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.

‘Going Rogue’ Again? Keeping Client Communications In Check

With a title like the above, you might think we’ve returned to the days of Sarah Palin’s memoir, Going Rogue: An American Life. 

But this time I’m not talking about a “mavericky” Alaskan -- who, along with a very talented PR machine, masterminded a brilliant and profitable 15 minutes of fame. I’m talking about the client-PR agency relationship and how, despite living in an age of instant communication, some maverick-prone clients fail to keep their PR agencies abreast of what they are planning to say, how they plan to say it, which media outlets they’re talking to and who’s writing what. It’s as if we’re being undervalued -- a topic I discussed in a recent blog, Proving PR’s Business Value Easier Said than Done, But Not Impossible.

A recent AdAge article also addresses this growing advertising agency concern, citing data from The Bedford Group that finds the average client-agency relationship length has fallen to under 3 years versus 7.2 years in 1984 -- a drop of almost 60% over three decades.

What has changed and why is this happening?

Even my agency has not been immune to so-called rogue clients. A press release gets drafted without our knowledge. A media interview is conducted without our review and the client is caught off guard. Each scenario is a potential PR minefield.

Notice in the preceding paragraph that I was very selective in my language, as all PR execs should be. At no point did I say “without our consent” or “without our green light” -- and I think that’s the problem right there. Turf wars between agency management/oversight and client control. Considering that client-agency relationship lengths are so short, we must do everything in our power not to step on clients’ toes, or we may be perceived as know-it-alls.

Trust me, we’re not. And in the power struggle that communications can become, clients have the final say.

That said, there is a reason why we call the client-agency arrangement a relationship and not a doctor-patient review. Clients come to us for creative ways to improve their brand, not reinvent it. They’re not sick. They’re not dying. Agencies are integral to this team effort. And that collaboration, as I addressed in another blog, begins with thinking about clients less as machine-like conglomerates, and more like individuals with communication needs that must be met, not serviced.

So what we have here are two partners failing to communicate -- one that is perceived to be micromanaging (the agency) and one that’s looking to preserve its own voice. As AdAge rightly points out, technology ironically hampers our communication efforts as excessive emails and meetings trump genuine correspondence and conversations, watering down the quality of our time together.

And since this article began with a political reference, I’ll begin my wrap-up like this: agencies and the clients they represent need to press the “reset button,” remembering to be transparent about what each side plans to do and when they plan to do it, within reason. It’s a building block of trust and mutual respect. PR agencies are there to help, not hurt. And we can only do that when clients are honest with us and we are aware of their intentions. Likewise, agencies must involve their clients actively in the communications and PR outreach process.

Of course, this advice won’t stop all instances of going rogue, nor will it consign the occurrence solely to our industry. Sometimes, for very deliberate reasons, clients employ elements of surprise to their communications advantage, keeping everyone but their innermost circle in the dark. The recent shocking resignation of Pope Benedict XVI demonstrates that even inner, inner circles aren’t always privy to the thoughts of one individual.

In most cases, as seems to be the case with Alaska’s former governor, going rogue helps no one, not even the so-called “maverick.” Fittingly, like the drop in client-agency relationship length, Palin’s Amazon book price has fallen 60% too.

Does your agency have a going rogue problem? Inspired by the data gathered from The Bedford Group, I’d like to begin collating my own research on the client-agency “going rogue” phenomenon and report our findings in a follow-up article. Beyond the suggestions I have offered, how does your agency address the problem? Are there examples of a contentious client-agency relationship being healed by an attitude adjustment? Any particularly jarring “rogue moment” that caused your agency to put its foot down and change communications course? Lastly, like a heart attack, are there any warning signs that rogue has arrived? I would love to hear about your experiences with clients “going rogue.” 

This article originally appeared on Marketing Daily on 03/06/13. 

Tainted Horsemeat Turns PR’s “Gallop” to a Slow Trot

You have to wonder if the corporate executives dealing with Europe’s horsemeat food crisis haven’t just thrown their hands up in sardonic frustration and shouted “it was horsemeat, people, not horse s***!”

