Facebook Flatlining? My Prognostications for the Social Networking Behemoth

It might still be the world’s second-most-popular website with 700,000,000 unique monthly visitors – behind Google’s 900,000,000. But, as history has taught us, it’s usually when you’re flirting with the top that the bottom drops out.

And when it comes to Facebook’s dominance, the digital Visigoths are amassing on the web’s virtual borders.

Who are these digital invaders? An expanding list of mobile messaging apps like Kik, GeeVee and WhatsApp, among others, that are growing increasingly popular with tweens and Millennials. Kik, for instance, launched in 2010, now boasts 40 million users, GeeVee has quietly amassed several million users since 2011 while WhatsApp recently became Canada’s top paid downloaded iPhone app. Once Facebook’s most coveted demographic, the 15-25 age group is starting to bypass the originally built-for-desktop/laptop site, calling the website decidedly un-cool. Does Facebook think that its “F-phone” might stop the bleeding?

Even in our age of instant communication, it’s amazing how fast the conversation has shifted. Just last spring media outlets were writing about the time when Facebook would reach the billion-member mark. The early call was for last August. Instead the feat was achieved in October. Not bad for a nine-year-old company.

Fast-forward six months and now a Google news search returns dozens of articles hinting at what I think will be inevitable, the flat-lining of Facebook. Even with an encouraging Q4 earnings – revenue was up 40% from a year ago – the stock is down 1.4% and profit margins have narrowed sharply as spending increases. To me, this sounds like an engine being pushed to its limits – running hard and fast until breakdown. In other words, Facebook’s present business model is not sustainable.

As with many other great empires, Rome’s final downfall might have come from without – the real Visigoths, a Germanic tribe, conquered it in 410 AD – but the beginning of its end came from within. Facebook has become too big and its autocratic intrusion on our privacy, culminating in a $15 billion class action lawsuit, bears ironic resemblance to any super state’s trampling of peoples’ rights.

Another shortcoming: the digital soapbox that Facebook became, with people collecting fake friends like poker chips, may finally be coming to an end. Maybe we’ve all just moved on and the cultural pendulum is swinging back to a desire for smaller groups of actual friends. You know, people you might actually meet in person and actually know, not just “like.” Apps like Kik, GeeVee and WhatsApp are also great for young users as they avoid cell phone data network charges and it’s a little harder for hovering “helicopter parents” to join social messaging apps. And forget about prospective employers snooping around too.

That said, it’s not as if Facebook is going to unfriend itself anytime soon. A recent Reuters article is right to point out that the many Millennials turning to this new breed of mobile messaging apps haven’t abandoned Facebook – yet. But the true canary in the coal mine will be tracking how their usage patterns change in the coming months and years. And you can be sure Facebook is well equipped with its prodigious metrics-gathering ability to learn its fate long before it’s sealed.

Even then, though, the great Facebook empire may still fall, as all empires do.

Do you think Facebook is flatlining? I would love to hear your thoughts on this.

Cash for Quiet? What an Airline April Fools’ Joke Can Teach Us All

The late comedian George Carlin often argued that anything could be funny. All jokes are mostly true retellings of events or observations. The humor comes with exaggeration. “Every joke needs one thing to be way out of proportion,” he said. That contrast helps establish how “valid” the rest of the joke’s commentary actually is.

If that logic holds true, then WestJet’s April Fools’ joke struck the perfect note. A video featuring Richard Bartrem, the Canadian low cost carrier’s vice president of communications, offers a new airline perk: “Furry Family” – where all animals of cabin-safe size are welcome aboard (assuming they can use the lavatory).

“Today we’re announcing the easing of restrictions on pets in the cabin,” Bartrem says with a straight face. “We recognize that a growing number of our guests want to travel with their extended family and we’re proud to be the first airline to offer this type of service.”

And where will the two and four-legged creatures sit, crouch or hide? (Hint: not in their carriers)

Pretty much anywhere else, including the seat next to you, in storage bins or scurrying under your feet.

