Separating the Wheat From Chaff: Can We Focus on What’s Really Important?

I frequently comment that I can’t multitask. And yet I often find myself doing just that.

I frequently talk to clients on the phone while emailing others while fielding a barrage of Google Chat questions from my employees. When you have to juggle so many balls – handling clients, hunting for new ones, taking care of employees and family – sometimes your brain just sort of gets stuck in a groove and you find yourself spinning your wheels without really getting anywhere.

A few weeks ago, right after barely emerging from one of the most hectic weeks I’ve ever had, I wrote a post about how important it is to find that illusive work-life balance and how our ever-present mobile devices make it increasingly difficult to abandon the cares of the office even for a couple of hours.  To reinforce my argument, a recent post from the Harvard Business Review goes further, raising the issue of whether all of the whirlwind activity we engage in simultaneously is actually helping us meet our goals in a timely fashion.

HBR blogger Greg McKeown argues that it isn’t, and I agree with him. I call this the confusing activity with achievement syndrome.  McKeown also suggests that narrowing our focus instead of trying to do everything at once will help us get each of the things we’re trying to accomplish done better and more quickly.

And he certainly has the data to back up his argument. In 2009, researchers at Stanford found that heavy media multitaskers are more susceptible to distraction by irrelevant stimuli. On top of that, they also have a reduced ability to switch tasks easily.

Of course, this information can also be arrived at via plain old common sense. The more things we do at the same time, the worse we do each thing.

In his post, McKeown links to another HBR piece, this one about Steve Jobs and how the late Apple co-founder pulled the then-moribund company from the brink of bankruptcy in 1997 by jettisoning most of the products the company was making. Some of those products were bringing in profits, but Jobs, famous for his devotion to simplicity, chose to focus on just four product lines. That’s it.

And we all know how that one worked out for Apple, don’t we?

I’ve been having to do similar things at ThinkInk – albeit, of course, on a much smaller scale. For example, the company is growing and I am constantly looking at ways to make the agency more efficient while delivering the very personal service we have delivered as a smaller operation. And I am also forced to do the cost-benefit analysis of keeping some clients - and not because they cant’t pay. Sometimes you get into bed with the wrong partners. If that’s the case, my advice is to give up what isn’t essential or creating value to your agency so you can focus on the essentials and value-creators better.

To be sure, I don’t see myself going to the lengths the girl in this droll video does to eliminate the distractions of her gadgets. But I get the message, and I can see myself making a conscious effort to quit multitasking so much.

Maybe we all can. And actually get more done. And done better.

Here’s hoping.

News Flash: Mobile is the Future! Is the Marketing World Keeping Up?

Last week Wal-Mart’s CEO Joel Anderson announced, with the proper captain-of-industry gravitas, that mobile is the future.

“I can't overstate how mobile is changing how we interact with our consumers,” he proclaimed at the 2012 Internet Retailer Conference and Exhibition in Chicago.

Why are still having this conversation when I, and a lot of agencies and brand marketers I know, have been saying this since 2005?

Let’s start with going back to 2007. That was the year that hundreds of thousands of Americans camped outside Apple stores and stood for hours in queues that wrapped around the block to part with up to $599 for the much-coveted “Jesus Phone” (I think we all know what insanely popular gadget I’m talking about).

In 2008 researchers at the Pew Internet and American Life Project released a report wherein tech leaders and analysts predicted that mobile devices will be the primary way most of us access the Internet by 2020. That mobile is the future hasn’t been news for a while, but Anderson’s quote made me wonder if marketers are truly doing enough to tap the enormous potential of these mobile devices that spend increasing amounts of time in our hands – and in front of our eyes.

Let’s take North America, for example. Last year, North American marketers spent $40.2 billion on marketing content as a whole. By comparison, they spent about $1.6 billion on mobile ads and marketing during the same year. That means mobile represents only a tiny sliver of the overall marketing budget pie – just over 4%.

When you consider that in the US alone 88% of adults have a mobile phone (46% of those devices are smartphones), you realize that the amount of money being allocated for mobile marketing just isn’t enough. It’s barely a drop in the bucket.

