island, Daedalus warned his son not to fly too close to the sun, nor too close to the sea. Overcome by the giddiness that flying lent him, Icarus soared through the sky curiously, but in the process he came too close to the sun, which melted the wax. Icarus kept flapping his wings but soon realized that he had no feathers left and that he was only flapping his bare arms.
How many times have you been in a meeting where the topic of competitive threats come up? And how many times are those threats answered by assertions of “Maybe, but we’re better!” Better technologically, better in some specific attribute, or just downright better overall. Whether or not the customers believe you (and one only look to the sales and market share numbers to quickly learn the answer to that question), some people will forever hold on to the idea that being better is enough.
This morning Dave Winer posted on Google+ and an incumbent’s ability to innovate against the status quo. It’s an interesting piece, especially when he argues that the incumbents become too enamoured with the status quo (aka “Why would we leave money on the table?” syndrome), while anyone they could bring in to shake up the status quo would probably fall prey to office politics. I’m not sure how much I agree with those conclusions, but they are interesting food for thought.
The larger question here is whether it’s possible to get out of your own way long enough to attack the big issues head on. While it might be true that your product is technically superior to the competition’s, if the customer is buying the competition’s products, you’ve got a problem in desperate need of solving (viz: Kris’ piece on Being Good Enough).
If you’ve got yourself convinced that you’re infallible, impervious, or otherwise untouchable, you might spend some time thinking about what happened to IBM, Microsoft, and DEC, or what’s currently happening to Nokia and RIM, or will no doubt ultimately happen to Google, Facebook, and even my beloved Apple, when a young, small, agile upstart comes along and puts a technically superior product out of business.
Skype: An option for a brain drain
Posted by Sam Kale in Product Marketing, Random Musings, Technology Marketing on June 27, 2011
UPDATED 12:01, Monday June 27, 2011:
According to Silicon Alley Insider, the executives who were let go will be receiving some/most of the equity compensation in question. While it’s still difficult to know exactly what’s going on or the motives behind it, it’s still a good illustration how bad publicity and the appearance of impropriety can travel very quickly. I still think what I wrote below applies: the changing tide of compensation, and how it’s perceived in the market, could severely stifle innovation in this country, at least as much as any tax, levy, or tariff.
—————
A few weeks ago news broke of Microsoft’s purchase of internet VOIP/VidOIP service Skype. At the time I wrote about what the strategic play might be for Microsoft, what they might consider doing with the service, and how I’d like to see it incorporated into my work digital lifestyle. Now, a few weeks later, news about Skype is again breaking acrosss the interwebs, but this time it paints the service – and specifically it’s management team and a key investor – in a much different light.
Sunday morning Michael Arrington wrote on TechCrunch about stories of Skpe employees being terminated and their stock options being reclaimed by the company (he uses the word “worthless” in the title). Rob Beschizza at Boing Boing had similar thoughts on the matter (he invoked the word “screwed” in his title). Over on AVC.com, Fred Wilson had slightly more tempered thoughts on the matter but does recommend the entire system be rethought.
The intricacies of employee stock options in general and these stock options in particular aside, there’s a larger issue that Skype and Microsoft need to consider. Whether or not it’s true, it appears as if Skype terminated a bunch of people just before a big payday and then took away one of the major incentives that convinced the person to work at Skype in the first place. What’s more, they did it in a way that has been called disingenuous and perhaps even actionable.
At some point, the current Skype management team is going to want to start another company, and they’re going to have this reputation to overcome. Their other investors are going to want to invest in another technology company, an organization who’s employees might flee the moment the deal is announced. Ninety nine times out of 100, acquisitions and investments are for the people, not the technology.
We talk alot about the impact of taxes, tarrifs, levies, and other monetary vehicles on innovation and advancement. But what of the impact of this type of behavior on technological innovation? Silicon Valley, one of the major hotbeds on American innovation, has long depended on the promise of equity compensation in lieu of cash. If employees no longer trust equity compensation, start-ups and small businesses might be forced to switch to more traditional cash-based compensation, which could severely limit their ability to bring enough people on staff to get things done as quickly as necessary, thereby stifiling technology innovation.
