The Hype Cycle

Although an awesome marketing name for a chrome and flame-painted chopper, the hype cycle is not a creation of Orange County Choppers, but rather a term of the Gartner Group research firm and refers to their interpretation of the development, maturity, and adoption of technology.

You know, the path between 'slideware' (unproven ideas that only exist in PowerPoint slides) and 'general availability' (store shelves).

Speech recognition is one of these technologies. In 2000, they were admittedly my slides suggesting that a speech platform was 'around the corner'. In 2003, when they were Microsoft's slides (with the introduction of their speech server) and again now, these slides are re-issued with a Google logo.

I know a lot of earnest people in the field of speech recognition and I know they spend a great deal of time refining and improving speech recognition capabilities in myriad applications. In this article, you'd think that a decade of inprovements, trial and error, and frankly, millions of VC dollars hadn't already been expended when Larry Page and Sergey Brin decended from the heavens, touched the complicated technology, and made speech 'finally viable' with Google Voice.

Speech technology is already a viable (and functioning) technology. But I also understand that there is a required ecosystem of hardware, software and services in speech technology to make it 'work' as a fully-functional platform of the future, in spite of the hype that accompanies a Google launch of anything from a phone OS to breadsticks. ("Peak of inflated expectations" in graph.)

It is a gentle reminder as product marketers, we understand that it is as important to build expectation and excitement at a launch as it is to control those expectations. The marketplace doesn't allow marketers to underperform to their promises, a lesson we knew but were (supposedly) reminded of with the Internet bubble. As this article points out, and Microsoft discovered, speech is a human construct that requires a great deal more than money and technologists - even Google money and Google technologists - to make it meet the long-held expectations we have held for speech as an interface in the near term, and to overcome the long-held cynicism that a future feature-rich, reliable 'speech-driven platform of the future' will now have to overcome to establish a marketplace. Speech has sat at the peak of inflated expectations long enough. It desrves to grow, but only if allowed to drop into Gartner's "trough of disillusionment" first (graph).

To be certain, speech will drive a viable comprehensive OS platform one day. Just not this Thursday. Or next.

Ahead in the Clouds

Once upon a time, Henry Ford said that cars could come in “whatever color you wanted, as long as it is black”. Then along came Harley Earl of GM who tapped into a nascent consumer demand and created a wider expectation for making annual design changes that accelerated GM’s dominance of the automotive market. (Well, for a few decades, anyway.)

Similarly, there was a time among established software developers (and users) when cloud computing (aka, Software as a Service, or SaaS) was viewed as too risky, too unstable, too limited in its feature set to ever truly replace local desktop software installations, excepting perhaps for CRM applications.

Today as WiFi/WiMax and general connectivity become increasingly ubiquitous, that desired connectivity is further leveraged by smartphones, net-reliant hardware and similar tools to make great inroads in market share. Laptops outsell desktops. The handset war (iPhone, Palm Pre and Blackberry Bold) is the new Coke and Pepsi, each phone the supposed savior of their respective companies. All this is driving a new expectation among the broader public for ubiquitous connectivity regardless of time, place or device. (Woah, déjà vous: I think I typed that on a PowerPoint slide back in 2001 regarding Unified Communications.)

Take note: The desire for always-on connectivity isn’t the driver – that was an assumed trend as early as 1998 – as much as it is an enabler. The real driver is the community of data and applications that the Web represents.

More proof: Microsoft Money, a desktop-based financial management package that had Microsoft power behind it and once enjoyed first-mover advantage, has been shelved by the Redmond behemoth, as they recognize the customer’s demand for integration and collaboration available with the SaaS models used by Intuit and Mint, among dozens of others – including their own MSN Money service. In rare candor, Microsoft states: “With banks, brokerage firms and Web sites now providing a range of options for managing personal finances, the consumer need for Microsoft Money Plus has changed.”

Note that Microsoft addresses the cloud not for its constant availability, but for the benefit of integration with the complementary applications, vendors and informational websites (“…banks, brokerage firms, and Web sites…”) that are facilitated through the web, and specifically, the collaboration that is common to Web 2.0. Intuit simply gets that the user experience matters, online and offline, and has always has outperformed Microsoft... nothing new for those of us tethered to their Office applications.

Web 2.0 is not just a curiosity or new marketing tool, but has now matured into a critical element of product development – today, mainly for software vendors – but tomorrow, perhaps also for manufacturing concerns. Like the new GM?

Related articles by Zemanta

• How Intuit managed to hold off Microsoft (news.cnet.com)

Mystery Meat

You remember mystery meat, in the seventh grade cafeteria, trying to guess what part of which animal was buried under a mound of potatoes and curdled gravy?

How about this mystery meat: A television-centered campaign that promotes an oft-derided product by hiding behind and talking up the virtues of its partners' products? It is what Microsoft is doing in their new 'Laptop Hunters' campaign, and according to a study quoted in this Fast Company article, it is working.

Microsoft cannot put lipstick on this pig, but it can cover that pig by ladling the value propositions of the hardware manufacturers whose equipment runs the buggy OS (Vista, aka OS7) on top of it.

Microsoft recognizes and leverages the one area the Apple cannot readily claim: value for the money, as PCs can be had for an order of magnitude cheaper than even the most budget-friendly Mac. It realizes that for all the hype around the Mac, the product, to many, doesn't deliver the value promised in its advertising. And ultimately, the product experience equals the brand, no matter how well executed the 'I'm a Mac' campaign.

Thus it appears that for the time being, consumers are holding their nose as they go for the PC. Just like swallowing mystery meat.

UPDATE: 7-15: Microsoft: Apple Told Us to Cancel the Laptop Hunter Ads

If you were a tree, what kind of tree would you be?

