Branding: EVO, Droid X, Captivate, Galaxy S, Epic, etc. vs iPhone
This morning while reading Crunchgear I came across a review for the Samsung Galaxy S. The blurb to the article made my brain hurt.
There are a total of five Galaxy S-based handsets: The AT&T Captivate, which I have here in my hand, the T-Mobile Vibrant, the Verizon Fascinate (identical to the Vibrant except for an LED flash), the Sprint Epic 4G (with slide-out keyboard), and the “vanilla” international Galaxy S. They’re much the same but have some features setting them apart, mainly in the body department. Even so, the experience on one should be pretty similar to the experience for another, so consider this our review of the Galaxy S line — with the caveat that your mileage may vary slightly on the other models.
All the models listed there are for ONE phone from ONE company. This is nuts. Now if you start adding all the other Android phones in the market like EVO, Droid X, etc. you start realizing that these companies have no chance against Apple marketing.
I consider myself a techie and I can hardly keep up with all these names, imagine how well the average Joe keeps up. The only unifying brand is Android and I dare you to ask a lay person what that is. I can just imagine the blank stare. Now I know from experience that everyone knows iPhone. Simple, one company, one brand, one phone. Did these people not learn anything from “Intel Inside.” This is basic stuff people. A friend posted a picture of his new Droid X and what brand stood out most to me when I saw the picture? Verizon.
If Google wants to have a shot at Apple, it should get some marketing behind Android and work with device manufacturers to unite under the Android brand instead of creating one phone with 5 names. When I saw Palm not focusing on one simple Pre model I saw their end, I feel like a fortune teller again with the mess that is the android device marketplace.
Competing poorly outside your core is not the way to win
On Twitter today @paul_irish shared this infographic which illustrates why the legacy carriers can’t effectively compete with low-cost airlines.
The information on this picture is nothing you can’t learn from taking any business school class, but what is interesting is how something so obvious is not put to good use. I have felt for a long time that by trying to compete with the low cost airlines, the legacy airlines are “stuck in the middle” as Porter suggested. Today these companies are neither differentiated nor low cost.
Bailout after bailout the legacy airlines pursue the same failed strategies. They continue to cut costs at the expense of service and I have noticed in my travels that the low cost airlines continue to outperform. The same was true of the US automakers and we see where that led.
Instead of trying to compete on price, legacy airlines should look for ways to leverage their size and put up a good fight against low cost airlines. A “fly anywhere” for a month pass from American Airlines is surely better than one from JetBlue. How about giving passengers who have to go through hubs the flexibility to book their connecting flight on a different day? I think everyone would see the value in being able to take a detour for a few days in Chicago on their way to Indiana. This perk would win favor with passengers while only increasing airline costs marginally (for additional baggage handling, automated check-in, etc.).
When a company sees itself losing sales to someone following a different generic strategy it can’t defend itself by trying to compete using the competitor’s strategy. It needs to get better at their strategy when on the surface it appears they need to abandon it.
Could Target ever beat Walmart on price? Probably not. Instead it chooses to have reasonable prices and compete on differentiation tied to style and trendiness. Dell has been trying for a few years to compete with Apple on style and has not done any better. When Apple was faced with extinction in the 90s instead of trying to compete on price they chose to go after innovation which was their core and is why today they are the model every company tries to copy. If you look at the early 90s, you can argue that it was the CEOs who lost that focus at Apple which put it in the predicament in the first place.
So when someone is competing with you don’t blindly abandon your core strategy. Look for ways to leverage what you have because your competitor won’t be able to effectively counter a strategy foreign to them.
The problem with SKU proliferation
TechCrunch has a short post on the number of models of handsets Nokia and Sony Ericson have on their site.
Why Nokia and Sony Ericsson are failing
For reasons of market segmentation and distribution strategies electronics companies choose to spin new almost identical models of products which on some marketing plan may seem reasonable, but which in fact tend to confuse the customer and add operational overhead.
Whenever someone asks me about a laptop I can quickly tell them about all the Apple models, not only because I am a Mac user, but because remembering the permutations is incredibly simple. MacBook, MacBook Air, and MacBook Pro. It’s not hard to remember even for a person who tends to forget things, like me.
Look at companies like Toyota and Honda and you will find the same thing. Very simple, clearly differentiated models each targeting a specific segment of the market.
Large consumer manufacturers should take note and not create a new indistinguishable model just to sell a “different” TV at Costco. The iPod you can get at Costco and Walmart are in fact the same ones you get at Best Buy or at the Apple store. Simple for the company and simple for the consumer.
Apple embraces accessibility and helps everyone in the process
Most people don’t know that Macs are by default the most “off-the-shelf” accessible computers sold today. Every single Mac comes with accessibility features for the physical and motor skills, hearing, and vision impaired. This means that a blind person can walk into any Apple store and use any computer without installing any software. They can even carry all their settings on a USB drive so that their customization can travel with them. On Windows computers these features need to be purchased separately from third parties and as such lack the level of refinement and availability of the Apple solution.
Since 2002 Apple has been investing on accessibility on the Mac platform, but in the last year it has been taking steps to make it’s other products namely iTunes and iPods more accessible to the blind.
Today Apple demonstrated how a company can use accessibility to it’s advantage. By integrating Voice Over into the latest iPod shuffle not only did they make the product accessible to the blind, they made it accessible to everyone. Since the shuffle has no screen the product has always been marketed as one where the listener has little control of the listening experience, hence the Shuffle name. Now that the device has Voice Over a listener can select a specific play list allowing them to customize their experience to their current mood.
Making Macs accessible led to making iPod Nanos accessible. This work led to Voice Over in the new iPod Shuffles giving Apple another competitive advantage. A short sighted company would not invest in this feature for a product line where they already own the market. But at Apple this work will not be limited to the iPod line. I am sure this trend will continue at Apple because it makes sense. The iPod “experiment” is just baby steps.
Currently the iPhone is the least accessible device they make, but think of what text-to speech can do for Apple. Imagine your phone reading your RSS feeds and email while you drive to work or speaking the name of the caller so that you don’t need to take your eyes off the road? The iPods currently don’t have enough processing power to actually generate the speech real time, Apple actually does the work on the computer prior to loading the music on the device, hence the different voices depending on whether the iPod was synced on a PC or a MAc. However, the iPone’s CPU is a lot more capable and the next version will be even more so allowing Apple to explore these capabilities on the device.
Apple, unlike Amazon and the Author’s Guild, today demonstrated how a company can embrace accessibility and not only help those in need, but improve its product along the way.
Here is a video of the new iPod Shuffle in action. (Quicktime Required). More info can be found on the Shuffle page.
Marketing to Hispanics
I came across this article today and I thought it had a lot of great insight on marketing to the growing Hispanic population in the US.
Goya is Big, But Not Great (Yet)
I have felt for a long time that many companies miss the boat when trying to market to hispanics especially English speakers. Marketers tend to want to put one generic message that “should” apply to all hispanics, but they miss out on the big picture. In my experience, a lot of this has to do with not really knowing the population. It is one thing to study something, it is another to live it. Companies should focus more on diversifying their workforce to bring in the type of diverse talent needed to reach this market.
There are amazing organizations like NSHMBA and SHPE where companies can attract and interact with top talent. Just like in any relationship, a company can’t expect to just jump into a new market and be successful. First it has to want to slowly get to understand the segment by bringing into the decision making process those who have the insight that will allow the company to be successful.