Whatever...

From classic to obsolete

By Kathryn Mills-Webb

My brother got a new iPod classic for Christmas, only to find that when he plugged it into his two year old Mac laptop, the two were incompatible. 

At first, I couldn't believe that Apple would lock out its own users – does it really assume that every iPod user would also have bought a new Mac computer within the last year?  After all, isn't one of the main advantages of today's home computers that they last for a very long time and don't often need replacing?

On closer inspection, we discovered that the new iPod classics only work with Mac OS X v10.4.9 or later – yet v10.4.9 was only released last April! On the other hand, if you have a Microsoft OS, you can use both Vista and XP, which means that anyone who bought their Windows PC in the last seven years is alright.  And while the Apple fanatics out there will shout that you can upgrade and download the latest version of the software, the reality is that most people a) don't want the hassle of doing this, and b) don't really know how to. 

However, if we look at the figures, perhaps it's not surprising that Apple is doing this.  If someone can't use their iPod with their current laptop, they might as well just go down to the Apple Store and buy a shiny new computer, yes?  I think not.  If you’ve just bought an iPod classic, you’re hardly going to have the money, or inclination, to splash out on a brand new computer too. 

What's more, Apple's phenomenal iPod growth is now beginning to slow down, which is negatively impacting the company's share price. This is hardly surprising though, as iPods are not like mobile phones, with consumers happy to throw them away and upgrade every year. You can almost always get a free phone by signing up to a contract, but you're always going to have to pay for an iPod and as most people only use them for listening to music, the extra features wouldn't necessarily justify the expense...

Yet Apple's constant launch of new versions and special edition iPods would seem to suggest the opposite.  I think that Apple needs to take a hard look at itself and stop believing its own hype – we’re always being told how nice it is to live in Mac World, but reality might just be about to bite.

What exactly has Ford got against Stupid Dogbot?

By Joe Banks

It’s often said (and certainly when I was growing up in the 70s) that the adverts are the best things on the telly.  Yes, they’re short films made to sell things, but the sheer diversity of approaches to fulfilling this basic objective is truly mind-boggling.

And of course, intentionally or not, they also say lots about the company behind the product, both in how it sees itself and how it views its potential market.  In fact, in these days of heightened brand awareness and increased media savvy among TV audiences, this is perhaps the most important aspect of the advert. 

Which is why you’d think that both the companies and ad agencies involved would sometimes give a bit more thought to the implications of the messages contained within their adverts.  OK, so the way that people view ads is obviously a subjective experience - but one current campaign has caught my attention for all the wrong reasons…

Ford’s ‘Clever Fiesta, Stupid Dogbot’ ads have been running for over a year now, and there’s something not quite right about them.  Basically, Ford has invented a robot dog to compare one of its cars against, with all kinds of indignities visited upon the unfortunate metal canine while the Fiesta sits in the background looking smugly inert. 

There’s a number of ways in which these ads don’t work for me, but the most obvious is that Dogbot is actually rather cute and lovable, whereas the Fiesta is just another toaster on wheels.  It just seems pretty mean-spirited (even the word ‘stupid’ seems harsh) to pick on poor old Dogbot, who after all – like a real dog – probably doesn’t know any better.

As such, these ads make me feel sorry for Dogbot while depicting the Ford brand as being self-satisfied and complicit in Dogbot’s mishaps.

Now, you might think it’s crazy that I've got myself emotionally involved with the plight of a computer animated graphic – but that’s exactly what a lot of modern adverts are designed to do.  Only on this occasion, I’m assuming that this isn’t the empathetic response that Ford was aiming for.

I suppose what amazes me most is that a campaign that has clearly cost a lot of money can still be so imprecise in the message it delivers – but this doesn’t seem to be so unusual in advertising.  Public relations is also a great way to promote and enhance a company’s brand values – but I can’t imagine any PR agency getting away with a campaign that was as potentially open to such a negative interpretation.

Sure, PR and advertising are different disciplines, and they go about brand building in different ways – but sometimes, you’ve got to wonder if the desire to do something ‘cool’ hasn't over-ridden basic common sense about how people relate to certain imagery.

(And it looks like Ford isn’t the only car manufacturer that’s sending mixed messages out in its adverts)

Brand extension or brand confusion?

By Alexandra Radius

Anyone in business has to answer the following questions almost every day. How can we grow our business? How can we increase sales? How can we maintain or lower expenses? One way of responding to these questions is brand extension.

Virgin is a good example; a recent independent study has shown that the UK public voted Virgin as their most admired brand with 23% of the votes.  (Sony came second with 21% of votes)

Virgin's revenue comes from a variety of businesses: airlines, megastores, mobile phones, music label, trains, cosmetics, wines, money - just about everything! In the UK, Virgin even owns a modelling agency and two nightclubs.

