Entertaining People: Where Apple Might Be Right

Apple isn't known for its social network prowess. Ping is marginal as a social network at best. It functions like a network, but doesn't feel like one.

But there is something that Apple is doing right, when compared to the rush of Google+, Facebook, and Twitter to generalize the point of being all things to all people.

And that is, for the most part, simplifying things to a singular or primary purpose. We see it in how it treats apps; and the same concept works for niche social networks.

iTunes Festival 2011 London solidifies broadcast-digital convergence.

Downloading the iTunes Festival 2011 London for review was almost a no-brainer. And if you ask me or the reviewer, it's not perfect but nonetheless brilliant.

It also has a primary purpose. You can watch a festival concert streamed live or (since most are in the afternoon) after work.

Applied to television networks, it could potentially give people the ability to watch a television program on the first run or automatically have it waiting for them. And depending on how networks want to play it, they could provide a permanent collection or limited-time viewing opportunities with the option to purchase an episode or series for download.

There may even be some potential non-intrusive revenue models beyond selling the program. For iTunes, the buy button only appears before and after the concert or anytime you pause it. It's clean. A television broadcaster might include related merchandise and/or sponsors just as easily, and (although it ought to be reflected in the price point) embedded commercials.

The real bonus in terms of the iTunes Festival 2011 London, of course, is that it truly makes the concept of any device, anywhere, anytime a reality. You can play it on your phone, on your tablet, or on your television. And, depending on how cloud services come along, you won't have to worry about storage or (hopefully) safety.

Our reviewer also considered that a social networking function might be welcome too. It could be fun, he concluded, to chat with people who check-in with a live streaming performance. The function could be optional, of course. (Sometimes it's nice to skip the socialization of everything.) Or perhaps a network/app feature could open up afterwards, allowing viewers to chat about the show.

But what I especially like about the festival and apps in general is that they keep online experiences tied to how we perceive offline experiences. If you are in the iTunes Festival 2011 London app, you are at a concert. And any behavior, even if you are watching from home, is indicative of a concert hall.

Why apps and niche social networks will have a longer lasting life.

You won't find that on increasingly bloated social networks. You might want to share an article, but your friend wants you to join a video chat. You might want to post a picture, but then get caught up in a barrage of instant messages. You might want to share something funny, but then an associate will send you Farmville requests. And brands, well, they're even worse.

This is quickly becoming one of the problems with bloated social networks. As much as you can dictate your own experience, your friends (and any brands you follow) are being given more and more power to dictate what you will do. (Heck, they are even spilling into search relevance, no thanks to +1.)

But all this stands to reason. Big big open generalized networks are like giant rooms with everything going on at the same time and no walls to distinguish anything. The stereo is playing, the television is on, and ten people are trying to perform.

The result is chaos, something I'm always prepared for when I sign on to any of them. One person is talking politics. Another is telling jokes. Some are watching television. Others are playing games. And half of them are screaming "look at me" or "look at my wall."

An app or well-defined niche network, in contrast, is exactly the opposite. If you sign in, you have a reason to be there and everybody else who might be signed on is there for mostly the same purpose too. It feels more than right. It feels like life.

Advertising With Apps: Sherwin-Williams

Like many people, I held any number of odd jobs to pay for my education. I did a stint as an assistant manager at a 7-Eleven. I set up, tore down, and worked spotlights at concerts, including Pink Floyd in Sacramento. I painted murals along several college dorm walls; they have long since been painted over as the director allowed students to crowd source the concepts.

And, among other things, I worked as a colorologist at Sherwin-Williams every summer. A colorologist, by Sherwin-Williams' definition then, was someone who could match paint by sight to virtually anything and everything that customers brought in.

Nowadays, most clerks attempt to use computers to do the same job with mixed results. However, despite knowing the shortcomings of computer-aided color matching, the new ColorSnap app for the iPhone from Sherwin-Williams caught my attention.

Why it works as an advertisement.

As simple as it sounds, the Sherwin-Williams ColorSnap application is inspiring in that it allows you to match, coordinate, and save more than 1,500 paint colors. It's an advertisement for Sherwin-Williams, but works hard to add value for customers. And when it comes to apps, ads have to be useful.

• You can find some inspiration anywhere and then save those colors.
• You can browse colors, coordinate them, and save them for future paint jobs.
• You can add purchased colors and save them for future reference or the next homeowner.
• You can use the Sherwin-Williams store locator to find the nearest store.
• You can take a snapshot of a photo and match colors to what you see on the screen.*

It's apparent that considerable thought went into the application. Resource Interactive did a fine job with the design as a source of inspiration for customers. It's almost unfortunate the application falls short on practically, not because it doesn't do what it says it will do, but because it failed to set appropriate expectations.

Where it falls short of a success story.

I added an asterisk to the photo snap feature because what would otherwise be the coolest feature (giving customers the ability to match colors by taking a photo) is flawed. It's flawed for several reasons, but most of all because it sets the expectation too high.

• Much like ink, colors act differently as a light source and paint product. In fact, ink and paint act differently too.
• The matching function is matching to a picture on the screen and not whatever the customer takes a picture of.
• Shadow, dirt, and intense light can all affect photos (the same reason some humans beat computers at matching).

In sum, the app falls a bit short because the coolest feature doesn't really do what it says it can do. And while that doesn't mean it fails as an electronic color deck, it is the primary irritation noted by half of the customers who left reviews. That's too bad, because ColorSync is a handy little app for several other uses.

The human workaround, by the way, is as simple as narrowing down the colors with the app and then cross-checking them against the chips in the store. It sure beats attempting to match colors by memory.

How apps and social media make advertising useful again.

There are several people kicking around publishing as the next direction for marketers. Mitch Joel has been kicking the idea around lately. I kicked it around several years ago, with the focus on program development over publishing.

In 2007, the primary disconnect between marketers becoming publishers was that some marketers felt such measures meant managing a dual business, with one foot in manufacturing and another in publishing. While there is some truth to that, you only need to look at history to find where it worked before like the original Sears, Roebuck and Co. catalog. It was first published in 1888.

The concept that you can add value to the customer experience isn't as new as some social media experts pretend. It's as old as advertising. What's not so old is "attention-getting" ads that fail to educate, inform, or persuade in favor of selling the cleverness of the creatives more than the product or service. That advent in advertising came along in the 1990s with the rapid adoption of Photoshop and SFX. Advertisers convinced themselves that people didn't read anymore.

It wasn't like that during what many people consider the golden era of advertising. Those folks aimed at having a direct conversation with customers in order to add value (despite some of it being contrived) to the lives of consumers. Social media and apps can work just like that.

Although the ColorSnap app doesn't measure up as a completely practical application, it represents a thinking that more advertisers ought to embrace. Marketers need to be thinking about communication that adds value with a bit of persuasion again.

