I was sitting through a rather uneventful keynote speech about a change from customer relationships to customer experience at TFM&A in London the other day, and one of the topics that briefly surfaced was around how the recent horse meat scandal has impacted our overall trust and experience with supermarkets and meat products in general. But has the impact been isolated to only the FMCG sector or has it changed our wider perception and trust in products in general? Have a case of horse meat changed how we ultimately trust any brand?

Brands spend billions every year on building up trust and loyalty amongst their customers, hoping to turn them and their friends into brand ambassadors, or customers for life. The FMCG industry is amongst the biggest spenders, so when something like the horse meat scandal comes along it could have ramifications beyond the scope of what it could seem to be on the surface; a bad case of poor industry wide supply chain quality control. This is no longer about a case of mislabeling of meat content. This is now about a paradigm change in consumer perception, and ultimately behaviour.

Do I have any scientific evidence for this statement? No, these are hypothesis that remains to be proven, but from simply listening to people discuss the scandal, and my own thinking around this, it would make a very interesting case for research. Although likely hard to measure with a decent degree of accuracy. The best case is likely going to be how the immediately affected FMCG industry will experience this over the coming months.

Back to the keynote. If the key to success is consumer experiences, one has to take into consideration that a consumers experience of a brand or product goes way beyond just the physical experience, but also includes the conscious, and subconscious experience. While time (and money) can help in restoring some credibility to the industry, that lingering subconscious thought that you are not 100% sure that what you are buying is what it says it is, can be more tricky to get past. For products like meat that we physically eat, that lingering doubt could be the difference between success and failure, but I also believe that we could easily start asking ourselves those same questions when it comes to other products as well, thereby causing a wider change in consumer behaviour.

Then again, mistakes leads to new opportunities. Where some brands will fall, other will emerge and take their role. Hopefully not repeating the same mistakes.

It is natural for a business to chase growth and wanting to get bigger and more successful. But there are many potential traps along the growing path, with one of the key ones being customer experience with your brand and managing brand perception along the way.

Recently I was reading about how a coffee chain (Starbucks) are trying to grow their overall market by increasing their presence outside the high street, to now also include motorway service stations and onboard trains (UK). The issue in the article was the inconsistency in customer experience, perhaps a cause of chasing growth, but either way a cause of concern.

Being what can only be described as a brand loyalist when it comes to Starbucks, I can indentify with these issues. There is a reason why one becomes a loyal customer of a coffee shop; one likes the taste of their drinks. If that experience becomes too inconsistent from store to store, that causes confusion around the brand, and potentially reducing the lifetime value of that customer.

When chasing growth for ones business it is therefore important that one considers the following factors along the way:

1) can I maintain a consistent customer/brand experience as I grow the business?

2) if not, what is the cost impact on core business compared to benefit of reaching a wider market?

3) If you can’t maintain a good and consistent customer experience, and the ROI of growth is not great, DON’T DO IT!

This will of course have to be analysed constantly throughout the lifetime of your business, based on your core objectives and strategy.

While his main brand sponsors have all cut their endorsement of Lance Armstrong as a person, most of them continue to support the cause that was built by Lance Armstrong; Livestrong and their fight against cancer. Part of what has enabled this is Lance Armstrong stepping down as a chairman of the organization (he remains a board member), therefore not being the front of the charity in the same way as he used to be.

The fact that brands like Nike etc. continues their support of Livestrong, through amongst other the product range, has led me to think that this whole process has been a collaborative one between the sponsors and the people around Lance. Although Lance Armstrong is still claiming his innocence, he and his supporters understand how damaging the USADA report is, and that as soon as it came out it became all about damage control. That damage control included steps needed to be taken to ensure the good work that Livestrong as a charity represents, and how being linked to that organization can still be good for the brands involved. Distancing themselves from the person to refocus on the work that the charity represents seems like the right first step to make, for all parties in this situation, including Lance Armstrong himself. This is about protecting the good work that has been done outside the ‘dirty’ world of cycling.