We’re fortunate to work with a number of companies who understand there’s an untapped goldmine in mobile marketing and that its potential can only grow considering the rates of smartphone and tablet adoption – and what they can do to connect and engage with consumers, and ultimately sell more stuff.

I understand the reluctance of the companies who are hesitant to allocate big budgets to any one channel, mobile being the least “tested.” But the world – and consumers – aren’t waiting around for them to dig up the willingness to make that leap. They are losing out on the ability to target consumers with relevant and timely messages delivered at moments of maximum influence.

So while Wal-Mart’s CEO may be a tad late to the party, I’m hoping that those words from the head of the world’s largest retailer will reassure gun-shy marketers enough for them to take some necessary risks.  Let’s see.

All Work and No Play: Can American Workers Get Their Lives in Balance?

Last week was one of the most hectic I’ve had in quite a while. My PR agency, ThinkInk is on a growth tear: we opened an office on the West Coast on June 1^st and we’re about to relaunch our website any moment now.  There was also a trade conference going on here last week and a sick daughter to take care of. I barely had a second to breathe – or sleep.

So I spent most of the weekend working to catch up, and to get ahead of the coming week. Amid the nonstop bustle, something jumped out at me - I was sending emails to both clients and employees throughout the entire weekend. And they responded immediately. Does anyone really have a life anymore?

An article on the Harvard Business School website got me thinking about the ongoing trend of Americans working more and more hours, either to keep up with the bills because their wages are stagnant or because they are afraid of being replaced if unwilling to be available for work at any time. Let’s face it, given the jobs crisis we’re battling, with widespread pay and benefit cuts, workers are doing more for less because they are terrified of losing their jobs. And their employers know it: squeezed employees mean bigger corporate profits. Add to that the slow, steady decline of the country’s organized-labor movement, and you’ve got millions of workers with fewer options.

Another (significant) factor that is making it more difficult to get away from the office, even while at home: our ubiquitous mobile devices.

The vast majority of us are carrying around at least one Internet-connected device at all times, and we are increasingly reluctant to be away from them. Think about it: how many times have you been off work, either on a weeknight, a weekend or holiday, and made a firm resolution to not check your work email or answer calls from the office only to break it because you just can’t stop yourself?

That’s what I thought. The same happens with me.

This isn’t good for us, people. Studies have shown that the more hours we put in beyond a normal workday, the more at risk we are for developing depression. Which makes sense: more time spent working – and worrying about work – means less time to spend with friends and lovers, less time to catch up on sleep and physically take care of ourselves and less time pursuing our other interests (if our jobs and families allow us time to have any!). European countries understand this.

We may need to have to start having more experiments like the one mentioned in the Harvard article. The researchers worked with teams of Boston Consulting Group employees to make sure they took periodic evenings off their mobile devices. Not surprisingly, the consultants ended up saying they were much happier with their work-life-balance and…drum roll, please…with their own job performance and that of their co-workers in the experiment.

This, of course, is kind of a no-brainer. We all know balance is important. It’s just a question of trying to work as much of it as possible into our lives. There will always be room for improvement.

Tablets will soon be top, driving engagement and consumer relevance

This article originally appeared on Mobile Commerce Daily by Vanessa Horwell, Chief Visibility Officer of  ThinkInk on 06/12/12.

Make no mistake. The prediction business is a precarious game. According to the late astronomer-professor Carl Sagan, ancient Chinese court astrologers whose predictions proved wrong were executed. Less lethal are the quotes attributed to those who thought they knew what was coming but did not. I have been known to get a few wrong myself.

Whether it was Popular Mechanics’ no-longer-profound statement that “Computers in the future may weigh no more than one-and-a-half tons,” – an iPhone comes in at 4.9oz, an iPad under 1.5lb and my BlackBerry at 4.3oz – or BusinessWeek’s 1975 call that the paperless office would arrive before the close of the 20th century, both predictions, while bold for their time, could not entirely free themselves from the prism of their time.

In other words, envisioning a computer that weighed less than 3,000lb was impossible and the paperless office was as much inspired by Jetsons-era imaginings as it was based on the factual advance of the microchip.

Nevertheless, the guessing game continues.