Racing Ahead: Volkswagen Finds Firemint

Want to entice people to like advertising? There's an app for that.

Volkswagen seems to be hitting a home run in one of the least likely places. While it has six iPhone apps in circulation (three of them related to racing), its partnership with Firemint represents a real win-win for both companies and consumers.

Firemint is the company behind the number one racing game for iTunes apps. While the game was previously riding high with stellar reviews from MobileCrunch, UGO, and the iPhone Games Network, the $6.99 price point and news of some public relations firm inflating expectations made some people hesitate.

Enter Volkswagen.

Volkswagen sponsored the game's free trial, with three tracks and six all-new 2010 GTI sport hatches. Doing so makes a trial version possible, which entices more people to download the game after their test play.

At the same time, it positions the GTI as a sports car (2.0 liter FSI turbo engine), with an MDI with iPod feature that plugs into the touchscreen radio or navigation system. In sum, it helps reintroduce a hipness that the German car company almost lost under Crispin Porter + Bogusky's watch.

Entertaining Ads.

Never mind the debacle that once was Bud.tv. When advertisers match the right marketing with the right media and distribution, entertainment advertising works. The Real Racing app has since soared to the number one download and has created an all-positive buzz up about the brand. As a bonus for Firemint, its paid Real Racing app is currently ranked 29 and climbing.

"With the personalization of media and the challenges inherent with reaching constantly connected consumers, we tasked ourselves to rethink the way we launch vehicles in order to engage our consumers in a meaningful way," said Tim Ellis, vice president of marketing, Volkswagen of America, Inc. "The GTI customer is a tech-savvy consumer who enjoys social networking, playing games and spending time on mobile devices — most often an iPhone."

Even more telling is that while consumers claim they hate advertising, the Real Racing app demonstrates that what the public says and does are two different things. In this case, the launch of the GTI brand added realism to the game without being overly intrusive (despite seeing the Volkswagen brand on every screen).

What's even more interesting is that while most mobile success stories convinced us mobile marketing was all about adding convenience, this app offers up a different perspective. While pizza might be a product of convenience, other products and services might mean something else.

Imagine that. Social media and mobile marketing are situational. Original strategies, not best practice tactics, point the way.

Learning The Hard Way: NBC Returns To iTunes

There are two ways to learn. One of them is the hard way.

Almost one year ago to the day, NBC Universal (NBCU) made one of the worst decisions since it entered the digital media arena — it effectively banned itself from Apple iTunes. With the launch of iTunes 8 a few days ago and its fall schedule falling in place, NBCU seems to have finally learned the hard way and come back.

Of course, rumors of the peacock’s return to iTunes have been out there for some time. In January, Jeff Zucker, CEO of NBC, made a massive public relations dance move, shifting from the position that iTunes had destroyed the music industry to saying "We've said all along that we admire Apple, that we want to be in business with Apple."

When the rumors first surfaced in January, Engadget could only speculate as to NBC’s reasons. Today, it seems more clear. Apple has refined its terms of service and NBC will generate more revenue, assuming consumers want to spend $1 more for a high definition version of a television show.

The return might even be bittersweet. The SciFi Channel — which returns to iTunes along with NBC, USA, Bravo, NBC News, and Sleuth — praises the new deal, but then goes on to add “there's not much reason get your shows from iTunes instead of streaming them for free on NBC.com or Hulu.”

Wow! I’ve never seen a company tell consumers not to purchase its programming before. But then again, advertising revenue has always trumped consumer purchases at the networks. Ask any television show fan groups.

Since the SciFi Channel doesn’t seem to get it, we’ll help spell it out: NBC has always been smart about some of its moves into the digital arena like Hulu but dumb when it comes to understanding one critical component — portability.

Apple has created a platform that seamlessly allows me to purchase programs that I can watch on my computer, iPod, iPhone, or flat screen TV. Unfortunately, any HD purchases I might make will have to wait because the system requirements remove that portability selling point and/or double up on storage space.

There’s something else too. Apple needs to fix a glitch. Right now, if you select some shows in a standard format, they still default to HD in your shopping cart, making them impossible to purchase unless you have a dual-core 2.0 Ghz processor or better. So, for the time being, I’m blocked from buying certain shows until they sort it out or I upgrade my 2.1 Ghz “just before” dual core cpu.

More to the point, the return of NBC to iTunes sets the stage for how digital media will work on the net and it’s much more in line with our thinking when people were still telling us that convergence was nothing more than a fantasy. NBC and other networks need to focus on content creation to stay relevant.

Apple and others will become the digital distribution bridges while the finer points of convergence are finally sorted out. And networks have a long way to go before they understand public relations. You’re back on iTunes despite Hulu. Get over it.

Missing Customers: Verizon Tries Distress

While most cellular phone customers are savvy to text messaging, some are becoming all too familiar with distress messaging. Specifically, anyone who makes up the 27 percent of the smart phone market captured by the Apple iPhone, especially if they were a Verizon customer.

These folks, like me, are probably receiving distress message mailers. The latest from Verizon, sent about two weeks after I become an AT&T iPhone windfall customer and about a week after Verizon’s letter that claimed “I made a mistake,” tells the real story:

We miss you already.

• Free BlackBerry Pearl with GPS Navigation
• $100 off any phone of your choice
• Free activation

Call today!

While I’m not privy to the response rate, my best guess is that it’s flat. It might also be causing some brand damage to what once was the network of choice among 1 million subscribers, at least those who recently made a switch.

Messages such as take $100 off, come back and save, and come back to the network you trust are emblazoned on almost every panel of an 8-panel direct mail piece. Most of them, if not all of them, are misdirected, clearly reinforcing that Verizon has no idea why it has to send a “miss me” mailer anyway.

It’s not the network, it’s the phone. But now, looking back, maybe there is something questionable about the service strategy at Verizon anyway. As a former customer, why did I have to quit in order to get offered the best package perks ever?

For all these efforts, they were four months too late. That was the beginning of the end. Four months ago, my second-to-last Verizon phone was damaged during my ”never fly US Airways unless I absolutely have to again” flight.

Naturally, once I returned home, the first order of business was replacing my broken phone. The choices were slim without a contract. So, my company made a Band-Aid LG phone buy. It was the worst phone I’ve ever owned.

Contrary to the mailer’s claim “Your phone is only as good as the network it’s on,” $5 more per month for an iPhone opened my eyes up to what I was missing, starting with unlimited data, something Verizon never wanted to talk about until now, assuming you’re a lapsed customer (ie. unlimited data is now available on select phones, for new and returning customers, with one- and two-year contracts, for about $5 more than AT&T offers with the iPhone). They don’t get it.

