When doing a scan of the headlines about the Droid launch, you’ll find fairly consistent reviews across the board.  When it is reviewed with regard only for the features, functionality and usability of the device itself, it seems to do very, very well.  When compared to the iPhone - it takes the back seat 9 times out of 10.

A lot of what I’m reading is that it’s just not quite as good as the iPhone experience, that it was over-hyped to begin with - that it will do well, but can’t really “kill” the iPhone because some people will only be happy if their kick-butt device is called “iPhone.”

Some would see that as a failure.  But I suspect that they’re looking at it solely from the perspective of the marketing and branding - and the emotional attachment that people have to the iPhone and Apple.  They’re not looking at it from the perspective of the quality of the device and the feature-by-feature comparison.

I’m not saying that branding and marketing isn’t important - because it’s a huge contributor to the success of any company and product.  But in order for someone to start challenging the iPhone and making Steve Jobs nervous, a device first had to come out that was at least a feature-by-feature challenger to the iPhone.

The Droid clearly and definitively accomplishes that.  Just take a look at WIRED’s comparison of the features.  The only question that remains is if Motorola and Google can somehow get the marketing and community building just right.  Yes - there are Google loyalists that are as passionate as Apple fanatics.  But throw Motorola into the mix while they have been struggling for so long, and the emotional attachment just isn’t there.

And it gets even tougher - the noise the Droid makes on startup is a love-it-or-hate-it touch.   It’s tough to build the same meaningful relationship that people have with Apple when the product has such a cold, harsh and robotic conceit.  Look what it’s competing with in the Apple commercials - I feel like Robert DeNiro in “Analyze This” when I see those commercials… I just want to cry (but out of happiness in this case).

So… it comes down to the brand and the community - and that’s where the iPhone is competing.  Apple got most of the features right on the first try, and they’ve been focusing almost entirely on the branding and user experience while developers grow the AppStore to nearly 100,000 apps in just a couple of years.

Can Droid compete on that level?  I suppose so - but going head-to-head with the iPhone in the marketing right away is skipping a few very important steps.  Why not focus on finding and building your army of users first?  Let them fight the fight with Apple - and Motorola, Google and Verizon don’t have to do anything other than foster and cultivate the community from there.

Oh yeah, they also need to keep delivering products with a feature set and user experience that makes them competitive - and that means no more crappy phones.  Because those other devices they put out there are inevitably going to impact the overall sentiment around the Droid.

Think about it like cars - you can’t possibly argue that the Cube doesn’t (for some people) affect the perception of other Nissan products, can you?  What about Blackberry and the first generation Storm?  Did it not diminish some confidence in RIM and ultimately harm the overall perception of other products such as the Curve?

And so it goes - another quality smartphone that has game, but needs to get the marketing just right in order to truly compete with the iPhone.  I’m pulling for this one - not because I have anything against the iPhone - but because it has been a few years and it’s about time that someone at least delivers a competitive product on a feature-by-feature level.  Some stiff competition in the smartphone market is only going to benefit consumers.

The bottom line is that this “war” is not being talked about enough on a product and feature level.  The Droid launch strategy tried to push the conversation towards features - but it made a mistake to do that in such a way that it was immediately juxtaposed with the iPhone.  That’s part of the reason why almost every review I have read has started and finished with some comparison to the iPhone.

I, for one, want to get my hands on the Droid.  I’m stuck with Verizon for a while anyway - so why not give it a shot?  And there’s an iPhone user in my home, too!  So we can do our own comparison, and provide more feedback here when (and if) I’m able to purchase the Droid.

I had a good conversation about Austin start-ups recently.  Specifically, we were talking about the differences between Austin start-ups and those in Silicon Valley.

My point in the conversation was that I was in love with the Austin start-up scene because “Austin start-ups have these really cool things called business models.”

Now, I know that there are plenty of exceptions to this claim, and I haven’t done any official research to prove the point.  But I’m basing my claim on a lot of conversations with companies in town, during SXSWi, etc.

This is really a cultural strength of the entrepreneurial community in Austin, I think.  Our start-ups talk about changing the world, just like in the Valley.  But the difference seems to be that Austin start-ups really do their homework on business models and identifying several possible revenue streams right from the get-go.  In contrast, the Valley seems to embrace a different approach:

1. Hype the crap out of the product
2. Get other people who love the new shiny object to hype the crap out of your product
3. Hope some investor falls in love with your product and gives you money to hype the crap out of it even more
4. Start talking about how you have awesome plans to make money, but you’re focused on improving the product right now
5. Keep saying that for a few years
6. Get another investor to give you MORE money to hype your product even further
7. Get acquired at a ho-hum valuation by a company that has a business model, and has been able to find a way to use you to drive revenue

And so it goes… over and over again.  I’m not saying there’s something wrong with that model.  And I’m certainly not saying that every start-up in the valley follows that model.  But it’s becoming increasingly visible that this is happening with alarming frequency now that acquisitions have sped up as the economy shows signs of recovery.

Frankly - an exit strategy is always good.  But I’m always a bit disappointed when a really cool start-up didn’t find a revenue stream so they could keep changing the world, etc.  These companies do awesome things, but I want them to stay alive, independent and full of the same fire that disappears far too quickly when they’re absorbed into a large, purely money-driven organization.

