miércoles, 25 de septiembre de 2013

Baekdal Plus - Blackberry Lost the Consumer Market - (by @baekdal)

    Baekdal Plus
Strategic insight and analysis for people in the media industry
http://www.baekdal.com
рекомендовать друзьям >>

  • Blackberry Lost the Consumer Market - (by @baekdal)

    Blackberry has hit rock bottom. Operating revenue is down 50%. It loses almost one billion dollars per quarter. It has more than a billion worth of unsold inventory. It's quarterly sale of smartphones dropped to only 3.7 million units (down from 6.8 million). In comparison, Apple sold 9 million just last weekend.

    It has announced it will cut 40% (4,500 employees) of it's workforce, and plan to cut of expenditure by 50%.

    At the same time, a Canadian insurance company have signed a letter of intent to take Blackberry private, in an effort to lure suckers to come up with a better offer.

    BlackBerry's unusual move to put together a loosely structured deal was motivated by its rapidly deteriorating business, several people close to the situation said. By publicizing a deal with a starting price, the company's hope is that will lure rival offers for part or all of BlackBerry

    None of this sounds promising for the future of Blackberry.

    So what will Blackberry do now? Well, the same thing all big tech companies do when they get in trouble. First, they have announced that they will stop selling smartphones to the consumer market and instead "refocus on enterprise and prosumer market, offering end-to-end solutions, including hardware, software and services."

    It's the same old story. When Microsoft started to struggle to find other revenue streams in an increasingly mobile world, people started suggesting it should just refocus on Office and enterprises. Microsoft, luckily, hasn't done that.

    When Kodak faced bankruptcy, they too hoped that they their digital printing services for enterprises would save them.

    But forget about Microsoft, Kodak and Blackberry for a moment, and just look at the pattern. When tech companies fail, they all refocus on enterprises.

    Why is that?

    Well, isn't it obvious? It's because enterprises are even more out of date than these failing tech companies.

    When the rest of the world starting going mobile, most enterprises started looking at VOIP landline solutions.

    When video conferences became a big deal, most enterprises thought it meant buying Cisco's hideously expensive telepresence solutions. Systems which involves a TV in a meeting room ... and not Hangout or Skype on any device, anywhere.

    When mobile email became critical, they though it meant buying another Lotus Domino server and combine it with a Blackberry messaging server ... and not Google Apps at $5 per month.

    When they needed to start a web shop, they turned to hideously complex and expensive solutions that don't even give them the same features than what you can get with Shopify. But it's integrated, they say. Not realizing that the same integration is actually removing the human element and making the shops feel more like empty supermarkets then a place to be inspired.

    This is the enterprise world. So it's not surprising that Blackberry have decided to refocus on that market. It's just like home. And they might even succeed.

    Personally, I think it's a shame that we now have one less player in the smartphone consumer space. We need the competition.

    But I also think that Blackberry failed not because of its phones, but because of its alliance with enterprise IT. Every single time people had to use a Blackberry, they were reminded by the archaic and cumbersome world of enterprise IT departments.

    Instead, people choose to buy an iPhone or a new Android because they are refreshingly free of all that nonsense.


    Переслать  






 rss2email.ru
Получайте новости с любимых сайтов:   

rss2email.ru       отписаться: http://www.rss2email.ru/unsubscribe.asp?c=31069&u=180536&r=773736329
управление подпиской: http://www.rss2email.ru/manage.asp
партнерская программа: http://partner.rss2email.ru/?pid=1

sábado, 21 de septiembre de 2013

Baekdal Plus - Reuters Next = Reuters Past - (by @baekdal)

    Baekdal Plus
Strategic insight and analysis for people in the media industry
http://www.baekdal.com
рекомендовать друзьям >>

  • Reuters Next = Reuters Past - (by @baekdal)

    Reuters have cancelled their ambitious project called 'Reuters Next'. And what a sad decision that is. The purpose of Reuters Next was simple. Change Reuters from being a B2B news company who produced wire news to sell to other newspapers and turn it into a direct news services connecting them directly with you and me (the reader).