Why does Richard Branson keep launching so many different operations? The Virgin website even solicits proposals for new business ideas. With new technology and media opening up even more possibilities for diversification, what's next? Virgin social networking?

In France, to increase brand awareness, Virgin has just bought out a radio and TV station (we already have the mobile phones, megastore and drinks). But while it's a new way to communicate and talk about the Virgin brand, I'm not sure this strategy works so well in France because the company simply doesn't have the same market penetration as it does in the UK.

Of course, the greatest danger of too much diversification is the possibility of a negative impact on core brand values, leading to confusion in customers' minds. Also in a diversified company, the objectives of some sub-brands may conflict with those of others.

In my opinion, in France, Virgin may have to refocus on basic corporate communication activities to increase consumer loyalty before spreading itself too thinly with multiple products.

Privacy leak becomes a flood

By Richard Ratclifffe

Privacy International has produced a report announcing that Britain is Europe’s worst performer when it comes to protecting the privacy of its population. Britain only narrowly beat communist China, who censor the internet and recently announced it would no longer tolerate user generated content on sites like YouTube.

Privacy and the infringement of civil liberties are popular subjects at JK and have featured in blogs discussing CCTV, data sharing and tracking devices. While discussing personal data and the creation of centralised national databases, one of my colleagues touched upon the argument that if you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear.

But recent data loss fiascos have shown that potential invasion of privacy is a danger to us all. Even if we ignore the dubious ways in which our own government has misused personal information, it is obvious that it’s incapable of protecting us from the threat of fraudsters and cyber-criminals.

Liberal Democrat leader, Nick Clegg has recently produced figures showing that 2007 was the worst ever year for personal privacy. The loss of half the population’s personal information has led many people to believe that the ID card scheme is now unlikely to become a reality.

Despite these events and recent research showing that 6 out of 10 UK citizens do not trust the Government with personal data, Gordon Brown, in his first major interview of 2008, reiterated his unwavering support for the scheme.  While there are many conspiracy theories regarding the malevolent plans for our personal information, it has now been proved that incompetence is just as big a threat.  This is all a far cry from Labour's optimistic plans for eGovernment and broadband Britain.

Much of the information which would be required for the ID card scheme and the national identity register would be of a sensitive nature, and every time an individual interacts with any part of the ID infrastructure, an audit trail would be left behind which could be updated to the register. Information could cover education and employment data (including any trade union affiliations,) as well as medical records (including any conditions or diseases such as allergies or HIV).

Before considering the consequences individuals might face should this information be stolen or innocently misplaced, it is worth remembering Gordon Brown has openly admitted that, just as the DVLA sell driver’s information to clampers, he would be prepared to sell our information to private enterprises.   

As the capabilities of technology continue to progress, it is imperative that people start to speak out in defence of their privacy. The idea of a centralised national identity register is remarkably similar to systems used in regimes like communist East Germany. Despite not having the technology we have now, these systems were still ruthlessly efficient in exerting control over the population.

I think that before ideas of this nature are even considered, it is essential that the procedural errors leading to the recent data loss incidents need to be examined and rectified. In addition, it needs to be explained why so much private information is actually required and what it is to be used for, rather than simply using ambiguous threats of terrorists and illegal immigrants to justify it.

It’s good to talk… so why don’t we?

By Rebecca Surtees

In 1994, BT launched the “it’s good to talk” campaign.  You remember - a jolly Bob Hoskins, an elderly lady celebrating her birthday, and a dog. 

But what happened?  These days, you’re more likely to hear the ping of your email or the incessant beep of a text message rather than a person’s voice. 

In the digital age, the use of the telephone is clearly a dying skill – let alone the ability to conduct an articulate conversation.  This is particularly true in the realms of PR, where email has, quite literally, swallowed us whole.

Recent research has shown that employees admit to checking their emails between 30 and 40 times per day, while the average number of emails sent by workers each day was 37 in 2006, predicted to rise to 47 in 2008 (which all seems a little low to me!).

Whatever happened to picking up the receiver, dialling a number and having a good old chat?  Instead, we spend considerable amounts of time chasing emails round our inboxes, gagging for someone (please, anyone!) to make a final decision.

There’s no denying that email is a wonderful thing – but there is a limit.  Yes, it enables companies to leave a documented trail of evidence; to transcend time differences; and for all of us to be involved in correspondence.  But at the same time, it’s also given us the curse of the “cc” box, not to mention the deluge of spam.

The telephone, on the other hand, is (usually!) a direct line to a living, breathing human being.  And in PR terms, that means you can get a sense of your clients and journalists, and they, in turn, can get a sense of you – as opposed to a string of impersonal emails.