The people that really have to be carefule here are Microsoft. If Skype’s people start to view their options as completely worthless, then there becomes very little incentive for them to stay. Since the talent should be at least as much of a concern as the technology in any acquisition, Microsoft could find themselves holding a shell of a company worth much less than the $8.5B they paid for it.
HBR: The Risks of Quantification
Posted by Sam Kale in Data Visualization, Product Marketing on May 19, 2011
Admitting uncertainty means facing reality — and our own needs for security. But admitting uncertainty is not enough. We must learn to actively embrace uncertainty and work with ambiguity.
As I sit in a two day meeting about drawing insights from data quantification, this article is very timely. Obviously there’s merit in looking at your data and trying to draw as many insights as possible, but we as marketers can sometimes end up hiding behind the data, using them as an excuse to take no action in favor of gathering and analyzing more data.
There comes a time, however, where you have to accept whatever level of ambiguity you’re willing to accept, make a decision, and take action. The question then becomes: When is the right time? A better question might be: What do I get by delaying and gathering more data? Am I falling prey to the law of diminishing returns?
As the ever-prescient Merlin Mann likes to say, “How do you know when you have enough [information] to get started? What can you not do with the [information] you have right now?” 1
How do you overcome “Analysis Paralysis”?
RIM: One more nail in the coffin?
Posted by Sam Kale in Product Marketing on May 18, 2011
RIM recalling over 900 faulty BlackBerry PlayBooks, is yours on the list?
Sadly, no explanation of what, exactly was faulty in the devices nor has any official communication come across as of yet…
Yet another nail in the coffin of a company that was too late in admitting it had competitive problems. 1
While it seems clear that RIM isn’t ignoring iOS or Android, per se, what does seem clear is that RIM is caught in the unenviable position of having to choose between what they know – their existing consumer base – and what they should know – that the future isn’t going to embrace their past with open arms (see ComScore link above).
MacWorld has a nice write-up of some of the other “nails” in the coffin.
So why bother? That’s the only conclusion to draw from RIM’s latest grand plan. It should stop pretending it has any other strategy than to hope it will wake up one morning to discover the iPhone and Android phenomenon was just a bad dream. That storyline doesn’t even work in soap operas, much less the real world.
Ouch …
-
If you scroll down in the commeents, you learn that the problem is that the software license agreement won’t load, rendering the device useless. Ironic, isn’t it?
Simplicity Sells
Posted by Kris Kaneta in Product Marketing on May 16, 2011
People who own Flip cams will tell you how much they love(d) them. I’m one of them. If you are too, ask yourself one question – are you carrying around your flip? Do you have it within an arm’s length of you right now? Probably not. And that my friends is why Cisco ended up closing up it’s Flip business. In it’s heyday it was pure cinematic magic. It fit in your pocket, was easy to use and may have even recorded in HD.
Today, those things are still important but now you’ve got your iPhone, your Android or (gasp) your Blackberry. Mine is 8 inches away from my left hand and it’s rare for it to be much further than that. And oh besides pics and movies, my smartphone also has music, texts, apps and this crazy thing called e-mail.
Do you know who is the #1 manufacturer of cameras in the world? …wait for it…. Nokia. That’s right. The world’s #1 camera maker also happens to be one of the worlds top cell makers. Now you could quickly interpret this as a blog post advocating feature integration, and it is to a degree, but simplicity doesn’t have to be about integration. In fact – adding more features isn’t necessarily a good thing. But it’s important to note that simplicity of yesterday may quickly become the inconvenience of today (which I surmise is why flip struggled to make it in today’s environment).
So here are three more products besides the Flip, who in my opinion, are on similar paths. At one time great products, these now face some serious issues in simplifying their functionality, whether it be a more integrated experience, changing market dynamics or simply better competition.