    As Nieman Lab wrote:

    The thinking is obvious: We have all these reporters and editors (over 2,000 in Reuters' case), all around the world, and we're producing all these stories and videos and photos - can't we figure out a way to get them in front of readers and viewers without a middleman?

    It was an obvious move. The old newspaper structure is crumbling, and the need for small individual papers is reduced and replaced by consumer-centric news behemoths (like the NYT and Guardian). Going direct is critical to any news organization's success in a connected world.

    But it was not to be. The internal friction within Reuters proved to big.

    As Politico wrote:

    Reuters Next died, these sources said, because of an ugly meeting of corporate politics, a lack of direction and the realization that money is more important to Thomson Reuters than consumer-focused news.

    The project was marred by a serious lack of direction, serious infighting between groups, and outside consultants and technology being relied on versus internal organization.

    Not to mention that, like most change projects, it lacked overall exec backing and was only held together by a single person.

    After many reorganizations and personnel changes, the tipping point came when then-Digital Editor Chrystia Freeland left Reuters and announced in July she would run for parliament in Canada.

    "Losing Chrystia was the end because she was the leader" an insider said. "She was the board connection she was fighting for us, she was the one really making it happen. Without her there was no one with enough clout to fight within the company, to fight off against all these groups who didn't want us to succeed, didn't want this project to happen.

    As they write: "She was fighting for us". That's only something you do when the company itself don't want change to happen.

    So what will Reuters do now? Well, they will put their focus back on their old site and refocus on their core strengths.

    Next is a long way from achieving either commercial viability or strategic success. In fact, I believe the existing suite of Reuters.com sites is a better starting point for where we need to go," Mr. Rashbass wrote. "Therefore, I have decided to cancel the Next project and put our efforts into enhancing and improving the existing Reuters.com sites. We will repurpose as much of the Next development work as we can for that.

    I know this will feel somewhat 'Back to the Future,' but the existing Reuters.com has many strengths, which I recognize coming from the outside that perhaps people here take for granted.

    In other words. He is giving in to the friction.

    All of this reminds me of Kodak. Once an amazing company that was both innovative and forward thinking, but then the market changed. And while many people at Kodak saw the need for change, the internal friction was so high that they became incapable of moving.

    Kodak launched several interesting projects. For instance, they were the first to implement Wi-Fi in their cameras (and what a great idea), but the friction turned all these great project into niche areas with little overall backing or vision.

    This is what is happening at Reuters. They still see the need for change. They still understand that their old business model is failing. But the internal friction is preventing them from truly risking doing something new. Instead, projects like Reuters Next had to fight for it's survival, and waste all it's time on internal lobbying rather than actually getting things done.

    I don't know if Reuters Next would have been a success. The concept was great, and the purpose of it was just what Reuters needed. But it also had a number of structural problems. For one, the concept of giving people a 'river of news' is not actually what people want, even though the idea of automatically creating sections by topic was brilliant (what we in the blogging world calls 'tagging'). But the real problem was that it was never given the chance to really succeed.

    Reuters is a great company ... but it's behaving more and more like Kodak. And It's now also faced with the problem that the most prominent forward thinking people have left the company, leaving behind those who created the friction in the first place.

    In many ways, I also think this tells the story of how I believe most newspapers will fail. We see the same pattern in most newsrooms. Their internal friction is so high that the change that they do make is limited to making iPad apps that remind you more of the old print model. And over time, just as it happened at Kodak, this friction will kill them ... one by one.

    This is also why I think the future of news is going to come from somewhere else. In the shift I wrote about how our media world is merging, but in reality, what we are seeing is that the old media industry is fading out.

    There are a few exceptions, of course. But the future of news won't come from the news industry. The internal friction is simply too high.