Bet’s on
Marketers make predictions about mobile commerce’s 2016 dollar value, research firms postulate a laptop-less world, and the Kentucky Derby, Preakness and Belmont Stakes draw thousands of errant betters.

But if predictions are precarious, here is a safe observation I can make: when it comes to tablets and their ability to engage consumers and entice them with marketing messages, we have not even scratched the surface. Repeat, we have not even scratched the surface.

But since this article is about pushing the prediction envelope, here is a riskier call: in the tablet versus smartphone battle, tablets may ultimately win out as the go-to mobile Web interface and social media communicator.

There’s no denying that the tablet has had a rocky road, taking some 17 years to mature from the poorly received Newton Message Pad (remember that?) to having a category all its own.

But with the massive success of three iPad roll-outs over 29 months and competitors such as Samsung, Amazon and others locked in an aggressive game of catch-up broadening the consumer market, pushing their capabilities – retina display, Flash and NFC – tablets have become mainstream.

And like the modern smartphone whose arrival came shortly before it with BlackBerry in the late 1990s and the iPhone in 2007, the potential for marketers to reach and engage potential and existing consumers via tablets has never been greater – poised to have as great an impact on mobile marketing in the unfolding second decade of the 21st century as smartphones had in the closing years of the first decade of the new millennium.

On second thoughts, make that greater.

Tabulating the numbers
From what I can see, part of tablets’ success lays in the adoption rates – a fact, which began landing front-page ink and Google search hits back in January 2012.

One of my blog posts earlier in the year made note of the impressive statistic that in the span of a few weeks, the number of U.S. tablet owners nearly doubled to 19 percent from 10 percent. As it turns out, this was no Christmas gift fluke.

In April 2012 it was reported that global tablet sales tripled in year-over-year shipments. Some sub-groupings such as doctors saw adoption rates as high as 62 percent. Sound familiar?

Those were the same type of eye-popping data points surrounding iPhone purchases last October when just over a third of U.S. consumers owned one.

While it is important to remember that a tripling of anything is easy when you start with lower numbers, I do not think that is truly what is in play here.

Pardon the pun, but tablets have finally come out of their shells.

With smartphone adoption rates now at nearly half the United States population – and rising rapidly – consumers already expect high-speed mobile Web access. Tablets deliver a similar experience but deliver it better. Why?

Let us start with the larger screen that gives marketers greater “screen real estate.”

In other words, more space to engage and sell more stuff.

There are also indications that tablets, because of their larger size, ironically have greater market flexibility.

Apple might be today’s dominant tablet maker, but others such as Samsung continue to find their niche by designing so-called “hybrid devices” – smartphone and tablet combined.

The Galaxy Note, which launched in October 2011, is an excellent example.

While I am still married my BlackBerry because I can knock out articles such as this one with its miniscule 

keyboard in the back of a taxi or while I am between flights and so on.

As they say, old habits die hard but I am very close to committing device adultery. The device comes with a 5.3-inch screen, makes phone calls, stores music, runs Adobe Flash and comes with a stylus.

But the Galaxy Note is just the beginning.

Jablets, wablets, phablets?
So successful has Galaxy’s entry been into the “midsized” tablet market that a new term is rising up to define the industry segment. Enter the Phablet. And no, I did not just bite my tongue.

Phablet describes the combination of a phone and a tablet. These devices, being launched by HTC, LG and Huawei, are set to enter the market later this year and shipments are estimated to top 208 million units by 2015.

Their launch timetable may coincide with the rumored release of the “iPad mini” – another example of the specializing tablet landscape.

By contrast, smartphones are limited in their ability to adjust their size much further. Too small and the notion of hunting and pecking for touch-screen button and key strokes takes on a new, almost absurd notion. Any bigger and they bump into tablet turf.

“Tapping” into a whole new touch-screen audience
Referencing the term “midsized” tablet is reminiscent of the evolving family car.

Nearly all cars go from zero to 60 in similar-enough amounts of time, measured in second differences, offering similar performance, but nevertheless, the average size of the American car continues to grow, clipped only at brief interludes when high gas prices forced a downsize.

Arguably, cars got bigger because marketers could pack more amenities into a larger space and consumers soon expected the added room.