1) Rhapsody Music. I love the idea of Rhapsody. I never have to actually “pay” for music. For a flat fee, I download as much music as I want to multiple devices and I never have to worry about backing it up. That said, Rhapsody to-go, due to digital rights management, only works on a select number of handheld devices. It’s great if most of your consumption can be via computer and streaming but bad if you are a commuter or frequent traveler. And it should come as no surprise that Rhapsody and Apple haven’t really figured out how to play ball on this particular issue.
2) Time Warner Cable – or cable companies in general, at one time a must have in every American household. The advent of DVR and on-demand programming likely helped stave off some user attrition but cable companies are in for some rough times as most of the major networks are already giving content away for free and on demand. Then add in services like Netflix. Paying for cable and DVR subscriptions is quickly becoming more of an annoyance than a convenience. Most services still haven’t figured out how to let people access their recorded content remotely, not to mention we as consumers have gotten use to getting content for free.
3) Healthcare providers. I’m continually shocked by how few providers actually provide value added services like remote consultations via video conferencing. How few actually let you schedule appointments online. How many still confirm appointments by phone rather than text or email. Healthcare is in a sorry state. The only saving grace right now is that everyone is more or less in the same boat – competing against mediocrity. But sooner or later, that will shift and the winners will quickly be separated from the losers. Here is a great article from Fast Company that paints a very encouraging picture for the future of the patient experience.
I’m sure collectively we can think of dozens more but these are the products/services I use today that I believe face some serious challenges if they are to compete in today’s integrated market, one where consumers in a singular voice are demanding simplicity. Marketers can no longer create products in a vacuum where they address a singular need. Needs are converging and the lines are becoming blurred. What others can you add to this list?
Disruptive thinking
Posted by Sam Kale in Product Marketing on May 12, 2011
Great article at Harvard Business Review’s HBR Blog about the difference between Big 1 and Small Companies’ approaches to changing tides in their industry.
A big problem is that these [big] companies tend to treat nascent opportunities the same way that they approach established businesses. They want data, even though data on non-existent markets is inherently fictional. So they focus on the market as it is today, where data are more easily obtained, and they employ the most conservative estimates about new sources of growth. They may also concentrate exclusively on what their customers want, which biases them toward incremental improvements of current solutions. As Henry Ford reputedly said of his industry, “If I had asked customers what they wanted, they would have said a faster horse.”
When they do go after an idea, big companies can pursue it so cautiously that opportunity slips through their fingers.
Entrepreneurs follow a different path for a simple reason: they have to.
A great analysis, which in turn generated a couple of other questions I’d love to see addressed in a follow-up, including:
- What happens when the Big Company buys the Small Company to “Level Up” in product innovation?
- Should the Big Company even try to pursue product innovation in the same manner that the Small Company can? Can the Big Company innovate in the way the Small Company can?
- Is the role of the Big Company to be the ones to buy the small company when the technology gets to the right place?
- Is it better to approach Small Company as a Strategic Partner or to buy them outright? What happens when the Strategic Partner Small Company turns into a Direct Competitor Small Company?
- This type of behavior is well established in Big Pharma … the Small Company does most of the preliminary development and shoulders nearly all of the risk. When the product/medicine progresses far enough, the Big Company buys the Small Company, essentially trading their in-house R&D for M&A. What can the broader business community learn from this? When is this not the right model?
- Full disclosure: I work for one of those Big Companies. That said, any opinions expressed or inferred from this post are solely mine.
8.5 billion? DOLLARS?
Posted by Sam Kale in Product Marketing on May 10, 2011
New is breaking across the interwebs of Microsoft’s purchase of VoIP provider Skype, the audio and video conferencing tool that has always had a hard time defining a truly profitable business model.
Much of the commentary I’ve read thus far is either very critical of MSFT paying that much for Skype, fearful that MSFT will do to Skype what it does to, well, everything they make (MS Windows Vista Ultimate Home Small Business Premium Deluxe anyone?), or that MSFT will make Skype proprietary/paid/non-free.
