A recent survey by Millward Brown’s BrandZ shows Intel as the 23^rd world brand in terms of brand value, ahead of Amazon, Mercedes, Pepsi, Ikea and many other well-known names. In Interbrand’s 2009 ranking, Intel is 7^th. Isn’t that extraordinary since the corporation manufactures mainly semiconductors, i.e. products that consumers can’t see, touch and buy?

I think that this remarkable position is due in a large part to the famous five-note jingle – the “Bong” - the company has been consistently using for years in advertising. It seems that, lately, Intel have even realised the hidden values of  this asset and started to revitalise it by having “the Bong sung by a chorus of Intel humans on-screen”, as noticed by Ken Segall in an August blog entry.

In a 2006 entry in my own blog, I was already wondering why so few companies use original sound and music as an integral part of their brand expression. And when they do, many chose only well know jazz, pop or classical pieces that can’t be copyrighted in association with their brand. Why don’t they create their own sound/music? Why do they annoy us with Vivaldi’s Four Seasons when our call is put on hold?

Sound adds a third dimension to the visual and verbal attributes of ‘flat branding’ and transforms a surface into a high-level volume. A brand without musical dimension is like a silent movie. Music is the best way to associate emotions with your brand and, thus, to increase customer loyalty. In a July entry to his blog, Marco van Hout, founder of LinkedIN’s Design & Emotion Society, draws our attention to a recent Scientific American article titled Why Music Moves Us. This may convince the last sceptics.

So, honestly, why don’t you add your own sound/music to your brand, turn up the volume and break the sound barrier?

Most companies manage their brands in a flatland, focusing only on their visual and on their verbal identities, and paying too much attention to the look of the container and not enough to the quality of the content.

On the visual side, they usually look OK, for they give graphic communication specialists the responsibility to design an adequate set of items including logo, letterhead, web banner, colour scheme, official fonts and so on. Respecting the basic rules of a graphic charter, they produce documents (brochures, flyers, web pages, etc.) that have a consistent look and feel. So, they score a few points against marketing’s enemy #1 – indifference – with stuff  that differentiates them from their competitors, in appearance. Unfortunately, most are happy with that!

The problem is that the situation worsens markedly in the verbal domain, making their score against marketing’s enemy #2 – confusion - reach abysmal depths. The quality of the content doesn’t match the attractiveness of the container. When companies write about who they are and what they do, they tend to completely lose it. Most offend against:

• Simplicity – with complex corporate speak, hollow statement and meaningless affirmations
• Crispness – with verbose declarations, endless sentences and convoluted expressions
• Clarity – with confusing assertions, obscure abbreviations and plain BS
• Consistency – by sending different messages across their websites, press releases, brochures, summary statements, etc.

In other words, too many businesses don’t understand the necessity to be effective and persuasive with a clear message making them stand out from the competitive crowd.

Time to beat again the drum for the Cluetrain Manifesto with its first three theses:

1. Markets are conversations.
2. Markets consist of human beings, not demographic sectors.
3. Conversations among human beings sound human…

‘Sound’ human … hum! Is that a hint for a third dimension?

Picture from the Wikimedia Commons, a freely licensed media file repositoryPeople often ask me to define marketing. A couple of years ago, I would have embarked on elaborate definitions like this one. Today I simply reply that marketing is about one single word, dear to most opera aficionados: AIDA.

A is for Attention – The marketer’s enemy #1 is indifference.  So, his/her first job is to get the attention of the audience; to make the product or company stand out from the crowd, from the raging noise of the marketplace. There are as many ways to achieve this as there are different kinds of businesses. Bold advertising is just one of the possible answers. Cynics say that there is no bad publicity, but just publicity. The key is to get noticed.

I is for Interest – Once you have gained the punter’s attention, your challenge is to engage your prey into wanting to know more. Remember that you are one quick click away from oblivion. You have to present simple, crisp and clear information about your offer to entice your prospect to further explore, to dive into increasing details that give him a compelling reason to complete the search.

D is for Desire (or Decision in ‘serious’ business ;-) – If you raise your future customer’s interest to a sufficient level, you create her eagerness to own your product or to buy your service. Win the battle of the mind by triggering her reason, motivations and emotions with meaningful arguments.