While the brand Lance Armstrong is tarnished forever, the work that brands like Nike has put into the relationship over the years does not necessarily have to end up reflecting bad on the sponsor, because of how it has been largely focused on fighting a good cause and not only about his cycling. This sponsorship (partnership) has been about more than the person and the brand, therefore taking the steps that have been taken means that the brands can limit the damage, and start building further on the foundation of the charitable work which has had and contiunes to have such an impact on the life of millions of people.

What we have seen over the last few months is what brand management is all about; limiting risk, reducing damage, build on the positives, and stay true to your brand.

Fact is that the tablet market did not really exists before Apple launched their iPad so they immediately defined the category and set the benchmark for which all other tablets would be judged. So what did the competition do, they tried to capitalize on the consumer interest in tablets by launching a bunch of ‘copy cats’ that although might have equal or better technical specifications, failed to have produce a different, relevant, and credible alternative to the iPad. Don’t get me wrong, i believe that the Android OS provides a credible alternative to iOS, and it is clearly different. This is not an issue of operating systems, although the whole infrastructure surrounding it plays a big part, but rather of positioning in the market. So far the competition has been “me too” followers, and in this case, the consumer is not stupid.

As Sam Grobart in his Gadgetwise article correctly pointed out, there has been a lack of competition in the tablet market that has played right into the hands of Apple that during the last year has not had to discount or reduce prices on their iPad to continue to dominate the market. They are the category leader and it is up to everyone else that seriously wants to compete in that market to challenge them, or at least to find a niche where they can be different in a relevant way to the target customers. Instead what we have got is a run of tablets that visually don’t come close to the iPad, lacks the same suite of applications and choices, but at the same time charges the same price. Where is the logic in that?

There are of course several factors in play here, and the strategy each competitor has in the tablet market is largely unknown to most of us. When Apple launched their iPhone they changed the smartphone market through design, user friendliness, and the application market. They spent time building up their relationships within the supply chain, and they created demand amongst consumers. They built up an infrastructure that has been the key factor in the successful launch of the iPad into the tablet market, a market that many experts did not necessarily believe in. By building a whole ecosystem around their products that promote ease of use, and in many ways a lack of open flexibility, they reeled the customer in and built up barriers of entry for future competitors by making the potential cost of switching higher for the user, or barriers of exit if you like.

Supporting the closed and exclusive Apple ecosystem is a myriad of patent rights that we now see are being used to (a) stop competitors from applying the same/similar design as the market leader, and (b) to increase the cost of entry through licensing deals.

As this article in The Economist pointed out, once HP had made their decision to exit the tablet market and reduced the price of the TouchPad to clear stock, their tablets flew of the shelves. Of course selling a tablet for $99 that cost them over $300 to produce does not make good business sense, unless you are looking to gain new customers that will spend significantly more money buying associated products from you. Production cost of a tablet makes it difficult for anyone to compete head to head with Apple, which already is either the leader or close to it when it comes to production cost for a tablet.

So, how can anyone challenge the Apple iPad in the tablet market? They have to be strategic about it and have a clear understanding of how it will fit with consumer needs and their own business objectives.

One of the key success factors for Android based smartphones have been their relative lower entry cost for consumers compared to the iPhone, and the sheer volume of handsets being introduced into the market trying to fill the need of different market segments. We are seeing something similar with Android based tablets, but the problem is that the tablet market is much smaller than the smartphone market, making it more difficult for any manufacturer to achieve any economies of scale. Google buying Motorola Mobile could be a step in the right direction as it, besides the patent rights, turns Google into a producer of tablets and not just a platform provider. Hardware is not Google’s priority however, but strategically it can make sense to get better control over content delivery and how they can increase their core markets of delivering content and advertising.

That is the same reason why Barnes & Noble can sell their Nook at a lower price, and why perhaps the biggest threat to the Apple iPad comes from Amazon. The Kindle changed how we consume books and literature, just like how the iPad has helped change how we consume and interact with media. Amazon has the content ecosystem in place to allow them to launch into the tablet market with a competitive product and price, allowing them to make their margins selling digital content through their already established and successful stores.