The more interesting question, I think, is what does MSFT get from the deal? Andy Ihnatko has a good take on the different reasons “Very Big Tech Company A [buys] Tech Company B.”
Microsoft makes operating systems, business software, and consumer hardware and Skype helps them out in all three of their businesses. Now, Windows can offer its developers a videoconferencing toolkit for enhancing pretty much anything they’ve got going; Microsoft Office now has fundamental tools for business conferencing and online collaboration, and the Xbox becomes a phone network.
As Kris pointed out before, good marketing and good business are much more than just good ideas; they’re all about the execution. Unless you can turn those great ideas – and in MSFT/Skype’s case, the great potential – into flawless execution, then you’re just stacking up scribbled-upon cocktail napkins … which is fun, right up until the point that you run out of money.
Hopefully MSFT and whatever remains of the Skype team (assuming that the MSFT lawyers negotiated their payout clauses correctly) can turn the potential into some good execution, because I for one would love to see them actually deliver on the promise.1
- As an avowed Apple fan-boy, you might read some sarcasm in this sentence … I can assure you that there is none. I honestly am looking forward to what MSFT can do if they can just get out of their own way first.
The difference between a vice president and a janitor
Posted by Sam Kale in Product Marketing, Random Musings on May 9, 2011
Steve Jobs On The Difference Between A Vice President And A Janitor
“When you’re the janitor, reasons matter,” Jobs tells newly minted VPs, according to Lashinsky.
“Somewhere between the janitor and the CEO, reasons stop mattering,” says Jobs, adding, that Rubicon is “crossed when you become a VP.”
Interesting quote from Steve Jobs, via an upcoming Fortune 1 article. It sounds like Steve expects his senior management team to realize that nothing is not their fault. And via another Business Insider article, it sounds like he practices a radical approach to accountability:
He gathered the troops [ed: the entire MobileMe team, from engineers to management] at the auditorium Apple uses on its campus to do demos of small products for the press.
He asked the team what MobileMe [ed: Apple's online suite of desktop and mobile tools] was supposed to do. Someone answer, and Jobs said to that person (and everyone else), “So why the f*** doesn’t it do that?”
Right there and then he named a new executive to run the MobileMe service.
Perhaps not the kinder, gentler side of corporate relations and HR practices, but probably very effective in it’s straightforward-ness.
- As of this writing, the original article was not available via the web for a link. It is currently only available via the Fortune iPad app via in-app purchase.
Placing product placement
Posted by Sam Kale in Marketing & Branding, Product Marketing on December 20, 2010
A chilly Saturday
Saturday morning I went to put some gas in my car. After swiping my card and putting the handle in the tank, I was left to wonder why gas wasn’t being delivered to my car while I watched my breath freeze in the cool Wisconsin morning. A quick inspection of the gas pump display revealed an “upsell opportunity,” asking me whether a car wash appealed to me.
As a marketer, I understand the theory behind cross selling to increase awareness and revenues from other products in your portfolio. But as a guy standing in the freezing cold, I was just the slightest bit annoyed at having to press yet another button before the thing I had paid for was delivered to me.
Flash forward to Saturday afternoon. Kris and I took in a showing of Tron:Legacy. As has been the case for the past few years, before the actual movie played we were “treated” to a series of previews and other commercials, a combination of studios, in-house promotions, and soda company missives presenting us with opportunity after opportunity to buy things. And while the ticket says that the movie starts at a certain time, we all know that its really the ads that start at the time printed on the ticket while the movie starts 10-15 minutes later.
Are products placed in movies? Or are movies placed in product ads?
And then at some point in the movie, Kris mentioned that the product placements were so lacking in subtlety that they was becoming distracting. I spotted placements for Nokia, Ducati motorcycles, BMW motorcycles, and Coors beer. None were subtle, pausing for at least an extra moment on the brand’s logo. While they weren’t as disrupting to the movie’s flow as the scene in The Truman Show where Laura Linney turns to the camera mid-sentence and plugs laundry detergent, they did break up the rhythm and pull me out of the story for a few seconds.
