Download now or listen on posterous

Memo.m4a (2425 KB)

My first foray into audio blogging covers Google’s announcement of their plans for a blindingly fast fiber optic network.

Posted via email from Dr. Frank Ramblings, Ph.D.’s posterous

Posted via web from Dr. Frank Ramblings, Ph.D.’s posterous

But hold on a minute, haven’t we seen this story somewhere before? Think about it. In one corner, we have Apple developing not just the OS, but the phone hardware to go with it. And in the other corner, there’s Google, who is developing the OS and making it available to any manufacturer willing to license it. (Yes, the Nexus One is Google-branded, but it is actually manufactured by HTC for Google.) To me, this seems awfully similar to the Mac vs. PC debate. Apple makes both Macintosh hardware and the Mac OS, while Microsoft only makes Windows (and other software) and licenses it out to manufacturers. In the case of Mac/PC, there is arguably no real winner. Windows enjoys greater market share at a lower price point, but Apple offers a more aesthetically pleasing environment and better customer support. Apple was out of the game for a good portion of the 1990s, but since Steve Jobs’s return, the company has been on a giant upswing. Many Windows users are making the jump to Mac because to them, the ease of use and quality of Apple products outweighs the (outrageous) price tag.

So in the smartphone scenario, does Google represent Microsoft and Apple represents… Apple? You could certainly make that argument. But who will win? That’s a little more difficult to answer. Though the iPhone is widely considered the best phone on the market, there have been a number of complaints about the closed nature of the App Store. Apple has a very strict, yet at times seemingly arbitrary approval process for apps that are submitted to their store. Speaking as someone who actually has an app in the App Store, I can tell you that the process can be pretty bumpy, and sometimes things are rejected for no reason whatsoever, and then accepted when resubmitted without revision. So apparently, depending on whether or not Apple’s App approvers had a good sandwich for lunch, the same app might be rejected on Monday and then approved on Tuesday. That’s very discouraging for developers looking to monetize. If a company dedicates resources to developing an app, only to have that app rejected by Apple at the last minute because the approver has a headache, they would be better off saving their money and not developing the app in the first place. Android, on the other hand, is an open platform in nature. It’s one of many flavors of Linux, the free, open-source operating system. While there is an Android Market for apps, users can get apps from anywhere, even from the developer’s website. Also, updates are available directly from the app developer. So once you’ve downloaded an app to your Android phone, you can get updates whenever they are released by the developer. Apple requires that updates be submitted for approval before they are distributed to users. Again, developers fear that updates might be rejected. Plus, the fact that Android offers seamless Google Voice integration while the iPhone offers none at all could be a real turn-off to some people. I know it’s a factor I would consider.

However, things aren’t perfect in Androidland, either. While the openness of the platform allows for lots of great apps, it also allows for terrible ones. Apple exercises some level of quality control over the apps it approves. Google makes it easy for anyone to develop and distribute an app, regardless of how good or bad it is. In addition to this, different Android phones have different capabilities. For instance, the G1 doesn’t have multi-touch capabilities, but the Droid does. How is a developer supposed to deal with something like that? iPhone developers deal with a more-or-less level playing field. Most apps work on all iPhone and iPod Touch models because Apple controls the hardware. But Android developers have to deal with many different handsets running different versions of the Android software. People like Alex Lindsay would rather stick to iPhone development because they know their software will run on all of the hardware it was designed for.

Still, there is something to be said for hardware options. When you get an iPhone, you only have a choice between the 3G or the faster 3GS. And you’re stuck with AT&T. When you opt for an Android phone, you have a wide range of options before you. The Droid offers both an on-screen keyboard as well as a physical one, but the Droid Eris only has the on-screen one. Some phones offer multi-touch, others don’t. You can pick the phone that’s right for you, on the network that works best for you, whether it’s AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, or Sprint.

I’ve wanted an iPhone since the day it was announced, but I just can’t afford a data plan right now. On the other hand, I wasn’t really excited about Android at first, but the increase in positive feedback since the Droid’s release has me very interested now, especially in the Eris and Nexus One, though again I wouldn’t be able to afford the data plan. While Apple has a bigger App Store, I think Android’s open nature could allow for all sorts of apps that Apple would never approve under the current model. I expect Android will continue to grow as a greater variety of phones running the platform become available. It might even dominate the smartphone market for some time. But I’m sure Apple has something up its sleeve with the next iPhone model, whatever it may be. And eventually, just as many people are abandoning their Windows PCs for Macs, I think we might see Android fall out of favor in a couple of years as the public turns back to Apple. But we shall see. The smartphone is still in its early stages. This week at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas, many new Android models will undoubtedly be introduced. How successful they will be is still a mystery. The really interesting discussions will come about a year from now when significant hardware and software modifications have been made to both iPhones and Android phones and few ideas have been shared (or stolen). At that time, we’ll have a much clearer picture of the better phone. Right now, I’m just glad to see that Apple finally has some serious competition in the smartphone market and I will eagerly and attentively continue to watch how the battle unfolds.

