Track Record for Predictions for 2013, Part III

Here's Part III of our report card:

• The three most important aspects of the future of tech in 2013: mobile, mobile, mobile.  We may have overstated things when we said to look for the rise of a new CMO – not chief marketing officer but chief mobility officers – but mobile continues to be important. Grade: A-.
• Forecast: cloud is everywhere. From predicting that more companies will rely on the cloud for access to proprietary information in 2013 (a notion that would have been inconceivable just a few years earlier) to expecting a few outages this year but that they won't have much impact on the cloud's momentum, we nailed this one. Grade: A.
• Bring Your Own Device to the office (BYOD) will be go mainstream. Our main prediction was that BOYD would be so mainstream that that “the media will be able to refer to it without having to spell it out.” And that turned true. Grade: A.
• Mobile search: Still important but we probably overstated it in terms of media coverage, particularly about mobile search firms competing with Google. Grade: B.
• Jobs, unemployment, and recruiting and the need for specially-trained employees for specific industries will be a big story. The Boston Globe validated this with a story in April "Demand rockets for visas to bring in foreign workers." There were other articles, too. Grade: B+.
• STEM will continue to be a push by businesses. Coverage about STEM continued in 2013, including recent editorials in the New York Times about the need to attract more girls into STEM. Grade: A.
• App burnout: This continues to generate some coverage but mostly in the form of concerns about being over-connected. Grade: C+.
• Robotics will generate buzz. We said to expect that advances in robotics will generate coverage in even the more staid business publications (beyond Wired and Fast Company).  We saw some coverage in the New York Times. Grade: B+.
• Biotech consolidation. Mostly there was concern about a possible bubble among publicly held biotechs but that’s not the same thing as consolidation (even though that could be the side effects of a bursting bubble). Grade: C-. 
• Regulatory changes will continue to impact financial services firms. We said this would be an important story that might not get a lot of attention because “the work involved is so technical.”  We were right about that.  Grade: B.

We'll post Part IV tomorrow. Also check out Part I and Part II.

Track Record for Predictions for 2013, Part II

Here's our second part of our report card for the predictions for 2013: 

• The Battle for the Living Room.  We were right that there was a lot of coverage about the battle for the living room but we missed one part of the story. There was a lot of coverage about TVs in the first half of 2013 but in the last quarter, the battle hasn’t been between high def and ultra high def TVs. It’s been about Microsoft’s Xbox One vs. Sony’s PS4 (that’s PlayStation4 for those of you older than 35). Because we missed the gaming console part of the story, we’ll take points off our score. Grade: B+.
• Battle between different streaming services and cable’s embrace of streaming.  This got a lot of coverage but not in terms of specific comparisons across offerings and fee structures from Netflix, Amazon Prime and Hulu. Instead, the coverage focused on new original programming being developed by some of the streaming services, and the implications as those services evolve to better compete against cable channels like HBO and Showtime.  We expect more coverage in 2014 about streaming vs. cable as well as Netflex vs. Amazon Prime and cord-cutting. Grade: A.
• The battle among huge companies. Apple v. Google v. Samsung and Microsoft. Oracle v. Everyone Else. This is one of the great memes of tech journalism this decade. Grade: A.
• The Battle for Map Supremacy: Apple v. Google v. Nokia v. Microsoft v., Amazon. This got some coverage -- including a recent cover story in the New York Times Magazine section, Google’s Road Map to Global Domination -- but we overstated this. Grade: C+.
• Apple TV set and the future of TV. People may spend much time actually watching a TV but there continues to be interest in how Apple may revolutionize our TV-watching experience. Whatever plans Apple may have will be the continued focus of speculation in 2014. Grade: A.
• Automated home and smart appliances.  Media coverage started strong in the first half but dropped in the second half. Interesting that some trends are not strong enough to maintain buzz for an entire 12 months. This could be the result of a CES bump where some topics get off to a strong jump in January but fade when there’s not a lot of new products available. Which means, there could be more interest in smart appliances after CES 2014. Grade: B.
• 3D printers: Not yet ready for prime time. We said “2013 will be the year in which the media proclaims the arrival of 3D printers,” and that was on target. Still not seeing them widely adopted yet but we expect continued coverage about the implications for manufacturing. Grade: A.

We'll post more tomorrow and you can check out Part I here. 

Track Record for Predictions for 2013, Part I

For more than a dozen years, Birnbach Communicates has compiled an annual list of media trends for its clients, who operate across a range of industries, including technology, financial software and services, unified communications, storage, security, biotech, healthcare, clean tech, senior services, consumer, social networking, nonprofit and education sectors.

In 2013, there were some big new stories that were not suprising – like Obamacare – and some that were totally suprising – i.e., twerking, the election of a new Pope, and Twitter going public. (We know we've lumped those three together but we do not mean to give equal weight to them.)

