Fantastically, Brilliantly, Insanely Amazing

by Kevin Roberts

One thing about the January 27th launch of the Apple iPad clashing with President Obama's first State of the Union address was that they both focused on Jobs.

And check out the awesome enthusiasm Steve Jobs and his team have for their new baby in this video!





A lot of hype and hyped-up criticism have accompanied the launch of the iPad. Nothing new there. Apple attracted lots of criticism with the launch of the iPod in 2001 (total sales: 220 million) and the iPhone in 2007 (total sales: 34 million). They centered on a perceived lack of functionality. So it's not surprising to hear gripes that iPad doesn't support HDMI or Flash graphics, or have a built-in camera.

The critics have missed the point. The iPad is not a netbook or scaled-down laptop. In fact, it is only a distant relative to the traditional PC or Mac. Instead, its lineage is the DVD player, the VCR, the television set, the radio, the newspaper, the telephone, the telegraph. It is not a workhorse loaded up with functions and hardware. It is a platform for story-telling, interactive, personal and immediate.

The story of human technology is the relentless advance in the direction of greater utility, connectivity, immediacy, affordability and flexibility. The iPad represents a quantum leap in that direction.

We want to communicate with each other, cheaply and easily. We want information where and when we need it. We want to be entertained and to entertain ourselves. We want to get closer to the people and the things we love. The iPad promises to do that. Technology that fails to serve that purpose is just a gadget, suitable for little more than collecting dust.

There's an interesting blog post in the NY Times predicting that the iPad will become an irresistible toy for children because kids will love the tactile nature of the device (they love to jab at things!), 'painting' software allows for mess-free splatter, it's an ideal distraction for car trips, and the screen offers endless story opportunities. I couldn't agree more, but the author could go even further: They are pretty compelling reasons for adults to get their hands on an iPad, too.

Related Articles:

• Radical Innovation of Meaning


• Apple's Hidden Disruptive Innovation


• Insights to Drive Apple iPad Success


• Will Apple Introduce the Innovation Expected From Google?

Enjoy this post? Subscribe to our RSS feed and join our Continuous Innovation group!

---

Kevin Roberts is the CEO worldwide of The Lovemarks Company, Saatchi & Saatchi. For more information on Kevin, please go to www.saatchikevin.com. To see this blog at its original source, please go to www.krconnect.blogspot.com.

Dear Cable TV Executives,

by Steve McKee

I don't want 300 channels. I only want 18 channels. OK, the average person wants 18 channels. I really only want six. Why can't I have just six?

I know, I know, it's the economics of the industry. But industries change, don't they? I mean, look what has happened to the music industry. I used to have to purchase an entire CD just to get the one or two songs I want, but now I can buy and build my own playlists song by song. It's funny, but I'm sure I spend more on music now than I used to.

You should know I just bought an Apple TV box. That's not your fault - since the Blockbuster Video stores near me closed (and RedBox, while cool, doesn't exactly offer a huge selection) I didn't really have a good option for renting movies. So I thought it was worth a try. Now I can select from a huge selection of movies and TV shows, and when I'm not in a buying mood I can use it to watch YouTube on my HDTV. I'm beginning to think of YouTube as the ultimate TV network - there's so much on-demand entertainment there. (Hmm. You might want to make a note of that.)

Speaking of entertainment, I've held off on getting a Kindle because I knew Apple was coming out with a similar device. I'm excited to get my iPad, not only to check my email and surf the web but to download books. I guess Apple is shaking up the book publishing industry just like it did the music industry. "Saving it" is probably a more accurate description; I'm sure my book purchasing behavior will mirror my new music buying habits. I wonder if they're thinking along the same lines when it comes to TV. I guess time will tell.

So if you don't mind, I'd like to subscribe to individual cable channels. For that matter, I wouldn't mind subscribing to individual programs. I know you won't get as hefty of a monthly fee from me, but I'd be willing to pay more per network than you're getting now. And I suspect other people would be too.

Anyway, it's something to think about. But no pressure. If you don't do it, I'm sure I can find other things to do with my time and money.


Editors Note: I'm with you Steve. I've got limited cable because I don't have much time to watch television. When I really want to watch something specific I can get it online. Cable TV is going to face much the same problem that fixed line phone service faces now (declining subscriber #'s). And, if more and more networks develop their own 'apps' for a variety of mobile or IP platforms (Apple TV, iPhone, Blackberry, iPad FloTV, etc.), it's only going to accelerate.


