Showing posts with label Future. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Future. Show all posts

CES Day Three: The changing nature of marketing and public relations


My Day 3 at CES was the most exciting. In the morning I wandered the exhibit halls a little bit more and even met a person who attended the conference virtually – she was on a screen and the screen was on a robot that could move around the exhibit hall, talk to other people, look closer at the items on the table and so on. It looked cool but seemed more like a temporary solution rather than the future of conference travel. 3D holograms from Displair seem like a better solution: you can have a hologram of a person wandering the exhibit hall that you can shake hands with. And, of course, in the future, it will be a virtual exhibit hall and we all will be present there virtually. What a tragedy for the airline business!

The highlight of the day was the keynote address I attended: Brand Matters. The keynote had senior level professionals in marketing/corporate communications from world leading corporations. Among the speakers were Michael Bowling, Chief Marketing Officer of AT&T; Josh Silverman, President, U.S. Consumer Services, American Express; Joseph Tripodi, EVP, Chief Marketing & Commercial Officer, The Coca Cola Co.; and Keith Weed, Chief Marketing and Communications Officer, Unilever. But the session was kicked off by Marc Benioff, Chairman and CEO of saleforce.com, whose vision for the future was the most eye-opening.

What all speakers agreed on was the fact that the main revolution comes not from any single new gadget but from new era of communications between the gadgets – they will talk to each other and, more importantly, talk to us and to their headquarters.

Today in many of our public relations/marketing/corporate communications programs we talk to students about how social media influence communications between a company and consumers. We look at case studies of customers going to Facebook to complain about malfunctioning appliance or going to Twitter to describe their problems live; we discuss in classes how companies must quickly and competently react to this flow of information. But it looks like this is not the future, but, in fact, the past.
If there is a Samsung refrigerator connected to the Internet, why cannot it send an email to Samsung notifying the headquarters that, for example, the temperature in the freezer is getting outside of normal range before a customer even notices anything. Then, the refrigerator can connect to the cell phone of the customer and check his or her schedule to arrange for a technician visit to check on the refrigerator. In other words, appliances will need to become self-aware and will be able to have themselves repaired before they can cause any issue to the final user or even before the user will notice anything. “The circle of love” as Marc Benioff called it– our appliances can really become our friends taking care of us.

And we can take it one more step further – refrigerator can talk to a dishwasher and notice you do not like one brand of food because there is plenty of it left on your plate – so, next time it can text you to say remember you bought Brand A vegetables last week and did not like them - buy Brand B this time. And, of course, they all will talk to the toilet to see how your body reacted to different products, how your health is affected and maybe connected to your medical provider to develop recommendations for you. So, yes, we will be talking to our appliances and becoming friends with them – in fact, they may become our best friends and can save our lives. And imagine what a great new potential for marketing it opens and how targeted that can get! This means moving from audiences or publics to marketing to individuals.
As always, it would raise issues of privacy or losing some more individual control, but it brings convenience and people, I believe, are willing to sacrifice privacy and control for convenience – see, for example, all the success of Apple products.

And this maybe not such a long way in the future – already today we have all these appliances with internet connectivity, already today we have cell phones containing user’s schedules, emails, credit cards and other information. If a refrigerator can order food delivery, it can send an email to headquarters. There is no doubt about the importance of mobile in all this – cell phone will become or already is the center piece of all our networks and our communications. So, significant focus in student’s education should be on mobile.
But let’s look more into the future. If we all are going to get 3D printers at home and shop online for whatever we desire, a malfunctioning refrigerator can email to headquarters about its problems and then self-terminate or self-disintegrate; while headquarters will send an order to print another refrigerator to the user’s 3D printer and, once printed, refrigerator will be installed in the very same place where the old one was. All without any people involvement at all.

Which brings up another point – massive data. Already today, there are more customer data available than companies can process. American Express and Coca Cola representatives both mentioned that they have plenty of data – the problem is converting data into insight and knowledge. For now it means importance of research skills for marketing and communication graduates. But the data volume will continue to increase exponentially. So, there is no doubt it will lead to more and more demands for artificial intelligence with data processing capabilities. Yes, companies will have to develop virtual presence through artificial intelligence living in the cloud processing terabytes of data perhaps having their personalities and communicating to us one-on-one via social media – not their representatives but actual companies – they will become our friends for real. Super computers in the cloud talking from the name of a corporation to us, collecting and processing data on us, and helping us improve our quality of life.

What artificial intelligence lacks, however, is creativity. So, to prepare our students for their future, we should focus on interpreting research results and conclusions that artificial intelligence will provide us with in the future and then coming up with creative solutions to the identified issues.

Of course, once technology, companies, products move to live in the cloud, people will move into cloud even more than today. But that is the whole other story…

Consumer Electronics Show. Day Two.


Day Two of CES I spent trying to walk the exhibit halls. I started more than an hour before CES officially opened sneaking in with the delegation of Samsung around 8:40am and left when the exhibit hall closed at 6pm. And I still have not visited all of the exhibits. CES is enormous!