One of the most important issues Jaffe addresses is how to market a product to new consumers. He sums up the 10 principles that advertisers must adhere to when targeting a new audience. These ideas form a solid foundation of thought upon which marketers would do well do build their operations. They are essential to a brand’s DREK: Differentiation, Relevance, Esteem, and Knowledge.

The first tenet is that today’s consumer is intelligent. Modern consumers quickly catch onto marketing tactics and they can differentiate between good and bad advertisements. If something is too contrived, they will see right through it. They also don’t respond well to condescending campaigns. A great example of consumer intelligence is the way they use technology to avoid exposure to unwanted ads. The advent of DVR allows the average TV viewer a chance to begin viewing a program while it is already being recorded. The smart consumer realizes that by waiting just 15 or 20 minutes before starting to watch a show, he can bypass all commercial breaks and still finish at the same time as everyone else who watched the entire broadcast live. Jaffe adds that mass marketing is no longer effective. He believes that the key to success is focusing on a smaller, more devoted target market that will respond well to the messages sent to them.

Jaffe’s second tenet of marketing to new consumers is that today’s consumer is empowered. It naturally follows that an intelligent consumer will be an empowered consumer. One of the most powerful tools that consumers wield is word of mouth. Consumers take each other’s opinions of products and services very seriously. If someone they know has had a bad experience with a product, they most likely will not take a chance on purchasing it because they fear the same will happen to them. That’s why it is imperative to maintain a positive image in the minds of your customers; what they think of often informs new prospects’ opinions of you.

Thirdly, the new consumer is skeptical. The burden of proof falls squarely on the shoulders of the advertiser. Why should the consumer believe you? They question everything. This, in part, ties back into the second tenet. Because consumers question everything, they turn once again to popular opinion to decide whether or not they want to make a particular purchase. Once they have the assurance of both manufacturer and man-on-the-street, only then will they go ahead and shell out the cash.

Today’s consumer is connected. In my opinion, this is one of the two most important parts of this discussion. The Internet is very near to complete ubiquity. More people than ever before have reliable access to the web on the go via their phones and even their iPods. I could easily walk into a store, find an item that I want, and within seconds, pull up a list of retailers (both online and brick-and-mortar) selling the same product for lower prices. That’s bad news for the high-priced retailer, but great news for the lower-priced consumer and me. In fact, on my iPod Touch, I have an application called Yowza. This app pinpoints my location and pulls up coupons from local retailers. When I find a coupon I want to use, I can select it and have the cashier scan the bar code off of my iPod’s screen. I’ve used it and it works like a charm. It’s a great example of how connected we are to the information we need to make an informed purchase.

In addition to being connected, new consumers are also time-pressed. People are busy and they don’t appreciate advertising that wastes their precious time. That’s part of what makes targeted Internet ads so effective. Advertising engines like Google’s AdSense can identify the subject matter of a website or even a simple search and use that data to only display ads that are relevant to that subject. This can be a huge time saver for the consumer who is looking for that special holiday present in a hurry.

Today’s consumer is also demanding. I think this is the other of the two most important parts of the new consumer discussion. Along with constant connectivity, demands are a huge part of what gives modern-day consumers leverage over advertising. Consumers don’t just want content; they feel that they are entitled to it. They believe they deserve it. It’s their right. Once again, new media like instant messaging, Twitter, and cell phone text messages foil the hopes and dreams of marketers. Consumers are so used to having all this information at their fingertips that they don’t want to sit through a five-minute commercial break every ten minutes; they’d rather just record the show on TiVo and watch it later without ads, or even wait until the next morning and watch it on Hulu with limited commercial interruption. They don’t want 20 minutes of ads for every 40 minutes of content. They want their entertainment without the fat and they’ll do whatever it takes to get it. Trying to stop them is just a bad idea. Instead, it’s better to provide easy, legal ways to give them what they want. Earlier this year, Apple’s iTunes store finally lifted its copy protection from the music it sells. No longer would consumers be forced to authorize a certain number of computers or iPods to play the music that they already paid for! Decisions like this are evidence of forward thinking industry leaders.

