Landor: Why ‘I want an iPad’ beats ‘I want an iPad xyz’

Just spotted this really interesting piece for Forbes.com by Allen Adamson at Landor’s blog. The clinching argument is made in the penultimate paragraph of the piece:

“I think the company made a smart decision in not giving the newest iPad a new name. It makes it simpler for people. I want an iPad. How simple is that? I don’t have to explain which iPad, other than saying the newest model or the less expensive model.”

In fact, I think plenty of marketers – and not just market leaders – may want to take note of Apple’s decision not to call its latest iPad ‘iPad 3’ or something like that.

For me, it’s the underlying idea that just the right amount of branding enables people to recog­nise and under­stand how to nav­ig­ate your business’s goods, ser­vices and organisation. A little more branding than is necessary, and it’s probably going to have the opposite effect.

To be honest, I wasn’t at all concerned what the latest iPad would be called.

I suspect I’m like most people: what matters to me that a product lives up to its promise when I decide to invest my cash in it. If it doesn’t, no amount of branding is going to fix that.

Landor Associates

The tweeter, the brand and the reputational minefield

Sooner or later, the consequences of a brand allowing an employee to tweet on their behalf – to the extent that the individual and the brand become interchangeable as brand symbols – was going to wind up in court action (‘Man sued for keeping company Twitter followers’, BBC News, 27 December 2011).

In the case of Noah Kravitz and his former employer Phonedog – an ‘interactive mobile news and reviews resource’ which claims 2.5 million unique visits to its site each month – the legal principle at stake is whether the followers of a Twitter account, accumulated while an individual was tweeting on behalf of a business, amount to a database of customers and prospective customers that may be considered the property of the company once they’ve left?

Continue reading “The tweeter, the brand and the reputational minefield”

Something of a eulogy for Steve Jobs

I first used an Apple Macintosh in September 1989 because I had to.

I’d become managing editor of York Student Vision in the final term of my first year at the University of York and, over the summer, my predecessor in the role, Stephen Womack, and the paper’s editor, Hamish Macdonell, had decided to purchase an SE/30.

After three years of cutting-and-pasting hard copy text onto pre-printed printers grids, Vision was moving to desk-top publishing; the first of York’s two newspapers to do so.

In my role, I would be responsible for the production of a 24-page newspaper which, at the time, was distributed to 3,000 students every fortnight on a single Macintosh.

Continue reading “Something of a eulogy for Steve Jobs”

The filter bubble, the ethics of data and the EU

I drafted this back in June but just didn’t publish it for some reason. A good deal of the content is based on a comment I posted in reply to Prof George Brock’s post ‘The filter bubble and public reason’.

Do users of the web really have a world of information at their fingertips? Or do recent innovations in search algorithms – in pursuit of ever increasing personal relevancy of results – simply yield an ever decreasing pool of information from which an individual is able to fish for their perspective on the world? And, if so, should we be worried about it?

Eli Pariser has been asking questions like this in recent months and, while Mr Pariser’s name may not be immediately familiar to you, I’d be surprised if the label that he’s used to describe the dilemma hadn’t registered on your radar: the filter bubble.

Continue reading “The filter bubble, the ethics of data and the EU”

Facebook’s ventures into brand diplomacy

Former Guardian technology writer, Jack Schofield, shared an intriguing link to a news item in the Silicon Valley Mercury Newsearlier this week.

It intrigued me for two reasons: first, that Facebook had decided to establish a network of 70 international representatives to establish a quasi-diplomatic service in key regions of the world and, second, that Google had already establish as similar operation in 2006.

The Google information was news to me. It’s not unusual for brands to employ corporate communications teams whose role is to maintain positive relations with both state and non-state actors both nationally and globally. It remains to be seen if the nature of the team that Facebook intends to establish veers away from this traditional role.

However, reading between the lines, the focus of the announcement suggests that Facebook is acknowledging a need to insulate its operation from unwanted legal and regulatory intrusion in the future – or an outright ban of its technology altogether – in nations where the nature of its operating model runs counter to prevailing political philosophy.

The story in the Silicon Valley Mercury News ran:

Facebook’s new global policy team will monitor the local political landscape and act as multilingual, TV-friendly communicators in countries and for cultures that, in many cases, have very different values and laws about privacy and personal communications than the U.S. Facebook is confronting its emergence as a global organization whose membership is much larger than the population of most countries, and whose technology can antagonize both Middle Eastern dictators and European democracies fretful about privacy. The international directors of policy, as Facebook calls them, will grapple with those challenges.

Privacy and collective attention deficit disorder

It is a tragic irony that, under the hastily erected canopy of ‘media freedom’, the clamour to expose the identity of a Premier League footballer may only serve to degrade the personal freedoms enjoyed by the very people who chipped away at its edifice tweet by tweet by tweet.

But, really, was this about democracy, freedom and rights?

Or was it simply the market for voyeuristic satisfaction, tawdry self-publicity and self-aggrandisement in motion?

The mob doesn’t think
I’m sure I won’t be the only person wheeling out the line of Joe Wilson – played by Spencer Tracy – in Fritz Lang’s Fury: ‘The mob doesn’t think. It has no mind of its own.’ but that’s because there’s precious little evidence that it did.

I won’t dwell on the legal aspects of the case; I couldn’t ever claim to do justice to it (forgive the pun) having read this post by blogger @loveandgarbage yesterday.