The technology under smartphones’ digital hood is no different than my car comparison and very similar to the technology behind the tablet.

iPhones have proven touch screen and retina display viable technology. But for marketers, a 3.5- to 4-inch screen space is no longer enough for customer engagement.

Tablets and phablets and whatever other names they will eventually be called bridge that gap while relying on the same anywhere and everywhere connectivity that 3G- and 4G-enabled smartphones presently deliver.

Already the National Retail Federation has found that nearly half (49 percent) of retailers say their tablet customers spend more per mobile purchase and account for 3.2 percent of Web purchases versus 1.5 percent for smartphone Web sales.

Think of tablets like digital shopping carts. Like cars, shopping carts have also expanded, along with aisle width, bricks-and-mortar square footage and the number of products per shelf.

Seen in this light, the digital shopping cart – the tablet – it is not surprising that half of retailers would report such findings.

Just imagine a 10th generation iPad that produces a three-dimensional holographic image of your favorite store. With the tap of a screen you can walk through an immersive environment of your choosing wherever you happen to be.

But before I leap into prediction mode, let us stick with the present.

If customer loyalty is all about engagement, then Apple’s 2048×1536 pixel retina display is critical. I have used it myself and agree with reviewers who describe its visuals as so rich and vivid that images appear “painted.”

While shoppers cannot gain a complete experiential marketing moment, touching and inspecting an item, nor has 3-D fully matured, but retina display, like HDTV, gets customers so very close to the actual bricks-and-mortar experience.

Combined with burgeoning Near Field Communication technology that promises a future of mobile wallets and location-based marketing via Bluetooth and WiFi – attracting shoppers when they are in-store or in proximity of a store – tablets are becoming a much larger picture – and screen – of the marketing landscape.

Future awaits – no matter how it is predicted to unfold
Back in September 1993, Peter H. Lewis, a writer for The New York Times, said this about the Newton:

“Apple promised too much and failed to deliver a useful device for everyday executive chores. 

[However,] the Message Pad practically hums with untapped potential, and six months…to a year from now it is likely to be a popular executive tool.”

Ha! Mr. Lewis’ prediction that the Newton tablet would be commonplace proved incorrect. But like the technology that began the tablet torrent 17 years ago, he was correct in his understanding of the device’s potential.

Almost a generation later and tablets are finally coming in to their own, un-tethered from PCs, laptops and, of course, smartphones.

For marketers and consumers, that is not a prediction – it is a fact.

Ultimately, predictions are not just made for the sake of it. Nor do they rely solely on existing technology. Predictions are a healthy amalgam of insight, foresight, facts and dreams. So was it foolish for BusinessWeek to envision the paperless office? No. It was quite daring.

The BusinessWeek article evaluated what was already possible in 1975 and extrapolated what was probable in the decades ahead.

In that leap-of-faith spirit, here is my final tablet truth: what tablets 2.0 – next-generation tablets – really need is for them to be as compact as today’s smartphones but be able to “unfold” to the size of a tablet.

Demonstrating what’s already possible, Atmel, a California-based semiconductor company, continues to promote its flexible touch screen technology, which uses thinner sensors than existing screens and has better battery life.

Such examples may not be the full realization of a Jetsons-style flying car that folds into a suitcase, but it is anyone’s guess – or prediction – of what is possible in the decades ahead.

As for me, I think it is an upgrade for which marketers should be on the lookout – before the still-hot traditional smartphone market folds. And I am not talking about in the flexible screen manner.

This article originally appeared on Mobile Commerce Daily by Vanessa Horwell, Chief Visibility Officer of  ThinkInk on 06/12/12.

Pink Overload: What’s Happened to the Breast-Cancer Awareness Movement?

Pink ribbons, pink cars, pink kitchen mixers, pink vacuum cleaners, pink knives and now, pink guns?

That’s right, breast-cancer awareness guns. Truly inasane.

Don’t get me wrong. I have no objection to breast cancer-awareness campaigns in and of themselves; it is a worthy cause that may help save some lives by spotlighting the importance of early screening and does bring emotional support and fellowship to many suffering from breast cancer.