A is for Action – The final step is the drive your catch to act and to part with his cash. You have to make the transaction as easy and pleasant as possible. Multiple options. Excellent service. Flawless. Straightforward. Fun. Remember that the Internet’s inferno is full of abandoned shopping carts; you don’t want to be part of that, right?

AIDA: one little four-letter word speaking for many years of experience.

How far are we from being saturated by ‘green noise’? Close. But the solution is simple: focus on conserving energy.

I think it is time for ‘greens’ of all types to dramatically revise their communications strategies and to focus on what really matters. An increasing number of publications, websites and blogs about environmental topics mention a rising phenomenon described as green noise, green backlash, green fatigue and so on.

People are getting fed up with the hubbub of confusing and often conflicting messages on a wide variety of eco-subjects including climate change, global warming, pollution, obesity, world trade and many others. We are bombarded with slogans such as ‘save the planet’ – ‘save the whales’ – ‘protect the Amazon forest’ – ‘use bio fuels’ – ‘eat five vegetables a day and omega 3 rich fish twice a week’ – ‘ban tuna fishing’ – ‘give preference to local produce’ – etc.

To add to the chaos, corporations are painting themselves green, believing that environmentalism sells. Count the number of times you see adjectives like ‘eco-friendly’ – ‘ renewable’ – ‘sustainable’ – ‘reusable’ – ‘natural’ – ‘organic’ - and even ‘clean’ in their ads, brochures and websites.

To me, the top prize for cynicism has to go to BP with their “beyond petroleum” tagline and with their claim to deserve the ‘green’ label because they offer ‘fair trade’ coffee in their petrol stations. What a cheek for a company that pumps, every day, 3.8 million barrels of oil from the world reserves and reports indecent profits quarter after quarter (no, Mum, I’ve not become a communist; I just think there should be a limit to greed).

The result of all this nonsense is that consumers listen less and less to green messages. A survey quoted by The Institute of Public Affairs Australia found that in 2007, 20% fewer US consumers deliberately bought an environmentally friendly product than in 2006, when only 21% of all surveyed people said that environmental considerations had led them to choose one product over another. In other words, 16% cared about buying green in 2007 and this number could be about 12% right now. Consumers seem to be figuring out that most eco-friendly claims are just a lot of marketing bluster.

So, instead of harassing citizen about their carbon footprint (yet another management consultants’ baloney – as if we, mere humans, could influence our planet’s climate in perceptible ways), governments should simply help people become aware of how much energy they consume and measure everything in kWh to enable straight comparisons. Then, one single slogan suffices: CONSERVE ENERGY. This is what really matters.

If we all become better at using less energy – by heating (or cooling) to a lesser degree our houses and, especially, public buildings; by reducing our usage of automobiles, especially 4WD monsters in metropolitan areas; by buying low consumption appliances; and by using telecommunications technologies instead of flying across the world to attend unproductive meetings – we will [1] decrease the pollution, [2] reduce the global warming (in our modest proportions) and [3] save dosh, bucks, quids, dineros … in short, money; our own and our country’s. Yes, Sir. And that’s concrete. You catch people’s attention through their wallet, and abandon fuzzy theories and idiotic demagogy.

Two simple words: CONSERVE ENERGY. Ain’t that simpler?

Surfing the web from the Why Not Idea Exchange, I landed on an interesting website –trendwatching.com- where a new marketing word is introduced in these terms: “ In a consumer society dominated by experiences in the (semi) public domain -- often branded, designed, themed and curated to the nines -- INSPERIENCES represent consumers' desire to bring top-level experiences into their domestic domain. ”

In the risk of going too far with neologisms, I hereby publicly introduce yet another word: INSPIRIENCE**. I define ‘inspirience’ as “the stimulus to creative thought one perceives by experiencing an inspiring product or service”. In an age where emotional design becomes increasingly important, people can enjoy positive inspiriences reading a book, using an instrument or partaking in an event.

And since I am at it, why not propose ASPIRIENCE? I define ‘aspirience’ as “the desire or ambition one gets by experiencing a motivating product or service”. A beautiful fountain pen may motivate you to write a novel, a high quality toolset to build a treehouse, a Steinway to become a great concert performer.

