Enjoyed a fantastic day at DMX Dublin where I was asked to speak about restoring trust in financial services.
Here is my presentation:
Enjoyed a fantastic day at DMX Dublin where I was asked to speak about restoring trust in financial services.
Here is my presentation:
What and when will the next iPhone appear and will it be the iPhone 6? I blogged back in October 2011 at the disappointing launch of the iPhone 4S which was Apple's first major product launch post Steve Jobs that I thought that there were signs that the world's greatest industrial innovation engine was slowing. This has undoubtedly turned out to be true and Apple are now under serious pressure with their stock falling consistently. I am an avid watcher of Apple rumors mostly because I think they are a fascinating organisation that is going through huge change right now.
The press and markets are in a frenzy at the moment as hedge funds and investors drop Apple. They say that Apple are losing the war against Samsung in the high end mobile phone market, have no cheap iPhone option for developing markets and haven't released a breakthrough innovation in years. Here is what I think is going on……
Steve Jobs was the tech-genius of his generation – a unique and irreplaceable leader. His loss will be felt in Apple and the world for many, many years. From the many people who I have talked to who have worked at Apple – it is an egotistical, difficult and political place to work. Remove the king pin from this type of corporate culture and a power vacuum results. This creates in-fighting and a land grab. Tim Cook has only recently started to come to terms with this with his sacking of Scott Forstall in October after the maps debacle and the appointment of Jonny Ive as a Steve Jobs replacement responsible for both hardware and software.
I think the top team at Apple are only now coming to terms with the absence of Jobs and in a place where they can get back to the tough process of innovation. They have some key challenges which they need to overcome in order to deliver a series of launches and products which will either underline Apple's dominance as an innovator or start the Microsoft style slow steady decline to mediocrity. With the up and coming changes to the iPhone franchise, the iPhone 5S, iPhone 6 or iWatch Apple need to prove their innovation capability in a post Jobs world.
iOS which spans iPhone, iPad is increasingly becoming THE operating system for Apple but it is not just looking old and tired but is behind on key usability features. The core strengths of iOS were always its functionality, usability, ease, consistency and reliability. It is still easy to use, consistent and reliable but it is now lagging in core features to make life and communications more functional. Android and Blackberry 10, even Windows 8 Phone, now have a significant advantage in really useful features that bring information, communication and organisation to my day. For example Blackberry with it's Personal and Office modes, or Windows 8 Phone with live tiles that tell me the weather, or Android with it's more integrated message centre. All these developments have left iOS lagging. Witness the wild success of the Evasion Jailbreak on iOS devices: 8,000,000 downloads so far to see how much demand there is for more functionality and flexibility.
Here I am hopeful that the integration of software under Jonny Ive will deliver major benefit and improvements in functionality.
It needs to take the elegance and robustness of iOS and combine it with a more integrated and seamless communication feature set. Email needs to be overhauled, messaging needs to become integrated, communications from contacts integrated across channels, there are many improvements that can be made. It will also have a facelift I think. All this needs to be delivered in the next iPhone device which leads me onto my next thought on Apple rumors….
When is the next iPhone due? There is no doubt in my mind that Apple are convinced that the iPhone 5 is a good product and a worthy competitor to the Samsung SIII – Apple still believes in high end design principles based on consumer usability rather than fancy feature packing. And shipments back them up! The iPhone 5 continues to sell in huge numbers it was the No. 1 selling smartphone in Q4 2012. Yes the momentum in the market is for bigger smart phones. Samsung will reportedly launch their SiV in March and are manufacturing 100 million units. However I think that the next iPhone release that Apple will launch is a iPhone 5S with better specs, new iOS 7, a better camera, fingerprint reader (based on their acquisition of Authentec) and possibly NFC in April 2013. This next-generation iPhone would constitute a really good package that would sell on a par with the Samsung SiV. Pundits need to remember that there are millions of people locked into iOS, apps and music that can't easily change to Android or another system. This lock in keeps them loyal – with new hardware they stop being frustrated.
However I do think that Apple will launch a larger screened (up to 5 inches) iPhone by late in the year. I think it will be longer not wider but will contain an IGZO screen that are stunning, thinner and better on battery life. This would represent a very strong new iPhone 6. It could be thinner, higher resolution, with longer battery life and with continued improvements in iOS 7 would again represent or be on parity with the best hardware in the market.