What truly bothers me is that the movement has morphed into a commercial behemoth - a massive money-making, cash-raking frenzy that makes the month of October look like someone hosed it down with Pepto-Bismol. At nearly every fundraising event and in every related media campaign you see evidence of massive corporate sponsorship. There’s Ford Motor Company’s “Warriors in Pink” clothing line, entire Japanese trolleys wrapped in ads for Avon’s pink-beribboned product line and Yoplait’s “Put a Lid on It,” for example. Here’s a spot of bitter irony: when Yoplait first launched that campaign, they were making the yogurt with dairy from cows injected with a growth hormone that has been linked to breast cancer. At least General Mills pulled the hormone from Yoplait after activists started making noise about it.

With the seemingly endless millions flowing to this movement, it’s clear that some are profiting big. But are we really any closer to finding the elusive cure? I recently wrote about Susan G. Komen for the Cure’s disastrous attempt to pull Planned Parenthood’s funding – which the group uses to provide potentially life-saving breast-cancer screenings to low-income women. Wow. Just, wow.

Another gripe with the pink-ribbon overkill is that it overshadows so many other worthwhile causes and nonprofits – groups that do incredibly valuable and needed work in their communities – that are barely noticed and chronically underfunded. At the ThinkTank, the arm of ThinkInk that works with nonprofits. Unfortunately for many of them, their funding dried up as the recession struck and donations dwindled, forcing them to eliminate PR – which is what keeps them in the public eye – from their meager budgets.

It’s heartbreaking that so many great community programs delivering vital services such as medical care for the poor, food assistance and transitional housing, but lacking the visibility of the charity giants, languish in obscurity.

I absolutely support raising funds for breast cancer research as well as early-screening awareness, and I have nothing but good wishes for the many women who have survived, or are currently battling, breast cancer. But the actual impact of the movement as it stands today hardly seems commensurate with the eye-popping river of money it pulls in.

So let’s try and find other causes, other non-profits that desperately need our help in order to help others.

Because their missions matter too, you know?

Start Up! Nurturing the Next Generation of Entrepreneurs

Hiring is going down, unemployment is going up and the country's leaders inside the Beltway aren’t doing enough to address the seemingly endless problems – plunging budgets, rising class sizes, teaching “to the test” – afflicting public schools.

Combine these factors with high dropout rates, soaring college costs and lack of job openings for new grads and you have a bleak picture of our young people’s future prospects. What's being done to boost our youth's competitiveness in an increasingly globalized job market? There is no sugar-coating this: American youth trail those of most other developed countries in math, science and reading.

But that doesn’t mean it isn’t possible to ignite that "can-do" spark in even the most apathetic or disadvantaged children. Growing numbers of jobless young Americans have decided to create jobs out of desperation – by starting their own businesses. And here’s something even more inspiring: a lot of these young entrepreneurs are launching businesses that also incorporate social-impact programs addressing issues such as worldwide food preservation, the lack of clean water in the developing world and unemployment itself. Go them!

I happen to know firsthand about the power of entrepreneurship, and not just because I've started a number of businesses. For several years, the nonprofit division of my PR agency, The ThinkTank, worked with a wonderful non-profit organization called NFTE (Network for Teaching Entrepreneurship). NFTE is dedicated to showing at-risk youth and those from low-income communities the world of opportunity that can open up if they embrace the challenge of starting businesses. How rewarding to see the look of pride on the face of an eighth-grade girl from Little Havana as she pitches her business plan for an apparel company. NFTE’s success has been amazing to see: the group started with just a few schools in the South Bronx and today it’s giving start-up classes to kids all over the world. How Nifty!

Kids all over the country are coming up with clever ways to make money. Like 15-year-old Californian Jason Li, who founded iReTron, a company that pays consumers for their old electronics, refurbishes them and resells them, keeping them out of landfills. He’s just one example of the great things a kid with business know-how can accomplish.