Now, to our main questions: how all this technology is changing our lives and will change the lives of our students? And how should we change our teaching to prepare our students to be successful in their future? The answer – I did not really see any revolutionary technology that would change the world. As a result, Day Two was the opposite of Day One: at the end of day one I thought the sky was falling and everything is on verge of a complete change, but when I got into the exhibit halls today, I did not see this revolution. There was plenty of evolution but not a revolution.

It seemed to me (and I remind you that I have not visited all the exhibit halls yet) that most of the stuff was about TV or video in general. They had super huge HD TVs – I think 110’ LED TV was the biggest I saw. Next to them there were Ultra HD TVs with 4K resolution (which is 3840 X 2160 instead of traditional 1920 X 1080). In the next hall, yet another company already had Super Ultra HD TVs with 8K resolution.


Yet, in the next hall there were 3D TVs that used super cool and comfortable glasses; then 3D TVs that you could look through a screen instead of wearing any glasses, than 3D TVs that did not need any glasses or screens. Plus, of course, the combinations – 3D TVs with 4K Ultra HD resolution and so on.


Needless to say, they were all network integrated and many of them touchscreen. As for touchscreens, Windows 8 seemed to dominate everything. Not iOS or Android, Windows was on phones, tablets, computers and TVs.

They also had projectors that can project down on the same wall; or projectors that can project even in bright sunlight, but to me it is all the same video technology. The best video technology that maybe is getting pretty close to the revolutionary mark was Displair where you see 3D image, similar to a hologram, in thin air in front of you and it is controlled by your touch (http://displair.com). It is better to see it live, but even looking at the pictures you can see how cool it is. I am maybe biased, however, since these guys are from Russia J

And for the gamers there is finally a good alternative to Kinect – you can now play first-person shooters controlling the game with your body and with the gun in hand. That was amazing and gave me quite a work-out after just five or so minutes playing.


Of course, there was plenty of other stuff: phones, tablets, computers, cars, cameras, security gadgets, robots (this was also pretty cool, but how many years do we talk about robots already), printers, including 3D printers (and again they have been around for some time). I need, however, to say thanks to a 3D printer company, 3D Systems for the excellent gator head they printed for me (Go Gators!).


What pleasantly surprised me was the amount of technology related to health and fitness – I did not expect that. And I could not expect the amount of massage chairs, foot massagers and all other kinds of massagers represented at CES – I would’ve never in my mind connected CES with a massage chair!

Anyway, at the end of the day there were plenty of receptions available. I had a difficult choice between IAWTV awards or CES International reception. I picked International. Most of the people I chatted with there were from China and most of them were exhibitors. So, China does produce a lot of technology. I also met people from other Asian countries, South America, Africa, but I did not run into anybody from Europe at all L

Time to get ready for Day Three tomorrow!

Learning about the future of news at Consumer Electronics Show


This week I am attending CES (Consumer Electronics Show; http://www.cesweb.org) in Las Vegas as a guest of IRTS (International Radio and Television Society Foundation; http://irtsfoundation.org). For day one, IRTS organized a great event where academics who study and teach social media could meet with leaders of the profession. The topic of the conversation was “The art of reaching consumers in the digital age” but since many of the professors as well as speakers were from the journalism field, the conversation kept returning to the future of news organizations. And I have to admit that after today I do not see a happy future for today’s news organizations in any shape or form – not in print, not on TV, not even online – despite some professionals and academics cheerful comments. So, here is my quick one-sentence summary of each speaker’s presentations and then, at the end, my conclusion.

First, Jack Myers (https://twitter.com/JackMyerscom), Chairman of Media Advisory Group, talked about the convergence of brain, heart, and gut and the new generation that embraces this convergence – they do not want just to know they want to feel as well.

Then, David Poltrack, head of research at CBS, tried to persuade us how great networks are adapting to the changes in media consumption – DVRs, video on demand, streaming TV shows – he had plenty of data available, but it sounded more like explaining why the numbers in TV viewership are going down rather than explaining why the numbers of total viewership are going up.

Rob Barnett (https://twitter.com/DamnRob) of My Damn Channel focused on branded entertainment versus commercial-paid model of interruption marketing and proposed that advertisers do not need to rely on networks.

Michael Terpin (https://twitter.com/michaelterpin), founder and CEO of SocialRadius, talked about different types of social media and how brands can use them instead of doing any outreach to the traditional media.

Michael Zimbalist (https://twitter.com/zimbalist) who is in charge of research for the New York Times Company tried to defend the “old” media proposing that it can become interactive and occupy various surfaces: instead of paper New York Times can be on a mirror in your bathroom answering your questions about the day ahead.

Dave Morgan (https://twitter.com/davemorgannyc), founder and CEO of Simulmedia, concluded the day by saying that news organizations thrived in a scarce distribution environment – with 2-3 newspapers and 2-3 TV stations, there was hardly any competition and advertisers had to pay them no matter what. Today, however, distribution is not scarce but plentiful; instead, attention is scarce. He did not believe newspapers could adapt and survive, but broadcast networks would thrive in this entertainment. I was not sure why he made that claim.

