David Pogue's Lessons from a Decade Covering Tech

On Thanksgiving, New York Times consumer technology reviewer, David Pogue, drew some lessons gleaned from 10 years of tech reviews, "The Lessons of 10 Years of Talking Tech."

The bottom line: It's been a decade of jaw-dropping change: "Think of all the commonplace tech that didn’t even exist 10 years ago: HDTV, Blu-ray, GPS, Wi-Fi, Gmail, YouTube, iPod, iPhone, Kindle, Xbox, Wii, Facebook, Twitter, Android, online music stores, streaming movies and on and on."

Here are some key lessons:

1. Things don't replace things; they just splinter. There are no such thing as an iPhone killer, for example -- despite all the products positioned as such. These killers may be alternatives, but they don't actually replace prior technology. A point Pogue did not make is that there has been a backlash to CDs recently, and while not a full mainstream trend, people continue to buy vinyl records because they offer better sound.
2. Some people's gadgets determine their self-esteem. I think this is one of the most important points in the article: " Today’s gadgets are intensely personal. Your phone or camera or music player makes a statement, reflects your style and character. No wonder some people interpret criticisms of a product as a criticism of their choices. By extension, it’s a critique of them." Pogue then draws a lesson that may be more important to tech reviewers ("You can’t use the word 'Apple,' 'Microsoft' or 'Google' in a sentence these days without stirring up emotion.) while overlooking a key point to tech companies and startups trying to sell new products: that technology is like the fashion business -- driven by trends. Look at that list in the second paragraph: "HDTV, Blu-ray, GPS, Wi-Fi, Gmail, YouTube, iPod, iPhone, Kindle, Xbox, Wii, Facebook, Twitter, Android, online music stores, streaming movies and on and on." Most are all built on trends. My point is that companies developing consumer tech products, gadgets, platforms, etc. need to understand the trend wave they need to catch -- and I wonder if most realize that.
3. It’s not that hard to tell the winners from the losers and Some concepts’ time may never come. These two points follow my point. Look, unfortunately, revolutionary does not mean necessary, and a lot of better technology has been out-marketed by lessor technology. But check out what Pogue says.

Pogue also makes very valid points about the transient nature of technology, suggesting that we understand when we buy technology that it won't last more than a year: "Of the thousands of products I’ve reviewed in 10 years, only a handful are still on the market. Oh, you can find some gadgets whose descendants are still around: iPod, BlackBerry, Internet Explorer and so on. But it’s mind-frying to contemplate the millions of dollars and person-years that were spent on products and services that now fill the Great Tech Graveyard."

His conclusion: Nobody can keep up with all the technological change, not even Pogue, for whom it is his primary job.

Some really good observations, and well worth reading the entire article.

Liberty Mutual's Paul Alexander on Branding

Last month, Paul Alexander, CMO at Liberty Mutual, a Fortune 100 insurance company, spoke at the Ad Club's CMO Breakfast, and said some interesting points about branding and marketing in a social media era.

Here are some key points to Alexandar's approach:

• The definition of death is a toilet paper focus group....Insurance is often seen as a commodity business. But you can still have fun.
• Successful marketing is about partnership (with PR and design firms as well as ad agencies), publishing (content) and PR.
• We've gone from a lean back and absorb information to seek out information, where you can keep out content. That means that companies need to take a different approach to marketing. Otherwise, you can be locked out.
• It's no longer about protecting the brand. It's about projecting the brand, where important qualities are find-ability and share-ability.
• You have to try and improve your batting average, knowing that you're not going to get a hit every time out.
• You need to engage via social media and to take a cross-platform approach.

o You don't need to use every element, but there should be some cross-over with logo architecture, color palette, and sell line.

In the interest of transparency, Liberty Mutual is now a client but was not at the time of the CMO Breakfast, which was open to the public. Additionally, we do not work directly for Alexander. However, I think his points about branding are interesting and worth posting.

Do We Still Need General-Interest Newsweeklies?