    Переслать  






 rss2email.ru
Получайте новости с любимых сайтов:   

rss2email.ru       отписаться: http://www.rss2email.ru/unsubscribe.asp?c=31069&u=180536&r=773736329
управление подпиской: http://www.rss2email.ru/manage.asp
партнерская программа: http://partner.rss2email.ru/?pid=1

jueves, 19 de septiembre de 2013

Baekdal Plus - The Future of Packaged News - (by @baekdal)

    Baekdal Plus
Strategic insight and analysis for people in the media industry
http://www.baekdal.com
рекомендовать друзьям >>





 rss2email.ru
Получайте новости с любимых сайтов:   

rss2email.ru       отписаться: http://www.rss2email.ru/unsubscribe.asp?c=31069&u=180536&r=773736329
управление подпиской: http://www.rss2email.ru/manage.asp
партнерская программа: http://partner.rss2email.ru/?pid=1

jueves, 5 de septiembre de 2013

Baekdal Plus - Rethink Your Ecommerce Strategy - (by @baekdal)

    Baekdal Plus
Strategic insight and analysis for people in the media industry
http://www.baekdal.com
рекомендовать друзьям >>





 rss2email.ru
Получайте новости с любимых сайтов:   

rss2email.ru       отписаться: http://www.rss2email.ru/unsubscribe.asp?c=31069&u=180536&r=773736329
управление подпиской: http://www.rss2email.ru/manage.asp
партнерская программа: http://partner.rss2email.ru/?pid=1

viernes, 30 de agosto de 2013

Baekdal Plus - Sources and Copyright - (by @baekdal)

    Baekdal Plus
Strategic insight and analysis for people in the media industry
http://www.baekdal.com
рекомендовать друзьям >>

  • Sources and Copyright - (by @baekdal)

    There is an interesting discussion in my country about copyright. The whole thing started after a scientist, who had been interviewed for an article, decided to republish it on his own site. The newspaper then demanded he took it down and issued a copyright fine of $2,000.

    Okay, let's ignore the specific case and instead talk about the concept. Who actually owns the copyright of stories in which the contents come from someone being interviewed?

    In the past, and because ordinary people had no means of publishing, we assumed that the copyright would fall upon the publication publishing it. So when a journalist interviewed a person, we assumed the newspaper owned the copyright.

    But now that we live in the connected world, in which everyone can publish anything, that whole concept is up for debate.

    In my country, the copyright law states:

    The person creating a literary or artistic work shall have copyright therein, be it expressed in writing or in speech as a fictional or a descriptive representation, or whether it be a musical or dramatic work, cinematographic or photographic work, or a work of fine art, architecture, applied art, or expressed in some other manner.

    In other words, the copyright belongs to the creator, not the mediator. And while a journalist might claim that they created the article, it was the person they interviewed who created the actual story.

    Also, what is a copyright? Is it the exact construction of the sentences on a page ... or is it the contents of the interview? If it's the construction, the copyright falls to the journalist, but if it's the interview, the copyright belongs to the person being interviewed.

    Also, my country's copyright law is specifically protecting against reproduction (as with the law in most other countries). What is reproduction?

    Any direct or indirect, temporary or permanent reproduction, in whole or in part, by any means and in any form, shall be considered as reproduction.

    In other words, if a newspaper interviews a person, what the person says belongs to him/her. So essentially, when a newspaper interview you, you are only granting them a non-exclusive right to reproduce it, but you still own what you said.

    So republishing the article, in which you are interviewed on your own site, can't be a breach of the newspaper's copyright because they never owned the copyright to begin with ... or did they?

    See the dilemma? The connected world isn't linear.

    The issue at play here is really not about copyright. It's about the shift. It's about how limitations of the past caused us to create the assumption that the person publishing an article was also the creator. But now that everyone can publish, we start to realize just how much content that is being produced in which the actual creator is not also the publisher.

    As the copyright law says: "be it expressed in writing or in speech."

    And it's about what I have been saying for a long time. You need to stop being the 'bringer of news' and focus instead on being the creator of news.

    What do you think?

    Keep in mind, I'm not a lawyer, but it's a fascinating discussion.

