Understandably, Microsoft has rolled out an ad campaign to protect the brand from the unfavorable stereotype that Mac is so happily imposing on PC, and by extrapolation to everything Microsoft. Jerry Seinfield featured in an ad, which seemed like a futile attempt to attract attention. The idea to have PC users introduce themselves is novel and is by far the most effective ad in my opinion, that Microsoft has done to reconnect with its customers and prospects at the image level.
Today I came across an ad that hinted on one of the product positioning strategies that are in play.
You've got to be cool to appeal to kids. If there was any perception that PC is cool, Apple's ad campaign has definitely put that thought to rest. In the world of kids and parents, let us say that kids prefer Mac, because they think it is cool. PC's only hope would then be to appeal to parents. This ad revolves around various Windows Vista features that would help parents in controlling their child's internet usage, in terms of sites visited, hours spent browsing and much more.
You know what? Parents may find that "cool"!
Monday, November 24, 2008
Saturday, November 8, 2008
2.0
Well, the election is over, but it hasn't sunk in yet. For somebody who had been glued to every form of news about the primaries and the general election, a week-long hangover is to be expected. This is the first election I've followed this closely, and I must say, it has been educating and entertaining.
Many have had their chances to second-guess Obama's victory. Here are some of the common theories:
1. This was a vote against Bush, but not for Obama
2. This was a vote for the Democrat, but not necessarily for Obama
3. It's the economy, stupid
4. Obama ran a good campaign: clear vision, good execution and help from the media
As Jack Welch points out, vision and execution are both vital to success. We've learned much about the execution part of it, and I don't intend to bore you with more of the same [no pun intended!].
What about vision? Jack Welch stops with "Change" in his analysis. It didn't take too long for Hillary and the other front-runners to figure that out. There have been several contests [some in politics, some in business], in which somebody's message had been stolen by a competitor fair and square. Why couldn't anyone steal Obama's message this time? Is it because of his eloquence, or the use of the internet [layman for online fund-raising, social networking, recurring donations], or simply because all of his opponents made mistakes, while "somehow" he did not?
You may have guessed why this post is titled 2.0. I've seen some striking similarities in strategy between Web 2.0 and the Obama campaign, and that I assess is at the root of this victory.
Reach out to the entire web, to the edges and not just the center, to the long tail and not just the head.
Needless to say, the Obama campaign "had" to be innovative in fund raising, as it was open and shut that Hillary would charm the Democratic base easily. They definitely made some smart choices then, internet-based fund raising was one of those. The 50-state strategy also seemed like a tactic aimed at winning the primary. Little did the pundits know then, about the impact that strategy would have on Nov 4, 2008. In traditional red states such as Indiana and Virginia, Obama won by winning the blue electoral colleges and by losing the red electoral colleges by smaller margins, only because the campaign reached out not just to the head, but to the long tail as well.
Network effects from user contributions are the key to market dominance in the Web 2.0 era.
With social networking, this campaign broke new ground in enabling volunteers and supporters to organize among themselves.
So how did the Obama campaign figure this out? Did Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes and Google CEO Eric Schmidt give them the inside scoop on Everything 2.0? A campaign of this magnitude cannot be built to last and succeed, based on fragile tactics and strategies that suit the moment.
The Obama campaign introduced a new product called "Change" almost a couple of years ago. Choosing what to sell was the easy part, but how to sell is what Obama excelled in. While customers sensed the need for the product, several brands emerged during the primary season. The demand increased and so did the competition. Jack Welch is right, in that he says that the Obama campaign had a clear sense of vision. However, their vision was "to build a participative inclusive coalition". This vision and the campaign's ability to execute per this vision with strategies such as the 50-state campaign, social networking and internet based fund raising have been key to their success.
Perhaps, Barack Obama won this election because he was once a community organizer. After all, there are no coincidences.
Many have had their chances to second-guess Obama's victory. Here are some of the common theories:
1. This was a vote against Bush, but not for Obama
2. This was a vote for the Democrat, but not necessarily for Obama
3. It's the economy, stupid
4. Obama ran a good campaign: clear vision, good execution and help from the media
As Jack Welch points out, vision and execution are both vital to success. We've learned much about the execution part of it, and I don't intend to bore you with more of the same [no pun intended!].
What about vision? Jack Welch stops with "Change" in his analysis. It didn't take too long for Hillary and the other front-runners to figure that out. There have been several contests [some in politics, some in business], in which somebody's message had been stolen by a competitor fair and square. Why couldn't anyone steal Obama's message this time? Is it because of his eloquence, or the use of the internet [layman for online fund-raising, social networking, recurring donations], or simply because all of his opponents made mistakes, while "somehow" he did not?
You may have guessed why this post is titled 2.0. I've seen some striking similarities in strategy between Web 2.0 and the Obama campaign, and that I assess is at the root of this victory.
Reach out to the entire web, to the edges and not just the center, to the long tail and not just the head.