Enjoy this post? Subscribe to our RSS feed and join our Continuous Innovation group!

---

Steve McKee is a BusinessWeek.com columnist, marketing consultant, and author of "When Growth Stalls: How it Happens, Why You're Stuck, and What To Do About It." Learn more about him at www.WhenGrowthStalls.com and at http://twitter.com/whengrowthstall.

A Branding Lesson From Leno

by Steve McKee

The big news this week in Medialand is NBC's decision to cancel The Jay Leno Show and move the eponymous comedian back to a late-night time slot. About the short-lived experiment, Jeff Gaspin, NBC Universal's Chairman of Television Entertainment, said, "I don't think it's wrong to take chances... Sometimes they work. Sometimes they don't."

Fair enough. But with a little more imagination, NBC might have been able to predict the outcome. The much-hyped decision to launch The Jay Leno Show was made in part based on economics - it's a whole lot cheaper to produce an hour of live TV than an episode of Law & Order. While the show was profitable for NBC, it's not terribly surprising that it would lag its competition in the ratings - especially in its first season, when loyal viewers of competitive offerings were caught up in current storylines.

The Jay Leno Show's low ratings created a "lead-in" problem for NBC affiliates, who rely on audience carryover to provide viewers for their late local news. Michael Fiorile, chairman of NBC's affiliate board, said NBC's Leno strategy "has been devastating for a number of late newscasts around the country."

While that's unfortunate, it also underscores an unhealthy dependency that too often blinds local news providers to their task. And it provides a valuable business lesson for us all.

Most people tend to think of the television industry as something "other" than the product and service sectors that comprise the rest of the economy. But in reality it's no different. Television news is a "product" that consumers "buy" (we pay for free TV with our time), and competitors are called to offer their prospective customers an experience that is unique, relevant, and valuable, just like any other business.

When a local affiliate complains about the network not offering a good enough lead-in for its local news, it's like McDonald's complaining that the Burger King across the street has better access to traffic. While that may be true, it can also serve as an all-too convenient cop-out. McDonald's job is not to complain about the way the street is designed, but to get people to cross it - by offering something intriguing and unique (a task the company has performed quite well in recent years).

That's where TV news falls down. Local news directors too often live in a "be better" bubble. That causes them to overstate the impact of their slogans, overvalue being first on the scene of an accident, and overpromote their handsome/pretty/ smart/honest/capable/talented/sincere news anchors. If they instead applied their intelligence and intensity (the news directors I've met have both in abundance) to seeking new ways to truly differentiate their offerings from the competition, we could see some real innovation in how local news is delivered. I suspect most viewers - and most people in the industry - would agree that there's plenty of room for improvement.

Jay Leno is proven product whose success is in part dependent on how well he's packaged and distributed. Local news is no different, and as Gaspin said, it's not wrong to take chances. If only more news directors would.

---

Steve McKee is a BusinessWeek.com columnist, marketing consultant, and author of "When Growth Stalls: How it Happens, Why You're Stuck, and What To Do About It." Learn more about him at www.WhenGrowthStalls.com and at http://twitter.com/whengrowthstall.

CES 2010 Report

by Idris Mootee

More than 10,000 people attended the show, and funny enough there was another show running next door - the Porn Show. I don't know if were are any vendors who showcased products in both. One thing that deserves mention is Nokia's announcement of the Growth Economy Venture Challenge. Nokia is going to invest $1 million in a developer who comes up with an idea that uses mobile technology to improve the lives of people in the poorest parts of the world, and that the idea doesn't even need to use Nokia technology. I wonder if anyone will submit an iPhone-to-save-the-world idea. The winners will be announced in June and it will be very interesting to see what ideas people come up with.

TV technology pretty much dominated the show with 3D HDTV attracting the most interest. I don't think 3D television will become mainstream anytime soon (if at all). Surround sound was first invented and introduced 30 years ago with two key players pushing different standards, I think they were JVC and... I forgot the other. JVC was pushing CD-4, a proprietary decoding technology to bring four-channel surround sound to the living room. The buzz lasted for less than two years. Only after home theater became popular and affordable 20 years later did that technology finally became mass market. 3D HD TV may be a repeat story. 3D content is an issue, the other is the glasses. I cannot imagine everyone wearing 3D glasses at home, can you? And, the cost is way too high. They are at least 5 years away.