But what I will say is that, while people may have thought they were – in some way – championing the cause of a right to know, I’d argue that they were actually engaged in the polar opposite: cannibalising their own right to privacy.

That aside, there is another societal aspect to this episode which is deeply worrying.

It disturbs me that the advent of real-time technologies, like Twitter, are leading to episodes of a kind-of collective attention deficit disorder.

In our haste to express our perspective, often complex circumstances are whittled down to a 140 characters; quite literally, belittling a topic or issue or event.

For example, does it occur to us that the Arab Spring is symptomatic of the clash of liberal capitalist models of democracy with theocratic Islamic thinking? Is that worth a tweet? Or do we simply say ‘Yea! Go for it #egypt’?

Do we take a moment to read and consider the way in which Mr Justice Eady’s judgment sought to balance the competing demands of Articles 8 and 10 of the Human Rights Act before upholding the decision to apply an injunction protecting the privacy of a footballer?

Or am I alone in thinking that, as individuals, we are simply paying insufficient attention to the details and background of an issue to form an informed opinion, and bleating our half-cocked views, which suit our prejudices, anyway?

Is our desire for attention the source of self-centred or smart-alec tweets in pursuit of an rise in our mentions and retweet equity – with its potential to boost our PeerIndex or Klout, or even follower count?

And, crucially, is this desire beginning to erode values that, prior to the advent of the social web, we seemed to pay more attention to? Like respect for other people’s privacy, for instance?

Quantities versus qualities
I wonder if, in this clamour for the quantities of life, are we losing our grip on its qualitiesand compromising our ability to aspire to qualities that are socially desirable as a consequence of it?

Because it strikes me that the law doesn’t exist solely to protect us from harm and disorder; it also exists to protect us from ourselves.

The desire to demolish another individual’s rights to a private family life – a right which is specifically catered for in the UK’s Human Rights Act and European Convention – seems not only to show contempt for the law but also to other people’s fundamental right to privacy.

Far from being social, that is little more than anti-social isn’t it?

Our rights may be fundamental but they are not absolute. They depend on the attention and respect we pay to each other’s right to dignity and privacy. The moment we seek to deny an individual of their rights – regardless of popular opinion – we leave our own dignity and respect open to abuse.

The argument that, simply because technology has the capacity to achieve an outcome, can never be an adequate justification for its abuse. In fact it’s an abdication of responsibility that’s tantamount to claiming that it’s the trigger, and not the person holding it, that fires the bullet.

Regardless of technology’s potential, it is always an individual – or groups comprising individuals – that bring its potential to life.

If it wasn’t for my, generally, positive experience of encountering other individuals on Twitter, I would have deleted my account this morning.

As it is, the jury’s now out for me.

Joseph Nye on the future of power

I’m a bit of a sucker for the complimentary programme of public lectures that are staged at the London home of the RSA (that’s the Royal Society of the Arts, Science and Manufactures) which is why I’m sat in the Great Room waiting to listen to Professor Joseph Nye.

Prof Nye is the chap who coined the phrase ‘soft power’; an idea that was popular within the Clinton administration in the 1990s and – despite the hawkish interlude of the George W Bush presidency – has retained favour under Obama’s administration too.

He’s an influential policy thinker who, as well as enjoying a distinguished academic career, has also served as Assistant Secretary of Defence for International Security Affairs in the Clinton Whitehouse (and was tipped to have become John Kerry’s choice for National Security Adviser had the Democrats successfully secured the Presidency in 2004).

So he knows his international relations onions, and he’s been thinking about the future of power and the dynamics that will affect it in the 21st century and beyond. In a 30 minute précis of his latest contribution to the debate, ‘The Future of Power’, Prof Nye talks about two significant trends affecting governmental power in the future: ‘power transition’ and ‘power diffusion’.

Power transition

Power transition, Prof Nye suggests, is historically familiar: the ebb and flow of the power relations between nation states, blocs and empires founded – historically at least – on the back of relative military and technological superiority and, more recently, though the deployment of ‘soft power’ (the degree to which values, culture, policies and institutions are employed to attain the outcomes which nations seek).

While Prof Nye accepts that the emergence of Asian global powers – i.e. China and India – will be a significant feature of the narrative of post-21st century historical analysis, he doesn’t readily subscribe to idea of an ‘absolute decline’ of US power as result. Instead, he sees a relative decline in US power in the face of these emerging powers and relative decline, he argues, does not amount to the same thing as absolute dominance of China.

Power diffusion

Now this idea really interests me because it is already confounding traditional models of international power relations and diplomacy.

Diffused power characterises the way in which individuals and non-governmental organisations can more easily gain access to technology and therefore consume, contribute and influence the global flow of information.

By harnessing access to ever cheaper means of communication – like mobile networks, networking tools like Facebook and Twitter, and media platforms like YouTube – geographically or socially dispersed individuals are able to congregate around ideas and events fomenting movements that acquire global influence and power.

The application of diffused power is diverse; its spectrum encompasses terror networks like Al Qaeda, hackers like Anonymous, freedom of information evangelists like WikiLeaks, activists like The Tea Party and globally networked business corporations.

The Arab Spring, Prof Nye argues, is an example of how near-universal access to communications technology helps transform a flashpoint event into an apparent social and political movement in a region of the World.

And this access, he suggests, has created an additional dimension in international power relations – a fluid, unpredictable and chaotic strata of non-governmental actors whose emerging influence on domestic and international relations is likely to perplex governments in the years to come.