Finally, just for fun (?), an EXPIRIENCE is “The experience a person is going through while utilising a product that is about to break down, or eating food past its sell-by date, or using a service requiring a subscription renewal.”

How more silly can all that jazz become?

** NOTE: Inspirience is also a musical group you can enjoy here.

Dear Mr. Bezos,

Here is an idea for an Amazon service that leverages your technology and that allows you to squash Google's attempts to offer its users 'My Library' in 'Books'. I had this idea months ago and it is my frustrations with Google Books that prompts my writing to you today. Here it is, in a nutshell:

I'd like to be able to create My Personal Library the same way I create my Wish List, i.e. by using Search to find the books I own, in your database, and by clicking 'Add to My Library'.

So simple that I am surprised that you didn't offer it a long time ago (no wonder that you're only 11th in Business Week's list of the most innovative companies;-). You have the technology. You have the best database (Google's is terrible). You can implement the few required modifications to the user interface in a matter of days. I'm volunteering to beta test, of course.

In fact, I'd like to create, separately (and in priority):

- My Personal Book Library
- My Personal Music Library
- My Personal Video Library

In release 2.0, I'd like to be able to create my own categories, e.g.

- For books: business, design, history, science, fiction, etc.
- For music: jazz, classical, Latin, etc.
- For video: comedies, TV series, etc.

If you do that for me (and for the millions of Amazon customers), I'd Opt In to let you use my libraries to make really sensible personal recommendations, based on the dozens of significant books I own and keep, not on the few I bought recently for myself, my wife and children, my friends, etc. You could still use recent statistics to propose gifts to offer to these persons.

So, we're talking here of a proverbial win-win situation. Better service for me. Increased revenue for you.

Sincerely,

Henri Aebischer

If you are a start-up growing quickly, you will soon emerge on the radar screen of large competitors; and if your product is easy to imitate, you can be destroyed in a few months. However, the entry of big guys can legitimate your market but it becomes like sleeping with an elephant: you might get crushed in the process.

Smaller competitors can be even more dangerous because, like mice, they are faster, more ‘hungry’, and you may not notice them until they actually attack you.

The following case study illustrates both threats.

The vanishing of minicomputers (simplified history of ‘minis’)

• Minicomputers emerged in the 1960s using transistors and core memory to offer simple, compact, low-cost, and yet powerful boxes to users who were mainly engineers working on scientific, industrial or telecom applications.
• Initially, it was the story of start-ups eating market share off the established firms lead by IBM. Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC) created the minicomputer market with the PDP-8, a 12-bit machine launched in 1964. In 1969, Data General outflanked DEC with its 16-bit Nova (picture - Source: Wikimedia Commons) and quickly gained market share. Many small and large companies joined the mini bandwagon, including Hewlett Packard, Texas Instruments, Interdata, SEL, etc.
• Then the empires struck back. First, in 1976, IBM announced its Series/1 minicomputer that led Data General to produce an ad that said: "They Say IBM's Entry Into Minicomputers Will Legitimize The Market. The Bastards Say, Welcome". Then, DEC replied with its 32-bit VAX, regaining at the same time the lead over Data General.
• A few years later the PC tidal wave powered by IBM, Microsoft and Intel took over the control of the low end of the small computer market and, eventually, the mini makers disappeared one after the other. Logically, they were in a better position to fend off newcomers like Apple, Commodore and Tandy but they all missed this opportunity. In 1977, Ken Olsen, founder of DEC declared: “There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in his home.”
• Finally it became a shark eats shark business. In 1998, the first major casualty was the acquisition of DEC by Compaq, one of the leaders of the PC market. Compaq, that underestimated the direct selling model of Dell, a latecomer in the market, was in turn absorbed by Hewlett Packard (HP) in 2002. Meanwhile, Data General dwindled down until they were an easy prey for EMC in 1999.

The minicomputer had lasted less than 40 years.

In the previous entry, I suggest the need for a simpler Macintosh that fulfils Apple's original ambition of radical ease-of-use. Here is a possible step in that direction.