The trends and topics we identify help the agency work with its clients to work more effectively with reporters, producers, bloggers and other influencers. We also look at the way topics are being covered by media and in social media, and at how those stories are told. We continue to see that the way stories can and should be told is continuing to shift.

Here's our annual report card of how we did with our 2013 predictions:

• The story still matters.  No question that story and messages continue to matter, even in an age of 140 characters. Companies may still not consistently tell their stories visually (using still photos, videos and infographics) but at least many are trying. We also said the information companies want to communicate must be customer-focused, and that is increasingly true in 2013, and will continue in 2014. Grade: A.
• Corporate values and personality matter. We said that “in 2013 and beyond, social media will multiply the impact of values and corporate personality. Companies need to be prepared to communicate not just their selling proposition but also their values and personality as they engage with customers via social media. Social media expert Paul Gillin validated this in a recent column, “The Power of Trust,” in which he made the point: “Marketers who understand this power are in a position to build bonds with their audiences that transcend market cycles because those bonds are based on shared values and interests.” Grade: A.
• Social media is relevant for B2B companies. We said 2013 would be the year that B2B companies realized they needed a social media strategy, too.  This was validated by a company that brought us in three years ago, asking for insights on their media strategy. When we told them they should consider social media, they sniffed, and said their engineering customers would not use social media to help them with their jobs. This summer, they called us back and asked about enhancing their social media strategy. Grade: A.

We'll post more tomorrow.

Five Challenges for Marketing in 2014

After reading "Segal reflects changes" in the last printed edition of BtoBonline, I think it's easy to take for granted the significant changes that have occurred in just the last decade (Rick Segal takes the perspective of 32 years in the business).

I don't agree with the first, entirely, but here are some of the challenges he identified:

• B2B is dead -- "What it comes down to is the way that work is just part of life. Individual people are so extraordinarily empowered by technology and by newly democratized models of management that people make little distinction between their personal and professional exertions and diversions."
•  The new model of marketing is humanity -- In the new model. "Individual men and women are actors in the task of business decision-making, which is one part of people's work lives. B2b, as I have lived it and known it, has always been arithmetic and rational, but humanity is geometric and emotional. I don't think we've begun to scrape the surface of the strategic, creative and tactical transformations required for the new model. I don't think an entirely new model has emerged yet, responsive to the dramatic changes that we're seeing."
• Big challenge is smaller targets -- "The degree to which everything has become smaller and more dispersed. The easy, almost instantaneous replication of value is a principal challenge all marketers face, whether they are in what we'd call b2b or b-to-c. It is very, very difficult to command positions of longstanding market or segment domination as was once the case."
• No more patience for patience --  "Marketing used to be about seeding and planting innovations that would grow into mighty oaks of market domination. Today's world has no such patience for that kind of processed growth."
• Technology has made marketing better and more difficult --  "We have all of these technologies and all of these tools that allow us to be more precise and measured and to reach more people. The fact of the matter is, all these things have made the task of marketing more difficult than ever. The good news is, there is more work to be done in more places, both in time and in geography."

According to Segal, "The opportunity for smart marketers to figure these things out" meaning how technology can be harnessed. That's the real challenge for marketers in 2014.

Spray-and-Pray as Media Relations Tactic Does Not Work; Four lessons from reading David Segal's column

Most Sundays in the New York Times business section, David Segal writes a consumer column called "The Haggler" in which he helps a reader deal with a particularly difficult problem with a company.  Some times it's a problem with an airline or hotel. Or a situation with an appliance company or ecommerce site that has failed to repair or replace or refund a purchase. Or mortgage or foreclosure issues. And then, as The Haggler, Segal helps solve that week's question.

 In his latest column, Segal takes aim at a problem affecting him:  "unsolicited public relations pitch(es) — P.R. spam...(which) hogs space in his benighted in-box."

Segal then cites a number of subject lines from email pitches that are just way off target.  Pitches like 

• “New! First Self-Chilling Iceless Drinking Glass — Editorial Sample?”  
• Christmas Cookie Treat Boxes
• A document previewer called Igloo
• A liquor called Pura Vida Tequila, which “will be in the house this season at Qualcomm Stadium.” 

As a long-time reader of the "The Haggler"column, it deals only with consumer complaints. It is not a column clients should aspire to.

Yet, as Segal writes, "some company hired a public relations firm to send the Haggler, and presumably countless other reporters, the same information. This seemed like a waste of energy and money, so the Haggler decided to find out what was behind this antiquated attempt to win media attention — who was paying for it, and why?"

Segal then talked to the managing director of the self-chilling drinking glass company. According to Segal, "It was news to him (the managing director that his company’s public relations firm...was spending any part of Soireehome’s $1,500-a-month retainer on spam email. And it was news he didn’t like." In fact, the managing director said, "“I’m happy to get this call,” he told Segal. “We don’t know what (the agency, which I don't think needs to be named here) does on a day-to-day basis. They just send us a bimonthly report, detailing what they have been able to do for our company.” 