“The best time to start missing a customer is before they stop being your customer.”

Sure, no one can say that Verizon is dead, but it’s very telling when a once perceived market leader does more following than leading. While they did pretty well launching the LG Voyager concept copy, a phone that Today’s Paul Hochman called the only viable competitor for the iPhone (I’m less convinced). However, the plan still lacks where AT&T came through. Customers don’t want 2-year contracts because technology is changing too fast to commit.

More to the point, Verizon would be better served by revisiting its marketing strategy from the ground up. They need to invest more on existing customers, recognizing that the recapture rate seems thin if you wait until after a lost customer already signs another contract or are unlikely to use their iPhone as a paperweight. Besides, it costs more to recapture a lost customer than attract new customers. Why? Lost customers already made up their mind once.

Here are a few quick tips for the Verizon marketing department:

• Improve your marketing to existing customers before their contract ends
• Re-engage customers who fulfill their contract with new customer perks
• Keep existing customers engaged, offering opt-ins on new customer perks
• Stop playing games with location rates; a national price plan is long overdue
• Verizon is a prime new media candidate; a presence last year would have went a long way, especially if you could have hinted at Voyage 9 before people bought iPhones

But above all, fix your messages. Touch gets more stylish? Come on. Honestly, the best thing Verizon has going is the geeky phone guy. He’s become a great icon on television but everything with text falls flat. It doesn’t connect to the smart phone market, which by all accounts, is the new market. Even Citigroup knows that. And they’re not even in the phone business.

Pocketing Portfolios: iPhone Possibilities

Last year, our portfolio measured 24 x 18 inches.

It is encased in aluminum, packed with a cross section of print and collateral. It grossly undersold our work in electronic media, but was effective in demonstrating our depth and diversity of experience nonetheless.

It was too bulky to take everywhere, except planned introductions and presentations. It was challenging to update, and eventually, even the best protected pieces became worn from handling (passing boards around the classroom didn’t help).

This year, our portfolio measures 4.5 x 2.4 inches.

It is encased in an iPhone, with a cross section of print, radio, and television. The latter is easily transported as a podcast from Revver into iTunes.

It works fine on an iPod too. And we’re slowly adding the links to various digital media platforms and social networks, allowing our prospective clients, colleagues, and associates to easily engage us any time.

I quickly put up two samples as a photo set on Flickr to provide the basic idea. New media is quietly changing communication in ways people never thought possible.

Naturally, the Flickr set will eventually mirror what is already on my iPhone. Even better, for companies bigger than ours, the possibilities are endless: imagine one quick podcast update or file download and every account executive in the company is suddenly on the same page. Clients too, for that matter.

Although many social media experts, and even colleagues of mine, are quick to tell companies that they must conform to the “rules” of social media, not all conversations have to take place in public or on a blog. New media is completely customizable and easily integrated with traditional media.

It’s one of the reasons that in addition to the iPhone presentations, we’ll be adding hardbound leave-behind pieces too. Printed on demand. Hmmm. Interesting things. These possibilities.

Bypassing Popcorn: Purple Violets

Sometimes history happens with a whisper. Purple Violets qualifies.

Sure, there was ample buzz over the first iTunes movie premiere, enough to make it the number two downloaded Apple iTunes offering, second only to Ratatouille. Yet this Edward Burns film, though likeable, is hardly the kind of popcorn munching cult flick needed to prove the power of new media.

Simply put, most of the attention is landing on iTunes over the film because Purple Violets is hard to classify. Many have tried to tie it to the label romantic comedy, but there is not enough funny to make it a comedy and not enough conflict to make it romantic.

The truth is that it is not much more than a nicely shot film about four former college loves, now in their thirties, attempting to rekindle what might have been. The acting, directing, and cinematography all measure up; but the script lacks any real direction or punch. And therein lies the reality of this release.

When films are hard to classify for marketing purposes, they are generally prohibited from any general release beyond the Tribeca Film Festival, where Violets first debuted. So yes, Burns might have picked iTunes, but only after a lukewarm reception from traditional distributors.

iTunes Might Open Doors For Underappreciated Films

Despite the hubbub that somehow this is the first feature film to somehow bypass theaters, there are hundreds of films made every year that receive no more attention than a limited release or sometimes go straight to DVD. Apple iTunes might give these films a chance to live. I think that is a grand idea because marketability isn’t the best measure for a great film, just one that promises blockbuster revenue.

But isn’t that what consumers and critics have been complaining about? Films that are marketable but disappointing. Or writers, directors, and producers always catering to the popcorn culture and somehow losing what used to matter. Certainly, worse films have made it further up the food chain.

The Film Enjoys Secretly Talking About Itself

If there is any irony to be found, this destined to be underappreciated slice-of-life indy think piece is really talking about itself in the classic struggle of art vs. audience appeal.

Burns’ main character, Brian Callahan, played by Patrick Wilson, is the author who publishes an underappreciated slice-of-life think book after a long and successful career as a pulp fiction detective novelist. Some of the story touches on whether the general public prefers popcorn pulp over literature.

Still, his fate is better than that of Patti Petalson, played by Selma Blair, who never followed up on her successful collection of short stories in college and opted instead to partake in what for her is a passionless career in real estate. In short, it’s a good film but not for everyone.

What It Represents For New Media

While traditional reviewers enjoy taking shots at the screen size, their focus on the viewing device, download times, etc. is misguided and even ignorant. The measure of this film will not provide any evidence of success or failure of the distribution platform.

With the major networks and studios balking at iTunes for love of money, Burns has done a great thing in demonstrating someone can bankroll a film and sell it direct to the public.

So even if iTunes does not deliver much more than a break even or modest profit for Purple Violets, it’s good to see that well-made independent films can be seen someplace other than film festivals and back alley theaters. It’s a good thing and may even show some promise in putting the magic back into Hollywood.

Kindling The Future: Amazon Kindle

“What’s a record? A cassette tape?” — my son, 2007

“What’s a magazine stand? A dust cover?” — his son, 2037

It might look clunky at a glance, but it’s the first generation sneak peek of the future. And like most technological breakthroughs that shock the system, the Kindle, a pricey and apparently improved e-reader, is no exception.

There were 3,200 posts and counting, just yesterday, equally split between positive and negative opinion. There were 398 reviews on Amazon, delivering a divided 2.5 stars. And while Seattlest jumped with comments that included “I wouldn't use it if someone gave it to me for free,” Barnes & Noble saw its stock drop 5 percent.

All because of hyperbole before the first Kindle could ship. Yet, very few people even mentioned this fact. It was too late, with just one more example of how bloggers follow media. Social media chimes in on any story when it seems especially hot. If they don’t, their readers will be discovering new blogs, maybe better.