One of the reactions to the news that Newsweek will combine with The Daily Beast was coming up with a new joint name for the two money-losing-but-worthwhile publications.

In Newsweek Weds Daily Beast? Good Luck, The New York Times' David Carr clearly doesn't think that marriage can be saved. The print edition of the Times called the new combined outlet NewsBeast.

Which is better than the name that really symbolizes the problem: The DailyWeek.

Or the actual name of the new parent company, The Newsweek Daily Beast Company.

Given the estimated combined $35,5 million in estimated annual loses of the two combined companies, the more serious question is: do we still need general-interest newsweeklies?

Or, in blogese: 2010: The Year Newsweeklies Died. (That's because I see so many blog posts claiming something else we've all used has died, like email, press releases, etc.)

I actually don't think press releases have died, and I think email will be replaced by texting among people 28+ (those under 28 don't use email).

But I do think the age of the general-interest newsweekly has passed. Time is still around, but its circulation is half of what is was at the start of this century. US News is fading away. And while the print edition of Newsweek seems likely to continue -- for now -- its online version, Newsweek.com, will be shut down in order to drive traffic to the Daily Beast.

The only newsweekly that appears to be doing well is The Economist. I also like Bloomberg BusinessWeek and The New York Times' Week in Review section, that is published on Sundays. But neither The Economist nor Bloomberg BusinessWeek are general interest publications -- they're designed as overviews for people interested in business. There are some other weeklies, but they seem to have a specific political perspective (which puts them into a different category from general interest).

Yes, I know there are lots of other weekly magazines...like People, US, etc. -- but those are celebrity and entertainment publications, not general interest. Since we live in an age that seems obsessed with celebrities (including those whose names are known even if they seem to have no real discernible talent), I don't think the death of the general-interest newsweekly will impact People, US or the others.

In the end, I think it's difficult for readers to justify subscriptions to a general-interest newsweekly -- and difficult for advertisers to justify advertising in them unless they want to target an older demographic.

Meanwhile, the people behind a SaveNewsweek.com campaign -- seems like Newsweek.com staffers or former staffers, makes the following worthwhile points:

• What will be the ramifications for Newsweek’s Web presence in terms of SEO? For branding? For our partnerships with MSNBC and MSN? What happens to Newsweek’s (still-unleveraged) archives? How do you preserve a “national treasure” (as Harman has called it) without a Web presence bearing its name?
• By rolling Newsweek.com into The Daily Beast, the hope—at least according to the Times—would be to absorb the some of the 5 million unique visitors Newsweek clocks each month. But at least 60 percent of those visitors come in through the back door, through Newsweek’s partnership with MSNBC, links on MSN, Newsweek’s Twitter feed, its Tumblr, and elsewhere. If less than half of Newsweek readers log onto Newsweek.com’s actual homepage, how much traffic will really be gained? Certainly not five million uniques.

What do you think? Are newsweeklies dead yet or just going to evolve?

Current Listening Tools for Social Media are not Enough

There are a lot of tools that PR functions can use to monitor social media.

But the New York Times points out collecting what a company posts on various social media platforms can be difficult. You can search on Twitter or on your blog post or Facebook, but none of the current tools are 100% accurate. There are lots of times when Twitter can find recent posts, much less those going back a year or more.

The New York Times points out the problem in an article worth reading, "Tools to Help Companies Manage Their Social Media."

Stealth or Not to Stealth -- Tips from the "Using PR and Social Media" Panel, Part V

As we prepared for the "Using PR and Social Media to Generate Buzz for Your Startup," sponsored by the New England Venture Network (NEVN) and co-sponsored by Birnbach Communications, the four panelists -- blogger Paul Gillin, Xconomy's Greg Huang, BBJ/Mass High Tech's Galen Moore, and Fortune.com's Dan Primack -- discussed the concept of startups and stealth mode.

A lot of startups operate in stealth mode because they want to to avoid alerting competitors or the marketplace before they are ready to "come out of stealth mode," usually when they have a product in beta.