    (Image via MIKI Yoshihito http://goo.gl/WTU7p7 )


    Переслать  






 rss2email.ru
Получайте новости с любимых сайтов:   

rss2email.ru       отписаться: http://www.rss2email.ru/unsubscribe.asp?c=31069&u=180536&r=773736329
управление подпиской: http://www.rss2email.ru/manage.asp
партнерская программа: http://partner.rss2email.ru/?pid=1

lunes, 26 de agosto de 2013

Baekdal Plus - Kevin Spacey and the Shift - (by @baekdal)

    Baekdal Plus
Strategic insight and analysis for people in the media industry
http://www.baekdal.com
рекомендовать друзьям >>

  • Kevin Spacey and the Shift - (by @baekdal)

    This is brilliant: Kevin Spacey on why TV execs need to change:

    And this, of course, doesn't just apply to TV. It applies to all content creators and distributers. Put your audience in control ... complete control.

    Let them decide what to see, when to see it, how to see it, why they want to see it ... and stop focusing your business models on constraints and distribution deals.

    As you might know, Kevin Spacey is behind the hugely popular 'House of Cards' series on Netflix. One that completely challenged all traditional thinking when it came to TV series. They released all episode at once, to be watched from day one on all devices, and in every country.

    In other words, the complete opposite of what the traditional TV studies are doing.

    Full talk

    Here is the full 45-minute talk:


    Переслать  






 rss2email.ru
Получайте новости с любимых сайтов:   

rss2email.ru       отписаться: http://www.rss2email.ru/unsubscribe.asp?c=31069&u=180536&r=773736329
управление подпиской: http://www.rss2email.ru/manage.asp
партнерская программа: http://partner.rss2email.ru/?pid=1

domingo, 25 de agosto de 2013

Baekdal Plus - She Forgot To Have a Life - (by @baekdal)

    Baekdal Plus
Strategic insight and analysis for people in the media industry
http://www.baekdal.com
рекомендовать друзьям >>

  • She Forgot To Have a Life - (by @baekdal)

    This video seems to be popular today. It's the age old question of how technology distances us from the moment and the apparent lack of sociality.

    But I don't really see a problem here. This is only a problem if you assume that face-to-face communication is the only real form.

    What I see here is a generational problem, not a technological or a communicational. We have been brought up in a world where face-to-face communication was the only viable form that we had. Today that's no longer true. And, we are now learning how to live our lives in a world where communication is not a product of a short geographic distance.

    There are some scenes that makes me cringe. Like the one where two girls have a drink, or the bowling scene ... she really needs to get some better friends.

    But that has nothing to do with our phones. You could reproduce all those scenes 20 years ago, as well. Not paying attention to others has always been a problem throughout the history of humanity.

    But there is another story to this as well.

    Take the scene of the two kids on a swing. One is having fun swinging while the other is using her phone. If you are from the old generation (which we all are), you are probably thinking that this is terrible. Why isn't she playing with the other kid? Oh no... she must be lonely!

    This is the old way of thinking. The way in which people think kids can only be social if they adopt an extrovert face-to-face lifestyle. But that kid might be more socially engaged than the other kid. She might be networking. She might be catching up on something that really inspires her. She might be creating the basis for her future dreams.

    The other kid is just playing on a swing, how boring is that?

    That's really the point of this. We are learning that there are more than just one way of communicating. We are learning that face-to-face is kind of limiting. We are learning about the power of both introverts and extroverts, and how they interact in different ways.

    Or just look the main character.

    I see a woman who is living a very boring life. Look at her activities. Staying in bed doing nothing, exercising, going out to a coffee shop, walking on the beach alone, having a drink, bowling, and going to a bar.

    This woman doesn't seem to have a life. All those activities are things you do just to 'spend time'.

    Where is the passion? Where are her interests? What drives her to get up in the morning? What makes her focus and feel really excited about something?

    She doesn't have a life.

    She needs to find something that inspires her. Something can give her purpose in her life. And then she needs to join up (via many forms of communication) with other people with similar interests.

    She is not lonely because all her friends are playing with their phones. She is lonely because her chosen environment has no purpose.

    And this is the true story, I believe, of the problem of the old generation. Because of the limitations of face-to-face communication, many people couldn't do what they cared about because of the distance involved. As such, many people don't really have a life. They sleep, work, and 'spend time'. But they are never actually doing anything.