Here are some highlights that struck me yesterday.

"This is a disruptive approach, the sort of thing only a market leader could pull off. It changes the world in a serious way." — Seth Godin with the marketing perspective.

“It’s not going to revolutionize the industry overnight, though it sounds like Amazon is going to take this business seriously and continue to invest in it.” — Joseph Weisenthal with the tech perspective.

“Whether this will be the death of print concerns me less than if it will be yet another slow down in reading complete books -- the physical or digital kind,” — Valeria Maltoni with the human perspective (my favorite kind).

“That Jeremy is probably right. I’m excited about the new reader to be sure. But getting geeks like me excited by a new “shiny toy” is pretty easy. Getting a large market excited? That’s a LOT harder.” — Robert Scoble with the geek predictor perspective.

“So unless you live in a dark cave (without Wi-Fi) you know that the Gadget News of the Day was Amazon's release of its eBook reader called the Kindle.” — Danny Dumas, with the recap perspective, including Jose Fermoso’s roundup of eight more opinions.

Did anyone notice the media has already embraced this? They’re on the subscription list. It makes them relevant; expect many more articles ahead.

So there you go. Maybe it will be Kindle and maybe not. But there are truths inside the truth because this is playing out much like the iPhone. There was a split decision a few months back. A lot of people came out for and against it. It was all kind of silly.

But today, all that conversation is irrelevant because Apple sold 1.12 million iPhones last quarter, representing 27 percent of the smart phone market in the United States and 3 percent of the overall cell phone market.

Not bad for Apple’s first phone.

Unless there is a serious technological flaw, like charging you to put your own content on it (oh right, there is) you can expect the same with Kindle or the second generation reader that someone is already busy working on. But I don’t want to play guessing games. Instead, I’ll offer two observations.

The hyperbole is real.

Sometimes social media gives permission to craft a runaway opinion for the sake of having one. And there is nothing wrong with that. Opinions are like bottoms and everyone has one. In the age of glass bathrooms, full moons are not only invited, but some say they’re required.

The future is polar.

The Kindle aside, the technology behind it represents an opportunity to educate everyone on the planet (once there is a price point drop), giving them access to the best books ever written. And, it also represents an opportunity to enslave humankind by filtering future content and killing the last refuge of reader privacy at the same time.

“Cool,” some say. “How can I list my blog and get paid?”

Good night and good luck.

Killing Digital Heroes: NBC Universal

“Unfortunately, Amazon Unbox videos and the Amazon Unbox video player are not compatible with Apple/MacIntosh hardware and computer systems.” – Amazon.com

And as Amazon goes, so goes NBC Universal’s ability to put top-selling shows like Heroes and The Office into the hands of iTunes consumers. The losers, undoubtedly, will be consumers in what some are calling one of NBCU’s worst decisions since it entered the digital media arena.

According to Apple, NBCU had reportedly sought more copy-protection controls as well as more pricing flexibility. Apple said that NBCU had asked for “more than double the wholesale price for each NBC TV episode,” which would have resulted in a $4.99 per episode price. The episodes are now listed on Amazon for $1.99.

“With the addition of NBC Universal TV content to Amazon Unbox, fans now have the ultimate convenience for enjoying their favorite shows whenever or wherever they want,” said Jean-Briac Perrette, president of digital distribution for NBCU, neglecting to mention that only Amazon Unbox customers (which exclude Apple portable media owners) will benefit from this convenience.

The post-negotiation public debate being played out between Apple and NBCU reinforces an increased trend toward companies airing disagreements in public, knowing that if the media does not pick it up, then high profile bloggers will.

“What they’re going to have to realize is that out of all the dozens of shows available out there, most people only want the four or five most popular shows,” James McQuivey, an analyst at Forrester Research, said (as highlighted on Terry Heaton’s blog). “And if those aren’t there, those consumers are just going to walk away.”

McQuivey is right. As much as I like Amazon, I won’t have a choice when it comes to Unbox video player. Since we work on Macs, play on Macs, and own iPods, NBCU’s decision is clear: if we miss a broadcast, our only option is to watch something else. How’s that for content protection?

Apple seems to be doing its fair share to protect NBCU content as well. Apple decided it will no longer sell new NBC shows, including those that will premiere next month. Fortunately, iTunes has other shows to consider, including those that might distract the fans of Heroes and The Office.

Preserving Freedom: Net Neutrality

According to Ghost In The Machine, written by Sharon Herbert, more than 29,000 comments were submitted to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) since it opened an inquiry into net neutrality. An additional 670 comments were filed by groups and individual Internet users on the deadline, July 16.

So is that it? Theresa Hall reminds BlogCatalog members that’s not it. She wrote U.S. Senator Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Maryland) with her views that Internet service providers should not be allowed to discriminate by speeding up or slowing down access to Web content based on its source, ownership, or destination.

How did the senator respond?

I understand your concern that the Internet should not favor certain content or services over others. I believe that the Internet is not only an important tool, but a vital resource. It has allowed millions of Americans to communicate instantly with people around the world. It has put access to libraries of information at everyone's fingertips. The use of the Internet continues to grow, and the ways we use it continue to expand. Your views on network neutrality will be very helpful to me as Congress considers this issue.

As someone who frequently works in political arenas, I might point out that Sen. Mikulski's response is largely neutral, demonstrating little movement from her position last year. This is surprising to me, given Maryland state legislators acted on their own to put a mandate into place.

So what is this all really about? Some, like the New York Times, suggest it has to do with Verizon Wireless, Sprint Nextel, T-Mobile, and others always being afraid of the competition, which is why iPhone is only available from one carrier (in Europe, you can change carriers any time regardless of the phone you want). In the years ahead, that competition is likely to include companies like Skype and Google, which have called on the FCC to open up more equipment and software options in the wireless industry. In fact, Google is looking for another leap forward with a wireless spectrum in which chunks of radio frequency currently used for analog TV would be freed up by a switch to digital.

Regardless of this behind-the-scenes wrangling, however, the real stake holders in net neutrality are people like you and me because we funded its creation with a combination of tax dollars and subscription fees. Without net neutrality, Internet carriers would very feasibly be able to control content on the Internet by favoring those sites willing to pony up cash for the carrier; or, as they have with mobile phones, lock up technologies so they can be exclusive providers; or create steeper tier systems similar to cable programming; or, quite possibly enforce net censorship.

I suggest, as always, education is the key to understanding. Catch the entertaining video version on YouTube, keep up to date by visiting sites like SaveTheInternet.com, and write U.S. senators and representatives in your state so you have a better understanding of their positions.

In fact, I am doing the latter today and I'll be happy to share their responses in the days ahead. Good night and good luck.