Good communication really is the crux of our job.  A client and its brand must be understood and expressed to the relevant people in the correct manner, therefore the communications we engage in must be crystal clear (or pretty darn close) and based on dialogue where possible. 

If we don’t get the balance right, all that lies ahead is a future of crossed wires and a murky quagmire of emails – and that’s not a pleasant thought for any of us. 

Impatience is a virtue (for PR)

By Richard Scarlett

In an age where we can log on, double click, then put our feet up and wait for our groceries, books, gadgets and clothes to be delivered directly to our doorstep, it strikes me as all the more amazing that some people are still prepared to descend upon a given shop come rain or shine, queuing for hours upon hours, just to get their hands on the latest and greatest new thing. 

Yes, despite the comforts of online home shopping, there are still those among us who crave the instant gratification and assurance of being ‘one of the first owners the UK’.

And of course, impatient consumers are a PR dream in more ways than one, because round-the-corner queues generate their own hype and buzz.  Whether it’s the opening of a new Primark, the lure of the latest Sony Playstation or the launch of a limited edition Kate Moss/Cavalli/Madonna/Kylie range at a popular high street chain, a salivating crowd is a great photo op for the press.

However, the numerous headlines ahead of the launch of the iPhone, promising ‘huge queues’ and a ‘surge of customers’, were perhaps a little premature, as the reality fell somewhat short of spectacular.

Aside from a hardcore of Apple worshippers at the flagship outlets (here’s four of them complete with branded umbrellas), you could have been forgiven for thinking that the day of it’s UK launch was much like any other at the Carphone Warehouse, O2 and other iPhone stockists – and that’s hardly surprising.

Strong marketing and PR couldn’t disguise the fact that the iPhone isn’t a limited edition, it’s already been available for six months on the internet, and the teething troubles faced by Stateside early adopters may well have convinced many potential buyers that it just wasn’t worth the hassle. 

At the risk of upsetting the Apple cart, I don’t think its marketing strategy completely worked this time.  And the deliberate choreography of a ‘stunt crowd’ is, well, a little bit desperate and beneath a brand that’s usually so slick in its communications.

Staged events such as this are thwarted by the fact that consumers are increasingly refusing to be pawns in PR’s bid for buzz-generation.  Having already seen the problems associated with first generation products or the inevitable price drop a week after launch, could it be that we might be learning to put the crazed-mob tendencies behind us and actually become more patient?

I guess we’ll have to wait until the launch of the ‘next big thing’ to find out.

Kindle schmindle

By Dom Walsh

When I got married, we decided to use my grandfather’s Bible for the reading. It was given to him in 1922, and was already a decade old.  It’s survived poverty, bombing, children and living in Manchester.  The text is still clear, none of the pages have fallen out and the binding’s holding up perfectly.  It also has a full index and nice, helpful numbered pages as well as being a convenient travel size.  All in all, for a piece of technology coming up on its centenary, it was ideal.

Now, by way of contrast, let us consider Amazon’s latest effort to revolutionise the world of reading: the Kindle “electronic book”.  Amazon have grabbed some fantastic press over this, with acres of coverage for the launch.  Sales have also, apparently, been brisk, with the Kindle selling out on its initial (no doubt limited) release.  Of course, the Sega Dreamcast did similar business, and look what happened to that…

There have been criticisms over its looks - understandable, considering it would have been rejected by the Blake’s 7 prop department for being too cheap and tacky-looking.  And unlike an mp3 player, you can’t just copy your existing books onto it.  This looks likely to be a major setback in encouraging uptake of electronic books of any sort, as it’s a costly inconvenience to have to download works that you already own just for the pleasure of reading them on a device that’s even more embarrassing to expose on the train than an adult edition of Harry Potter.

On saying that, there are markets where a device such as the Kindle would be, if not invaluable, certainly welcomed.  The legal industry, for one, would benefit from a reduction in the huge number of tomes currently required by practitioners.  Students could also benefit, enabling a huge number of reference works to be carried around at once, with the initial high asking price ($400, around £195, or 39 copies of ‘1984’) being offset both by convenience and hopefully the ability to download books at a greatly reduced cost to their paper versions.

For the average reader though, I don’t see that electronic books have any advantages over the traditional type. They’re certainly less durable and less replaceable – a lost book can generally be rectified with a few pounds and a trip to Oxfam, rather than the high cost of replacing a Kindle.  And while portable, they are no more so than an average paperback.

But there is also the aesthetic aspect to consider.  Books have been a popular, successful design for centuries, whether disposable entertainment or impressive piece of home decoration. They are recyclable and extremely durable as well as being highly tactile and easy to use.  And after the robots have risen up and kicked us out of our homes, we’ll still be able to read them or, at the worst, use them for fuel.