The adoption of innovative technologies has always been impacted by micro-economic determinants, because it has proved to be the most useful in explaining the broad patterns of innovation diffusion. With the top three brands announcing 3D TVs, it is more about competing for noise. Panasonic, which has been promoting 3D for more than a year, expects to be among the first to launch. One of Panasonic's guest speakers was Jon Landau, producer of the 3D movie Avatar, which partnered with Panasonic last year to promote both the movie and 3D technology. Samsung announced that 50% of its LED LCD TV introductions this year will be 3D models, many using a new "inspired by nature" design scheme. The top of the line is the ultra-slim 9000 Series. These sets achieve their svelte profiles by housing the TV's electronics circuitry inside the stand and come with a unique touch-screen Wi-Fi remote that doubles as a second display, so you can watch a TV program on the remote while a Blu-ray movie is playing on the TV.

In the meantime everyone is still making improvements to their LCD TVs - making them bigger, thinner and sharper. LG has some cool technology, such as sound coming from the screen, although for most people, this doesn't matter as they have external speakers for that. But still a cool innovation with sound and visual integrated from one source.

And what is the coolest product? I think it is the Parrot AR.Drone, a remote-controlled helicopter with a twist. It's controlled over WiFi from an iPhone or iPod Touch, and it has a camera in its snout that streams to your iPhone's screen. It is perfect for domestic use to send out to survey your neighbors to get a sense of what others are doing. It is great way to increase your conversation capital and popularity. The thing is computer-stabilized so not too difficult to manage and no training required. Not sure if these are designed as little brothers of the military ones. For $500, you can comfortably sit in your home and fly your drone for 15 minutes before it requires recharge. It gives new meaning to "Neighborhood Surveillance". It will be available this fall.

---

Idris Mootee is the CEO of idea couture, a strategic innovation and experience design firm. He is the author of four books, tens of published articles, and a frequent speaker at business conferences and executive retreats.

Watch Out Nintendo

Apple Is Pushing The Limits Of "Interactivity" And Going 3D

by Idris Mootee

Apple is going to push the limits of "interactivity" and planning to go 3D. Using a camera to detect a user's position and overlay it onto an any on-screen object, giving the impression of a "reflection" and creating a more immerse experience. Apple's latest technology would address that through the use of a camera or appropriate "sensing mechanism."

Apple is filing a patent on this innovation. The technology is capable of defining the visual properties of different types of surfaces and decide on how well it would reflect light. Using this, images of the user and their environment could be recreated on the screen with effects added. "Using the detected position of the user, the electronic device may use any suitable approach to transform the perspective of three-dimensional objects displayed on the display," the application reads. "For example, the electronic device may use a parallax transform by which three-dimensional objects displayed on the screen may be modified to give the user the impression of viewing the object from a different perspective."

"To further enhance the user's experience, the detected environment may be reflected differently along curved surfaces of a displayed object (e.g. as if the user were actually moving around the displayed object and seeing his reflection based on his position and the portion of the object reflecting the image." It's a kind of a virtual reality, crossing over the real world with a digitally created one, but giving the visual perception that an object is real.

This provide game developers new ways to use their imagination to come up with new games that cross the two worlds. It is a direct challenge to Wii. Nintendo has a lot to worry about. Gaming will go 3D very soon. The Blu-ray Disc Association released its finalized 3D specifications. 3D playback will be "display agnostic," meaning that the format will be compatible across "any compatible 3D display." What exactly a "compatible 3D display" is still an unknown, but I believe we need to get a new TV to watch 3D. PS3 is probably ahead in the game.


Editor's note: Will Apple incorporate this kind of technology into the rumored Apple tablet?

---

Idris Mootee is the CEO of idea couture, a strategic innovation and experience design firm. He is the author of four books, tens of published articles, and a frequent speaker at business conferences and executive retreats.

A Billion Views Cannot Be Wrong

by Kevin Roberts

TV will never die, YouTube will never kill it. YouTube (or its future manifestations) will never die either, TV will never kill it. We're in the world of and/and, where possibilities are not mutually exclusive and creative exposure is based on merit.

A couple of weeks ago, YouTube hit a billion views a day, and the inevitable happened. TV and YouTube are looking at working together. The Daily Telegraph says that the UK's Channel 4 is looking at a deal to sell its own advertising around its own content on YouTube and sharing the revenue with YouTube (read Google). It's like someone moving into your house, renting your living room unsolicited, and giving you a cut of the profits. And I say, good luck to them!!