Covering Hot Topics: Second Quarter 2007

Every quarter, we publish a recap of our five most popular communication-related posts, based on the frequency and the immediacy of hits after they were posted. While we base this on individual posts, some are related to larger case studies.

Jericho Fans Make Television History

When CBS executives cancelled Jericho over Nielsen ratings, fans of this post- nuclear terrorist attack/small town survival drama went nuts, literally. Using the Internet and social media as their point of organization, they launched the largest cancellation protest in history: sending 40,000 pounds of nuts (from just one store); rallied almost 120,000 petition signers; cancelled CBS related-cable subscriptions; boycotted network premieres; sold network stock; sent in countless letters, postcards, and e-mails; captured media attention in every major newspaper and tabloid; and flooded the network with phone calls. Within a few weeks, CBS reversed its decision in record time, heading off what was quickly becoming an exercise in crisis communication. Of all the posts, pointing out the error in CBS’ marketing of Jericho took top honors with over 10,000 hits.

Link: Jericho

Wal-Mart Strikes Back Against Julie Roehm

If networks are looking for a new made-for-television docudrama, the ongoing Julie Roehm story continues to turn heads (and maybe stomachs). Filled with twists, turns, sex, back room deals, character defamation, lawsuits, countersuits, media bias, allegories, and more spin than the planet Jupiter (which rotates once every 10 hours), this story demonstrates the pitfalls of second-tier executives becoming public figures and the companies that keep them. In the end, if she has any credibility left, Roehm’s personal brand will always be linked to the short-lived, um, alleged Wal-Mart funded affair with a subordinate, her master-class ability to spin herself into another lawsuit and, according to the Chicago Sun-Times, being more indestructible than a cockroach.

Links: Julie Roehm, Wal-Mart

Digital Media Will Change Everything

While some might say it was the very loose Jericho link, we like to think it is related to the increasing interest in the future of digital media, specifically how old media is becoming new media. When we gave some attention to how News Corporation and NBC Universal are speeding ahead with the addition of FUEL TV, Oxygen, SPEED, Sundance Channel, and TV Guide as content partners committed to bringing programming to Web video consumers, people wanted to know what it might mean. To us, it means that one day very soon, broadcast news and entertainment will be forever fused with the Internet, people will access it all via versatile technologies like the iPhone, independents will have the potential to break into the big leagues overnight, and businesses will fully develop what we sometimes call income marketing.

Links: Digital Media, NBC Universal, FOX

Paris Hilton Splits Public Interest

We don’t know about you, but Mika Brzezinski of MNSBC perfectly captured the public’s sentiment over Paris Hilton. In a YouTube clip, Brzezinski refuses to lead the news with Hilton, but then goes on and on about how she refuses to cover it, making her refusal to cover Hilton carry on probably three times longer than if she would have just read the script. Love her, hate her, love to hate her, or hate to love her, we’re not buying that you’re not interested because if we post about her, we always see spikes even though we generally only cover communication side items like blaming publicists, marketing humor, and overly long media statements from jail. Hmmm… maybe that’s why Hilton took second against Roehm in terms of most read public figure.

Link: Paris Hilton

The Office Parodies A Public Relations Nightmare

Although some follow-up stories to JetBlue and Jobster came close, NBC Universal's 2006 Emmy Award-winning show, The Office, proved fictional crisis communication is sometimes more fun than real life. For our part, we wrote up how The Office episode "Product Recall” mirrors how executives sometimes allow a crisis to run away from them by applying “tried and true” communication strategies. In the show, Michael Scott (Steve Carell), regional manager of Dunder-Mifflin, applies the practice of “always running to the crisis and never away from it” after a disgruntled employee at the paper mill put an obscene watermark on one of their most popular paper products. The operative word in this case is “always.” Crisis communication rules are only guidelines, silly.

Link: The Office

It’s very promising to see non-bad news posts starting to give bad news posts a run for their money. We're still hoping good news and educational posts might one day dominate the top five (admittedly doubtful). For example, when it comes to social media, we’d love to see more attention given to our underpinning concept that strategic communication is best suited to drive social media despite the fact that most companies seems to be trying to do it the other way around.

Anyway, while those were the top five posts (and related case studies) for the second quarter, several others came close (and almost all of them beat out last quarter). Runners up (no order): Fans of the The Black Donnellys lobby for HBO to save the canceled NBC show; PR bloggers made a non-issue into an issue over Nikon; JetBlue proved you really can overapologize in a crisis; Jason Goldberg of Jobster goes a whole week or so before behaving badly again; and our sum-up of Harris Interactive mobile advertising research despite my initial skepticism, mostly fueled by a not-so-great Webinar release.

So there you have it, except for one very, very important ingredient: thank you all for dropping by, adding comments, promoting several stories, and continuing to bring communication issues to our attention so we may offer up our sometimes serious, sometimes silly take on them. Whether you agree or disagree, all of it lends well to the discussion and I appreciate those who remember to target the topic and not each other in providing input.

Controlling Community: John Sumser

John Sumser has taken on a mission impossible because there seems to be a desire to transform Recruiting.com, which is currently defined as blog community portal, into a niche social network that will be managed like an online magazine with Sumser as editor.

It cannot be done.

Sumser is not alone in making the mistake of combining what are opposing objectives. Many companies are struggling with the same self-created issue, which is what often gives rise to community members screaming unfair criticism, blatant censorship, and/or totalitarian fascist rule. Eventually, it leads to protest, exodus, or even negative public outcry beyond the niche it serves.

You can see it all over the net. It ranges from alleged censorship of The Black Donnellys fans at NBC online and Jericho fans during the cancellation protest at CBS online to the broadest brush strokes and ample examples being advocated by the Electronic Frontier Foundation. All of it, big and small, stems from the same problem: a lack of strategic oversight on the part of the site moderators that often leads to gross confusion over whether or not the First Amendment might apply on the part of the participants (mostly, it doesn't), which I'm inclined to write about another time.

Today, I'll stick to the misconception being applied by some companies: they think "if we build it (a framework for an online community of sorts, whether it be a blog, portal, forum, social network, or some combination), they will come." And, as soon as the "open" sign goes up, sometimes they do come — participants who quickly take up residence and build their community.

Did you catch that? I said "their community" because it's the most important part of the equation. Companies that create online gathering places only own the framework; it's the participants who own the community. Because without them, there is no community.

And that brings us back to Recruiting.com. Whereas Jason Davis (former management at Recruiting.com) moderated with a guiding hand, Sumser seems to use the rule of law. After all, as editor, Sumser claims it's his job to ensure the content is worthwhile by some subjective standards only he knows.

