Weblog Consulting Register Login Subscribe to Free Influx Emails Join our Facebook Group Follow us on Twitter Branding Street Cred Technology Lifestyle Style Entertainment Interviews Art InfluxTV Map Widgets RSS — All Subjects RSS — More Feeds

Search

Advanced Search

Contact Privacy Policy

Twitter just released its list of leading trending topics for 2009.

Taking a look at the technology list and its surprising to see Google Wave topping the list and the Palm Pre come in at no6.

While both these products generated conversation, they can hardly be called massive successes. It goes to show that although we are trying to get our brands talked about and that's the goal of communication, that alone is no guarantee of success.

Google Wave has the potential to be very interesting, but it has a number of hurdles to overcome. People don't really know how to use it and there don't seem to be many folks with accounts. Perhaps if it becomes integrated into Gmail, it will have more success. When the team demoed the product it looked very exciting, but people were let down by the real experience because they didn't know how to use it and none of their friends had accounts.

The Palm Pre got out of the gate fast, but never built on the early momentum. This was mainly due to the stiff competition from Apple and more recently various Android offerings.

Net- Volume of conversation isn't a bad thing, it's just no guarantee of success. The product has to transcend the hype and deliver something that is highly competitive and differentiating. It suggests there's a need for finesse and nuance when planning these resulting conversations.

What do you want people to talk about? How you encouraging them to do that? Where are they doing it? How can you learn and refine as you go-making sure you guide the conversation. 


Posted by Ed Cotton The Redmond giant seems to have Google firmly in its sights as it looks at developing its business over the next few years. It's Bing search engine seems to have done something none of Google's rivals have managed to do and appears to have traction. It will be interesting to see if it can maintain momentum after the hype and marketing buzz die down. However, it appears Microsoft are prepared to spend big to make sure it has a serious rival to Google. Apparently, the company is prepared to spend between 5-10% of its operating income over the next five years on improving its search business.

It will be fascinating to see the Google/Microsoft duel play out and it looks as if Microsoft has maybe gotten Google worried.




Posted by Ed Cotton "Google -- I mean, the harsh way of just defining it, Google devalues everything it touches. Google is great for Google, but it's terrible for content providers, because it divides that content quantitatively rather than qualitatively. And if you are going to get people to pay for content, you have to encourage them to make qualitative decisions about that content."

Robert Thomson- WSJ- Charlie Rose Show- February 11th, 2009


Posted by Ed Cotton When Obama spoke, people listened and Google's search volume declined.




Posted by Ed Cotton Nicholas Carr has another provocative post that calls to attention the inefficient use of energy wrapped up in all our searches, Twittering and blogging.

Apparently some researcher has found that two searches on Google are the energy equivalent of boiling a kettle for a cup of tea. While Carr questions the validity of the data behind this research, he raises the issue of the lack of general questioning and discussion that surrounds the energy use of mobile devices and the internet.

While Carr certainly has a point and calls out all the new media advocates who suggest web-based media is more environmentally efficient than old media.

However, I think this is the tip of the iceberg, forget the internet, nobody is really questioning any purchase and action on environmental grounds. We simply aren't there yet on most things perhaps with the exception of some household appliances and cars, we aren't really interested, knowledgeable or aware of the environmental cost of anything we buy or do.

Life goes on with scant attention to such things. Carbon credits have yet to take off in the United States and there's very little transparency as to the real environmental costs of anything we buy or use. Most beer drinkers couldn't tell you the difference in the environmental impact between a domestic brew and one brewed in Europe for example and nor do they care.

Carr slams Google in his post and make a very interesting point about the company's serious conflict of interest; encouraging prolific use of the web at any place and at any time and the company's mission to do no evil, but Google is just one of thousands of companies who unwittingly and perhaps unknowingly are partaking in and encouraging the inefficient consumption of energy.


Posted by Ed Cotton Steve Rubel has written an interesting post comparing the transparency of Google with the cold, firm and closed approach of Apple.

He uses some great examples that show how the brands communicate online with their users and it clearly shows that Apple is from a very different era and hasn't quite grasped this whole 2.0 thing.

However, I don't really think this matters for Apple and don't believe it really impacts the brand.

Apple has always been about selling something shiny, new and enticing. Something you pay top dollar for and show off proudly to all around you. It sells the ultimate gadget and things that are truly magical.

On the other Google, doesn't sell anything, it's a free service, but it needs its users to keep coming back to it to view the pages that contain its valuable ads. It has to do everything it can to keep these people happy and content. Charmed in the knowledge that Google is the best "free" thing in their lives.

Apple could benefit from opening up, but let's face it, this is not the company's style. It's a one man autocracy and until he decides to open the floodgates and let everyone inside out and visa versa this isn't going to happen. I believe the lack of openness works in the brand's favor. It keeps things mysterious and interesting, you never quite know what they are up to next and it would a shame if they did anything to give that away.

As long as Apple keeps making products that amaze us, it can get away without opening up.

It doesn't have to do a Dell, until it becomes like Dell.

Apple sells us a dream and the more it becomes like real life, the less interesting it becomes.

Transparency is not for them...


Posted by Ed Cotton