Jaffe contends that consumer loyalty is a thing of the past. I think what he means is that consumers are only loyal to a certain point. Their loyalty knows certain limits. As soon as consumers feel that they are being fooled or swindled, there is very little the offending brand can do to regain those customers’ loyalty and – more importantly – their business. This explains why some companies are so willing to offer discounted or even free products and services when customers are not satisfied. Cell phone service providers like Verizon and AT&T are notorious for this. When a customer expresses a desire to leave the service, they are sent to a customer retention expert who is authorized to give customers special discounts and freebies if they stay with the company. Smart customers know this and use it to get products and services for free or at drastically reduced rates.

The modern consumer is constantly accessible. This is actually something that advertisers can, should, and (to a certain extent) already do use to their advantage. We are almost always plugged in, be it via cell phone, WiFi, or plain old wired Internet. This means that advertisers have more platforms available to them than ever before. They can blast us with ads everywhere we look. The more we see a brand’s ads, if they are well-placed and appropriately spaced out, the better they sink into our minds, and thus the more likely we are to consume that brand’s products or subscribe to its services. But aside from giving advertisers more opportunities to access consumers, it also creates new consumer demands that must be met. It’s a double-sided coin. If we are constantly available to consume ads, then we also want the constant ability to consume content. Brands need to be reachable for customer service from anywhere and at any time.

Just as today’s consumer is intelligent, he is also ahead of the curve and savvier than the average brand. He uses his knowledge to find the best deal on exactly the product he wants, down to the unnecessarily long model number. Companies generally follow the trends set by their customers. They need some time to catch on. Consequently, they tend to treat the customer as if he is less intelligent or aware than he actually is. Consumers react by either losing patience and walking away from the brand, or by taking advantage of the brand to get only what they want out of it.

Finally, the modern consumer is vengeful. If they had a bad experience with a brand, they won’t hesitate to log onto Twitter and let thousands of people know about it in an instant. Smart companies like Comcast and Best Buy are using this to their advantage. Their official Twitter accounts (usernames @ComcastCares and @TwelpForce) offer consumers assistance and customer service over the Internet. They actually monitor what people are saying about them and try to give them assistance when they need it. The results have been incredible. People who Tweet about their bad cable experience get assistance from @ComcastCares and immediately begin extolling the cable provider’s virtues. It’s a brilliant public relations move.

These 10 tenets should be given careful consideration when planning any marketing strategy in this digital age, especially the two that pertain to consumer connectedness and consumer demand. Those are the keystones that hold everything else up. If a brand doesn’t understand the power that constant Internet access gives to consumers, and the fact that they will stop at nothing to get what they demand, then that brand is doomed in this new-media-driven world.

But Jaffe gives us more than just ideas to consider when wooing new consumers. He provides a list of 10 approaches that he believes are transforming marketing and advertising completely. The list is made up of the Internet, gaming, on-demand viewing, experiential viewing, long-form content, communal marketing, consumer-generated content, search, music & mobile devices, and branded entertainment. Though each of these items could easily form the basis of an entire discussion, I’ll focus on the one that I believe will have the greatest impact in the future: the Internet.

Perhaps the Internet seems like an obvious choice, but it is by far the fastest-growing phenomenon in modern society. It is almost everywhere, and I believe that within the next three to five years, it will be difficult to find a cell phone that doesn’t have high-speed Internet access. The web is the ultimate convergence medium; in many ways, it encompasses the other 9 approaches on Jaffe’s list. The possibilities are literally endless on the Internet. You can do absolutely anything with it. Google is a prime example of this. Google has their hands in every area imaginable: advertising (AdSense), search (Google Search), email (Gmail), digital books (Google Books), online video (YouTube), social networking (Google Profiles), web hosting (Google Pages & Google Sites), blogging (Blogger), telephone (Google Voice), and a whole host of others. The great convenience factor is that you can accomplish almost anything by just giving your information to one company. With a free Google account, you have access to an unbelievable offering of entertainment, business, education and information tools in one place.

This convergence means that people are using the Internet to do just about everything, which opens up tremendous marketing and advertising opportunities. Unlike TV, radio, and billboards, the web is a targeted medium. It’s much easier to ensure that your message only gets across to the people who are interested in seeing it. This can help to eliminate the age-old advertising problem observed by John Wanamaker, “Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted. The trouble is, I don’t know which half.”  By accessing only the people who are more likely to respond to your ads, your advertising dollars are better spent. A great example of this is the way sponsorships for popular Internet TV and radio shows are dealt with. Leo Laporte, former host on the now-defunct TechTV cable network, now has an internet TV and radio station of his own called This Week In Tech (TWiT). TWiT is supported by advertisers like Netflix, GoToMyPc, Ford, audiobook website Audible.com. These are all popular brands among technologically-minded people, and as a result, these properly targeted ads are extremely effective. I myself signed up for a Netflix account because of Laporte’s sponsored testimonials.