Laugh, laugh, ha, ha, ha. But the joke’s underlying truth is particularly telling. Our frenetic world has become a very loud and crazy place and it’s humor that WestJet has stoked before. Last year’s April Fools’ gag by the airline featured “child-free” cabins in a program called “Kargo Kids.”

But the world’s “decibel debacle” – whether it’s the sounds of screaming children, squawking chickens in coach or incessant cell phone banter – is no laughing matter. In New Delhi, for instance, one of the world’s loudest cities, noise levels top 100 decibels in commercial zones. That’s 10-15 decibels above what’s considered safe. And in case you think this is a new problem, an article in the Milwaukee Sentinel from 1955 discusses New York City as the world’s noisiest with decibel levels also around 100.

We’re left with a world screaming for quiet. And noisy children, turbines and fictitious flying menageries aside, the aircraft cabin is one of our last quasi-quiet refuges — unless, that is, the Federal Communications Commission gets its way.

Over the last few months, the agency has been pressuring the Federal Aviation Administration to relax its restrictions on in-flight electronic devices. (So what makes cell phone use any safer now versus in the past is another story)

By late this year we might all be sitting next to children and adults who lack the self control to unplug for a few precious hours and keep their phones and their mouths shut.

WestJet may not have a “Kargo Kids,” or “Furry Family,” program yet, but I can envision legacy and LCC carriers using electronic device rule changes to their advantage, segmenting strictly-enforced “cabin quiet” zones as part of ancillary revenue strategy. Instead of selling headphones for $4, why not offer $8 noise-cancelling ear buds? Think about it; that’s a small price to pay for a few hours of silence.

Unlike April Fools’ videos, this is no joke. In fact, it is very much in airlines’ interests to promote policies that talk out of both sides of their mouths – encourage in-flight device usage, popularize Wi-Fi, videoconferencing and shopping while offering pricy rewards remedies to the resulting “volume crisis.”

This sounds a lot like Big Tobacco. Yes, smoking causes “serious diseases and is addictive,” according to the Philip Morris website, but they continue selling cigarettes while also supporting smoking cessation efforts – a multi-billion dollar industry in its own right.

Airlines might not face the same ethical conundrum. But saving our eardrums and damaging them at the same time so that the air cabin really does sound like a zoo – even without an animal free-for-all, isn’t the best policy either. Don’t get me wrong; I’m all for in-flight productivity. I get some of my most creative work done in the cabin. I just hope FAA and FCC wrangling doesn’t become more of a shouting match than it already is – on the ground, or above the clouds.

Why the Lag in Airlines and Mobile Innovation? My thoughts on MobileMarketer.com

Mobile, mobile, mobile, mobile, mobile! Mobile seems to be mentioned in every other article and included in every marketing and customer engagement strategy – except when it comes to the airline industry. Mobile Marketer published my article yesterday about the economic potential that mobile technology has for airlines – even as the highly risk-averse industry seems to be fearful of incorporating these devices into every aspect of the passenger experience.

So, as the title of the column goes, why are airlines – which were truly cutting-edge during the Golden Age of commercial jets – so fearful of mobile innovation? Mostly, the current atmosphere of uncertainty in the commercial aviation industry is making airlines leery of implementing widespread tech changes if the ROI is hard to calculate.

But time – and consumers – won’t wait around: airlines should only look to how retailers and the hospitality industry are using mobile to drive engagement and revenues and take a lesson or ten from them. But that’s a topic for a future post…

In the meantime, you can read the entire article on Mobile Marketer here and I welcome your thoughts on airlines’ fear of mobile innovation in the comments section below.

What the Merging of Google Chrome and Android Means for Mobile

It may not have re-written recent headlines, but Google’s announcement that it’s putting Sundar Pichai, its senior vice president of Chrome (the company’s search engine and desktop operating system) in charge of its Android OS for mobile devices signals that bigger changes are ahead.

