Buzz phrases like BYOD and CoIT are newest additions to the acronym-heavy jargon enterprise IT professionals bandy about. With Apple‘s introduction of smart devices like the iPhone and iPad, and Google, Microsoft and other companies piling on, the new workplace is becoming populated with Millennials unwilling to depend on corporate IT to dictate their tools and user experience.

One way to look at them is through comic-colored glasses. Think of this new bread of corporate workers as the mobile superhero—faster than a viral cat video, ready to leap corporate firewalls in a single click.

 

Never heard of ソフトバンク株式会社? How about SoftBank? It’s a Japanese telecommunications, internet, finance, media, and marketing zaibatsu now looking to reach across the Pacific pond to snatch a controlling share of #3 U.S. wireless company Sprint Nextel.

Shaking up the mobile market
The deal could see Softbank take a 70 percent stake in Sprint worth more than 1 trillion yen ($12.8 billion). It would allow the combined company to then take a controlling stake in the Sprint minority-owned, and LTE spectrum heavy, Clearwire. They could then use their new global muscle to grab T-Mobile or MetroPCS—and even leverage better terms from hardware manufacturers like iPhone-maker Apple. In fact, the chart below shows how the new company ranks on the global stage.

Business value aside, I’m looking forward to the consumer value of importing the quirky Softbank advertising campaign that features the very non-conventional Shirato family. The mother and sister are Japanese, the brother is black, and the father is a cute white dog. Otosan, meaning Father, is the fluffy, canine patriarch of an otherwise normal human family—and the four-legged star of one of Japan’s most successful advertising campaigns.

The dog days of mobile marketing
Since the first “Shirato Family” commercial in 2007, the long running campaign has produced over 130 episodes. The campaign was created by Creative director Hiroshi Sasaki, TV planner Yoshimitsu Sawamoto, and SoftBank president, Masayoshi Son. The well-loved campaign is seen as a critical part of  SoftBank’s climb from obscurity in the mobile market to rivaling Japan’s largest carrier, NTT DoCoMo.

I welcome the Shirato family to the United States. Other than the beautifully branded T-Mobile girl (recently spared from marketing oblivion when the AT&T deal fell through), other US mobile carriers offer bland, boring, uninspired, and undistinguished marketing. Like so many other areas—manga and anime to video games and pop culture in general—Japan is a leading purveyor of not just technology, but a unique Japanese brand.

That brand may originate in the land of the Rising Sun, but it’s a new, global, post-national culture that Dr. Koichi Iwabuchi has called “mukokuseki” (むこくせき). The word, originally used to describe anime, has been extended across other cultural frontiers. Mukokuseki can be translated as “odorless,” but in this context it means a person who is “stateless” or “without country of origin.” It refers to the way Japanese cultural products can be seen to erase national history and identity in an attempt to more fully integrate with a global audience.

The next big global telcom brand
If there is a CEO who could bring to bare both the business and branding skills needed to build a new global telecom brand, it’s Masayoshi Son. He’s known as a lover of all things American. Son moved to California at age 16, going to high school in San Francisco, and attended the University of California in Berkeley. He was infected by the Silicon Valley virus, and exhibited a rash of entrepreneurial ideas that’s made him the second richest man in Japan.

One of the big advantages of Softbank is its exclusive Japanese iPhone marketing deal—helped along by a friendship with Steve Jobs. Like Jobs, Son’s success, in part, came from a sense of being an outsider striving for greatness, fueled in part from being a Korean child raised in largely homogeneous Japan. His particular mukokuseki could be advantageous in taking a combined Softbank + Sprint + T-Mobile to a dominant position that ties together global consumers with a post-national brand that’s a perfect fit for this Pacific-dominated century.

If Son has his way, it’s only a matter of time before we see the English versions of these Softbank commercials:

Doc: “He’s recovering so fast, its hard to believe he’s human.”
Nurse: “Yeah Doc, I can’t believe he’s human”
Mother: “Yeah…”
Daughter: “Dad’s a genuine human, isn’t that right?”
Dog: “I’m starving”

Today we celebrate the first glorious anniversary of the Information Purification Directives.

We have created for the first time in all history a garden of pure ideology, where each worker may bloom, secure from the pests of any contradictory true thoughts.