Be a dear and pass the Pepto-Bismol please!

Seriously, though, it’s cold comfort for the millions of Europeans who’ve been left with an unsettled stomach over the unfolding food scandal. And while there’s been a concerted effort on the part of Burger King, Tesco, Nestlé and others to address the meat recall across the continent – including the suspension of IKEA’s famous Swedish Meatballs – it hasn’t prevented social media from turning the crisis into one of misappropriated humor. There’s also been plenty of finger pointing at the failure of Big Business to protect the quality of the products they distribute, no matter where their third-party processing and distribution operations may be located.

And while that story was souring hearts and stomachs, another communications problem was gathering momentum stateside: the Newspaper Association of America, the New York Times and other newspapers joined The Associated Press in support of its lawsuit against Meltwater, a company that tracks and monitors media stories as related to client needs, but allegedly copies whole article leads and headlines without paying proper licensing fees to the AP.

Tsk, tsk, tsk.

Whether Meltwater wins or loses the eventual lawsuit probably doesn’t much matter in the court of public opinion. As a media agency they’ve only furthered the age-old belief that the PR industry is filled with nothing but “hacks and flacks.” 

Both stories reminded me of a more encouraging PR Daily article by Dorothy Crenshaw, CEO and creative director of Crenshaw Communications, named one of PR’s 100 Most Powerful Women by PR Week. Her article, How to Think Like a PR Person, articulated some of PR professionals’ most valuable skills. And by doing so, underscored that proper PR executive-think is very similar to the standards journalists hold high. In reality, this is a recipe that also works for corporate execs independent of their communications partners – something the horsemeat industry and Meltwater could learn from and use right now.

Crenshaw’s most relevant points included:

·         Think in sound bites: Talk about food for thought. This isn’t just a good idea for pitching media. It also helps condense one’s thoughts into step-by-step processes, more like an equation. When a company is in crisis mode, as IKEA and others are, this is particularly important.

·         Media training is essential: For similar reasons , media training is also about clarity of thought and preparation for difficult questions – ideal for Twitter and 140-character space restrictions – whether the questions are coming from news outlets or everyday consumers.

·         Voraciously consume media and content: Note, this does not say, “voraciously copy and paste media content.” For PRs pros this boils down to what I call “news aggregation with a point” – embrace the hyperlink, attribute constantly, and draw conclusions from the data used, helping prevent Meltwater-like accusations. (Exactly what this post does) From a corporate standpoint, knowing the news helps put immediate successes or crises in perspective.

·         Look for trends: Trends help connect the proverbial dots and can help draw conclusions from the above news consumption and content. For instance, if I were representing IKEA or another food brand right now, part of my voracious consumption of news would include data on the last time a food recall of this magnitude had occurred in Europe. I’d also be clamoring for positive data showing that incidence of these events has fallen to their lowest level in decades and the number of people taken ill has been negligible. Such trends help blunt the emergency of the immediate.

As I wrote earlier, whether it was horse meat or horse s*** doesn’t much matter to those affected by the tainted products. Hopefully this new week will see PR’s trot return to a gallop as communications and corporate executives consider this advice. Take that from the horse’s mouth and not from its rump!

On Mobile Marketing: Why Being First Isn’t Always Best

I was inspired to pen the following article after a whirlwind tour of mobile marketing conferences on the east and west coasts in January. At both the Mobile FirstLook Summit and the Mobile Marketing Association’s North America Forum, there was much talk of “mobile first.” I got to thinking, why mobile first and not mobile always?

While I cannot overstate mobile’s growing importance, influence, and indeed its multichannel “glue-like” properties, connecting one marketing channel to another in overlapping and complementary ways, trumpeting “mobile first” can also imply that all other mature marketing channels are less important, lower in the marketing pecking order.

It may not be as sound bite-ready as “mobile first” but, sometimes being first is not all it is cracked up to be.

Without further ado, here is the entire article in Mobile Marketer, “Why be mobile-first when you can be mobile-always?”

To continue reading, click here.

Is “mobile first” a term you are hearing more often?  Do you think is the right approach for marketers?  I would love to hear your views.