I also think that the cutting edge latest iPhones will continue to be premium priced. I cannot see any logic in Apple starting to launch cheaper products made out of worse materials. The only substantive difference between Apple hardware and others is it's feel, durability and premium quality. A Google Nexus 4 or a Samsung SIII just feel cheap compared to an iPhone. That's not to say that Apple won't refresh the iPhone 3 or 4 with updated specs and possibly cheaper, easier to manufacture changes that would mean the price point can drop to suit Chinese and developing market consumers.
With Google Glass, various start ups pushing wearable technology and the continued copying of Apple ideas and design ethos – Apple face a stern test. The strength of Apple as a company is that they take ideas which are breaking through and design them brilliantly so that they stand the test of time, and are so far ahead of the market that they retain a price premium for years. That's what the iPhone and MacBook Air have done.
Let's be clear Google Glass is still a concept – they cost $1500 for goodness sake – hardly a mass consumer price point. What Apple are working on, from what I hear are technologies that create new mass markets. Wearable technologies are undoubtedly the next big battle ground. Whether it is an iWatch or an arm based iPad or indeed glasses Apple need to deliver a product which is truly functional, useful, elegant and able to capture the imagination and wallet of the mass consumer market. My personal take is that Apple will launch an iWatch either towards the end of this year or in Q1 2014. I doubt it will be before then because they will need to overcome the significant manufacturing, durability and functionality issues that will come with wearing the hardware on the wrist so close to the skin.
They are a secretive company, they don't show off early stage products like Google have done with Glass. Jonny Ive says that the iPhone took nearly a decade of pushing and development to get to launch. Apple don't have a decade but given they are still the only fully integrated hardware and software company in the world they have some time to get their next big innovation ready – but, as they know, the clock is ticking not just on them creating an innovation but underlining that they have finally moved into a post-Steve Jobs innovation engine.
What's your view on Apple rumors, the iPhone 6, the iWatch and Apple's innovation capability – why not leave a commnent?
This morning as I was waking up my 3 year old daughter Jemima came into bed for a cuddle. It was cold and she snuggled under the covers putting her head under the duvet. I heard a little voice coming up from beside me, "Dad come under the covers with me." So I dutifully dived my head down under.
I said to her, "we can't see anything in here," and she replied, "all we can see is the dark."
This reply struck me. How many times do we encounter situations where we dismiss a situation and don't try to see in the dark? How often do we shut down lines of exploration or thinking because we feel we are in the dark and deprived of sensory input or data?
What about trying to understand how people are responding to your website, landing page or proposition? How many times do we just default to, "we need another tool and more data." Sure this is sometimes the right answer but most often it's an excuse not to really think and use our intuition to determine through the darkness an answer to the problem. You'll probably get it mostly right by seeing through the dark and even if you don't pushing yourself will help you develop new ideas of hyptheses to test with your new tools.
What about a difficult relationship issue with a colleague or peer? How often do we make assumptions and not take the time to see through the darkness and really understand what is being said. One of the values that I was taught by Procter & Gamble was; Seek to understand, then be understood. High emotions can create darkness, clouding issues and hiding true feelings, being able to sense effectively through this darkness is not just a work skill but a life skill.
Even in the dark there are always things to see.
Over the last couple of weeks yell.com has been rebranding as hibu. This is the latest example, in a very undistinguished line, of such rebranding failures.
When the best a CEO can muster about his companies' latest rebranding is this quote below you know the company is in deep, deep trouble.
'don't read anything into it….It doesn't have any pure meaning behind it. It needed to be short, easy to pronounce and to sound edgy and innovative. It doesn't mean a lot by itself, but if you turn the clock back, neither did Apple and Google or Yahoo!'
Mike Pocock is the CEO of hibu which in the latest example of rebranding has became the new name for Yell.com. Yell.com has been through at least a couple of major rebrands as it struggles to make any sense of it's Yellow Pages listing business model in the internet age. They recently acquired Moonfruit.com as a way of trying to help SMEs and their internet presence. hibu or as the company might have us write: hibü is the latest work from Landor – that purveyor of snake oil to companies with more shareholder money than sense. I am sure that the Landor team are seething as they read the quotes from the CEO on their beautiful retina displays.
This is most likely to have been dressed up as a benefit by the inventors of the brand hibu. It isn't. Given the companies massive financial issues they are not going to be able to afford a huge marketing budget to vest this meaningless word with brand associations. They may think that it is a positive move dropping all references and equity built up in Yell.com or indeed Yellow Pages but to eschew these assets is foolhardy. The fact that they have gone for the immediate rebrand, rather than a phased approach, again make the journey to establishing the new brand very hard. The rebrand has very little logic – this taken from the hibu website exemplifies the problem:
To meet the ever changing needs of our merchants and our consumers, we are transforming our business to be more digitally led. We are making it possible for our consumers to connect with our merchants how they want, whenever they want. We are developing innovative new products and a dynamic new brand signals that we are a digital business of the future. When people connect, communities thrive, and we are a vital connection in an ever changing world. That's why we have changed from Yell to hibu.