Needless to say, the Obama campaign "had" to be innovative in fund raising, as it was open and shut that Hillary would charm the Democratic base easily. They definitely made some smart choices then, internet-based fund raising was one of those. The 50-state strategy also seemed like a tactic aimed at winning the primary. Little did the pundits know then, about the impact that strategy would have on Nov 4, 2008. In traditional red states such as Indiana and Virginia, Obama won by winning the blue electoral colleges and by losing the red electoral colleges by smaller margins, only because the campaign reached out not just to the head, but to the long tail as well.
Network effects from user contributions are the key to market dominance in the Web 2.0 era.
With social networking, this campaign broke new ground in enabling volunteers and supporters to organize among themselves.
So how did the Obama campaign figure this out? Did Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes and Google CEO Eric Schmidt give them the inside scoop on Everything 2.0? A campaign of this magnitude cannot be built to last and succeed, based on fragile tactics and strategies that suit the moment.
The Obama campaign introduced a new product called "Change" almost a couple of years ago. Choosing what to sell was the easy part, but how to sell is what Obama excelled in. While customers sensed the need for the product, several brands emerged during the primary season. The demand increased and so did the competition. Jack Welch is right, in that he says that the Obama campaign had a clear sense of vision. However, their vision was "to build a participative inclusive coalition". This vision and the campaign's ability to execute per this vision with strategies such as the 50-state campaign, social networking and internet based fund raising have been key to their success.
Perhaps, Barack Obama won this election because he was once a community organizer. After all, there are no coincidences.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
For the Love of Music
There are some movies that make a mark, even without a background score. If Life were a movie, it wouldn't make it to this column though. I grew on musicals and I guess it is only natural for me to wonder how emphatic and enlivened each emotion would be, if only life could be punctuated with a score.
Music may not have been something that I've done a doctorate in. I fancied learning the violin twice as a kid, and came to believe that I should own the instrument to play it. Only this time, I chose to learn to play the guitar. I guess the outcome is quite obvious :)
The music-lover has been in constant conflict with the conscientious neighbor that I am. Recently, they struck truce with the BOSE Portable iPod Speaker. Wow! What a difference it makes... I wouldn't have neighbors knocking on my door, eager to talk to me, while I'm peacefully enjoying my bath!
Music may not have been something that I've done a doctorate in. I fancied learning the violin twice as a kid, and came to believe that I should own the instrument to play it. Only this time, I chose to learn to play the guitar. I guess the outcome is quite obvious :)
The music-lover has been in constant conflict with the conscientious neighbor that I am. Recently, they struck truce with the BOSE Portable iPod Speaker. Wow! What a difference it makes... I wouldn't have neighbors knocking on my door, eager to talk to me, while I'm peacefully enjoying my bath!
Sunday, March 9, 2008
How big is this Kitchen Sink!
With Obama at an advantage to clinch the Democratic Presidential nomination, the once-inevitable Clinton candidacy is fighting its way out, working every lever there is, in the Clinton machine. While it should only be expected, the Clinton campaign doesn't cease to launch strategic attacks from each and every direction.
The latest ploy is to encourage the idea of a Clinton-Obama ticket, in the minds of Democratic voters.
While this seems superficially to align with the best interests of the Democratic party, the subliminal message it delivers could have lasting impressions in the voters' minds at a subconscious level.
Before Obama built his coalition and momentum and proved his electability to the extent that he has, many voters considered him as a senator with presidential potential that could be tapped into, may be a couple of terms later. The Clinton campaign is not only reminding voters of that notion, but also playing that to Hillary's advantage when she needs it the most.
There is a significant % of Democratic voters who wouldn't mind electing either candidate as President, and this message is to "prime" them, so that they would vote for Hillary now, and assume that Obama, the new guy, could always make it two terms later.
It makes me wonder if this is a bottomless sink at times... I've already added Mark Penn's Microtrends to my Amazon wish list! It is quite exciting to get into the minds of these guys and examine how they try to get into yours!
The latest ploy is to encourage the idea of a Clinton-Obama ticket, in the minds of Democratic voters.
While this seems superficially to align with the best interests of the Democratic party, the subliminal message it delivers could have lasting impressions in the voters' minds at a subconscious level.
Before Obama built his coalition and momentum and proved his electability to the extent that he has, many voters considered him as a senator with presidential potential that could be tapped into, may be a couple of terms later. The Clinton campaign is not only reminding voters of that notion, but also playing that to Hillary's advantage when she needs it the most.
There is a significant % of Democratic voters who wouldn't mind electing either candidate as President, and this message is to "prime" them, so that they would vote for Hillary now, and assume that Obama, the new guy, could always make it two terms later.
It makes me wonder if this is a bottomless sink at times... I've already added Mark Penn's Microtrends to my Amazon wish list! It is quite exciting to get into the minds of these guys and examine how they try to get into yours!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