Our Unification of Thoughts is more powerful a weapon than any fleet or army on earth.

We are one people, with one will, one resolve, one cause.

Our enemies shall talk themselves to death and we will bury them with their own confusion.

We shall prevail!

 

On January 24th Apple Computer will introduce Macintosh. And you’ll see why 1984 won’t be like ’1984.’”

QR Code Infopraphic

If you’re like the majority of people, QR codes look like an alien language—unless you’re an iPhone-wielding Manhattanite in Manolo Blahniks. Studies show 68 percent of QR codes are scanned on the ubiquitous Apple smartphone, New York has the highest penetration, and women are nearly twice as likely to use them.

That makes sense because the technology finally allows marketers to add a hyperlink to a outdoor product advertising in a very pedestrian-friendly market. From 2010 to 2011, QR codes have increased 4,589 percent, the leading uses are for product info, coupons, social media, and in real estate. But mobile payments and paperless ticketing are quickly catching on.

Resurrecting Dead Brands

July 20th, 2011 | Posted by admin in brand | business | culture - (0 Comments)

Brands have a life like people. Alexander, Cleopatra, and Caesar are figures as familiar today as they were in antiquity. Long after death their life is continually re-celebrated, as evidenced by cross-generational cultural artifacts ranging from motion pictures to Halloween costumes.

Resurrecting dead brands Cleopatra

There are some company trademarks that, despite the underlying business being defunct or subsumed, still have a ghostly hold on our hypermodern, brand-soaked world. The brand value is still there, resonating in the minds of consumers.

Here are a few that could reemerge in the market and reengage today’s consumers:

 


Pan American World Airways, or Pan Am, was formed in 1927. It was know for its “flying boats” dubbed Clippers and highly professional flight crews. Pan Am made flying sexy and glamourous. By the 1970s Pan Am was one of the largest airlines, serving 160 countries.

It was an iconic airline brand ensconced in the public mind with the unmissable Pan Am building in midtown Manhattan, images of The Beatles coming to New York in 1964 on a Pan Am Clipper, and in Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey ferrying passengers to orbit in a fictional Pan Am “Space Clipper.”

Pan Am Space Clipper

The glamour of air travel has faded, seeming more like a schlep on the bus than a luxury-ladened voyage. A new niche luxury airline could reincarnate the illustrious Pan Am brand. Or one of the private space companies could kick-start their passenger-to-orbit business with a venerable name. There’s nearly a century of history to draw from for a brand that hasn’t had a plane in the sky for twenty years, yet still has a lofty perception in people’s minds.

Marshal Fields Logo brand
The lesson here is that you don’t mess with cherished brands. Marshall Field & Company opened in Chicago in 1852, and since then they’ve had many corporate owners. Since the Great Depression Marshall Field’s has been a publicly traded company as well as part of British-American Tobacco, Target Corporation, May Co, and eventually Federated Department Stores, Inc. But, throughout all that backend corporate jockeying, the people of Chicago just thought of it as Marshall Field’s.

It was in 2006 that Federated decided to end the 154 year-old Marshall Field’s brand, turning all of the company’s stores into Macy’s. Not only that, Federated also renamed the Marshall Field and Company Building. This building at State and Washington in Chicago was an official Chicago Landmark and on the National Register of Historic Places. Can you guess the reaction?

Protests, boycotts, angry Chicagoans storming the annual shareholder meeting. Sales dropped in stores that a year earlier were packed. Average citizens, who still are mad the iconic Sears Tower was renamed to the Willis Tower, refuse to acknowledge the new name of the Marshall Field’s Building.

Federated, was it worth it? No. Let Chicagoans have what they want. Does it fit into a massive corporate plan? Maybe not, but now you have hostile natives, insurgents against your corporate dominance. Apologize, go to a Cubs game, and then spin this defeat into a “New Coke” victory by resurrecting the Marshall Filed’s brand. You’ll get +10 Hero Points and stop the constant bad karma for your Second City stores.

AT&T announced it will buy T-Mobile USA from Deutsche Telekom AG in a $39 billion cash-and-stock deal that would make it the largest cellphone company in the U.S.