While I understand this thinking from someone who often considers social media and blogging as, more or less, immature and brutish (although, mysteriously and magically, not so in many, many places), it represents the direct opposition to developing an online community. You see, the model for editorial control, beyond the loosest guidelines, (eg. no pornography, etc.) is much better suited to running an online magazine or news source like, well, Electronic Recruiting News.

For a blog portal, like Recruitng.com, any sense of community can only be accomplished by applying the simplest of concepts: "it's easier to pull a chain than to push one." That means "editors" must abandon their propensity to manage and attempt to lead.

Real leadership does not work under the rule of law. It requires something else all together. So instead of "editing" and reserving the right to make even the best intended critiques, the moderator who hopes to build a community will see better results if they focus more on making people feel welcome, praising those who provide the best examples, and adding unique value for the residents.

No, it doesn't have to be this way. Recruiting.com could just as easily operate as an online content provider or magazine (in which case, it needs more exclusive content) and a blog portal, giving up on the idea that it is somehow a community (it's not). While this means it will rarely be considered home, the model can work just as well while affording the owners control, which they seem to want.

From a more general perspective, any time a company, organization, or group launches a product, service, or online "something" (or applies sweeping changes to such things), it's always best to develop a strategy first. And, if these things already exist, it's never a good idea to remove previous tactics without knowing what you need to replace them with. Ergo, if you blow little things all up without a plan, you might be surprised to find out some of those little things made the big thing work.

Ideally, developing a strategy can be largely accomplished by understanding the environment in which you hope to operate and your true competitors. Then, you offer added values to your product/service/offering or, at minimum, positive communication contrasts between yourself and your competitors.

Apple and AT&T's positioning of the iPhone is a pretty good example. Verizon's new message, which they think will keep customers from switching to an iPhone, is not.

The bottom line. You cannot be all things to all people, especially when you aren't all things.

Advertising Research: Harris Interactive

Harris Interactive, a full-service market research firm with more than 40 years' experience, provided a free webinar on
Apr. 26 that treated participants to the future of integrated media, especially as it applies to mobile advertising (cellular phones).

Led by Judith Ricker, (president, marketing communications research) and Joseph Porus (chief architect, technology research practice), the webinar presented preliminary data that suggests when consumers are educated, mobile advertising will work in some exciting (perhaps spooky) ways. The research is solid, and with some minor modifications in my opinion, some of their ideas have a potential that exceeds current consumer imagination.

Ricker and Porus are spot on in recognizing that the Internet is capturing a higher viewership than traditional media (no wonder Viacom is ready to invest a half billion dollars in digital media); that continued breakthroughs in mobile technology (such as the Apple iPhone) will change the way we perceive integrated digital communication (innovation); and that the time has come for companies who view their communication as decentralized to rethink that old model (I'm big on integrated communication).

According to Harris Interactive, mobile advertising is particularly adept at strengthening the bond between the brand and the consumer, communicating messages, and changing behavior. I agree, absolutely. One question that remains is: are consumers ready?

From Harris Interactive's research, only 10 percent of consumers are open to the idea of mobile advertising. However, when paired with incentives, this number jumps to 36 percent. When I first wrote about this subject, I wasn't impressed with these numbers. However, when applied with the Revised Technology Adoption Life Cycle, 36 percent is enough momentum to break into the mainstream.

That is not to say adoption is not without potential pitfalls. Of those who expressed interest in mobile advertising, 66 percent said that consumer choice (the ability to opt in or out) is paramount to ensuring public acceptance. Ricker and Porus reinforced the point several times, saying that as soon as consumers begin to feel like the advertising messages they receive are spam, every potential outcome could be limited by legislation. I hope not because Harris Interactive has some stellar ideas. Here are four subject area highlights (though there are much more worth consideration):

Test Message Ads. Harris Interactive places weight on text messaging because 56 percent of those surveyed said they would prefer it over other forms. I differ here, but only because the consumer's opinion seems attached to how they perceive cell phones right now. Text message ads also have the potential to be the most intrusive. Where I see them best applied is as opt-in sale announcements to remind consumers when Macy's is having a white sale or Borders has a book signing.

Locational Advertising. Harris Interactive suggests consumers can be pointed to a sales rack with the exact dress they are looking for (though the concept does not have to be this precise). I find it spooky that advertisers will know where I am all the time with new GPS features in our phones. However, when I asked my wife, she thought that was a great idea!!! So who I am to say?

Content Advertising. Harris Interactive broke it out differently, but I see it as all the same: entertainment, news, games, social media, downloads, ring tones, and Web browsing. If the foundation is built right, content developers — blogs, digital media, etc. — could receive a real financial boost provided content distribution remains open. Consumers would, in my opinion, have no problem with content advertising if that meant their options could be provided for free (Joost is playing with several ideas right now; Revver has a great one in place).

However, as Harris Interactive pointed out, everyone wants a piece of the action: content developers, content distributors, and service providers. At the end of the day, who knows what it will look like. I have some hunches, but at the moment, they are only that. Despite these hunches, I'm hoping content developers come up on top.

Consumer Profiling. This is perhaps my least favorite trend, but consumers see it differently. Overwhelmingly, as Harris Interactive presented, consumers embrace profiling because they can limit their own advertising exposure based on preferences. They already accept it at ITunes, Amazon.com, and with Internet cookies. So, I'm in the minority. Personal preferences aside, writing individually specific ad messages would benefit someone in advertising like me.

Certainly, there is no way everything presented could be confined to a single post. However, the topic is important and something that I'm certain I'll be revisiting time and time again. Sure, I have some concerns, especially about advertising becoming more pervasive and losing its effectiveness as a result. But as an ad guy, it's part of my job to figure out the best way to solve that problem.

In sum, kudos to Harris Interactive and its work in the field. I intentionally entered as a skeptic to see how difficult it would be to come out a believer. While I could discuss some finer differences, the net result is that it was not difficult at all. Harris Interactive is an excellent research resource in subject matter and my compliments on seeing them take the lead.

Fighting On New Fronts: iPhone

When two companies decide to wage a trademark battle, interesting things always happen. People choose sides. Smaller skirmishes ensue. Loose alliances are forged between unlikely players.

USA Today reports Verizon, probably because Cingular got the Apple iPhone deal, tossed in its hat with Jim Gerace, vice president of corporate communications, saying, in one breath, “We have nothing bad to say about the Apple iPhone. We just couldn’t reach a deal that was mutually beneficial.”

In Gerace's next breath, he says the demands were “steep,” including revenue share from service fees, distribution rights and much more. “They would have been stepping in between us and our customers to the point where we would have almost had to take a back seat … on hardware and service support,” he said.

Gee, so much for not having anything bad to say. His message was almost written by Cisco, which also claims the biggest stumbling block between the Cisco/Apple trademark negotiation was about sharing technology. Ho hum, you don't have to be a Fortune 500 executive to know that Apple does not like to be open about its innovations.