Now I may be missing something but this paragraph makes no sense as a logic for the rebranding. There is no reason why the move of the business into digital has delivered the name hibu, argubly Yell.com is a more digitally led name.
I bet this was a big part of the pitch for rebranding. I'm sure Landor will have rolled out a 28 year old 'internet and search expert' to bamboozle the board with promises about how this name because of it's construction and newness was going to deliver exceptional power in ranking on Google. This is of course generally an absolute load of old tosh but is so common to hear now – it's the reason for the rash of names with a double "o" in them for example. There was an idea floating around that Google somehow favoured certain combination of letters because they were less competitive to rank on hence Ooyala and the like. The secret to ranking on Google is to deliver high quality content and make your pages search friendly – if anything non descriptive names make it harder to rank not easier.
From the comments from top management in the press they don't seem that committed to the rebranding and this makes me suspect that the organisation hasn't been engaged in the hibu rebranding process. This is the most common mistake that is made when trying to change a culture, a name, or a business model. It's the people within the organisation that should feel vested in the new name and making it's promises come alive. However most engagement processes start with the brand book or internal roll out campaign once all the decisions have been made. Rebranding and brand renaming needs to come from within and this requires engagement in the process from the very beginning.
Like Consignia or Monday, hibu is a name that is just trying too hard. I know that's a very difficult thing to substantiate but there is something in these names that come from a process that is vested in focusgrouping and whiteboarding – they lack authenticity. They are artificial creations rather than really coming from a place of organisational difference. Apple as a brand name works for that organisation (or it used to) because it encapsulates the "think different" logic that was Steve Jobs' brilliance. Google works because it somehow embodies the geekiness of that organisation based on algorithms, advanced maths and technology. hibu is just trying to be cool and doesn't embody any of the attributes of that organisation.
Given their latest results are flatlining I think rebranding yell.com is very unlikely to be the knight in shining armour coming along to rescue and somehow give meaning to the company. Yell.com was a smart way of attempting to link the past with the future – it had a logic and could have had a personality. hibu doesn't mean anything to anyone and because of this it is facing an uphill struggle.
Business Vision: I was recently asked by a major corporation to prepare a talk on "Business vision" and how to create them. I told two stories one of Citigroup a massive bank and it's flawed vision and one about a much smaller clothing business Patagonia and it's inspirational leader.
This screencast is a 20 minute version of the hour presentation buts gives you the key points of the stories.
The key points illustrated by these compelling stories of success and failure around setting a business vision are:
What do you think about business and brand visions? Do they inspire you to feel great about the business you work in or run and it's business vision? Leave a comment!
If you want to see the full presentation including the videos then visit the presentation on Prezi.com.
ING today splashed the latest instalment of their 'Campaign for a Bit of Decency' onto the front and back covers inside and out of the Metro. ING Direct has quite a prolific history of copy led advertising. I commented on a mortgage advert of theirs a while back questioning whether simplicity and speed of application was really a desired or desirable benefit when advertising a mortgage.
This latest campaign is a good example of a currently very common approach to financial services advertising that uses the classic 'benefit by association' form of persausion. This advertising technique tries to get the man on the street to associate two particular ideas, for example a brand and a benefit, by juxtaposing them regularly to force the association into our poor overloaded brains. You know the kind of thing – think of the classic advertising of Marlboro with their image of a cowboy riding on the wide open plain which was very successful at getting people to think that this particular cigarette was "cool, independent and masculine….".
So why is this type of advertising in such favour by financial services brands at the moment? It's because almost all financial services brands are caught between a rock and a hard place. The simple fact is that as consumers and citizens we loath these brands and businesses for all they stand for and have put us through over the last few years. But unfortunately due to a combination of desperate need to quickly make lots of money (from us as consumers in order to pay us as taxpayers back – ironic eh?), almost total lack of leadership, continued regulatory confusion, and a complete lack of empathy with people (both employees and customers) banks have very little that is meaningful to say about themselves. They equally have virtually nothing that is different and/or better to sell. Therefore they have to rely on the flim-flam associative brand campaign. For Natwest it's emergency cash, for Santander its a range of cashback or offers to tempt us through their doors and with ING Direct 'The Campaign for a Bit of Decency'. So let's look at whether it is good or bad?
