by kerryn le cordeur on 05 February 2010
By now we have all heard about the launch of Apple’s much anticipated tablet, the iPad. Although technology writers seem excited about the device, there are also some concerns about the iPad’s limitations, including the lack of camera; no SD card support; no Adobe Flash support; and the lack of multitasking with applications, as well as its place in the market – is there really room between smart phones and laptops for a third category?
However, while the debate about the pros and cons of Apple’s offering rages on, and publicity for the tablet soars, even making an appearance on the Grammy Awards, on a different level altogether has been the debate around the naming of the tablet. The New York Times’ Claire Cain Miller comments that her mind “immediately went to the feminine hygiene aisle of the drugstore.” It seems that this was the thought that entered many consumers’ minds, with the term ‘iTampon’ becoming a trending topic on Twitter because of tweets such as “Heavy flow? There’s an app for that!” cropping up all the time, as well as quips like “I’m waiting for the second version that comes with wings” appearing in the media.
This raises the question, first posed by Founder of Brew Media Relations, “Are there any women in Apple marketing?” At the very least, it certainly seems that there wasn’t a lot of testing or feedback before the product went to market… but this possibly extends to the features the iPad offers, too, as it seems there are a significant number of dissatisfied Apple users out there who won’t be buying this product – because of the name or otherwise.
At the same time, Hayes Roth, Chief Marketing Officer at Landor Associates, feels that in a few months, if the product delivers on its promise, people will forget about the unfortunate name. In fact, already women are saying that if the iPad is a must-have, they will buy it, despite the name. On the plus side, the name is definitively Apple and very descriptive, ensuring that people will know exactly who created it and what type of product to expect.
In the meantime, though, Apple’s shares have dropped by 3.5% as a list of the iPad’s pitfalls is spreading through the internet, and people are left wondering how what has been coined as a ‘giant iPhone’ is the next big leap forward for the iconic company, and communication in general.
Products shouldn’t be sold on name only, but on the quality and innovation of the product itself. So the real question here is whether Apple’s newest and most anticipated product will live up to the hype (even if it hasn’t at the offset), or if it will live up to its unfortunate, cringeworthy, if definitive, name…which may not mean a whole lot if what’s been said about said name so far is anything to go by. Hopefully, Apple will take head from the commentary that is so readily available thanks to the internet, and in their next generation tablets, integrate some of the ‘missing features’ in order to rectify public perception.
by kerryn le cordeur on 04 February 2010
When you receive an invitation to an industry event, what makes you accept? The topic? The speakers? The venue? Or the opportunity to network? In the media, communications and marketing industries, there is always a plethora of events to attend, but the question is, how does one decide on the best type of event to hold in order to achieve the desired outcomes?
It seems that whether the event is a less interactive seminar or conference; a presentation that encourages interaction, questions, and debate; a networking session, where the main objective is to forge new relationships; or an expo, where brands and consumers can interact in an informal setting, the general consensus is that some form of networking should take place, almost as an added value for attendees – learn something new, but also meet someone new.
This is understandable, considering networking is useful for raising your profile; sourcing new opportunities; strengthening relationships; and gathering information. It is a way to exchange knowledge and benchmark performance, as well as to stay abreast of the latest industry news and developments. At the same time, I have attended many events where people stand around awkwardly wondering who they should speak to, furiously typing away on their phones while waiting for the formalities to begin. It seems that this is often the case with younger generations, who feel more comfortable communicating using email and SMS, and shudder at the thought of networking, while older generations stand by the belief that face-to-face communication remains the most effective.
TomorrowToday.biz’s Barrie Bramley discusses that this is exactly why Baby Boomers come into their own at networking sessions, already forming the bases of important new relationships which they might later follow up with a phone call, while Generation Xers and Millennials would prefer to quickly grab a few business cards and then hide behind their phones and laptops and let the speakers do the talking, before going back to the office and following up with an email.
In my opinion, whatever the type of event, what is important is to understand your target audience and what it expects, and to ensure that it goes off without a hitch, giving the audience something meaningful to take away, whether that is interesting content or new business relationships.