I half expected the whole grid to be sponsored by Cisco, “The Human Network (TM)”.
Product placement is nothing new. It can be traced back to the earliest days of film and television, and its use today seemingly outpaces the traditional 30 second spot. You might say that its a small price to pay for ensuring that we continue to get quality entertainment at a reasonable price, that brands have the right to advertise their wares in any way they want so long as they pay for it, that its not really that bad.
My problem is not that it happens; my problem is that more and more its being done very very poorly. Something has changed in the medium in the past year or so. Whereas you would have never see James Bond pull up in his Aston Martin and, before stepping out, turn to the camera and read 10 seconds of benefit-selling copy, somehow its OK for the cast of Psych to sit and discuss the new Ford Fusion for 30 seconds before getting back to the story.
It occurs to me that the real problem here is not the subtlety with which the ads are placed, nor is it the skill with which the stories are told.
No, its the sheer audacity with which the marketers replace the customers’ goals with their own.
Its a lot like garage sales
Have you ever been to a garage sale where the items are grossly overpriced considering what they are? A situation where you just know the person took their purchase price, subtracted a few dollars, and wrote it on the sticker, never minding the fact that the item is 4 years and 3 generations old? Perhaps you’ve even been that person, trying valiantly to assign what you think is a fair price to something you have loved and cherished, not stopping to think that others might see it as only stuff (hat tip to Dan Benjamin’s The Pipeline podcast for the revelation).
The products placed in the movie, the pre-movie ads, the in-show car ads, and even the car wash offer at the gas station all share one critical similarity – they all lack a certain amount of contextual awareness that tells them that telling their story is not the most important part of the experience.
Put another way: they don’t fully grasp where they fit in the equation.
As marketers we spend a lot of time talking about unmet user needs, about developing products that address customer pain points, about understanding and extending the user experience.
But wouldn’t it be terrible if all of that hard work was lost because we couldn’t keep ourselves from annoying our customers?
The vocal minority
Posted by Sam Kale in Product Marketing on August 2, 2010
Tell me if this has ever happened to you …
You’re sitting in a review meeting for Product X. Someone questions why a certain feature was included or why another one was excluded. Engineering/Product Design responds exactly how they’re supposed to, with “That’s what the requirements document said.” And then someone in marketing jumps in the clarify:
“The Customers want it that way!”
A hush falls over the room as the Marketing Manager basks in the glow created by invocation of The Almighty Customer. Moments pass as people look thoughtfully around the room at each other, nodding and scribbling in their notebooks.
From the back of the room someone squeaks meekly:
“Does the customer research say anything about how they’re trying to solve their particular problem? Could a different feature do a better job?”
And that’s when the wheels start coming off the proverbial tricycle.
Marketing Manager: “Well, we didn’t do huge amount of customer research. But we talked to customers!!”
Questioner: “Oh, I get it. So you talked to customers … how many customers?”
MM: “We talked to our best customers, of course!! Customer A and Customer B!!”
There’s a fine line between talking to customers and only talking to a few customers. Sometimes its all too easy to fall into the trap of focusing on the vocal minority, those few customers that you talk to the most, whether it be because of geographic proximity, how much they buy, or your own personal relationships. And with marketing budgets being what they are these days, it might be easier to talk to a few, easily accessible customers than to lobby for the funds necessary to do the segmentation and targeting work on a larger scale.
But ask yourself this: Would the iPhone be as wildly popular had Apple listened only to the uber-geeks? Would Google Mail be more appealing if Google had listened to someone _other_ than the uber-geeks? Would your PC be less frustrating if Microsoft had listened to someone other than the Old School Corporate IT Departments?
And so its marketing’s responsibility to keep asking those questions, to keep pushing for better segmentation, better targeting, and a better understanding of where we’re getting our information, what we’re doing with it, and what outcome we’re trying to achieve.
Because it might just mean the difference between making a product that two people like versus one that two hundred million people like.
-
You are currently browsing the archives for the Product Marketing category.
Kris
Sam
Recent Comments