Archive for December, 2010

Tablet wars: Look at the full picture

Monday, December 27th, 2010

betamax blog photo

Of all the fierce battles in history, few have been as decisive as when Sony’s Betamax took on JVC’s VHS tapes. Sure, the battle was hardly bloody – although some conference room discussions in Japan might have made Custer’s tent at Little Bighorn positively tranquil – but the outcome saw the VHS victor totally obliterate its well-heeled, generally superior competitor with one fell swoop.

It seems that history is repeating itself as we watch Apple’s iPad take on an increasingly large number of rivals touting the Android operating system. The comparisons are easy, but their eventual outcome is our focal point and our take-home lesson. As marketers attempt to reach increasingly wide audiences over a vast array of media, tablets could play a massive role in the near future.

VHS won out over Betamax not because it was better – most historians and technophiles will agree that Sony’s system was vastly more advanced – but because JVC was willing to share its technology.

Sony assumed that the video recording market would remain relatively small and the company assumed that domination would come easy. The Japanese giant had created a fast, high resolution recording system that it wasn’t eager to share with anyone else.

Meanwhile, JVC developed the VHS tape, which wasn’t as sophisticated, but could be produced at a marginally lower cost. Forward-thinking JVC was also much smaller than Sony and it realized that, in order to be successful, it would need some outside help. JVC licensed its VHS technology to nearly every major electronics manufacturer, which meant that VHS recorders quickly became readily available – at competition-driven low prices.

Sony assumed that its high-end, high-quality Betamax would win, but consumers elected to go after the cheaper offering, even as they acknowledged that it was inferior.

Parallels to Apple’s iPad are obvious. Apple has made its operating system open source – meaning that anyone capable can develop applications – but it won’t provide a license to other electronics manufacturers. Apple wants to control hardware, just like Sony did. Android – purchased by Google in 2005 – has been distributed to licensees since 2007. As a result, it’s hard not to find an Android-powered device at any electronics store (other than at an Apple Store, of course).

That’s not to say that the iPad isn’t a great device. It is highly capable and its integration with Apple’s other products makes it truly impressive. But the cheapest iPad will set buyers back $500, about the price of three low-end Android-powered tablets.

Without a time-traveling app, we can’t tell who will win this battle. But as we continue to develop applications and look for unique ways to reach consumers, we can’t ignore the potential of these two devices.

Don’t be the electronics store that stocked up on Betamax tapes only to be stuck with dusty, unsold merchandise years later.

Minimizing executive interview mistakes

Thursday, December 16th, 2010

media interview

You’ve had hours, days or even weeks to prepare for an interview. You’re up to date on your company’s operations and products. If you’re lucky, the interviewer has even provided you with some hints on what to expect from the discussion.

Then the interview comes along and you stumble, never fully getting your point across and not knowing the answers to every question. It happens to the best of us, even those who think they are well prepared.

The basics

Look at an interview with a member of the media in much the same way you’d want to interview for a new job. You want to go beyond answering questions – you want to present a compelling, but not overly boastful, case for you and your company. You want to sell your message.

Your answer needs to be more than just words. It needs to be believable, not only because it needs to be accurate and truthful, but it also needs to be something you genuinely take as fact. Be comfortable and try to be yourself.

Anticipate questions ahead of time by working with your public relations team. Collect your thoughts ahead of time; only in certain circumstances should you agree to an on-the-spot interview.

On track

The rapid-fire, “report first, ask later” nature of online and TV media makes it imperative that you keep control of the interview. Don’t let the interviewer take you off track – unless you want to go there.

Answering questions that might move the conversation in the wrong direction with a simple, “That’s a great question for another time; let’s revisit it soon” will endear reporters and lead to what could be a mutually beneficial follow-up interview. It’s a smart answer that can be effective if used sparingly.

Additionally, you must keep control of yourself during the interview. A flustered answer will bomb on more levels than you want to think about – your clear answer, your facts and your credibility are all on the line during the interview.

Tailor-made

Help the reporter by giving answers that can easily be put in context in an article or clip; think of your answers as sound bytes. Your answers should be concise, accurate and, perhaps most importantly, they need to be natural. A short and simple answer that tells the basics is easy for a reporter to use; if they want to dig deeper, that’s their prerogative.

You can’t assume that a reporter will know what you’re talking about, so you might need to build up your answer with background basics. This varies by outlet, so be careful not to oversimplify to an industry trade journal, for example.

Simple answers don’t mean misleading answers; if you’re intentionally glossing over the details or ignoring certain elements, they’ll track down the facts. Ultimately, this tactic will backfire and destroy your credibility.

A timely example

For months, General Motors told reporters that the innovative Chevrolet Volt’s gasoline engine never directly powered its drive wheels. Then, closer to the Volt’s on-sale date, GM revealed that, under certain unusual circumstances, the gasoline engine could indeed bypass its electric counterpart to motivate the vehicle on its own.

It’s a difference that buyers won’t notice because, simply, it doesn’t matter in day-to-day driving. But it betrayed many reporters’ trust in GM and its public relations team, whom the media decried as misleading and engaging in evasion tactics. Not only did the gaffe dent GM among reporters, it made journalists look as though they had been reporting false stories.

The drama that ensued could have been avoided in one of two ways. The simplest answer would be for GM to have told the truth initially, which would have prevented reporters from being misled.  Conversely, GM could have chosen not to reveal the information until it was ready.