How do you feel about networking? What have been some of the memorable events you have attended and why? Leave your comments here.
by Leigh Andrews on 03 February 2010
On Thursday, 28 January, I attended the MasterCard Consumer Confidence research findings session. On my return to the office, I found that a number of media members had already reported on the results – some going beyond merely giving feedback to actually interpret what these findings mean for consumers, as the key message from the session was that ‘we are heading for a full recovery’. That’s all fine, but how long will it take for us to actually gain steady footing again?
In this regard, I chatted to Professor George Angelopulo of the University of South Africa. In terms of accuracy in market research coverage by the media, he feels a key factor determining coverage is the value ascribed to the research, irrespective of its fundamental significance. This includes who does the research; what it’s about; how it’s presented… how much editorial consensus there is on its value often drives coverage more than actual diligent assessment of the research question, its methodology or findings. Angelopulo feels that reputable research is covered as a matter of course, but media attention will be cursory and perhaps less accurate unless it addresses a burning issue. This means that economic recovery; the effect of crime on tourism; or central bank ownership will get more attention in South Africa today than economic trends in the Northern Cape, or the purchasing managers’ index… that is, unless Julius Malema visits a purchasing manager in the Northern Cape. Therefore, entertainment value also plays a role.
He adds that while economic journalism attracts some of the best journalists in the country, there is still insufficient depth of quality in economic journalism to guarantee a careful assessment of the value of much market research and its relevance to the public. After all, media coverage is determined more by the salience of a topic that by its fundamental importance. Angelopulo adds: “As in all journalism, it’s easier to follow the well-travelled path; to report on the accessible; and reflect the greatest consensus. It’s difficult enough to pick the value in research in developed economies.”
While South African media’s limited resources do make it difficult to diligently assess research and distinguish between research that is intended to sharpen a supplier’s media profile; set an agenda in the public domain; or offer genuine economic insights, Angelopulo feels we are still fortunate as media exposure of market research is governed here by two simple principles - whether our readers; listeners; and viewers actually want to know about the issue at hand, and whether its coverage will boost sales? This approach is not perfect, but on balance works well enough to separate most of the wheat from the chaff.
What are your thoughts? Please leave your comments below.
by Desi Tzoneva on 03 February 2010
We tend to get so caught up in the media debate that we forget to take a step back. The issues we often complain about revolve around how biased the media is, factual inaccuracies, dramatisation of events; and giving air time/copy space to vested interests as opposed to balanced information.
So what we’re really complaining about is that some news gets in and some doesn’t. Who decides this? Well, to trace the bread crumbs back to the pita, the top guns make these decisions. Why? Because they can. But should they really? I think it’s a difficult question. On the one hand, the country’s democracy is partially dependent on a free media. If this is not available, trouble could brew. On the other hand, businesses should operate at profit. At the end of the day, the media is still a business. Just because it is media does not mean that media owners don’t have to worry about what sells and whether or not the figures on the bottom line of the accounts statement should be a concern.
In our society, tight competition means that media ownership remains vested in the hands of the few. In order to get beyond this and stimulate transformation, some government assistance is needed to open up channels to smaller players. In pure capitalist terms, any government intervention is not very welcome. However, we live in the real world and need to take into account the realities which surround us.
The main point is that no matter what choices are made in regulation or deregulation, the fundamental principle that should prevail is a commitment to the true function of a media.
by Desi Tzoneva on 28 January 2010
A few days ago, Mashable reported on a new social aggregator, Google Xistence. The new site offers to 'live your life for you' through randomly generated status updates; picture uploads; and tweets, so you can ‘spend your real life doing more of what you secretly want to do’. Google, however, was not pleased with the prank site and has added it to the official list of phishing sites.
What a pleasure. Living my life and not worrying about updating my life every second for all to see. Thanks Xistence. I read in this morning’s paper that a new addiction has been identified – Facebook addiction. This applies to those who wake up early in the morning and end up being late for work because they were updating profiles; uploading photos; and catching up on the latest gossip. These are people who seem to be willing to put their real lives on hold in favour of an alternative reality. So what is this appeal? Is it that Facebook users feel more comfortable within a space where no immediate response is required; where you can formulate an answer; say something that is funny; or where it’s easier to deal with someone through a machine than on a face-to-face level?
As much as social networking is beneficial, it must be remembered that not only it, but other technological developments are there to enhance our real lives, not take over them. I still mistrust social networking. It doesn’t seem to offer me anything that’s real. Please convince me otherwise if you can. Until then, I’ll hold on to my bit of sanity.