The power is with the creative champions, and YouTube have proven to be just that. As Steve Jobs said, "creativity is just connecting things." YouTube have connected the techno-geeks, mobile phone users, and home movie recorders together like never before. Their revenue share model has been around for a while, and high volume users are already benefiting from a share of the profits. So why not a TV Channel? It's a Sisomo world, and the game has changed forever. Channel 4 are getting a second bite at their own content, and more importantly, integrating with other platforms online will drive users back to TV, still the focal point of living rooms around the world.

---

Kevin Roberts is the CEO worldwide of The Lovemarks Company, Saatchi & Saatchi. For more information on Kevin, please go to www.saatchikevin.com. To see this blog at its original source, please go to www.krconnect.blogspot.com.

Hulu Fast Becoming a Key Part of a New Industry Architecture

by Idris Mootee

Here are pictures of the Idea Couture team running several days of long sessions at the MIT. Jeff, Partick, Adam and Cheesan were happy with the progress to date and I am so looking forward to see the first milestone. It is just a great project and a great client/partner. Everyone is excited.

While we are on MIT, I came across some early research from MIT Media Lab on "Emotionally Reactive Television", it is a very interesting concept. The idea was from the time TV was created, watching TV is considered as a static activity. TV audiences have very limited choices to interact with TV, such as turning on/off, increasing/decreasing volume, and traversing among different channels. The working thesis is that TV program should have social responses to people, such as affording and accepting audience's emotional feeling with the growth of technologies. This paper presents HiTV, an Emotionally-Reactive TV system using a digitally augmented soft ball as affect-input interfaces that can amplify TV program's video/audio signals. HiTV transforms the original video and audio into effects that intrigue and fulfill people's emotional expectation. This is a super cool idea.



Some people think media should all be free. Just imagine a world where every form of media as we know is accessible for free. Is this the future? We're reaching an industry breakpoint in the world of media, fight between pirates, broadcasters, entertainment labels, demanding consumers heats up, the stakes will get higher, and higher.

The convergence of PC and TV will accelerate. I've participated in debates and forums around the three screen convergence scenario in the telec industry. That means one provider who can deliver a converged/integrated video/entertainment experience to the TV, PC, and mobile device. This is the telcos' dream. The idea is, you're watching something on your TV and you have to leave, you can continue to watch it on the go or so you pause it. Is this something we all wanted?



Analyst Laura Martin (Soleil Securities) crafted a worst case scenario for broadcast media. Martin believes Hulu will wipe out the network television business as we know it. In a recent report, she estimates that the online video hub will cost TV networks $920 per viewer in advertising if their audiences are cannibalized by Hulu. She believes the bulk of viewing on Hulu is indeed taking eyeballs from TV. It definitely makes some sense but there are still many wild cards.

Earlier In May she warned that the entire $300 billion market valuation of the television industry is threatened by the shift of programming from TV to the Web. Spearheading the overthrow of TV-as-we-know-it is Hulu, the premium video site backed by NBC Universal, News Corp. and Walt Disney that offers content from the 120 partners. Martin is very confident that Hulu will succeed in the long term. With more than 38 million monthly viewers who watched 457 million streamed videos, it is 6th-most-visited video site, ahead of competitors like AOL, CBS Interactive and the Turner Network, according to comScore.


Hulu is seeding the value migration for its TV network creators as more content that becomes available on Hulu, the more likely it is that consumers will cut the cable cord altogether. Together with that trend is the less attractive economics of online video to advertisers, which offers higher CPMs but fewer ads. The industry estimates that Hulu runs four ads each hour at a $50 CPM compared to 32 ads during each hour of programming on TV at a $35 CPM. ($1,120-$200 = $920). Hulu did not disclosed actual ad sales or ad rates.



The TV everywhere idea is not new. Except it is getting real. I am not sure if it is so simple. There is a lot of uncertainty about the speed of deployment of new technologies and services, and of their adoption driven innovative user experience design. Hence the implications for spectrum demand and management of all these changes are far from clear; and convergence raises the fundamental question of whether current service definitions will make any sense by the end of next year.

---

Idris Mootee is the CEO of idea couture, a strategic innovation and experience design firm. He is the author of four books, tens of published articles, and a frequent speaker at business conferences and executive retreats.

Missing Mobile Innovation

I came across an interesting article about mobile television takeup.

Verizon, Sprint, and AT&T have all tried to launch mobile TV in the United States, but with takeup at only 1% of cell users it's pretty easy to say that mobile TV has failed to prove itself to be an innovation.

