After the annoyingly strange Jerry Seinfeld/Bill Gates commercials promoting Microsoft, a new batch of adverts surfaced featuring the slogan “I’m a PC.” It goes something like this: Microsoft employees and users are meshed together in a montage of “I’m a PC and I [fill in stereotype of your choice here]” in a battle against Apple’s commercials portraying a PC negatively. Because, as they say in the ads, a PC is not a stereotype. But grouping all PC users in as Microsoft supporters is not?
Well, I’d like to go out and say I’m a PC, but I can’t give Microsoft all the credit in that decision.
By the way, why is Microsoft able to benefit from the term PC? Last time I checked, PC stood for personal computer and Wikipedia defines that as “any computer whose original sales price, size and capabilities make it useful for individuals, and which is intended to be operated directly by an end user, with no intervening computer operator.” So regardless of the operating system, aren’t we all using PCs?
Please, correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t I just as much as PC user with my Linux operating system as you are with your Mac operating system? And, no, I have not forgotten that MS-DOS was the catalyst making the personal computer a reality. But nowadays, Windows is just one of the operating systems that make our PC world go ‘round.
Do you automatically associate being a PC user with Microsoft Windows? If so, is it because we’ve been trained to think PC = Microsoft? Maybe. Look at the constant barrage of ads we’re faced with. It happens every single day with everything. We automatically call all tissues Kleenex, gelatin of all brands is Jell-O and no one flinches when asked to “Xerox it.”
Is Microsoft playing into our ad vulnerability? Worse, are we falling for it? Let me know what you think.
Finally, we may be seeing the end of the business card.
I always forget to bring my business cards to the events and conferences I attend. On the rare occasion I do remember to grab a small handful from my desk drawer, actually handing them out seems … so out of date. If I don’t even like carrying my own cards around, why should I expect someone else to want it? They smudge, they wrinkle (who wants to hand out a finger-printed and bent, tiny white card?) and they’re a bit of a hassle.
Plus, how many do they ship you in a box? A million? Who actually goes through all those? And information changes, you need to get another million shipped out to you and before you know it, you’re sitting on 5 million crinkled-up cards that no one (including you) actually wants.
When I attended the MIT EmTech Conference this week, I remembered to bring along my necessary (professional contact) evil. To my surprise, when I registered I did not get the usual name card on a promotional lanyard – I was handed what looked like a remote control (on a lanyard). When turned up to face me, it vibrated and beeped to life – displaying a brightly lit options screen and introducing itself as an nTAG.
Slightly bulky but surprisingly light, the nTag is built around the world’s first interactive name badge and provides a communication solution for the events and meetings industry. According to the site, the nTag (created in 2004 by Rick Borovoy and George Eberstadt) “pioneered face-to-face social networking solutions via wearable technology.”
Equipped with an electronic agenda, a messaging system, event information, your personal profile and contact information, and a way to wirelessly share this information nTAG to nTAG, you can practically say goodbye to your registration packet and business cards. And those “hello my name is” stickers? Never again. When you get within conversation-distance of someone wearing the nTAG, his name flashes up on your screen with the option to add as a contact.
On top of all that, the reusable devices eliminate all the waste (paper and time) of events packets.
All in all, the nTAG was useful and fun. I didn’t have to hand out a single business card (even though I’m dying to get rid of them) and I could update my profile and check out my contacts during the … umm … slower presentations.
Do your users pay attention to dialog box pop-ups? If you’re thinking, “yes, of course,” read on.
A recent study by members of the psychology department at North Carolina State University shows most people do not pay any attention to these dialog boxes – even when presented with information indicating potential malware.
The authors created four fake dialog boxes – one of them was indistinguishable from standard Windows dialog systems. From subtle (moving the mouse over the “OK” button would cause the cursor to turn to a hand — typical of browser control) to blatant (alternating between black text and a white background to white text on a black background), the dialog boxes should have been a tip-off to users that something wasn’t right.