As I see it, these changes have both positive and negative implications.

Let’s start with the positive: Placing Chrome and Android under one roof could mean better integration between the two systems. That’s true even though a formal, more complete product union hasn’t been announced and details were carefully avoided at a recent press conference.

As the lines between what constitutes a mobile versus non-mobile device continue to blur, having siloed operating systems for each seems increasingly antiquated and inefficient, doesn’t it? So it’s very likely that in the next 5-10 years, those distinctions will become redundant. To wit, why not start the merging journey now – especially as Android remains the world’s most popular mobile operating system and Apple struggles through what might be called a delayed post-Jobs slump?

As of this writing Apple’s stock price, $452.08, was down more than 15% from a year ago. And, according to 2013’s Brand Keys Customer Loyalty Engagement Index, Samsung and Amazon dethroned Apple as the most loyally-followed brands. Regular readers of this blog and my column on Mobile Marketer will know that I’m a huge supporter of Android vs. Apple, so I can’t help but feel a little smug by these latest findings.

Now for the negative…

Corporate conglomeration and cooperation can equally become euphemisms for “monopoly” – not the board game, but the real-world competition-stifling monstrosity. I say this only because Google has a very successful track record of making its competitors obsolete. Remember all those late-90s and early-2000s search engines? Save for Yahoo and Microsoft, I can’t think of any left standing. So I Googled (a word that has become synonymous with Internet search itself) “most popular search engines,” and found a great post on Search Engine Land.

These numbers say it all:

And let’s not forget that “Google,” the verb, has been recognized as part of the English language since 2006.

So, imagine a future where Google is essentially the unchallenged king of web searching, mobile operating systems, social networking and, if prototypes like Google Glass (the soon-to-be-launched wearable computer) prove successful, hardware too. Don’t misunderstand – I am all for Google, but forgive me if I also see signs of trouble on the merger horizon ahead. Anti-trust, anyone? It also sets a dangerous precedent for competitor mobile companies, Apple included, as they seek similar types of hyper-conglomeration and cross-industry ambitions.

In a sense I’m reminded of German and European history. What began in 1951 with the inception of the European Coal and Steel Community, six countries with one shared trading market, culminated – after decades of gradual unification – in 1993 with the formation of the European Union. The EU has expanded several times since. While the philosophies underwriting its formation are noble – peace, prosperity and stability – the price of too much merging has come at a very high cost. Today (in an ironic nod to history) Germany again dominates Europe politically and economically. With the Euro uniting all in feast-or-famine outcomes, some countries have struggled under what’s become the European debt crisis. And it’s a crisis that won’t be abating any time soon.

Here’s hoping that Google’s subtle yet not-so-subtle corporate structural change doesn’t signal its aspirations to become the strongman of mobile.

That wouldn’t be good for the US, Europe or the rest of the world.

What Big Religion Can Teach Big Soda and Mayor Mike: A Big Lesson in Perceptions For Us All

Historians probably won’t pair Big Religion and Big Soda together, but that’s the beauty of blogs – they offer a snapshot of the moment and not a broad brush of time itself.

March – the month of lions and lambs – opened with the Vatican’s election of a new pope and began its wrap-up with an 11th-hour court ban on New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s controversial attempt to forbid the sale of sugary beverages over 16 oz. the day before its enforcement. While many applauded Bloomberg’s public health efforts, Manhattan state Supreme Court Justice Milton Tingling, said the proposed ban “has the potential to be more troubling than sweetened beverages.”

Call it the age-old “cure is worse than the disease” conundrum.

“Age-old” is something with which the 2,000-year-old Catholic Church is well-acquainted. Yet by many accounts, Pope Francis, 76, has been positively described as delivering a youthful dose of humility, authenticity, genuineness and credibility – qualities the Church desperately needs. Pope Francis leads a flock of some 1.2 billion Catholics. Meanwhile Coca-Cola sells 1.7 billion servings per day. I wonder how many of those consumers are Catholic?