    That's the real problem.


    Переслать  






 rss2email.ru
Получайте новости с любимых сайтов:   

rss2email.ru       отписаться: http://www.rss2email.ru/unsubscribe.asp?c=31069&u=180536&r=773736329
управление подпиской: http://www.rss2email.ru/manage.asp
партнерская программа: http://partner.rss2email.ru/?pid=1

jueves, 22 de agosto de 2013

Baekdal Plus (2 сообщения)

    Baekdal Plus
Strategic insight and analysis for people in the media industry
http://www.baekdal.com
рекомендовать друзьям >>

  • Simple Ways To Dramatically Enhance Your Presentations - (by @baekdal)

    Many readers of Baekdal Plus have a job that involves giving presentations on a somewhat regular basis, and I often get emails from friends and readers asking me how I make the graphics for my articles.

    I actually already wrote an article about that in "Inside the Graphics of Baekdal", but whenever I talk about graphics, people usually 'give up' without even trying because they think it's too hard. Some people just don't think they have what it takes while others think they need to know advanced tools like Illustrator.

    So in this article I'm going to take a slight detour from my usual writing and show you how you can create stunning illustrations using just PowerPoint or Keynote. And, I'm only going to use four different tools: The rectangle, circle, triangle and bezier tool.

    One example:

    Before we start

    There are a few simple ground rules that you should follow when creating presentations. The first being to NEVER use standard templates... never!

    I can't tell you how many times I have seen a presentation like this:

    It's just absolutely dreadful.

    So the very first thing you should do is to use a blank template and delete all guide elements on the page.

    Secondly, don't add titles and company logos to your pages. This is a presentation, not a letter to your accountant. Get rid of all that extra junk. The only thing there should be on the page is a simplified representation of the point you want to make.

    The story

    Another very important thing is that you should not think of your presentation as a presentation. You are telling people a story and everything has to move with that story. In my other article, I used the example of a sales chart.

    Here is how most people do it:

    Here is exactly the same illustration, but now the graphics grow to illustrate the 'story' of your sales growth. It's such a simple change but it makes a huge difference.

    Colors and style

    Another very important thing to keep in mind is to have a visual style. The first part of that is to choose a color palette that you are going to use throughout every single slide of your presentation.

    This is often a problem for most people because they don't have any idea what colors go well together, but there is a very simple workaround for that. Just go to Adobe Kuler and pick whatever color palette that you like.

    You can just click and each one of these and get the color values, which you can then add to PowerPoint or Keynote when selecting the color.

    And if you need more than just the five colors, make one of the colors 15% darker or lighter.

    Note: In this article I'm using the 'Firenze' color palette at the top right.

    Next is your use of fonts. The best thing to do is just use one, but I usually use two. I use Helvetica Neue Condensed for all the labels and general information, and then I use a handwritten font for notes and things that people should pay attention to. In some cases I also use Arial Rounded if my illustrations involve a lot of curved surfaces. It just helps it give it a softer tone. And in case you need it, you can always head over to DaFont where you can find any font you need.

    But the trick is to use as few colors and fonts as possible, as consistently as possible.

    Okay, so that is the basics. Do this and you are 50% there!

    Awesomeness with shapes

    Many people think they need Illustrator if they want to create something pretty, but you can do so much with just basic shapes. Let's start off with a few simple examples:

    Graphs can be pretty boring, but with just a nice little touch they can appear different from all the other graphs you have seen before. Like this one:

    And you don't need special tools or apps to make this. All you need is the bezier tool and here is how it's done.

    Those funny looking things are just weird shapes placed on top of the graph and then colored to match.

    If you don't like to use the bezier tool, you can do this even more simply... using just a square and two circles. It's done but placing each object on top of the others and making the circles the same color as the background.

    The fat graph

    Here is another graph that can make your presentation look unique:

    This one is made using nothing but a simple circle, using the same concept as above. Just draw a circle overlapping the normal graph and you have something special.

    The triangle and the circle

    Let's step up the game a bit. What about this nifty way to illustrate your most valuable channels?