The study was conducted by loading a series of medical websites to a panel of 42 college students, who were told to watch the sites and expect questions to follow. The fake dialog boxes were loaded randomly and the responses of the users were tracked. The response time showed the users did not spend any time evaluating the fakes. During the follow-up questions, students found “any dialog box a distraction from their assigned task; nearly half said that all they cared about was getting rid of these dialogs.”
Is there just no time for “dialog box speed bumps?” With the quick-answer Web-search service ChaCha growing in popularity, are we all too busy to even search for answers on the Web? Wasn’t that the point of the Web in the first place – a place to access information from all over the globe?
Are your users too busy to pay attention? Should you rethink the use of dialog boxes and consider another venue for that information?
As quickly as they started, the Microsoft/Jerry Seinfeld/Bill Gates ads have ended. Phew.
The nonsensical ads left viewers scratching their heads and Seinfeld with quite a heavy pocket. The comedian reportedly earned $10 million for the commercials in Microsoft’s attempt to connect with its target audience.
But who is Microsoft’s target audience? It may not be the twentysomethings … but choosing 54-year-old Seinfeld as the funny man may be meant to attract the “thirty- and fortysomething business community” Marc Ippolito, president of Burns Entertainment & Sports Marketing, told Computerworld.com. The Wall Street Journal reported Microsoft turned down Will Farrell and Chris Rock because it didn’t want to seem like it was catering too much to the younger market.
In an interview with Computerworld.com, Microsoft spokesman Frank X. Shaw confirmed the plan to have “two teaser ads” (no — the weird Seinfeld/Gates ads weren’t cancelled, this was all planned). The next leg of Microsoft’s attempt at revitalizing the slogan “I’m a PC” includes celebrities (Eva Longoria and Pharell Williams among them) as the company works overtime to overcome the stigma Apple attached to being a PC.
What won’t you have to see again? Seinfeld asking Gates for a Microsoft product that makes computers “moist and chewy like cake.”
[kml_flashembed movie="http://www.youtube.com/v/rIjNJZpRtj8" width="425" height="350" wmode="transparent" /]
Web 2.0, the user-generated content explosion, has changed the Internet. Social networking sites, blogs and wikis are everywhere, allowing users to create their own spaces and connect with people across the globe. Few social networking sites, however, charge a fee. I certainly would not have joined Facebook (at least initially) if I had to sign up for a paid subscription. But then again, the only purpose Facebook serves me is a social one. Once you start examining your professional social networking options – the cost may be worth it.
For a CIO looking to make contacts and be privy to a host of subscription-only media, WSJ.com may be the way to go.
The paid subscription includes some enticing extras. The self-guided tour (albeit a bit campy — inviting you to “stop by and discover” with “more content to uncover”) provides brief descriptions of the new site additions.
Overall, the redesign boasts an updated look and feel with enhanced story pages (video, audio and interactive graphics), news highlights (which can also be managed as a direct feed to Facebook, My Space, your desktop or even your blog), subscriber-exclusive content, a member community, Mobile Reader (a service for your BlackBerry so you can access your account on the go) and Journal Women (featuring women in business, politics, science, the arts and the world).
There is certainly a lot going on in the new and improved WSJ.com – and a lot of mixed reviews surrounding it.
On one side, some reviewers found the paid subscription to be a deterrent to new readers. Being blocked behind a pay wall could discourage casual browsers and they might look for news elsewhere. On the other side, satisfied reviewers were drawn to the exclusivity factor – developing contacts within, what some have referred to as, an elite group.
Do CIOs see the benefits of paid social networking subscriptions when so many of them are offered for free? Or has The Wall Street Journal missed the Web 2.0 boat?
LinkedIn, a social networking site for business professionals, has been in such high demand amongst advertisers that it will be launching its own advertising network. What made LinkedIn such a sought-after site? The registered users.