So, what did I think at the end? Newspapers, TV stations, and journalism in general are all in trouble! None of the speakers could explain what the added value of a journalist is. New York Times stock dropped from almost $50 to under $10 in the last 10 years and I think it is still overvalued. When Michael Zimbalist talked about the successes New York Times had playing with convergence and online distribution – he talked about the things, such as Infographics, slide shows, and so on, that college students do for fun and for free and post them to Facebook. And New York Times had teams of 10-20 people (all getting salaries and maybe even benefits!) working on those.

Journalists are also in close and symbiotic relationships with their sources – they depend on each other. So, there is not much of “controlling the government” function left any more. Again, regular people can do a way better job than professional journalists.

Another answer suggested by David Poltrack was that content is king. People will have to watch CBS in some way to see the good shows. So, TV networks will survive. But how long before content creators go directly to YouTube? How long before they make a website where they would release a new episode of their show once a week instead of selling it to CBS? How long before they decide they want 100% control over the show and revenues? Why do you need networks if more and more people are watching the shows on their computers, tablets, and cell phones? Same can apply to journalism. If you have a great story about the corruption in the White House why sell it to CBS or New York Times, if you can put it on your web site and have control over everything?

Finally, news. Dave Morgan said that networks and local news stations are essential for that. In fact, the success of networks is attributed to the fact that they delivered news faster than newspapers. But are they still the fastest? Jack Myers in his speech said he had been able to call the election results before any of the networks did by just following Twitter. When something happens I see the information on Twitter and Tumblr and YouTube before I see it on networks. In fact, I often see networks showing the same footage I already saw on YouTube or Twitter earlier. I’d rather believe that in 10 years people will be able to zoom in on Benghazi from space to see what is happening there live(!) using Google maps and then switching to live feeds from cell phones of people located there than they would turn on CBS news to learn about the events in Benghazi at 6pm. And for local news Dave Morgan himself said that a passionate parent can do a better job posting about the little league baseball game than a local newspaper. How about local restaurants? Or road constructions? Or any other topics? In 10 years, when current University and high school students who do everything with a smartphone in their hands turn into adults, they are not going to drop their devices – they will continue taking pictures and videos of the world around them, posting them, tagging them, commenting on them and especially things they are passionate about.

And I think the coverage they would produce, would satisfy brain, gut, and heart as the first speaker, Jack Myers, demanded for the next generation.

So, then, what is the added value of journalism? What does it produce for the society that people should pay for?

A few notes: Huge thanks to all the speakers – your experience and knowledge of the industry was eye-opening. It is of course possible that I misunderstood and/or misinterpreted what the speakers were saying – if this was case, I am sorry about that. Huge thanks to IRTS for this unique opportunity. I know I can serve my students better now when my mind was expanded. Looking forward to Day Two tomorrow (or actually already today)...

The Community Age: The end of Information Age and the future of journalism.

Does journalism have a future in the Community Age? I have no doubt about it. But this future will be very bleak. Journalists, real journalists, will be miserable, poor, useless and discarded.

It was great to be a journalist in the Information Age. But we are clearly living now in the Post-Information Age. Information, which used to be a hot product, is now a commodity. Everybody can have as much up-to-date information as any journalist.

A couple of months ago, there was a horrific terrorist attack in the Russian airport Domodedovo. I learned about it on Twitter. I saw YouTube videos of the attack itself and of the aftershock after the attack from people who were at the airport and videotaped it with their cellphones. I read information from victims, their relatives, and people who were actually at the airport at the time live using LiveJournal, VKontakte, Facebook, and Twitter as well as a few blogs.

But what made the end of the Information Age clear for me was the fact that when I got home in the evening and turned on the news, all the news channel showed the same YouTube videos I already saw and used all the quotes I already read. So, where is the journalism then?

That is why I think CNN is struggling. They try to be a news organization in a post-news world. People do not need journalists for news anymore. That is also why Fox News is bourgeoning – it is not news but propaganda – it does not tell the news it explains information from a certain standpoint. MSNBC went the same way. Propaganda may be a harsh word – call it news analytics (that may be too nice of a word), or cause marketing, or promotion, or persuasion. The point is: it is not what traditional journalism is about – delivering objective news.

Next time something horrible or great happens we will know about it from bystanders’ Twitter feeds and see it on YouTube courtesy of bystanders’ cell phones, long before we will learn about it from journalists. And even then, journalists will probably just repeat the same YouTube videos and use the same tweets as quotes. Yet, Fox News “journalists” will make one conclusions, while MSNBC “journalists” will come to polar conclusions based on this same event whatever it might be.

What is interesting, however, is to try to understand what will come next. After the Industrial Age, people spent a decade in the Post-Industrial Age before Information Age came around and propelled journalism to the new heights. Now I believe we are in the Post-Information Age. What will replace it? To me, it seems like it might be the Community Age (you can also call it Network Age or Relationship Age). Your personal community, professional community, geographical community and other communities will have as much of an effect on your quality of life and on your opportunities as possessions had in the Industrial Age or knowledge had in the Information Age.

You are not what you have or what you know, but who you know and who knows you... your community.