    It looks pretty good, and one would assume you would need an advanced presentation app to make it, right? Well, no. This is made using nothing but a triangle and two circles. Here is the breakdown:

    Make the length of the triangle the way you want it and then color and rotate each group into place.

    We can then expand on this and compare value versus traffic, for example:

    The hollow box

    Here is another simple example of how to create something that looks special, but isn't:

    Like all the other examples, this too is made using just rectangles, triangles and a circle stacked on top of each other. And the white space inside the box is just a white rounded square.

    In fact, using objects that are the same color as the background can produce remarkable illustrations. Here is the first graph with a large white circle on top of it. It makes that graph look amazing.

    The teardrop

    Another way to spice things up is to use different shapes for ordinary things. One example is the teardrop. It's a super simple object, but it can make such a big difference. All you do is to use the bezier tool. Set a point at the top, another at the bottom, and then click back at the top.

    And just to spice things up even more we add a thick border to it.

    The tear drop can be used for so many great things. Here are two examples:

    Or we could make them more balloon-like and combine that with the 'fat' graph from before. The result is something like this:

    The sales volume chart

    Finally, let's end this with one more illustration. One that combines both an ordinary graph with a simplified representation of the data. Like this one:

    The graph at the top is a real line-graph. All I have done is to remove the Y and X axis and all the graph lines and labels.

    The four boxes underneath summarizing sales per month are just rounded squares, arrows and eight white rounded squares. Here is a breakdown:

    How simple is that?

    Animation

    Now let's move on to animation. The most basic rule is that you should never use animation unless you absolutely have to. Above all, avoid using animation just to change slides or to make something fly onto the screen.

    But, there are cases in which animation serves an important role in telling people the story you want to tell. In which the movement itself can help people better understand the point you are trying to make.

    Audio

    Finally, a little 'wow' tip I have used many times in the past. Every single time I had to present something that involved a video, I would place a couple of good speakers underneath the conference table - out of sight of the people I had a meeting with.

    So the the only thing people saw was my laptop (or later, my iPad). But when the video started, this deep and massive sound was reflected off the walls from underneath the table.

    People expect to hear this weak laptop speaker sound, but what they get is something completely different - and it just blows them away.

    Note: If they ask, you tell the truth that you put a couple of really good speakers under the table. It's not about cheating your audience. It is about doing something that breaks their expectations.

    I have seen people completely change their behavior just because of simple things like this. They showed up bored and indifferent but then realized that I was not just going to show them another PowerPoint presentation. This was prepared, cared for, and nurtured because it was important.

    Everyone can do it

    I hope I have inspired your appetite to create much more beautiful and engaging presentations. It doesn't take special skills. This is something anyone can do. And you don't need to learn Illustrator or buy fancy apps. All the illustrations in this article were made with the rectangle, circle, triangle and bezier tool, using just Keynote (and you can do the same in PowerPoint).

    And it doesn't take much longer to do. The time it takes to make a circle versus a teardrop is measured in seconds.

    In fact, this is how I work. I don't use Illustrator or other fancy tools. I create 99% of my illustrations in Keynote using just these simple techniques. The key is to make it super-simple while giving it an edge.

    If you show your audience that you care about the quality of your presentation both with the message, the story, the visuals and the audio, chances are that they will be far more open to what you have to say.

    Be a hero!


    Переслать  


  • The Future of Customer Attribution Models - (by @baekdal)

    The big topic for marketers these days is customer attribution models, and it is a fantastically important topic. Partly because we are only now getting to a point where our data modeling services can actually tell us anything useful, and partly because in the connected world of abundance (of channels), measuring ROI is critical to our success.

    Baekdal Plus: Read the rest of this article in Baekdal Plus


    Переслать  






 rss2email.ru
Получайте новости с любимых сайтов:   

rss2email.ru       отписаться: http://www.rss2email.ru/unsubscribe.asp?c=31069&u=180536&r=773736329
управление подпиской: http://www.rss2email.ru/manage.asp
партнерская программа: http://partner.rss2email.ru/?pid=1