Well certainly it ticks all the current fashions of advertising and I can see the marketing team and ad agency getting excited:
So what will it achieve? I'm sure the brand tracker will jump up against key equities of trust, friendliness, on your side or whatever combination of words are being tracked by Millward-Brown. Internally employees will probably like it – what's not to like? It's positive, it's 'nice', heck it's even got medal to give away. Bet they've got a programme running internally to celebrate employee decency – and if they don't they should.
But once the bit of decency campaign has been put to bed, the metro ads are in the bin, will it really make any difference to the standing of ING Direct or the financial services sector overall? I don't think it will and in fact it will probably do even more damage to trust in the brand and sector. This type of advertising whilst in vogue is essentially the same approach to marketing and advertising that has been practised over the past 20 years by financial services brands – it's just a more modern and fluffy version.
The reason that almost all financial services brands wallow in the toilet of consumer apathy, resentment, even hatred, is because the products and service are boring, difficult, unfair, give poor customer service and are focused on extracting as much money out of system whilst delivering as little benefit as possible. The real repositioning challenge in all financial services businesses is to reposition the business model, the internal culture, creating values led vision and letting employees lead with their hearts and heads to deliver better service and better products.
Unfortunately this is just too hard. This road doesn't have the backing of top leadership. The need to try and reinvent the way banking works and both extracts and contributes value to society is just too fundamental a change to tackle. Therefore we continue to get advertising and marketing that just focuses on sleight of hand, diversion, association and playing the same game that got us into the mess we are currently in. We continue to get products that are poor value, difficult to understand and mired in crap service.
Oh and if you needed anymore evidence that the "Campaign for a Bit of Decency" is a pleasant but diversionary sham, ING announced on the 29th November that it is to sell ING Direct UK to Barclays – so all those customers who started to believe in 'decency' even by association will be thrown back into the mainstream of UK big 3 banking where decency is in very short supply.
Freedom – I’ve been thinking a lot about it recently. Last weekend, Remembrance Sunday in the UK, was a timely and sobering reminder that millions have sacrificed their lives to protect freedom for us and still do. But what are these freedoms that need to be so preciously protected? It seems to me that freedom is inextricably linked to choice. Our freedom is proved when we make the choices we do.
We live today in a world empowered by technology which as well as offering us many new choices also limits our choices in ways that are harder to discover but no less important to discuss. As a result of our hyper-connected and hyper-transparent world we are simultaneously both liberated and shackled. We are liberated to share more freely, interact more diversely and access new and instant knowledge. These benefits however come with downsides, more of our time and attention is demanded leaving us more tired, more overwrought, more stressed than ever before. The choice to switch off from work is made harder by constant availability and speed; connections between people become looser and less meaningful as time spent together is replaced with more frequent, less direct contact; commercial communication and advertising bombards us at every turn cementing the consumer values of our society rather than citizenship. Beneath these more obvious negative impacts are also more sinister and more opaque influences on our freedoms. We now live in a world where almost everything we do and see is a consequence of our past behavior and decisions. This limits access to information, to services and removes the freedom that is to choose to change. See my review of the Filter Bubble – a great book exploring this.
For example no longer do I see the same output from a Google search that you do. The Google algorithm uses everything it knows about me to give me the results it thinks I want to see and will click on. A computer is blindly making choices for me, filtering and changing my view of what is available in the world. If I am right-leaning in my political views I will see more positive results for David Cameron, if I am left-leaning then more negative. It makes it harder to determine the truth and make informed decision. Computers filter based on our digital footprints in the name of convenience, which of course we appreciate all the more so, because we are so overwhelmed. Extrapolate and you can imagine a world where the choice to access many products and services or be influenced or challenged with diverse viewpoints is largely reduced as it is filtered away either because they are unprofitable or just simply annoying. The available inputs that go into this customization of the world around us are gathering pace everyday. Almost every step of our lives is now recorded in some way. Our identities are virtual and our actions recorded. CCTV on the street, in shops and on public transport watch us. The internet records our every click and view, our email services record who we communicate with and what we say. Our mobile phones record where we are and what we are doing. And these bit of data are becoming more connected and aggregated with each other everyday. The industries that make money from all this surveillance progress three stock defenses: firstly that all this tracking is “blind” as to who we actually are, secondly it is more convenient and lastly that those who have nothing to hide have nothing to fear. These defenses are facile and disingenuous. Whether the identity is a number or address or even an anonymous click stream it takes very little effort to match it to a real individual and this is an increasingly important aspect of the industries that seek to exploit, aggregate and integrate information to make money. It only takes a few variations in the information, such as browser, screen resolution, location, and operating system to identity a specific computer or person and these are available to every website that exists. Convenience is also not a good enough reason to remove freedom to choose – life is diverse and whilst undoubtedly atomizing is still collective and community based. Our well-being and the social good is promoted by creating diverse interactions, information and experience. How much more sustainable would our banking model have been had it maintained contact with ordinary people and it’s social purpose rather than becoming myopic and mono-dimensional. The concept that this level of surveillance is not a problem unless you have something to hide is also dangerous and divisive. It appeals to our sense of right and wrong, or perhaps more accurately, it appeals to the self-righteous. We would do well to remember that centralized intrusion and collection of intelligence on what an individual’s views were and what this could mean about their intentions was crucial for the Nazis in 1930s Germany, the Stasi in communist Russia and the fear and obsession of McCarthyism in 1950s America.