In that vein, it is much easier to measure the reach an advertisement has on the Internet than in other media. We might be able to gauge roughly how many people see a particular 30-second spot on TV, but on the web, we can measure exactly how many people click on an ad, and even determine how many people make an online purchase as a direct consequence of having viewed that ad. In the case of Leo Laporte’s sponsors, a coupon code is provided so that consumers get a special price, and the advertiser can measure the source of the sales.

Additionally, new media platforms are growing in ways that TV and other old media can never compete with. Facebook reached 350 million users in November 2009. That makes it equivalent to the 3^rd most populated country in the world, right after China and India, but before the United States. That’s 700 million eyeballs on 350 million screens, just waiting to look at your ad. And to make things even easier, Facebook shows ads based on relevance to the user’s interests, and allows users to eliminate ads they feel are irrelevant. This just helps to target consumers even more directly, based on their own preferences. Similarly, Twitter, though not ad-supported, is a great way to do public relations and even some advertising. Believe it or not, people like Internet guru Chris Pirillo, accept money to advertise products to their thousands of Twitter followers. In Pirillo’s case, he advertises high tech equipment like computers and digital cameras. It’s a very effective strategy for someone like Pirillo who already reaches thousands of people because of his tech blogging and podcasting. Another new media platform is Hulu. People can watch their favorite ABC, NBC, or Fox TV shows on Hulu for free. The site is supported by video ads that are shown before, after, and during programs. But instead of 5-minute commercial breaks, typically only one 15- to 30-second ad is shown at each break. I think this will be readily available on TV sets in the future, bringing ads into the home in a similar, yet different fashion than traditional TV.

The most important thing to remember about the Internet is that it is a great tool to be used in conjunction with DREK. The web can be a powerful differentiation tool if used properly. President Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign is a perfect example of how using the internet can set a brand apart. He used blogging, online donations, and even a personal Twitter account to differentiate himself from his rivals in the earliest days on the campaign trail. It was also a very relevant campaign. Obama appealed to college-age voters by his use of the web. College students live in a digital world, and seeing a public official do the same was very attractive to many voters. That made many college students more likely to listen to what Obama had to say, just because his message was easy to access, if nothing else. As a result of all of this, esteem surrounding the Obama campaign improved among Internet users and young audiences. He projected a positive image of himself that people believed in, and still do to this day. Finally, he controlled the knowledge that people had of him. He effectively used the Internet to show people sides of himself that seemed genuine. He would update his Twitter with a mix of everything from campaign stops to movie nights with his daughters. He showed that was not boring, old, and bland, but rather young, dedicated, and exciting. People responded incredibly well to President Obama’s web-driven campaign, and advertisers really should take a page out of his book.

Finally, Jaffe looks to the future. He says that TV and radio will undergo major transformations and that technology will emerge as the victor. I personally agree with this main premise, but I take issue with some of his smaller points. For instance, while I agree that the advent of surround sound and HDTV in the home will be a renaissance for television and gaming, I disagree with his contention that radio will make the leap “from free to fee.” I think the struggle of satellite radio has proven that people don’t want to pay for radio. In many American households, the radio has been banished to the car. Most people are content with terrestrial radio because it provides free entertainment while driving. Satellite radio comes standard with most cars today, so many people enjoy the free trial and then cancel their subscription. A few stick around for the special offers SiriusXM provides, but not many people like it enough to pay full price. I think Jaffe has already been proven wrong here. HD Radio is both terrestrial and free, while offering a better signal than analog radio. Though the receivers are expensive, I see HD Radio, not satellite, as the replacement for analog radio in the future.

I also agree with his idea that print will remain. Many people have difficulty reading from a computer screen, and some simply prefer the feel of a physical book in their hands. While eBook readers like the Amazon Kindle are becoming increasingly popular, I think the traditional book will never completely die.

Jaffe’s final thought that content will be what people desire most is a sound idea. People will always try to avoid ads. The more you shrink down the typical “hour-long” TV drama from 45 minutes of content to 40 minutes, and eventually to 35 minutes, people will notice and they will find ways around it. They will use their DVRs and on-demand video as alternatives to long commercial breaks. Why not bring the Hulu model to TV? Showing shorter ads that are more relevant to the content being consumed could actually breathe some new life into the 30-second spot and keep it alive and kicking on TV, while bringing the consumer more content.