It will also be interesting to see how Microsoft will approach the market going forward, with Windows 8 trying to merry up the user experience across all platforms (computer, tablet, smartphone). Given how many people already own a PC and are familiar with the Windows platform and their suite of products, if they get the content side right there could still be hope for Microsoft in the tablet market. They are not likely to be able to convince the early adopters that have already jumped on the Apple wagon, but as the tablet market matures there could be some great opportunities for those that get their strategy right.

So while i proclaim the death of the current tablet market at the hands of the Apple iPad, the war of the tablets is still up for grabs if anyone is willing to truly play the game right.

What brands and marketers need to keep in mind though is that there is a clear difference between ‘liking’ or talking positively about a brand through digital channels, and actually being influenced by those messages. How many of us can with hand on heart say that our actions online when it comes to ‘liking’ a brand or checking in at a place is not more about ‘branding’ ourselves?

As you can see from the below emarketer graph, most people ‘like’ or follow a brand online to get something out of it, usually in the form of a discount or freebie, and not necessarily to stay connected with the brand in a one-to-one dialogue.

As marketers we can learn a lot from monitoring online conversations about topics and brands, and get insight into how we can better communicate with our customers. There is no underestimating the value of high quality consumer data.  But we also need to keep in mind that there is a big difference between virtual consumption and actual consumption. Just because someone likes you it doesn’t mean that they will ever understand you or buy from you.

All the new digital channels of marketing and engaging with customers doesn’t change that to be successful you need to get the basics right. You need to know yourself and your customers. So when a client comes to you and say they want to develop a presence on social media or digital in general, the first thing that needs to be done is actually establish what the objective is and work with them to develop the right approach to achieving those objectives.

In the end shareholders don’t judge you by the quantity of friends/followers you have, but by their value.

Can you identify yourself or any of your friends with the following statements?

• My smartphone is always with me and always on
• I have used foursquare/twitter/facebook while on the toilet
• I check my phone while at the cinema
• I tweet/text/check-in during meals
• I have emailed/texted/tweeted/facebook’ed a friend while they were sitting next to me
• Do you have smartphone withdrawls if you haven’t checked your phone in 5 minutes

If you can answer yes to two or more of these statement then you are officially a slave to your smartphone, but don’t worry, you are not alone.

Recent reports by Ofcom have confirmed that the UK is smartphone obsessed, with 47% of teenagers and 27% of adults now own a smartphone. Amongst teenagers over 60% said they are obsessed with their smartphone, impacting amongst other on book reading.

34% of teenagers said they had used their phones during a meal, and about half had used or answered the phone while in the bathroom or toilet. Quite interestingly adults are not much better either.

While adults seem to prefer the iPhone 4 for their smartphone addiction (32%), more than 37% of teenagers prefer a Blackberry. The success of the Blackberry amongst the younger generation could be down to cost, as their handsets tend to be lower priced and available for free on lower tariffs compared to the iPhone.

Sounds like we will soon need a SAA (Smartphone Addicts Anonymous).

PS! check out this video. I know its a Blackberry advert but it is really funny, and scary at the same time

[source: BBC image: Crackberry]

What is cloud based music services

To keep it simple, a cloud based music service allows you to store your own music or music you have bought virtually instead of/as well as on your computer/digital music player, and allows you to access it from any device that is connected to the internet, using a media player to stream the music over your internet connection.

The main benefits of cloud based music services is that it allows you to access your music anywhere and on any device without having to have files stored on your device. The main issue of course is that you need an internet connection, although many of the services will allow you to temporarily store a selection of the music/playlists etc. on your device for offline playback. This is very useful as even in today’s society you might find yourself without an internet connection.

So, who are fighting for cloud music supremacy?

Google Music Beta

Google recently launched their cloud music service Music Beta, which at the moment is available, in beta, only in the US, but i’m sure as soon as they have had a chance to iron out any issues it will be rolled out internationally.

Music Beta allows you to upload your music library to to their cloud storage, including iTunes playlists and ratings you might have, for easy access on any device. The service includes automatic wireless syncing of any changes or additions you make to your music library or playlists, as well as accessing a selection of recent songs etc. while offline on your Android device.

