Over the past few days -- and weeks leading up to its official announcement -- the Apple iPad has been cross-analyzed on every high tech, gadget and media site from here (wherever you are reading this) to there (insert your favorite destination), which shows the potential impact this product has on popular culture. But the imminent release of iPad isn't so much about the product, but more about changing the way we think about consuming media.

Tech geeks have taken shots at the choice of processor, memory, display technology, etc. Many critics are not happy that the iPhone OS will power iPad, giving Apple ultimate authority over the software that can be installed on the device (note to self: in the near future, insert link to article about first jail broken iPad). That may be a large issue for some, but Apple has taken a smart approach by not trying to be "everything to everybody". Yes, there is a OS lock for installing applications. Yes, there is not a camera or a web cam. Yes, Flash is not currently supported. Yes, a full version of PhotoShop is unlikely to be able to be "installed" on the device. That's because this really isn't a computer, and Apple realizes this up front.

This brings us to the ever-increasing use of the Cloud for storing and retrieving information, applications and services. As we have seen with the Apple / Google fight related to the Google Voice offering, the importance of Web-based software will likely grow as innovators need to circumvent Apple's gateway to their devices. Though disappointed, even Google has followed its own prescription and has found a way to innovate in this area using the Internet, getting around Apple's gate and lock on the iPhone. Google is also quietly working on its version of a net connected device that uses the cloud as the primary storage area for the Google Chrome OS and supporting software. Although different in its approach, I am sure that Apple's announcement will only strengthen the viability for this particular "flavor" of device.

The release of iPad offers us all a new way to think about how we entertain, educate and communicate with one another. It's not the beat-all, end-all, killer device, but it does dramatically extend how we interact and consume media. Hopefully the publishing, news and other media dinosaurs will finally see the writing on the wall. Though I highly doubt it, since they have been dragging their heels over the past 15 years. These devices bring new opportunity for businesses who want to be relevant over the next 15 years.

Taking a quick trip to a local Wallmart yesterday I happened across a new product. I initially passed it by, then had to circle back to confirm what I had just been a witness to. And there it was... Chocolate Cheerios. As a child I am sure that everyone who has eaten Cheerios has dreamed about this. I think this is the childhood equivalent of finding the Loch Ness monster, the fountain of youth, etc. Could this be real? It was real and the display sat boldly in the center of the isle, almost mocking my childhood.

Call me crazy, but I can't see how launching a chocolate version of this cereal can really work, no matter how tasty it really is. It sounds great on paper, and probably had some great discussion in the General Mills product development teams over the years. However, every marketer has a potential product like this that while interesting, just can't work due to the realities of the world. I thought that the company had crossed the line a few years ago when it launched Frosted Cheerios, but this product has survived and its numbers must have supported this product introduction. To me, General Mills has "jumped the shark" on the core brand attributes that Cheerios has been built upon: healthy and heart friendly.

I don't care how you slice it, as a marketer, chocolate cannot be equated with healthy without taking some bruises. Knowing we're fighting an uphill battle, I thought that I would throw out some other messaging points that General Mills could use to cement this line extension in with the other "healthy" editions of Cheerios:

• "Now made with dark chocolate, the healthy version of chocolate."
• "Just as healthy as chocolate cake, chocolate milk and chocolate bars."
•  "Whole grains, covered in gooey chocolate. Yum!"

     

Click here to download:

Google_Navs_It_Up.zip (176 KB)

In case you have not noticed it, Google has slowly begun the process of making some "simplicity sacrifices" related to their expanding universe of product and service offerings. Take a visit to the Google Mobile site, the Google Voice site, and the new Google Nexus One site and you'll quickly see that the "simplicity of design" that was presented back in March 2009, isn't living up to the consistency strategy that was initially outlined. Many of the branding guidelines that were originally outlined, along with the supporting functionality of the related websites do not support the simplicity strategy.

I am not saying this is not bad or good. I also understand that these may be viewed as "stand alone" brands. It does, however, highlight the necessary evil when adding complexity to product offerings and the need to support the marketing of these on the web.

The takeaway: A defined strategy needs to have room to evolve over time with the changing business climate.

So, I was daydreaming today... wondering just what is really going on behind the scenes of the Tiger Woods scandal and thought I'd put my Xtranormal account to good use and peek into the public relations management nightmare of the decade...

Disclaimer: This is a parody element. The content of this post should in no way be construed as factual. Public figures used in this posting are portrayed for satirical purposes only. All other characters are fictional. Any use of real names or trademares is related to parody. Any similarities to actual persons is also pure coincidence, and not the intent. It cannot be emphasized enough how coincidental any fictional entities are to any real life individual, entity, or character. Content rating: NC17.