If your company or product were a fictional character, who would it be? It's one of the questions I ask when trying to determine the intended brand perception for a client. And I get more than my share of rolled eyes from the engineers in the room.

But consider your own response to this question: If you were thirsty, where would you likely find an ice-cold Obama? Next to the Dr. Pepper or nearer the energy drinks?

If you called your friend, would you expect to pick up and dial the McCain or are you more likely to just go online and 'poke' them on Obamabook? Maybe you'd discuss the McCain supertanker that is caught in a storm off the gulf coast, or the latest music player from iObama.

You can think about this when you pick up a snack of some organic dried fruit at Obama Foods for your flight to Chicago on McCain Airways.

Okay, the whole thing is silly. But now reverse that:

If you were thirsty, where would you likely find an ice-cold McCain? Next to the Dr. Pepper or nearer the energy drinks?

If you called your friend, would you expect to pick up and dial the Obama or are you more likely to just go online and 'poke' them on McCainbook? Maybe you'd discuss the Obama supertanker that is caught in a storm off the gulf coast, or the latest music player from iMcCain.

You can think about this when you pick up a snack of some organic dried fruit at McCain Foods for your flight to Chicago on Obama Airways.

Relatively speaking, the former made more sense, didn't it? And it proves out the power of branding on not only our perceptions of products, but perceptions of our leaders, our friends, and ourselves.

This important article was sent to me by a designer with whom I do much of Strategy180's branding work. It underscores the power of branding and how it may not only impact the can of soup we put in our grocery basket, but the future leadership of the world's last great superpower.

Perhaps now you might want to budget for that branding study, yes?

The Antique Selectric

A recent back-to-school shopping trip with my pre-teen son did plenty to remind me of the widening generation gap between us. Navigating through brands I'd never heard of and styles that will, one day, define the cultural lowlight of his generation (just as parachute pants defined mine) – helped me acknowledge that the pigment had indeed left my hair, never to return.

An annual report called the Beloit College Mindset List – you may recognize it as common fodder for chatty 'lite rock' morning radio hosts – reminds us all not only of the generation gap and differences in our cultural context, but the pace of change in today's world. This year's study calls out sixty points of reference that the typical 18-year-old, born in 1990, takes for granted. These include:

• Universal Studios has always offered an alternative to Disneyland in Orlando.
• The Tonight Show has always been hosted by Jay Leno.
• Caller ID has always been available on phones.
• IBM has never made typewriters.

Had the Beloit study existed when I entered college, my elders would have likely been reminded that I never knew the country without a space program, had never listened to radio for anything but music, and automobiles always had air conditioning. In turn, upon turning 18, my son will have never known mobile phones without cameras, grasp the concept of a paper map, or have enjoyed music on anything larger than an iPod.

And forget the iconic Selectric… he won't even know IBM as a consumer brand.

When did the guys from Delta House start running Microsoft?

"Fat, dumb, and stupid is no way to go through life, son."

These immortal words, uttered by Dean Wormer in the classic Animal House, could be applied collectively to many companies today. Many come to mind, the most obvious is Microsoft, where last year in the rush to get a new product launched, it wasn't so much 'fat, dumb and stupid' so much as 'hubris, avarice, and... okay, stupidity'. It isn’t often easy to distinguish between those three. Too often, all are a part of a lousy decision, and the launch of Vista illustrates all three.

Twelve months following the launch of the Vista operating system there remains a significant reluctance among consumers and enterprises to ‘upgrade’ to the new operating system. Heads in the sand, Redmond executives are quick to suggest that price alone is a deterrent to sales. Yet anyone who knows anyone who has used the operating system likely knows one or more of the dozens of horror stories associated with Vista. In short, the stories caught fire and the Vista brand now precedes itself. No amount of new pricing strategies will change that.

In recent court documents stemming from a class action lawsuit, it is discovered that even Microsoft’s own executives were victims of Vista, either through a lack of drivers for peripherals, certification of underpowered hardware, or a host of other issues common to all Vista users… the executive types from Redmond voiced their frustrations in revealing internal emails obtained by the court.

The reason for the failure of Vista is, as stated above, actually three-fold: hubris, avarice, and stupidity. According to a recent article in the New York Times, all three were in play in Redmond at the time before, during and after the launch.
Hubris:
In the run-up to launch, Microsoft lowered the requirements for hardware, changing required wording on the ubiquitous sticker from “Vista Ready” to “Vista Capable”. (The latter is actually on the notebook on which this is being typed. I run XP, as after having deloused a neighbor’s Vista machine, I elected to stay with what I know).

Avarice:
Internal documents obtained through the legal action reveal that the decision to dumb-down the hardware specifications faces even internal protest in Redmond, including, according to the Times article, Anantha Kancherla, who as a Microsoft program manager was in a position to know that the configuration was so minimal that “even a piece of junk will qualify.”

Stupidity:
Anticipating customer revolt after the hardware requirements were compromised, Microsoft’s own staff prepared for the certain complaints in internal discussions, including a comment from a Microsoft sales manager who wisely – and obviously – wrote, “It would be a lot less costly to do the right thing for the customer now, than to spend dollars on the back end trying to fix the problem.”

It’s too late for Vista, and my humble prediction is that it will go away and undergo a retooling - perhaps a later integration of key features into a different OS release. (There is precedent for a failed OS... anyone running ‘Windows Me’? Didn’t think so.) As for Microsoft, to borrow another Animal House reference, they are now on "double secret probation" with the marketplace. Microsoft needs to be schooled in the threat posed by its competitors – not the least of which include Google, and of course, open source. The days when consumers would accept whatever Redmond dished out are past . Vista is just a symptom of the whole of the Microsoft brand.

To paraphrase Deam Wormer, “Hubris, avarice, and stupidity are no way to run a company, son.”