Big Soda’s lesson is clear and it’s one Mayor Bloomberg has rightly been trying to impress. Hurting consumers’ health by incentivizing dangerous portions isn’t good business (It’s also immoral). Large drink makers should adopt voluntary changes – just as the church elected a somewhat progressive pope. Catholic disenfranchisement isn’t good for the business of religion either and the cardinals electing Pope Francis had the wisdom to know that.

Mayor Mike could use a measure of humility too. Pope Francis might be the Vicar of Christ on Earth, but that didn’t stop him from asking people to pray for his – and the world’s – continued success. Bloomberg views his attempted beverage size ban as a health issue. Detractors, however, including the state supreme court, have questioned his methods. Ronald John Warfield, a civil and criminal lawyer who’s tangled with Bloomberg over policies in the past praised the Mayor’s intentions, but said the administration acted with “an imperial hand.”

The Church has also acted with its own imperial hand over time, squelching dissent, covering up priestly sexual abuse and opposing gay rights. It also took 359 years to finally admit (in 1992) that Galileo was correct in saying the Earth revolves around the sun. But if this ancient an institution can be led by a pope considered genuine, authentic and humble and who embodies the possibility of internal change propelling external change,, then soda companies and mayors can learn those lessons too.

So, what are your perceptions of the new pope? Do you believe soda companies will better police their own policies, resulting in improved public relations? And can Mayor Mike step away from the mic long enough to swallow his pride? Let me know in your comments below.

Some Branding Advice and a Recipe to Discover Twinkies’ Twinkle

The Korean Peninsula could erupt in war at any minute, the first non-European pope, Jorge Bergoglio, has just been elected and sequestration’s full effects are only just beginning to be felt (I spent almost 2 hours at Miami airport on Friday night, waiting to clear immigration. Why? Personnel cutbacks due to the sequestration. Get ready for a lot more of that).

Yes, there’s clearly a lot on our collective plates. But is there room for dessert, or specifically, Twinkies?

Fittingly, the hard-to-digest, terrible-for-you artificial snack has lived to fight another day, a counterweight to the battle for healthier food choices and the ongoing obesity epidemic. Last week, it was announced that the Twinkie, once owned by the Hostess brand, had been resurrected – purchased in a $410 million bid by private equity firms Apollo Global Management and Metropoulos & Co. – following its parent company’s 2012 bankruptcy.

Twinkle, Twinkle Twinkie Bar

For diehard Twinkie fans, the people hoarding what were supposed to be the brand’s final shipments back in November, all that matters now is that the spongy goodness will likely return to supermarkets by summer. Marketers and PR execs, however, aren’t so flush with sugary bliss. Tasked with aiding Twinkie’s re-branding, the path forward is far from all vanilla cream and cake.

The truth is, Twinkies face a serious uphill battle and their fall from culinary grace has been building for years. Unwieldy bakery unions were only part of the problem. But nor is it fair to argue, as Hostess has, that its 2% sales drop in 2011 was due solely to changing American food habits toward healthier options. If that were the case, obesity, specifically childhood obesity wouldn’t be the crisis it is (32% of American children are overweight or obese) nor would nearly a third of children’s caloric intake, 27%, come from unhealthy snacks.

Larry Popelka, writing for Businessweek, is correct when he says Twinkies suffer from an innovation problem as much as from a perception of unhealthiness.

But I’m not here to argue the health quality of Twinkies . The American consumer has grown far too savvy for that. We know that when something contains partially hydrogenated vegetable oil or “trans fats,” it’s not good for you. Similarly, we know that euphemisms such as “enriched” or “natural flavors” aren’t what they appear to be either. As with Taco Bell’s “Fourth Meal” and “Live Mas” commercials, the Twinkies brand needs to better embrace its guilty pleasure indulgence, making fun of its nutritional shortcomings but remaining respectful of its 83-year Depression-era heritage. Until recently, Twinkies were a generational food – the Greatest Generation served Twinkies and Wonder bread to Baby Boomer children (not on the same sandwich) and Boomers offered them to their Gen-X and Millennial offspring.