According to LinkedIn’s June 2008 demographic data, the site’s registered users seem to be an advertiser’s dream. The data claims that the average household income of its members is $110,000, 49% are business decision makers and the average age is 41.
Facebook, another popular social networking site, has 90 million active users (who have returned to the site in the last 30 days) and is the second-most-trafficked PHP site in the world, according to the site. Facebook ads are targeted to users based on their preferences, status (employment, marital, etc.) and general information (age, gender, etc.). But Facebook began as a college networking site back in 2004 that was extended to high schools, and then later to the general population. That’s a lot of users, but the users can be just about anyone – not necessarily decision makers, the employed or people interested in spending money.
OK, so maybe comparing LinkedIn to Facebook is an apples-to-oranges comparison.
In LinkedIn’s claim to have “a younger, more affluent, more influential and harder-to-find audience than the leading business sites” it included statistics for Forbes.com and BusinessWeek.com. For Forbes.com users, the average household income is $93,896, 38% are decision makers and the average age is 47. BusinessWeek.com users average a household income of $95,668, 42% are decision makers and the average age is 48.
With such a desirable audience, LinkedIn’s ad network could be raking in the dough – but what does this mean for the users? Well, whenever someone visits LinkedIn, a cookie will be placed on his or her browser identifying the user as a LinkedIn member when he or she visits partner sites. Opting out is possible, but unless you’re familiar with the changes, would anyone even know to opt out?
In 2007 when Facebook announced it would open user profiles to search engines, traffic to the Facebook privacy page spiked. But since then, traffic to the page has been relatively flat. Obviously, people care about their privacy – but they may be unaware of what they can do.
For CIOs (and any business professional, for that matter), being part of a social networking site like LinkedIn is beneficial. LinkedIn boasts 24 million users representing 150 industries around the world. With such an expansive network of people to connect to, you’re able to make connections, see where people have moved in their careers and even market yourself for a new job or position. But is being sold as a “desirable audience” a fair trade? Is privacy becoming more of a privilege on the Web, as opposed to a right?
How important is it, as a CIO, to have a fashion-accessory phone? What about if said phone is sexy – unlike some of the more boring models?
Windows Mobile is boring. According to Mikael Nerde, head of the accessory and developer program for Sony Ericsson, “Win Mobile has so many great functions, but it just looks really, really boring.”
Efficient and well-known, but boring nonetheless. Just look at how Apple represents Windows in the Mac commercials – pocket-protector clad, bumbling, nervous Windows up against a younger, more confident Mac.
What is the Apple appeal? Apple showed the world it’s entirely possible to be smart and sexy with their “sexed up smartphone”—the iPhone. What makes the iPhone such a hit? A Handango Inc.- sponsored panel discussion decided it’s a “mixture of Apple CEO Steve Jobs’ marketing ‘mojo,’ the success of its App Store, integrated functionality and more.”
Smart, sexy and functional? Sounds great. But is sexiness necessary for those using their phone primarily for business purposes?
Well, for the mobile competitors, sexiness is necessary. That is, if they want to compete with the “one to beat” iPhone in the mobile world.
Research In Motion Ltd. (RIM) introduced a new member to the BlackBerry family – the BlackBerry Pearl Flip 8220. Available later in the year, the “not just for business users” model is smaller, more stylish and still retains the features you would expect in a BlackBerry.
Sprint Nextel Corp. is also releasing new phones later this year. Three of the five new consumer phones will have a new user interface called Sprint One Click. One Click is similar to Apple’s carousel functionality; it allows users to drop the icons of commonly-used applications on their home screen for one-click access.
OK so Win Mobile is boring and Apple is sexy – but do CIOs really care about how sexy their mobile device is? I don’t know, you tell me.
All in all, it seems mobile phones are bringing sexy back – and using the iPhone as a benchmark.
What we did this week:
Suggested CIOs have a little mercy on their overworked security experts and data architects.