Sure people might find it to be a useful invention, but customers refusal to pay an extra $10-25 per month for it on top of their $40-80 monthly contract, proves that it is not a valuable innovation. So if in the current environment customers might only take up mobile television if it were free, what are the mobile operators to do?

Stop offering mobile television as fast as they can....

That might be a little problematic for Sprint, given that they just signed a $500 million deal with the NFL, but maybe they have an out.

Why do I think that killing mobile TV as fast as possible is the way to go?

The article indicates that the existing offering were launched before sufficient technology was in place. Experience teaches us that launching a technology too soon is sometimes more damaging than not launching it at all. If people have a bad experience with a technology they are likely to do one of two things:

1. Stop using the technology and not try it again for a long time


2. Think the technology provider is at fault, ignore improved options from the same provider, and switch to a different provider instead

Either way the existing operators are likely to lose money in the short-term and long-term revenue opportunity and market share in the long run.

T-Mobile USA has the opportunity (if they are smart) to observe where the others are failing, talk to lots of customers to better understand their needs, and partner with someone like Slingbox to deliver something that customers find worth paying for.

What do you think?

Followup - The Future of Broadcast Television

I finally got my password to the beta program for hulu.com and I must say it is what I thought it would be, a site where you can watch advertising-supported Fox and NBC programming for free. This article is a followup on innovation article #75 of November 11, 2007. ABC.com has been doing this for some time, but this marks the first time that two competing networks have gotten together to share development costs on such a venture. The real question is not whether it will be successful or not, but how successful it might be.


The site sounds a near-certain death knell on iTunes future capacity to offer television content profitably. ABC already has their content for free online, and now NBC and Fox do as well. While some people may want to be able to watch content without commercials, I surely doubt that the size of that market segment are going to be large enough to make it worth the investment in servers and development cost, not to mention marketing and other costs. People that are that adamant about not having commercials, and are willing to pay for that privilege, will surely spring for the DVD instead.

From the networks perspective, surely they get more than a dollar or two in advertising revenue per view, so then it becomes a question of the number of views they get and whether that covers the operational costs. The great thing is that the development costs have already been covered by the broadcast division, so the content is ostensibly free to the online division (with the exception of any royalties they must pay).

This calls into question whether iTunes will really be able to ever succeed in video of any kind, including movies. It is in the networks best interests to host their own content or to host it via a platform that they control. By doing so they not only have the opportunity to increase their revenue, but also to cross-promote - to push people from show to show, or sell DVDs and other merchandise.

Finally, if people consume the content on a platform that they control, the networks have a better opportunity to loyalize consumers and even to elevate their interest to involved fan. If they can elevate their interest from casual viewer to involved fan, they may buy merchandise, but more importantly they are likely to then be worth more in terms of advertising revenue (repeat visits, links out to community sites, etc.).

Hulu.com isn't a revolutionary innovation, but it does bring a few new things to the party when it comes to advertising-supported premium content:

1. Ability to embed a program in any other site on the web
   
• Surprisingly without commercials
• Also allows you to resize the timebar to create a custom clip
2. First site to offer movies for free (advertising supported)
3. At the end of the video clip, it gives you either
   
• A link to the show's web site telling you when the show airs
• A link to Amazon Unbox where you can purchase an episode for $1.99
  
• Three formats (computer, TiVo, or portable device)
• Text saying that people can download or purchase a season (but no link)

Hulu does have the ability to revolutionize the industry in a way that YouTube never will, if they have the vision and the organizational capabilities...

Starting with two major networks' content available gives Hulu the chance to at least try to establish itself as a destination for more than Fox and NBC content, potentially stripping YouTube of its best user-generated and premium content at the same time. Hulu has the chance to establish itself as the platform for introducing all kinds of other advertising-supported premium content:

1. Television and Movie Back-catalogs
2. Foreign and independent content (movies, television and shorts)
3. Public television content
4. Music videos
5. Video podcasts
6. Audio podcasts
7. Audiobooks
8. Temporary promotional content (i.e. concert or other live entertainment teasers)
9. The opportunity to create a new style of infomercial

It will be interesting to see if Hulu seizes the opportunity to create an industry platform instead of just a nice little joint venture. It will also be interesting to see what the effect of Hulu and other premium content sites are on shared networks. I guess we will see.

Do you think Hulu will maintain a closed or open network?