The main issue Google has at the moment is that their service only includes streaming your own music library as they don’t have any licensing deals for streaming with major record labels yet. How big of an issue that is remains to be seen.

Amazon Cloud Player

Amazon was actually first among the big ones to launch their cloud music service, utilizing their Cloud Drive service alongside a new Cloud Player that can be accessed online through your browser or through Apps (includes Android app).

It allows their customers to upload their music library and songs they buy through Amazon MP3 Store for easy access through any device at any time (with internet connection).

Like with Google Music Beta, they don’t have licensing agreements with the music labels to offer streaming of music outside of your own music library, and there might be legal issues there as well (as i will come back into later on).

Apple iCloud

First of all, this is not the confirmed name of the Apple cloud music streaming service at this point so for all we know it might be called something else (my bet is still on iCloud though).

The ‘iCloud’ is belived to be an improvement of the MobileMe service that Apple is currently offering and will likely work very much in a similar way to the services from Google and Amazon. But Apple has a few advantages on their rivals:

• Apple is the largest seller of music globally through their iTunes service (source: Guardian)
• The number of registered users are in the hundred of millions (source: Wired).
• Apple has currently signed iCloud licensing deals with 3 of the 4 major record labels for a cloud based streaming service, which means that users will have access to music outside of their own music library (at a fee i would imagine)

Until we know what the Apple service will be like, and the pricing structures of all the services, we can only speculate in which one will become the most popular. However there are other giants in this game as well…

What about the music labels?

There is a popular saying that “content is king” and when it comes to music the record labels controls the content.

Ever since the internet boom started the record industry have been struggling to keep up with innovation and changes in consumer behaviour, often resolving to legal action in an attempt to keep their own revenue streams protected. In a way it can be compared to the changes we are seeing in the Middle East, which in a large part is driven by social media and technology changes, challenging the established systems and influencing the political agenda. Of course there is a difference between a political dictator and a music label, but they are both hanging on to ways that are in direct conflict with changing global trends.

For the record labels the cloud could be an opportunity to gain back some monetization of digital music, and have some control over the distribution of music through licensing agreements. As mentioned above, Apple are so far the only of the big players that have managed to negotiate licensing deals with the major record labels, raising the question of why? Are the record labels being too greedy and controlling of the situation for Google and Amazon to be willing to work with them?

A report from DigitalTrends suggests that the breakdown in negotiations between Google and the record labels came down to the record industry demanding compromises that Google was not willing to make, including control of music files obtained through ‘piracy’ and for Google to eliminate links to filesharing sites from their search listings.

It could look like the record industry is still fighting a battle they can never win. But it gets more complicated than just that…

The law

Intellectual property right law is a minefield that i am not even going to pretend that i understand, but it is one of the biggest issues facing the record industry and digital music today, and potentially a big issue for these new cloud based music services as well.

Both Google with Music Beta and Amazon with their Cloud Player launched their services without having licensing deals in place with the record labels, and the record industry are already rattling their lawyers against them, preparing for what i am sure will be a long battle between giants with a very different ideology.

As pointed out in this article from BBC News, format shifting (turning music on a cd into digital files for example) is in violation by copyright law, but in the US defensible under the principle of fair usage. Those rules do not however apply for the UK, so technically you are breaking the law by ripping your current cd collection into digital files for your digital music player.

As for music files that you have bought digitally and want to stream from a cloud service, it is still somewhat of a grey area whether you have a right to store those digital files on a different server, like a cloud server. And it becomes an even bigger issue if those digital music files that you upload to a ‘digital locker’ are obtained from filesharing, otherwise known as music piracy.

What about the consumer?

So where do we as consumers fit into all of this you may ask. All of the issues raised above becomes a reality for us as consumers.

The issue of digital rights to the music that you have purchased becomes an issue in terms of the record labels and the cloud music streaming services fighting it out between themselves about what is legal or not. But that is more of a battle about royalties to the music industry (the legal owners of the original content) and won’t necessarily put you in any legal problems.