I’m convinced, like the author of a recent TIME Magazine article, that it is absolutely crucial that more youth learn the skills to start 21^st-Century businesses. They need to know how to use today’s powerful online tools, social media and mobile technology, not just to create jobs for themselves and others, but to serve as examples for other youth and spread that go-get-it spirit around the country’s wider student population, showing lackadaisical peers just how school is, indeed, relevant to their lives. Furthermore, the country’s economy isn’t only shaky, it’s also changing. Manufacturing, the booming engine which propelled mid-20^th Century middle-class prosperity in America, is a shadow of its former self. We need young entrepreneurs to drive innovation and growth in new industries – tech and green, for example – to fuel a country that can hold its own against the world’s emerging big powers.

Widespread business education programs in our schools could do wonders for the youth who will be running this country in the next 20 years and beyond. Let’s hope that as a nation we can somehow overcome our vast differences – difficult, I know – to make it happen. Our children’s future (and their children’s) will be all the brighter for it.

“Booby Mom” was Both Shocking and Awesome: Can Provocative Content Improve Print’s Prospects?

Did I have a problem with now-infamous boobsucking TIME cover? Not at all, but I was somewhat surprised by the brouhaha that surrounded the image of the "booby Mom" whose 3-year old was photographed standing on a chair suckling her boobies.  Does that sound so pornographic or rude? You'd think so based on the throngs of readers (and media outlets) who commented on the controversial cover, considering it pornographic. Really people? I was a lot more troubled by what was going inside TIME Magazine and the article about attachment parenting than the cover. Truly troubled.

But back to the image… “Booby Mom” has spawned an avalanche of coverage and launched much discussion, not just about “attachment parenting,” the actual subject of the TIME cover story, but about the ways in which magazines (like all print media), have taken massive hard-copy readership hits can use thoughtful, provocative content and social-media relationships with readers to boost revenues. A TIME spokeswoman told the New York Times that the cover helped that issue become the magazine’s best-seller so far this year and doubled the subscription rates for that week. Says a lot about the so-called disgust about a breastfeeding mom on the cover, right?

Anyone who’s been paying attention knows that since around 2003-2004 newspaper and magazine circulation numbers have plunged as a result of the internet revolution. This got me thinking, as someone who pitches stories to media outlets for a living, about how print media can use provocation and button-pushing to help bolster their other ongoing efforts to slow the slide. Of course, a lot of the time provocative content gets shelved on the recommendation of the bean-counters who are afraid of offending anyone who might possibly buy a copy of the paper, or better yet, a subscription.

Let’s Face it, Bare Skin Sells… Is That So Bad?

And yet it is the most controversial messages that generate the most visceral reaction. Let’s face it, they are the messages that lead to water-cooler talk, arguments and coveted mindshare of brands.  If you’re old enough you’ll probably remember Demi Moore’s naked and very pregnant Vanity Fair cover in 1991.  The “decency police” went berserk denouncing the cover as obscene and generally gross. But like TIME’s “Booby Mom” cover, the Demi Moore cover is one of Vanity Fair’s best-remembered  and most imitated ad nauseam by celebrity women with a bun in the oven.

And then there was the The New Yorker, whose editorial staff must have been sweating (and likely second-guessing themselves) on the eve of the publication’s 2008 cover lampooning Fox News’ take on Barack and Michelle Obama’s onstage “fist bump” as a “terrorist fist jab,” bracing for the storm of criticism that followed.  That happens in lots of industries:  fear of offense and of reduced revenue discouraging unconventional or “risky” views.

Fear is contagious and all too soon there is nobody left who is willing to voice an idea that could be seen as too “out there.”

I’ve seen this with numerous clients I’ve dealt with throughout my career. It’s understandable, especially in the tetchy economic climate we’ve been living in for the past several years. And, when necessary, it’s been my role to poke, prod and nudge a nervous client to take a risk that ends up paying off. As someone whose business is to improve clients’ business, I know it’s important to encourage “outside the box” ideas because that’s where innovation comes from. When we push ourselves beyond our comfort zones we often end up succeeding way beyond our own expectations.

So kudos to TIME Magazine. Kudos to the “booby Mom” Jamie Grumet. And kudos to the other half of TIME readers who could stomach a 3-year-old nursing from his mother’s breast.

Of course, if we didn’t have that brouhaha in the first place, maybe I wouldn’t have written this piece to begin with. And that’s exactly my point.