McDonald's has received some pretty good results from the launch of its new McCafe concept and with its lower priced java creations, will surely take a bite out of Starbucks and other premium coffee vendors over the long haul. It has even stepped up the "exclusivity" consumers get when getting their daily caffeine intake with new in-store design and packaging.

Many upscale coffee stands use their "ingredients" to help upsell consumers from standard Joe to more sophisticated lattes, cappuccinos and other flavored drinks that make your taste buds dance. McDonald's, however, has slightly missed the boat when displaying its "Liquid Sugar" bottles prominently on top of the McCafe counter top.

I think the general approach point of sale marketing for McDonald's should be vanilla, hazelnut and mocha, yes. Liquid sugar, no. What do you think?

Over the holiday weekend, one of my favorite topics was highlighted on TechCrunch's email of the week article relating to the "proper" written form of what I, like TechCrunch, like to call a "website". This was approprately responded to by Michael Arrington and I want to give a big kudos to his response.

There has always been a great debate over the "correct" way technology items should be written and in this case, the use of "website" by TechCrunch in a recent article. Having been brought up as an advertising student in a Journalism program, my first hand experience mirrors what Arrington highlights in his article, specifically his position that the AP is "woefully behind the times." This was the case when I was in school in the early 90s, and it looks like nothing has changed. Arrington hits the nail on the head related to the "self importance" that the AP styleguide has put on itself. The fact is, AP loved the influence it "had" on the written form. Emphasis on the word: had.

As added commentary, the use of "Web" does not always relate to the proper noun of the "Internet" (which should always be capitalized, and is often not capitalized). AP is making an assumption that any "site" is physically attached to the Internet, or Web and therefore must carry a proper designation. This is simply not the case. Many "sites", which may use HTTP protocols, are not physically attached to the Internet, and are often detatched destinations on private networks, or subsytems (e.g., intranet site, etc.). Therefore, website refers to a generic, rather than a proper noun.

For more reading, see Wikipedia's listing, which tends to agree with TechCrunch. Though, if pressed, I don't really mind if it is website, web site, or Web site. It's your web, not mine.

AP, please feel free to comment on any other style issues you find in this posting. I am sure there are many. :>)

I am reaching out to the design, marketing, advertising and interactive communities to help me with a cause that up until today, I have held very close to me. And I can no longer keep quiet about it...

It is time to get the Inc. out of logos.

   

Click here to download:

Get_The_Inc._Out_Of_Here.zip (649 KB)

Now that I have said it out loud I already feel much better. I think we can all come together as a group and make a conscious effort to help communicate the following to startup / small businesses that are about to design their first logotype:

Logos and their graphical representations do not require reproducing the corporate entity or legal name of the company.

While some "new marketers" or designers may feel that it makes their logo "more official", it in no way has anything to do with creating, establishing or protecting a copyright of the images included in the design. If a company does take the necessary steps to protect their company name and the graphical marks supporting it (ahem... logotype... read more here), then there will be enough to contend with in the future by getting those required ® and TM's fit into a logo without it crapping up the design. Combine that with your Inc., LLC, etc. and you've got yourself a mess just waiting to happen, let alone the visual distraction it creates for your prospects, customers and partners.

What if our peers in larger companies didn't think about the brand the same? How would that look? Hmmmm....

Alternate blog video posting of "Get The Inc. Out!"

(Produced using xtranormal, a really fun and easy-to-use editing tool, though the skin suit takes away from the "serious" nature of my post... or adds to it, depending upon your perspective.)

No matter what you do, social always gets the best of you in the end.

I heard about Skittles integrating with Facebook and Flickr, which on its own, is an innovative way to differentate it's web presence from other candy manufacturers. And can we all be honest here? Consumer packaged goods web sites are generally pretty boring on their own. How much can you really say about a fruit flavored candy wrapped in a rainbow colored shell? And we all know that these websites were really never intended as part of the purchase decision?

Stepping away from the endless number of sticky games, contests and promotions, this approach takes what consumers expect to see when visiting a candy website and turns the experience upside down. The issue – along with any social marketing execution – is the ability to give up control of content and how it is used. This is a risk that needs to be considered, especially when the visitors may be children.

So when I confirmed my age (by the way, I'm not sure who the legal loophole genius was who invented this concept and does nothing to really protect minors – that's for another posting) and allowed my Facebook to "connect" with the Skittles site, the above image is what I saw first, featuring a wonderful post by "Loui". I am sure that Skittles did not dream that their fans would provide such passionate wall postings.

So how does "MF" end up as Skittle's featured "adjective" on its "website"? It's human nature. When rolling out any social marketing implementation, marketers must always carefully think through how content may be inserted, modified and displayed by visitors. Any opening that provides a visitor to contribute content, also provides the same opportunity for negative, or at least, inappropriate content.

In this new age of giving up control of our content, we must all be prepared. Whatever that means.