On a less macro level our digital footprints also lead to security and identity risks. It’s these macro and micro risks that led the European Convention of Human Rights to enshrine the human right to privacy. It should worry us deeply that the ability to track and record en mass has proved too tempting for the UK Government who are trying to ensure that up to three years worth of internet, email and other electronic footprints are stored on the whole population “just in case”. They claim that this intrusion is justified in the fight to protect freedom. It isn’t. It seems to me that freedom is to be in control, to be empowered with time and knowledge, and so be able to make the right choices for ourselves. The technologies we have today help connect us broadly with each other and provide access to thin convenient slices of knowledge, the growing opportunity is to help us control these technologies and the fears they create, thus allowing us to gain more freedom over how we choose to spend our time and energy.
Content and content marketing was the focus of Amelia Torode’s DM to me on twitter this morning asking –
I’ve been thinking a lot about the latest trend of content marketing because it has been so important as a driver of quality traffic for ALLOW.
I define content as anything that I can create or co-create that engages with an audience. I exclude our product features per se although talking about our product features and content associated with them is part of our content marketing strategy. We use content frequently to educate our audience and exemplify the need for our product, we also use it to explore issues with the community of interest that we have gathered around ALLOW.
The results have been outstanding. Content led visitors to the site spend over 5 minute which is 300% better than PPC or display. They are more likely to convert. The best audience conversion comes through social media backed up by organic SEO. We have tried many different types of content and all work well, with video being a particularly strong performer but even the standard blog post (image + text) is effective.
We seek to share our opinion, progress, news and education through our content and we keep sales messaging to a real minimum if at all.
Content and content marketing works in my opinion because it is a gift from your brand to your audience. It shows you want to engage, share and give back. It’s part of a strategy moving from mass communications to mass interactions which I talk about in my trust building book – Why Should Anyone Buy From You?
Got a comment? What is your content strategy?
CopyBlogger as always is ahead of the game for content marketing – it’s a great guide.
Thanks to Amelia for prompting this post.
There has been lots of good (and lots of rubbish) written about the (in)famous net promoter recommendation question – “would you recommend us?” Fred Reichheld made the question famous in his book called it the Ultimate Question (click to see the book on Amazon).
Yesterday I met up with Kate Cox from Media Contacts to discuss their up-and-coming conference on Meaningful Brands which I am delighted to be speaking at in February. The research they have done is to ask people “meaningful-ness” questions about the brands they use.
One of these questions is, I think, particularly brilliant which is:
Would you miss the brand if it disappeared?
This question has a real power at getting to a deeper connection.
Would I really miss Ariel or Persil? Not so sure.
Would I miss Pampers? Perhaps.
Would I miss the Guardian or Apple? Yes I think I would
In our hyper-competitive world every product is replaceable. Innovation doesn’t stay unique for long. I can get a great smartphone or washing powder from many brands. They all work broadly the same.
But would I miss the drive and inventiveness of having the Apple brand in the world? Yes I think I would. Would I miss John Lewis and what it stands for both from a retail perspective and it’s unusual co-operative structure? Again I’d certainly miss it alot more than if Debenhams went bust. Would I miss the Guardian’s drive for the truth and their inventive use of new media models? Yes because I think our society would be worse off without them in it.
We miss Cadbury in a post-Kraft merger world because an outstanding British business of over 100 years got consumed by a faceless US corporation. It was taken away and people miss it. The products are still in our lives but they are somehow less authentic and meaningful than they were before.
The brands that stand the “would you miss it” test have gone beyond the benefit. They have started to create connections that are more than just what they deliver. Whether that is by virtue of their vision, the way they do business, their pursuit of something difficult or their history these businesses mean more to us than just their product.
Would anyone care if your brand or business disappeared tomorrow?
Sign up to this blog (1-2 emails per week MAX!) by clicking here