The problem, the panelists noted, is that stealth mode is hard to actually maintain. For example, sometimes executives actually list their current company on their LinkedIn profile.

Oops.

Also claiming stealth mode is a way to make startups seem more important -- at least to employees and potential investors -- than the company might really be. They find out the bad news when they try to come out of stealth, only to find that there's still not much interest in them.

In fact, one panelists referred to this as the "idiocy of stealth mode."

Reporters may care about stealth mode if there's something of real interest but the perception was that more companies act in stealth mode than need to be. The problem: their products may be ready for customers, but they're trying to go from zero to 60 in telling their story, and reporters and bloggers need time -- as in any sales process -- to determine what the story is, if it's credible and viable.

The point: it's not always easy to operate in complete stealth mode and it's even more difficult to quickly exit stealth mode.

In fact, the panelists said they'd be interested in a panel discussion of VCs and CEOs talking about their experiences and perspectives on stealth mode.

The panelists also suggested one of the problems in exiting stealth mode is the tension between the VCs and the CEOs, especially in terms of timing and in terms of who is going to drive the message. They really need to message together, but that doesn't happen as much as you might think, one of the panelists noted.

What do you think about stealth mode? Does it make sense? Does it work? Let me know.

Do You Need Videos to Promote Your Business on YouTube?

According to a Wall St. Journal article case study, you don't need video to engage with customers on YouTube.

What companies can do to leverage YouTube can include:

• Make sure to listen to what others are posting or commenting. This is basically the first rule of engagement for social media, but it often gets overlooked by those who want move forward quickly.
  
• Cultivate relationships with video bloggers (vloggers). Some companies hire vloggers to serve as product ambassadors and host as in-store demos.
  
• Comment or answer questions posed by those posting videos that either directly involve your product or involve your product category. Remember: do not make this a hard sell.

This approach can entail viewing and commenting on lots of videos without seeing much initial response or payoff. But one company quoted said it could not afford to produce as many videos about its products as get posted -- so this was a way of extending the company's reach.

Check out the Journal article, "How to Sell on YouTube, Without Showing a Video
Seems like worthwhile advice for those who can patiently put the time in: By making comments, companies can engage potential customers in conversation."

Seems like a worthwhile approach for those who have the patience to plug away at it.

When Is a Press Release Appropriate -- Tips from the "Using PR and Social Media" Panel, Part IV

According to the panel of experts -- blogger Paul Gillin, Xconomy's Greg Huang, BBJ/Mass High Tech's Galen Moore, and Fortune.com's Dan Primack -- at last month's "Using PR and Social Media to Generate Buzz for Your Startup," sponsored by the New England Venture Network, the press release is not yet.

I don't think they came to that conclusion because they're waiting for the press release that announces its own death to make it official.

The panel concluded that the press release is still necessary, but that the question now is when is a press release or a blog post or Facebook or Twitter update more appropriate.

Primack referenced an example where Microsoft announced a small acquisition via a blog post, not a press release since -- we assumed -- the acquisition was not material to Microsoft's stock price. The software giant never got around to issuing a press release about the news, but it still got some attention for it.

On the other hand, the panels concluded, the press release is not dead because there's a certain weight and formality to it. But it's seen more as a commodity once competing reporters and bloggers all get the release.

An important factor now is how unique is the information the reporter or blogger is getting. That discussion goes back to the question of exclusives and how and what information you spread around to meet the needs of different reporters and bloggers -- as well as to the other people you might want to reach.

On the other hand, Microsoft announced its recent quarterly earnings on its website, joining an estimated 11 other companies that publish their earning results directly on their websites. The SEC has provided guidance that companies can use the web to meet public-disclosure requirements. But there are critics that say small investors may be adversely affected because they then have to go to different corporate websites to get the information that otherwise is available more easily. Check out a recent WSJ article, "Microsoft Adopts Website Release for Earnings."