But what if you as a consumer upload a music file that you have downloaded through a filesharing service, thereby according to the law illegally obtained it? As pointed out in this Mashable article, it might be useful to make sure you read the terms and conditions of the cloud based music service carefully before you start uploading music you have not purchased through legal channels. They point out that in the T&C’s for the Amazon Cloud Player they state that music that infringes on the rights of any copyright owner isn’t allowed (to be expected), and that it is the user obligation to make sure they are; “complying with all applicable import, re-import, export, and re-export control laws and regulations.”

Expect to see similar wording from all music services like this as they are only protecting themselves against ‘illegal’ activity from the customers, but the question is, how will they act on it? If there ends up being a big battle between the cloud music services and the record labels about illegally obtained content, could we as consumers end up in the firing line? Yes, we could, if the cloud based music services have to hand over account information with illegally obtained music in them.

The technology money machine

In the end, like with most other things, it all boils down to money. The record labels are seeing drops in music sales by £1.3 billion last year (source: Independent), with a large part of the drop being blamed on piracy.

Some believe that the introduction of cloud music services is the next messiah for the music industry, but the issue around privacy etc. from a consumer perspective could become a big stumbling block for the full on adoption of these services by millions of consumers out there.

While the positive sides of the cloud based music services are that it provides one place to store your music and access it from any device, avoiding possibly lost data issues should your storage device get lost, damaged, or stolen, it will also be a service that you will have to pay for (although some offer free up to a certain limit for now). Having to pay to access your own music that you have already paid for anyway might be a stretch for some, and do most of us really need to access our music from any device anywhere in the world?

One good thing that is coming out of all this new technology though is that it makes it easier for artists to get their music out there to be heard without having to rely so much on the distribution network and contacts of the music labels. With technology and social networking, we share the music we like with our friends and network in seconds so the chances of a talented artist/band being discovered are higher than ever.

Quality music will get discovered and shared in the new marketing channels for the music industry, and the cloud represents a new way for artists to deal directly with the key distribution channels. Consumers get more power, and good artists will succeed.

Google +1 (Plus One) is their response to the popularity of the Facebook Like button that has been around for a year now, but how exactly Google plans to use it in the long run is still up for discussion. Whether it will be just part of a social layer for search or will form part of a larger social initiative is yet to be found out.

What is Google +1

All we know so far is that Google +1 will allow you to click a +1 button next to search listings to indicate that you like the listing, and this will then be displayed for others to see (not unlike the Facebook button). It is under testing at the moment and only allows you to +1 a search listing or an ad, but will also soon be rolled out for websites to include on their content, allowing readers to ‘+1′ it similar to what you would do with the Facebook Like or Tweet button.

At the moment you have to have a public Google profile to use it and be logged into Google. Then you might find +1 enhanced search listings displaying that for example people in your network have ‘+1′ a listing or ad. The idea behind it is to bring a social aspect into search results, by giving you an indication that people in your network liked a specific result/site. By adding other social networks you are on to your Google Profile you are extending your network to include Twitter, Facebook etc.

Until Google +1 is fully live and been running for a while it is difficult to say what the true impact might be, but the idea is that adding this social layer should over time improve the search results Google is able to deliver for your search queries based on what it will know about you and your network.

Possible wider impact and a few concerns

Some speculate that Google +1 as we know it now is just the first step towards Google launching a full on Facebook competitor, but that is just speculations at this stage, so lets instead focus on what we know.

What we know is that this feature will be incorporated into search results, and that over time Google might use it to further personalize search results as well as to use it as a ranking factor for organic listings. Now this raises a few questions from a webmaster/webite owner perspective.

How might Google use +1 as a ranking factor?

There would have to be additional factors than just volume of ‘+1′ clicks, as that would skew everything in favour of big media, and in my opinion to the detriment of improving search results. I’m sure Google has got a good idea of how it can be used to improve search results, but it does raise a few concerns until we know exactly how it will work.

Does your wider network reflect you?

If you look at your Facebook friends or the people you follow on Twitter etc. How many of those would you say accurately reflect what you like or not? Being able to see what people in my network might have liked or not i don’t mind, but i would not want for it to skew the actual search results in the normal search listings. Spesifically in social search mode, yes, but not in the main search results.