Some people don't like that, but whatever. Frankly, if it did share everything, I'm not so sure that there would be an Apple around to shake up the market like it does. So, I don't blame them. (Besides, they tried sharing once, if you recall, and it failed miserably).

Although Cisco has since backtracked on that idea that all this was about wanting Apple technology, it was part of the equation. Moneyweb published an early quote from Mark Chandler, Cisco's general counsel, saying "Fundamentally we wanted an open approach. We hoped our products could interoperate in the future."

Was that the deal breaker? If so, then Cisco knew the deal was going to fail all along because I really don't believe such a media relations savvy company would be so naive that it would think Apple is going to jump to interoperate with Cisco. For the reason I already stated above, it would be "silly."

Even sillier is the misnomer being floated by some analysts (those applying for Cisco fan status, I imagine) is that Apple is doing all this for the publicity. Yeah, right.

Apple has never been a company to think that all publicity is good publicity. Given that the iPhone launch was one of the most anticipated tech announcements of the decade, I hardly think Apple needed a Cisco lawsuit to jazz things up.

But, of course, that didn't stop someone at ThinkEquity Partners LLC from dreaming up this non-reality: "As this trademark infringement case escalates, we are taking the stance that 'any publicity is good publicity.'" Oh well, it's an easy way to get your name in the paper, I suppose. File under not thinking in New York.

You see, Apple and Cisco have always understood that there is a fundamental difference public relations and publicity. Neither have been big on employing the latter because it carries more risk and is generally reserved for companies without name ID or brand value.

In fact, the resulting lawsuit has drawn attention to some subjects neither company wanted to talk about: Cisco's recent violation of an open source license (which it has since thanked everyone for, er, pointing out the oversight) and Apple's iPhone mark up (which prompted some sideline banter that Apple has yet to set a final price). Darn publicity. You cannot control it. I doubt either wants it.

Specifically, the license violation made Cisco look not so good about sharing, which was the case it wants to make about Apple. And the profit margin of an iPhone made Apple look a little less "taken advantage of" by Cisco hoping to cash in on the trademark.

Hmmmm. I think Technewsworld called it right like I did when they said this one has "the potential to turn very ugly." Why any company, Verizon included, would want to comment on this is beyond my comprehension.

The bottom line is that Cisco kind of holds the higher ground, but I'm unconvinced it can keep it, especially as other companies come forward to challenge Cisco's hold on the trademark (which benefits one of Apple's arguments that the the term iPhone should be shared because other companies have been using it for years). Besides, as I said before, the public seems to want Apple to have the name.

So what is this really about? More and more, it looks to me as if this is nothing more than a high stakes game of "you're not playing fair so I'm going to sue you, nana nana boo boo." And in this game, there will be no winners, but a whole lot of losers.

But then again, it might seem obvious to me to because as a journalist student in the 1980's, I learned everything I needed to know about law (as a non-attorney) while writing my very first article for The Sagebrush. To the ire of the University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), I asked what some consider my very first "dangerous" question: "Could UNR find itself caught in a liability suit for injuries related to adminstration-approved events run by private organizations such as fraternities?"

I found my answer by calling every attorney in Reno until one of them gave me the answer. His answer was "yes" (to the chagrin of the UNR). Simply put, however, he also told me, novice that I was in the ways of business at the time, that anybody could sue anybody for anything. He then went on to explain that he could, in that instance, build a strong case against either side.

"Whether or not the plaintiff would win the case would be up to the courts to decide," he said.

This was also my first real lesson in the power of reporting and the importance of public relations. The lesson learned for public relations came from how easy it was to ask questions from the coordinator of campus standards and receive answers that lent well to the story, but did not lend well for her.

My intent was not to harm her (we were friends for heaven's sake). But as I said, I was pretty naive at the time. The fact is, the damage done to her by what was a "good story" became one of the reasons I leaned toward corporate communication and public relations as opposed to reporting. These people needed help, I concluded.

Of course, that's not to say I'm afraid to call a duck a duck either. And the iPhone lawsuit is exactly that. It's a duck. Or, more appropriately, if you are a company thinking of taking sides, you better duck. The publicity is not worth it.

Ratcheting Up The Language: iPhone

If you think corporate image and brand positioning should be consistent, then no one can accuse Cisco and Apple of not knowing who they are in their public battle over the "iPhone" trademark. The language their executives use in discussing the iPhone trademark dispute tells a story behind the story.

"We've been following our iPhone trademark issue in the blogosphere closely and it's been interesting to see the commentary from some posters suggesting that somehow Cisco either in the US or Europe didn't meet the requirements to maintain the iPhone trademark. Our response is pretty simple: We have met all elements required by all authorities to maintain our mark. We've been pretty direct about the fact that we've been shipping the iPhone since last spring." — John Earnhardt, Cisco, on their blog.

"It's silly." — Tim Cook, Apple, about Cisco's lawsuit during a conference call with analysts today. He also noted how several companies use the same iPhone name for their Internet-based phones.

Courting Brand Value: iPhone

Some writers shy away from attorneys, but I never have. They almost always lend an interesting perspective on communication. Sure, there are a few who get carried away with calling themselves “wordsmiths,” but the one who left a comment on my last Apple vs. Cisco post is not one of them.

If you missed it, Rick suggested the real question will be whether the term iPhone will be considered a trademark or generic term for a type of telephone.

“This question ultimately turns on the understandings of the relevant consumer market,” he wrote, “So I expect Apple and Cisco to introduce consumer surveys in addition to evidence from dictionary and media sources and references to the status of other ‘i-noun’ terms.”

If that is the case, it seems to me that Apple’s apparent dominance over “i” anything may carry the day, because the public seems to want the Apple phone to be an iPhone. Likewise, there seems to be public resistance to the Cisco iPhone, even after it was explained that it owned the trademark. Of course, that is a communication observation; a judge could just as easily rule against Apple and that would be that, er, until the appeal.

On the communication front, we ask, to what end? Sometimes you can win a lawsuit but lose consumer appeal.

In attempting to address “what is,” it seems to me that Cisco has two battles on its hands. It wants to win the lawsuit because it acquired the iPhone trademark in 2000 after completing the acquisition of Infogear, which previously owned the mark since 1996. But, I suspect, it also wants to win over public perception that this is the right thing to do.

"Cisco entered into negotiations with Apple in good faith after Apple repeatedly asked permission to use Cisco's iPhone name," said Mark Chandler, senior vice president and general counsel, Cisco. "There is no doubt that Apple's new phone is very exciting, but they should not be using our trademark without our permission.”