My next-door neighbour and good friend is a professional music composer, organ virtuoso and avid Mac fan. Today, he gave me a crash course on GarageBand (I promised not to play my compositions on my 100-Watt speakers ;-). His Mac Pro dock (I’ve learned how the ‘table’ is called since my previous entry) seems as long as a Jumbo Jet runway and I am wondering how he find the right app icon in this endless strip?

I already have small problems finding my way through the dock of my new MacBook Pro dock that has only a few amenities (Acrobat Reader, Firefox, etc.) added to the standard Apple stuff. How do Mac beginners cope? “Better than Vista beginners” is a right answer. But, maybe, a new approach could be appropriate.

Hence the idea for a MacBook Light feature: a series of sets* that cut** the richness and complexity of today’s Mac into simpler families of functions.

Examples:

• Music & Sound (incl. iTunes, GarageBand, …)
• Photo & Movie (incl. iPhoto, iMovie, …)
• Internet & Email (Safari, Mail, iChat, Address Book, …)
• Office & Business (iWork, Mail, Address Book,…)
• Tutorials & Support

Each set contains applications supplied by Apple, a view of corresponding document folders and documentation (e.g. PDFs), tutorials, examples, etc. Maybe also Safari with bookmarks for relevant sites, e.g. Music Safari. Users can modify the sets and include additional applications (e.g. Logic Audio into Music & Sound). The same function can be accessed from different sets (e.g. Mail).

Combined with other simplification efforts, sets* would make Macintosh easier to learn and use, wouldn’t they?

NOTES:

* I deliberately avoid the word ‘mode’ that has a specific meaning in the software world – with friendly greeting to my former boss, Larry Tesler.

** I call that ‘salami tactics’: deliver luxuriant complexity in digestible slices rather than as a big sausage (image by André Karwath aka Aka, licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 2.5)

After ten years of hard labour on Windows, I’m coming back to Macintosh. I just bought a MacBook and I am fascinated by how easy it still is to do most things without even thinking. Yet I am also impressed by how much the Mac has grown. Do most Mac owners use all the functions offered on the ‘table’ at the bottom of the screen? (I know, it’s like calling a ‘mouse’ a ‘hamster’).

Hence, probably, the wild dream I had recently: a contract from Steve Jobs (himself) to design a  Macintosh stripped of all not absolutely necessary features and weighing less than a feather. I would love to tackle this challenge because it’s time for manufacturers of computers, consumer electronics and other modern life gadgets to realise that more is less.

A recent survey of the British magazine “Which?” indicates that nearly two thirds of consumers said that some technical products have lots of functions they don't understand and never use. And more than three quarters felt manufacturers should be encouraged to make simpler versions. The products reviewed include remote controls, digitals radios, mobile phones, digital cameras and wireless routers. I’m sure that the inclusion of PCs in the survey would have pushed the numbers up.

So, Steve, MacBook Air is very thin, indeed, but is it ‘light’ enough? Time to wake up and discuss this gig with me: the world’s slimmest notebook. MacBook Light. Then we’ll discuss the world’s fastest notebook. MacBook Hot … and its thin version: MacBook Hot Air. :-Q

Announcement document 

Last night I dreamt that I earned a contract with Apple by explaining to Steve Jobs my law of conservation of energy for software. This law stipulates that, in an isolated system comprising designers, programmers, testers and end-users, the energy spent to execute a defined function is constant. The more energy spent in the proper design and flawless development of the software, the easier it is for the user to perform the function effectively.

By function I mean a simple application component like insert a picture, create a table, print a page, etc. For, in the case of a complete application, another law applies: the more energy spent to expand the application with additional functions, the more difficult it becomes for the user to master the application, even if he/she uses a limited number of basic functions. We all know the frustrations of dealing with software bloat.

In my dream (sigh!), Steve was so impressed by my exposé that he asked me to work on the design of a MacBook Light, a Macintosh stripped off of all features not used by the majority of users. I said: “You mean a kind of Macintosh for Dummies?”. “Absolutely not”, he replied, “dummies choose Vista.”

More on this in a later entry.

PS --- I really had that dream, the discussion with Steve about the law of conservation of energy and the gig about the stripped-off Macintosh. The only invention is the “dummies choose Vista” line from Steve. (He would never have said such an acerbic thing ;-)