There are already outcries against the deal over concerns of an AT&T/Verizon duopoly and how that negatively affects consumer choice in the wireless marketplace. Twitter is atwitter with mocking comments such as @MattBinder‘s “Nothing says ‘we love our customers’ like airing commercials about how AT&T blows & then selling the company to them.”

Speaking of commercials, the biggest loss will be the end of Carly Foulkes as the T-mobile girl. Carly Foulkes, a Ralph Lauren model, stepped in to the role once held by Catherine Zeta-Jones. Of course having a beautiful model as a spokesperson is rarely a bad thing. But she’s also beautifully branded in T-Mobile magenta dresses—providing instant brand recognition.

As pointed out by @MattBinder and others, the T-Mobile ads consistently make fun of AT&T for it’s widely panned quality, dropped calls, and lack of 4G service. The commercials are witty, and effectively convey the message that T-Mobile has superior service at lower prices.

Without T-Mobile in the wireless ad rotation, we’re left with largely weak and bland ads from AT&T, Verizion, and Sprint. It might be a while until we must say that final goodbye to Carly Foulkes, the beautifully branded T-Mobile girl, but I’m already in mourning—and I’m considering wearing a PMS 214 dress to the funeral.

Modern advertising-driven mass media is a collaboration between companies that must communicate their brand and their product, agencies producing the advertising, media conglomerates that mix this advertising with the entertainment, and audiences that consume the mixture, accept the brand, and buy the product.

Globalization has led to considerable consolidation among ad agencies and media companies that deliver mass media messages to the audience. Well known agencies such as Ogilvy & Mather, Young & Rubicam, BBDO, DDB, McCann Erickson and many others have been rolled up into a handful of global holding companies.

And most of the world’s media distribution is in the hands of nine, mostly U.S.-based, media conglomerates. As of 2008, The Walt Disney Company is the world’s largest media company, with News CorporationViacom and Time Warner ranking second, third and fourth respectively.

This concentration of media assets into ever fewer hands is seen as anti-competitive and even antidemocratic by opponents. While proponents of media consolidation argue it’s the inevitable result of globalization and the capitalist nature of the marketplace.

Ethical implications aside, consolidation of the mass media system promotes our advertising-driven, mass-market culture. Companies can more effectively tell us about their products. We agree to listen as long as they’re paying for the free entertainment we want. It’s a cozy little arrangement we’ve all grown up with.

Indoctrination into our product-hungry consumer culture starts as soon as babies can watch television. Critics on both sides of the Atlantic have blasted the BBC’s Teletubbies for intentionally targeting children less than a year old. Studies show preschoolers watch about 400 commercials a week. Kids are learning about our market-driven media before they even learn to read.

The PBS show Sesame Street spoofs the commercial system by having their shows fictitiously sponsored by letters and numbers. This lighthearted leveraging of children’s existing media-literacy helps elevate “the letter H and the number 5″ to the level of a major corporation—a lesson not even lost on a six-year old.

< previous

ethanol.gif

America’s fixation with corn-based ethanol, as it turns out, isn’t producing fuel that’s much greener or cheaper than regular old petroleum-based gasoline. True, ethanol from Iowa means we’re not sending money to Saudi Arabia, but it uses almost as much energy to produce ethanol as it delivers to end users—so there’s no real energy benefit.

It also uses substantial amounts of limited water resources. A typical ethanol factory producing 50 million gallons of biofuels guzzles over 26 million gallons of water—putting a heavy burden on aquifers in corn-growing areas.

Why is it economically viable? Because of heavy subsidies from state and federal governments, mandates by states for ethanol to be blended into gasoline, and high tariffs (like a 100 percent levy on Brazilian sugar-based ethanol) that keeps out foreign ethanol imports. With federal subsidies of 51 cents per gallon and many states mandating the E85 fuel blend (that contains 85 percent corn ethanol), biofuels are artificially buoyed in the marketplace by government policies.

So this market distortion has shifted corn from food to fuel. The number of ethanol factories has almost tripled from 50 to about 140 since 2000, with 60 or so more under construction. Last year President Bush signed a bill increasing mandated biofuel production 500 percent, to 36 billion gallons, by 2022.