By the way, the PR agency working for the drinking glass company did not respond to questions from Segal -- who takes them to task for not even responding.

Segal then provides other journalists with a tool to reduce the PR spam -- the email addresses for those responsible at Vocus and other databases to remove reporters' email and contact information.

Segal's complaints are valid and instructive. Basically the article makes three valid points for the rest of us:

1. Spray-and-pray is not sustainable nor strategic media tactic.It takes much more time to qualify a list to make sure the reporters might actually care about the product or service. While it's true that some clients are impressed that the media lists their agencies have created have tons of names, targeting a broad list means what you're pitching will be PR spam to some (if not many) reporters. The solution: Use media databases to help research and refine your targets.
2. It's always important to know who you're pitching and why they might be interested. This is clearly a challenge as the media has become more fragmented than ever and when reporters might write about one topic and blog about a slightly different topic (or differently). But it is more effective to target a focused list of reporters than to waste time following up with reporters who were never going to be interested.
3. Agencies need to do a better job in explaining what they're doing, how they develop and maintain their media lists and in reporting what they do each month to earn their clients' fees. Clearly the agency cited by Segal leaves open questions for the client.
4. PR agencies need to police themselves to avoid being called out by the media. (Segal is hardly the only journalist to complain about the situation.) And in so doing, we can improve relationships with reporters and bloggers and the reputation of the PR industry among clients and others we're trying to influence.

Let me know if you think there are other lessons we can learn from reporters' complaints about spray-and-pray.

By the way, one suggestion from Robert Scoble (via an interview in PRWeek): "Make lists of tech journalists and influencers on social networks. 'I've created a list of every tech journalist I need to find. I have been watching them for years and know what they care about so I know how to approach them.'" Doing so helps you figure out what reporters and influencers are interested in and writing about.

The Difference Between Inc. Magazine & Entrepreneur, Part II

Her's the second part of my post about the differences between Inc. Magazine and Entrepreneur. (You can find the first part here.)

Both magazines cover franchised businesses, but Entrepreneur provides much more focus to franchisers and franchisees. Another essential difference is that Entrepreneur portrays entrepreneurs, which it refers to as "treps, in heroic terms. By way of example, Entrepreneur describes itself as "read by the names you know and the ones you will." Inc. also covers entrepreneurs but -- perhaps because of its main competitor -- Inc. refers to business leaders.

One key difference is the definition of small businesses. Recently Inc. listed the "2013 Hire Power Honorees," its ranking of the small- and mid-size businesses that have hired the most employees over the past year.  What's notable is that 14 companies had revenue that exceeds $500 million, of which four companies had revenues above $1 billion. Meanwhile, many of the Top 100 Job Creators that Inc. ranked, currently employ thousands of employees each. One -- Universal Services of America -- employs more than 35,000 people, having added 14,240 over the past year!

In terms of revenue and employees, I'd think those numbers place most of the companies into the large-size company bucket.

Each month, Entrepreneur includes a lot of columns that answer questions -- useful topics about ethics, technology, cash flow, etc.

Inc. also features question-and-answer columns, including "Street Smarts," a column by serial entrepreneur Norm Brodsky (a column I always read, not just because we share a first name), but it also includes columns from executives who are running their own businesses like Jason  Fried, co-founder of 37signals. Inc.'s new redesign got rid of its "Hands On" section but replaced it with a new section called "Innovate" that offers ideas, breakthroughs and disruption to inspire its readers. (The main difference between the old "Hands On" section and the new "Innovate" section is that the new section goes lighter with case studies, making it easier to scan for new ideas.)

Both Inc. and Entrepreneur publish special issues.  Entrepreneur focuses on leadership in March, 100 brilliant companies in June, young millionaires in Sept. and trends in December. Meanwhile Inc. publishes "How I Got Started" in Feb., "How I Did It" in June, the Inc. 500 in Sept. and the State of Small Business in Dec./Jan.

Inc considers its Inc. 500 and the Inc. 5000 (both published each Sept.) to be "the definitive ranking of America's fastest growing companies," and it is Inc.'s crown jewel, especially since the magazine includes profiles throughout the year of different companies that made it in that year's rankings.

In our post about the difference between Forbes and Fortune, I noted that Forbes is more interested in investment opportunities and Fortune is more interested in management. There's not a clear distinction between Inc. and Entrepreneur because they both cover technology, franchising and management, etc. Some articles in Entrepreneur -- like "Ask the Esquire Guy" -- are purposely edgy while Inc. is more meat-and-potatoes earnest.

Ultimately, the difference between the two publications is that Entrepreneur is more focused on "business owners" of smaller companies while Inc. is focused on "business leaders" -- which is to say: people who may not own the company, even as they "tend to blur distinctions between work and personal life, especially between themselves and their businesses."

Let me know if I missed something about the difference between Inc. and Entrepreneur.