I just don’t believe that electronic books will ever replace traditional literature, Newsweek hagiographies notwithstanding.  And I’m pretty sure that my own grandchildren will still be able to interface with the same Bible I did if they want.  Of course, whether they’d be more impressed by an electronic book – or PlayStation or iPhone – is quite another matter.

Keep it simple (not stupid)

By Mike King

Last month, I spoke at an eMarketing conference in Dublin arranged by Enterprise Ireland.  The focus of the event was on how companies could develop an online presence that promoted their brand and increased international business.  Sounds like a broad subject, but much of it covered and emphasised the importance of the practical elements of building an effective website.

A lot of this was basic common sense – know your audience and write the site for them, not for yourself; keep it short, succinct and to the point; and provide very clear, concise information so that visitors can quickly and easily see exactly what you do and what you stand for.

But there were some other interesting tips that made me stop and think.  For instance, these days, there’s no need to say “click this link” or “welcome to our website” – and don’t mess around with intro pages that visitors will invariably skip as soon as they can. 

Of course, the key is that the internet should be about fast access to clear information.  Anything that detracts from this just gets in the way and annoys us. 

Check out the Ryanair site for an example of a site that is totally focused on its purpose.  Not a site that is likely to win any awards for creativity, but that isn’t the point.  It says, “We sell cheap flights” and is a massive part of Ryanair’s success.

One of the speakers talked about the work of web useability expert Jakob Nielsen, who says that there are four absolutely fundamental requirements for any website: quick download, easy navigation, relevant content and frequent updates. 

Without all of these elements, any website is simply a waste of time.  It does seem obvious, but just look at how many fall at this basic hurdle. 

If you are interested in hearing more, podcasts from the speakers at the conference are available here.

FOOTNOTE: unfortunately, it looks like a lot of UK businesses are still in need of this type of guidance.

The sordid life of Second Life

By Alexandra Radius

Recently, an episode of the show CSI:New York featured a cross-over between the show’s fictional reality and the virtual reality site Second Life.  As well as watch the programme, viewers were encouraged to also enter Second Life, enabling them to chase the killer into a virtual world and solve the investigation in a virtual Crime Lab.

It’s a great promotion for CSI, helping to maintain viewer attention during the broadcast episode, and bringing CSI younger, hipper fans in Second Life… But is this just another example of bringing onscreen violence even further into our homes?  Is the gap closing between reality and imagination?

Some recent incidents in Second Life show that the borders between fact and fiction are getting increasingly blurry.  When the Front National, the far-right French political party, set up a presence in Second Life, protesters showed up and soon turned to (virtual) violence.  As the players can't actually hurt each other, weapons were mostly meaningless, but the protesters managed, through force of numbers, to bog down that part of the world – a denial-of-service attack carried out in real-time.

Worse still, certain users of Second Life have been engaging in paedophile acts during the game and exchanging real child porn images.  I could go further and imagine Second Life being used to plan a terrorist attack... I am just wondering what will be the next sordid story to emerge from Second Life.

In Second Life, there is no police force to control the abuse of people.  One solution could be to establish an external body that sets boundries or obliges users to provide a certain amount of verifiable personal information in order to access all the functionalities of Second Life.

The concept of TV/internet cross-overs is still interesting because it potentially opens up a future of real interactivity – however, I still think we need to put certain barriers in place to make the virtual world a better world to live in!

STOP PRESS: Looks like one police force in Europe is taking virtual crime seriously!

Is technology really the root of all evil?

By George Mensah

The Bible says that the love of money is the root of all evil, with greediness and corruption surely not that far behind in being responsible for the inequalities that exist in the world.  But this sadly is not the view of the IMF (International Monetary Fund), who have recently argued that technological innovation causes economic inequality.

To me, this seems like a narrow minded and rather bizarre viewpoint, as there are much greater issues than advancing technology widening the demarcation between the modern day bourgeois and proletariat.  But let’s address the further accusation made that it’s those people who possess technological skills who are somehow to blame for economic inequality.

Quite frankly, were it not for innovation who of us can be 100% sure we would be here right now?  For the IMF to suggest that we were better off as a society when we had marginal advancement is hypocritical.  We need technologically-oriented minds to solve a lot of the social problems we experience today.

For instance, discouraging scientists and engineers with anti-technology bias is certainly not helping us to address the numerous ailments and diseases that still afflict our society.  And if students are being steered clear of these disciplines when considering higher education, then what will the future be like in a few years to come?

It’s often easy to forget the immense benefits that great minds and the technology they’ve created have delivered.  Just one such example is the impact of the Cell Broadband Engine, originally developed for high-performance processing in PS3 games consoles, but now being used by scientists to make greater progress in the study of protein folding and its link to diseases such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and certain forms of cancer.

True, inequality does exist in this world - but technology is far from being the main culprit.