As more land is used to grow corn for fuel instead food, prices rise. It also pushes up the price for soy, wheat, and rice. Rice prices rose 16 percent in 2007, and wheat increased 77 percent. Very sharp rises historically, but nothing compared to this year. Since January, rice rocketed 141 percent, and one variety of wheat shot up 25 percent in a single day.

And since corn is used as animal feed, the price of meat, milk, and cheese is also rising. And that’s just here in America.

Across the world there are riots over soaring food costs. It’s driven by biofuels, but also growing demand from emerging markets, droughts, high oil prices, increasingly expensive agricultural chemicals, and the weak dollar. This conflagration of events threatens to push million into poverty and starvation.

food.gif

Who’s benefiting from this? Big agribusiness like ADM produce around 70 percent of corn in America, and higher prices mean higher profits. And how do they keep the ethanol business safe? Lobbying, of course. And, if you’re a West Wing fan, you’ll remember the political problem ethanol causes for candidates who try to balance the truth with the need to win votes.

Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said at a conference in Alexandria, Va. that we need to start “moving away gradually” from ethanol made from food such as corn. “As we pursue diversity in our overall energy mix, we must also pursue diversity in our biofuels,” Mr. Bodman continued, “this means moving away gradually from ethanol produced from foodstocks like corn.”

Joseph Romm, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, agrees we need to move away from corn-based fuel. He says “we’ve gone too far on corn ethanol. I think we now can see the real impact it’s having on food in the marketplace–around the world and at home. And I think we need to rethink the corn ethanol policy, absolutely.”

“I think the pursuit of the mandate for corn ethanol, especially in the 2007 energy bill, does more harm than good. I think mandating cellulosic ethanol that doesn’t use a lot of energy, doesn’t interfere with food production and doesn’t cause a lot of greenhouse emissions, I think that makes sense.”

Sugar is a different story. It provides 45 percent of Brazil’s fuel on only 1 percent of its arable land. Marcos Jank, the head of their trade group, explains “grain is good for bread, not for cars. But sugar is different.” In America, however, domestic politics has led to a 100 percent tariff on Brazilian ethanol.

But there’s something even better: cellulosic ethanol. It’s a biofuel made without food crops, using inedible plants not grown on premium farmland. It’s called switchgrass–yes, the switchgrass President Bush made famous in a State of the Union Address. Switchgrass grows across the prairies and doesn’t take the place of food crops.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture and the University of Nebraska-Lincoln performed a long-term, large-scale field switchgrass study. Farmers in 10 fields of 15 to 20 acres each in Nebraska and North and South Dakota grew switchgrass over five years, and kept track of how much fuel and fertilizer they used during the trials. Vogel and his colleagues showed that switchgrass yielded 540% more energy as a biofuel than the amount of energy used to grow, harvest and process it.

So swichgrass is the cold fusion of ethanol. It will take a while longer to come into the mainstream, but it promises low carbon emissions, high energy returns, a replacement for foreign oil, and doesn’t take food out of anyone’s mouth. Here’s a crazy thought: maybe the money used to subsidize ethanol would be better spent developing cellulosic ethanol?

Truth in Advertising

December 16th, 2008 | Posted by admin in brand | business | funny ha ha - (0 Comments)

ford_fail.jpg

If major corporate identities reflected the reality of our current economic times, you might see cars with this revised badge on the hood. Check out some others at I Can Has Happy.

GM, Ford, and Chrysler are looking for $34 billion in loans to help restructure and prevent bankruptcy. But the public has become bailout-weary having seen the cost rise to a staggering $3.45 trillion before any auto deal. A recent CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey shows 61 percent of Americans against the loans—with 53 percent believing that aid to the automakers will not help the broader economy.

The automakers argue that if they are allowed to fail it could cost millions of jobs when the country can least afford it. They also argue for their piece of the bailout by saying that consumers won’t buy a vehicle from a bankrupt company. But a new survey indicates that potential car buyers wouldn’t be completely unwilling to buy from a bankrupt car company if the federal government is willing to play a role in their restructuring. Merrill Lynch & Co. recently completed a study showing 90 percent of car buyers would consider purchasing a vehicle from a car company in bankruptcy court.

The ad below captures the view that despite the polls, the bailout is coming anyway.

bailoutad.jpg