Imagined a world without microsoft.
Wondered why on earth CIOs would take themselves out of disaster recovery planning.
Seriously, get on that whole disaster recovery thing. The planning takes longer than you think.
You can’t really stop the government from hacking your phones. But you can try to stop everyone else.
Earlier this week on searchCIO-Midmarket.com I wrote about IBM’s pitch (with partners) for a “Microsoft-free desktop.”
It seems a little far-fetched. Then again, we got an email yesterday from an IT director outlining how he very much is trying this, albeit not necessarily using IBM.
All said, it got us to thinking here: What if Microsoft never existed? You know, like in It’s A Wonderful Life. How would the world be different?
A few ideas (thank you to Colin Steele at SearchITChannel.com for pitching in here):
Steve Ballmer would be a used-car salesman.
Justin Long wouldn’t be famous (thank God).
Redmond, Wash., would be best known as the bicycle capital of the Northwest.
South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut would be missing its best joke. We won’t link to it here (it’s pretty violent, for a cartoon), but it has to do with Windows and there’s this cool little video site called YouTube.…
Antitrust would still be most synonymous with Standard Oil.
Failures (who think they are actually geniuses) wouldn’t say things like “Bill Gates dropped out of Harvard.”
We wouldn’t have Xbox. (Wait. So what?)
No lame “hot male” jokes.
Oh, who am I kidding? We’d probably all be out of a job.
I used to write for newspapers. Which is a bit like saying I was a telegraph operator, in that both jobs carry a certain romanticism linked to their glory years and are widely considered irrelevant today.
As Nelson on The Simpsons once pointed out: “Ha ha. Your medium is dying.”
But as news gathering shifts to a more affordable, more equitable and more easily distributed medium, a part of me worries people don’t realize the value of newspapers – that is, the value of physical newspapers that have already been printed.
I recognize that a huge part of master data management is about knowing what not to keep. I also recognize the “Big Brother” fears that come with the Internet’s relentless cataloging of information.
But, anecdotally, this country is losing its history. Like I said, I’ve worked in newspapers. I can personally assure you that community papers – arguably the most important newspapers, historically speaking – are not properly cataloging and safeguarding their physical archives.
Once something is gone – it’s gone. Which says a lot about being sure your IT department has a comprehensive and clear data storage scheme.
So thank-freaking-God for Google on this one. In its quest to index all of the world’s information, the decade-old behemoth has started to scan and catalog newspaper archives.
Admittedly, newspapers, especially those written by 21-year-olds in small Vermont towns with little editor oversight (here’s looking at me) are often wrong or not completely informed. And much of the information becomes seemingly irrelevant by the next morning.
But you don’t know what you’ve got ‘til it’s gone, and you often don’t know what you need until you need it.
Imagine, for a moment, that your governor or potential vice president came up in a small town that largely escaped blog watchers and the city pages of the major metro papers. Wouldn’t it be great to have universal, uninterrupted access to the pages of the local weekly, allowing anyone in the world to dig into this person’s public history?
And, as The New York Times article points out, obituaries, birth announcements, wedding announcements and the like are invaluable when tracking family lineage – a tedious task under any circumstances.
Certainly, piecemeal cataloging is occurring. An otherwise dismissible trend story I once wrote about vandalism to city property has been sourced on the Wikipedia entry for “street sign theft,” for example.
But that’s just one story. I would be thrilled if I could use Google to access images of everything I’ve ever written. (Not everyone would be so excited — I covered crime and criminal courts and printed the names of alleged criminal offenders daily.)
Again, I know for a fact that some small newspapers in this country are one building fire away from losing their entire archive. Sure, most small papers have an extra set of microfilm stored away in a second location. Still … things go neglected and missing. That would be a travesty.
Google stands to make money here, of course, but our nation will benefit by having the folks in Mountain View contract to preserve our history free of charge.