My take on Google +1

Search results can always be improved, but lets face it, Google as it is works as it should for most people, which is reflected in their share of the search market overall. But as people start to become more and more social online, they need to start reflecting the changes in people’s behaviour to stay relevant to not only the masses, but also to the early movers amongst us.

Whether Google +1 will become another Google Buzz or actually turn into something of true value for users and search listings remains to be seen. As for Google’s possible social plans around it, i’m sure many of us would like to see what they might come up with.

For me personally i would not like to see social sentiment based on ‘like’ buttons taking over search, turning it into just another popularity contest skewed in the favour of big established media.

Here is an official video on Google +1 and link to Google blog post about +1.

Thanks to a 84 percent increase in value Apple has taken the top listing in the new BrandZ top 100 most valuable global brands, surpassing Google by quite a substantial margin, dominating the listing completely.

It is interesting to see valuations of the two top companies that are fighting it out for global mobile supremacy. The hardware strategy of Apple is clearly paying off based on this valuation, but how long will it be before Google reclaims the throne as their Android platform is taking a larger and larger share of mobile handsets. Speaking of mobile market, Nokia takes a big drop as their valuation falls by 28 percent.

It is also nice to see that non-technology brands are doing well in the listings, with Coca Cola and McDonalds going strong, party thanks to their efforts embracing social media to keep their brand relevant in the changing consumer market. In part this shows the importance of social media in a company’s overall brand strategy to ensure delivering value to investors.

You can read more about the criteria of the valuation of the brands from the WWP website.

Over the years there has been some clever use of QR codes to elicit an action from the user, both in offline and online media. People have successfully used it to promote the download of ringtones/music, give access to unique content, give direction to the location of a store or site, or to provide further information about a piece of art or an item of clothing. Instead of telling you more about historical use of QR codes, i thought i would share ideas about future use of QR codes, and where/how I would personally like to see them being used.

QR code app integration

One of my pet hates at the moment is that there are very little cross functionality between mobile apps where there is a good opportunity and reason for having it. Having a QR code scanner app should feature solutions for accessing content in an associated app where it makes sense to do so (based on the content you are accessing). Say that you are scanning the QR code for a Twitter profile or a Facebook Page, wouldn’t you want the content to open in the respective app instead of opening up in the browser? I know i would.

Nutritional information through QR codes

Some fast food chains and manufacturers have started adding QR codes with nutritional information on their products, but still i find that to be a very small minority. You can go to most chain-type restaurants, and even on their websites you will struggle to find any nutritional information on their menu items. Adding small QR codes next to each menu listing would be a great way for visitors to find out the nutritional information for the meal they are about to enjoy.

For those of us that are using fitness type apps for counting calories and keeping track of nutritional information, it would also make it so much easier to keep a more accurate account of what we put into our system.

Public transport information

Again, some have started to use QR codes for public transport information already, while still many, even in big cities are failing to make it easy for customers to get updated on the arrival of the next bus or train for example. At my own local bus stops here in Leeds you have to send a code to a number via SMS to get real time information, while this could easily have been done with a QR code.

Guided tours and experiences

Take the example of the World Park campaign for Central Park in New York, a great way to give visitors a totally new experience of the park.

Similar ideas could possibly help reinvigorate some high street towns around the UK, help promote shops, locations, restaurants, galleries, museums etc. by giving visitors a fun and interactive way to get around.

Only imagination (almost) can limit how businesses, governments, and even individuals can use QR codes to add value to an experience. I will keep posting info on great use of QR codes when i come across interesting implementations of these little squares.

So what is QR codes exactly? A QR code (stands for Quick Response) is a two dimensional barcode working in much the same way as the barcode you will find on products in shops. It was created in Japan in the mid-90′s as a way to identify car parts for manufacturing, but in recent years it has also found its way into mobile marketing etc. The QR code can amongst other things be used to unlock text, URL, other data, or to generate an action such as sending a SMS.

With more and more of people’s browsing and daily lives taking place through mobile devices, such as Apple iPhone or Android smartphones, QR codes can be used to enhance experiences for users by unlocking additional information or offers.

Jumpscan.com have created the following infographic highlighting the use of QR codes.