Outside the courtroom, it becomes tricky. First, Ed Bernette at ZD Net wrote an interesting article on the case, noting that Cisco may not own the mark as claimed. Second, in order to sway public opinion on this issue, someone is going to ask under what terms was Cisco willing to grant Apple permission to use the name iPhone. And third, if it was in negotiations over the name, why did Cisco suddenly make a push on a complete line of iPhone products?

According to the aforementioned article, it had to push iPhone products: “If Cisco didn't launch a product using the iPhone name, their trademark registration would be canceled and they would have no bargaining chips with Apple. So in order to keep the trademark active, they had to file the Declaration of Use, and start selling a product under that trademark.”

Add to all this a recent blog post from Chandler: “Was it money? No. Was it a royalty on every Apple phone? No. Was it an exchange for Cisco products or services? No.”

While the post shows how seriously Cisco takes public perception, it also focuses more attention on that other unanswered question: what were the terms that prompted Apple to abandon negotiations and launch an “iPhone” without an agreement? Or was it something else, an eureka moment from Apple’s legal team perhaps, that killed the deal?

At the moment, only a few know. What the public knows is that several people have laid claim to iPhone over the years, including a Toronto-based company that has been marketing voice-over-Internet services under the registered trademark iPhone since 2004 and even has a wireless device called iPhone Mobile.

How a 2004 claim could potentially supersede Cisco’s claim, I am not sure (unless the ZD Net article is right). However, based upon the comment contribution referenced earlier, it could potentially assist Apple if Apple is looking to turn the trademark iPhone into a generic term, which it may or may not do.

What we also know is that Apple and Cisco have appealed their cases to the public; Apple by releasing its product as an iPhone and Cisco by publicly stating it expected Apple was onboard with those mysterious terms. How good a case both sides can make to the public will be decided by the public or perhaps by investors, who never like to hear the term lawsuit associated with their investments, especially when risks seem to outweigh the advantages.

Sure, Cisco is right to challenge Apple over a trademark it considers an asset. Apple is also well within its rights to look for some wiggle room on a name that has been associated with its product concept before it even landed on the drawing board. But given that the courtroom is not the only place both companies have made a case, public perception may weigh in more heavily than the letter of the law. That’s not good, bad, or indifferent — that is "what is."

All the while, both companies have to be careful not to damage their respective brands that have far and away more value than the potential brand value of an “iPhone.”

Branding Term Primer: iPhone

According to BusinessWeek, Cisco Systems Inc.'s global brand value tops $17,532 million whereas Apple Inc.'s global brand value is $9,130 million. Both have seen gains in the last year, with Apple moving up almost 14 percent.

With Cisco now suing Apple over use of the name "iPhone," something I intend to dig deeper into on Tuesday, the terminology might get a little muddled, given that people in the communication and advertising industry often use pertinent terms interchangeably without meaning to (myself included). Here's a quick term primer that might help keep it straight:

1. A brand refers to the general impression of a person, place, or company (total global awareness of the brand, along with the net sum of positive and negative impressions).

2. A logo is the design and/or name that represents the brand.

3. A trademark is a logo and/or name that has been registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office or other government trademark offices.

4. A mark is the design element of the logo, apart from the name (eg. the Nike swoosh).

5. An identity is the presentation of company's communication material, which usually includes the logo (eg. an identity package).

This may be helpful in the months ahead as Cisco and Apple spend millions of dollars in a high-stakes legal battle over the "iPhone" trademark. However, if it gets equally ugly outside of the courtroom, the trademark may cause both companies "brand" damage.

Branding Agreement Soon: iPhone

On December 19, I posted about a potential brand war over the trademark "iPhone" shortly after Linksys (a division of Cisco Systems, Inc.) launched an "iPhone" family of products.

Reuters reported that Cisco Systems Inc. expects to reach an agreement with Apple Computer Inc. later today on its "iPhone" trademark. They said it shortly after Apple unveiled a phone with the same name.

So why would Cisco reach an agreement with Apple after fending off so many foes from grabbing up the "iPhone" brand? In the December post, I said that Apple would be wise to sit this one out (they did for awhile without comment), letting others fight it out for the right to use a trademark that Apple might not own, but clearly dominates. Today, Steve Jobs showed the world how much it dominates "i" anything by releasing the product before any agreement was signed.

While Apple could have easily called it something else, I am not surprised. Apple is no stranger to the value of a brand nor litigation over brands. In fact, Apple's earliest court action dates to 1978 when Apple Records, The Beatles-founded record label, filed suit against Apple Computer for trademark infringement, a case that has resurfaced several times over the last few decades. You can read more about it at Wikipedia.

It just goes to show you that — right, wrong, or indifferent — owning a trademark and owning a brand are two different things. And today, it's very obvious that Apple knows it too. Clearly, Cisco does too.

Branding Wars Ahead

What's in a name?

Last July, BusinessWeek reported that Apple's global brand value was up almost 14 percent over 2005, placing it 39th among all globally recognized brands. The publication also estimated Apple's total brand value at almost $9,130 million, fueled largely by stylized iPod, iTunes, and iMac product lines. With that in mind, it was no surprise that Apple was rumored to be releasing an "iPhone" sometime in 2007.

What is a surprise: Linksys (a division of Cisco Systems, Inc.) launched an "iPhone" family of products for the holidays. But, despite boasting Internet services that use Skype and Yahoo! Messenger, most reviews have been less than stellar and include the added pressure of Cisco being accused of "stealing" an Apple brand identifier.

Russell Shaw over at ZDNet has a comprehensive overview of the proceedings (which does not include Apple) along with various filing reports. What he did not note, however, was that Cisco filed its "iPhone" trademark 10 years ago, with the mark published for opposition as early as Dec. 1998. That seems to predate most Apple "i" products, with exception to the iMac.

Still, it's a safe bet that Apple is hoping the Linksys phone might eventually get an unfriendly call from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, which is currently sorting through four "live" trademark assignments that include "iPhone" or derivative terms. It seems to me that Apple's wish would have less to do with the name of its future phone and more to do with any brand damage caused by a Linksys "i" product that is less phone (as the original application suggested) and more VoIP.

Simply put, Apple might not want to be associated with it. Even more ironic, Cisco's decision to rightfully use a trademark it has owned for 10 years might backfire anyway, forcing the company to spend millions in repackaging. You see, while the "iPhone" might be their trademark, Apple's brand mastery over "i" products has grown exponentially in 10 years.

In the end, Cisco, right or wrong, knowingly or unknowingly, has started a brand war. And, like all wars, there is hardly ever a clear winner when the smoke settles and investors wonder what they got for it. It seems to me that Apple would be wise to sit this one out, letting the others fight it out for the right to use a trademark that Apple might not own, but clearly dominates. Besides, Apple may have never intended to call its product an "iPhone" anyway.