At the same time, Twinkies should be offering more diverse products, marketed heavily through social media. I’m reminded of Nabisco’s creation of 100-calorie bite size packs. Packaged portion control is an excellent way to silence critics. Perhaps Twinkies should consider smaller sized, lower calorie versions? Don’t laugh, but Twinkies’ long and slender shape might also work to their advantage too if they build marketing campaigns and children-friendly loyalty programs that encourage burning calories and not just consuming them.

Besides, the 150 calories contained in one Twinkie are no worse than those in other unhealthy snacks. But if every calorie burned equaled 5 cents toward initiatives that helped combat obesity, maybe the Twinkie could rediscover its twinkle.

The Vaguest Healthy Food Recommendation of Them All

And how can you forget the basic marketing message when dealing with any questionable product like this: most items consumed in careful moderation are OK.

So, will Twinkies’ new lease on life be permanent or is its brand too damaged for repair? I’d love to hear your thoughts below and what else the Twinkies brand should do in the run-up to its summer re-launch.

And please, don’t sugarcoat your responses. There’s always room for dessert – and second opinions.

Will Washington’s Sequestration Sequester Our PR Budgets?

It’s time to add “sequester” to the list of words we could do without. In case you don’t already know, dictionary.com defines it as “to remove or withdraw into solitude or retirement; seclude?” You know, terms like, “fiscal cliff,” “kick the can down the road,” “move the needle,” and my election-year favorite, “47%.” I’m starting to think so.

Maybe it was because the mainstream media already began referring to Wednesday’s Mid-Atlantic snowstorm, which was supposed to “retire” DC for a day, as “Snowquester.” Then again, maybe I’m just wondering what communications wiz chose “sequester” as the clunky, if euphemistic, word describing $85 billion in mandatory government spending cuts that went into March 1.

Whether Uncle Sam calls it sequestration or the “Sh*% Hits the Fan Act,” make no mistake, these cuts, if implemented fully, are predicted to have far-ranging negative consequences. They range from an estimated 1%-1.5% drop in GDP, (resulting in nearly zero annual US economic growth) to reduced satellite coverage and lower resolution (read: accuracy) predicting the weather.

But a recent AdAge article brings up another good point that hits very close to our PR home. Government ad spending is one of the first expenses on the sequestering chopping block. The army, for instance, spent $47 million in the US in advertising in 2011. And government PR is essentially a DC cottage industry, ripe for additional reductions.

Sequestration sucks for PR in other ways too. As a profession that cares deeply about the implied messages of things, draconian communications spending cuts by Washington might send a powerful signal to private industry that they too, can do without in-house or outsourced public relations. The sequester might sequester spirits as much as it does budgets.

It’s what’s known as the proverbial “chilling effect.”

I truly hope this will not be the case. Yet with congressional gridlock at historic highs and approval ratings hovering near an all-time low of 15%, there’s growing fear that the full weight of the spending cuts will take hold across the entire advertising, PR and marketing sectors.

After that, the chilling effect gets downright cold. If government stumbles under its own bloated fiscal weight, you can be sure the private sector will follow as the two are inexorably linked. The fact that the Dow Jones achieved two days of record closes and February’s jobs report (which comes out Friday) is predicted to add a respectable 175,000 jobs might not be enough to offset DC’s disarray.

The irony is that, were such a scenario to unfold, each political party would be working overtime to spin the causes of these problems as the other party’s fault, requiring some fancy communication skills in the process. Our services would again be deemed “needed.” Unlike the sequester, now is not the time for the PR industry to “withdraw into solitude.”

Effective communications is essential in good times and bad. So what can we do as an industry to lobby Washington in reconsidering its actions? I guarantee 100% of Americans are in favor of that (not 47%) with no needle moving or can kicking required.