Overall, I think the 30-second spot is dying because of how it has been misused. Joseph Jaffe seems to think that it is already dead and that there is nothing we can do to stop it now. I believe that if the 30-second ad is re-tooled for the digital age, it can actually be quite useful for a number of years. I think eventually it will die as attention spans become shorter and shorter, but I don’t believe we’re there just yet. The bottom line is this: advertisers and marketers need to embrace new media now or else. Everything is moving more and more in the direction of the Internet. Brands must learn now how to use the web if they want to continue existing five years from now. Some are already adapting, but others are lagging behind. Only the brands that hire technologically savvy people who are alert to the changes around them will survive. The rest will just fade away. The 21^st century is going to be an interesting time that will change the face of marketing and advertising. As a consumer and new media junkie, I couldn’t be more excited about it.

ep•ic (adj.): heroic; majestic; impressively great

Epic. That’s the best word I can use to describe Star Wars in Concert. As I write this, the show ended about and hour and a half ago. What an amazing show! For those who aren’t aware, Star Wars in Concert is a travelling show consisting of a 86-piece orchestra, a huge choir, lasers, lights, the live narration of Anthony Daniels (a.k.a. C-3PO), and a 100-foot high-definition screen displaying clips from all six films synchronized to the music. To call it a fun and unique experience would be an understatement.

Read my full review after the jump.

The show appropriately began with the THX sound and 20th Century Fox Fanfare followed by the words, “A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away.” Naturally the Star Wars Main Title came next, with the iconic yellow letters fading into the distance. It was a majestic opening to an incredible evening. After the music ended, the voice of Darth Vader introduced Anthony Daniels, who took the stage and set the scene for a re-telling of the Star Wars saga through the music of John Williams.

The show was broken into segments that reflected major themes and events from the films, with each segment being introduced by Daniels. His commentary was generally direct and to-the-point, but there were some moments of levity. First, before a segment about droids, Daniels got carried away in extolling the wonders of C-3PO, which prompted conductor Dirk Brosse turned and shot him a disapproving look, at which point he stopped mid-sentence and said “right….anyway….” before continuing. It was clearly scripted, but still hilarious. Another fun piece of narration came when Daniels opened his tuxedo jacket to reveal a gold vest and slipped into the character of C-3PO, saying that the chances of survival were 3,720 to 1. He added that some people prefer never to be told the odds. Fanboys all throughout the arena laughed and cheered.

The music was, of course, exquisite. Some of the best musical moments from all six films were represented. The orchestra and choir sounded absolutely perfect. At times, I forgot that I was listening to a live performance. It really sounded that tight. The music cues were perfectly synchronized with scene changes and cuts in the video on the gorgeous screen above the orchestra. It was done freakishly well. The thought of performing this show every night, sometimes more than once a day, and executing it so perfectly every time is absolutely mind-boggling.

This was a totally unique experience. I’ve never seen anything quite like it before, and I don’t know if I ever will again. The audience absolutely loved it. People of literally all ages smiled, laughed, and genuinely enjoyed themselves. The music was superb and the lights and video were beautiful. It was something really special. I really applaud George Lucas for allowing this wonderful show to take place. It brought people together to celebrate the amazing music of Star Wars.

Star Wars in Concert was an evening of pure gold. I heard my favorite pieces of music from my favorite film saga performed live by an incredible orchestra and choir, along with video clips from said saga, narrated by a supremely talented actor who was a part of every film from said saga. Could I have possibly asked for anything more? There was even an encore! My only complaint about the show was that I had so much fun, the night just flew by. Including a 20-minute intermission, the concert clocked in just under 2 hours, but it felt like almost half of that. So do yourself a favor and see this show if you can! Find out if there’s a performance in your area and see if tickets are available. You’d be surprised how tickets become available even days before a show. You never know until you try! And you’ll be glad you did! May the force be with you!

Listen and Subscribe in iTunes!

The Life of Joe Chaminade.mp3 (2912 KB)

I saw Phantom for the first time a few months ago, and I enjoyed the film quite a bit, but there’s nothing quite like live organ accompaniment. It was a unique experience indeed. I’ve been to a number of other NYTOS events, but this was by far the best. I was transported back to 1925. The music kept me totally in the moment. If you ever have a chance to experience a theater organ, absolutely do it. The wide array of available sounds makes a theater organ a one-man orchestra.

Even without the benefit of a film, a theater organ can tell a story in sound. Don’t believe me? Listen to the mp3 embedded in this post . I recorded it at my high school during a demonstration a few years back. I love it because it really shows how you can get the feel for a story from the music alone. Imagine adding a silent film into the mix, and you’ve got yourself a pretty awesome afternoon of entertainment!

Posted via email from Dr. Frank Ramblings, Ph.D.’s posterous