Austin seems to embrace that sentiment within the start-up community. There’s strength to our start-ups because they don’t necessarily put all their hopes into an exit strategy.  Perhaps there’s some bravery there that doesn’t exist in a region that isn’t trying desperately to maintain its weirdness…

I don’t really know what it is, but I would be interested to hear if other folks in Austin get this same impression, the opposite, or something else entirely.

Tom Watson pulled off one of the most unexpected performances in the history of golf this weekend.  Yeah, so he didn’t quite get the job done on the 18th, but I think the performance as a whole teaches a valuable lesson - particularly to marketers and corporate management around the world.

A 59 year-old almost won one of the most difficult tournaments in all of golf.  How is that possible?  Why was he able to pull it off?  He’s too old to hit irons into 200+ yard par threes!  When PGA tour players were hitting 5 or 4 irons, Watson was hitting hybrids and 3-woods!  It’s an enormous disadvantage!

Watson’s performance broke down a lot of mental barriers for a lot of Champions Tour players, I bet.  And I think that’s the lasting memory that many pro golfers will take away form this year’s championship.  Old, young, veteran, rookie - they all have a chance of winning, so long as the skills are sufficient and they’re able to break through mental barriers to allow themselves to succeed. It’s an individual thing - the golfer has to be able to believe that they can do it, and they need to put the hours in on the range to perfect their skills.

But hold on - this isn’t necessarily what management experts are saying!  They’re all caught up with broad-sweeping generalizations about Gen X, Gen Y, millennials, boomers, etc.  And they recommend strategies for managing each generation in the workplace - frequently ignoring the fact that the workplace is comprised of individuals, not sets of employees with inherent generational characteristics.

Tom Watson was an exception to the “rule” at the Open Championship - he didn’t perform in the way that he was supposed to based upon his age and generation.  His generation isn’t tooled to compete on the golf courses of the current generation - meticulously groomed greens and 600-yard par-fives!

But he almost won.

And that’s what concerns me about all this posturing going on about how to manage millennials, or why Gen X is going to do something extraordinary in our organizations.

Sure, there’s good research that identifies trends in behavior, and trends in common characteristics.  But common sense should suggest that if you’re not providing an employee with an INDIVIDUAL experience, with individual goals and a management style that acknowledges that each person in the organization is unique, then you’re going to have serious problems.

With regards to my specific generation - Gen Y - I think a lot of the research misses the point.  The reason why a millennial might seem like they “expect the world” from the company is not because they were spoiled by mommy and daddy - it’s because they feel as though they are a square peg in the organization, and their managers are used to having “circles”, so it all feels weird when they’re being forced into the circle hole.

And frankly, if you are being forced to morph into something you’re not just so that you can be lumped in with the rest of the cattle, then you’re going to expect your company to give you something in return for that sort of Transformer act. Otherwise,  you’re just not going to be happy at work.

I think it’s a good reminder, having watched the Open Championship, that we need to be more careful with the segmentation as marketers, or the “Gen whatever needs to be managed in x,y,z ways” stuff as managers.  People respond pretty darn well, regardless of generation, when they are able to be themselves and to use their strengths.  From a PR perspective, people respond pretty well when you have a 2-way conversation with them and truly consider their perspective.

Tom Watson wasn’t a freak exception to a rule - we just built up this expectation in our heads that a 59-year-old couldn’t even come close to winning a major.  Let’s take that lesson to the workplace - being a member of a particular generation doesn’t mean someone inherited any or all of the traits that are identified in the research.  Just like Tom didn’t inherit a crappy golf swing after his hip was replaced 9 months ago.

Either way - I bet you can save a lot of money by not buying the research or consulting services and, instead, just committing some time towards listening to and conversing with your employees on a 1-to-1 level.

I bet one of the best feelings Tom felt all week was when people stopped expecting his fake hip to give out, and started thinking “darn, this guy is actually capable of doing this!”

Had to post - just because…

It has been a very interesting week here in Austin.  On Thursday, we adopted a second dog.  This one wasn’t so much adopted, as it was inherited from extended family that didn’t really want to deal with the little bugger anymore.

Derby, the mini poodle, is not quite the second dog that I had been dreaming of.  For starters, he’s about 100 pounds smaller than the dog I had envisioned bringing into the home.  Second, he’s got some noticeable and challenging behavioral issues.  He’s possessive of food, doesn’t like to be picked up, never was properly socialized with people or other dogs, and frankly - just seems to be a bit “slower” than your average dog.

What I’m realizing is that Derby is much harder to train than my first dog, Haley, was.  I’m also thinking a lot about how training a dog is about proving your credibility to the dog - establishing that you, the human, are the leader of the pack.  If you aren’t consistently reacting to behaviors and actions in the same way, then the dog will continue to confused about who the pack leader is.

In that sense - I would argue that training a dog can teach us some lessons about PR:

• Credibility (alpha dog positioning) is the primary goal
• Consistency is critical - coming and going only confuses the stakeholders (dogs, customers, investors, etc.)
• You absolutely have to be firm - but never too aggressive.  This is like the difference between bickering with your competitors and simply asserting yourself and your opinion (in a credible way!)
• You can teach an old dog new tricks - it just takes a long time! Patience is critical with training dogs, as it is with getting your company’s PR from 0-60.  Sure - with the right press relationships you can get a lot of buzz in a very short period of time, but you’re not getting the credibility unless you’re carefully looking at your business and determining what type of initiatives are best for you.  That’s a whole different level of PR, and it’s the stuff that you slowly build with precision, over time.

So, I’ll be practicing “PR” at home this weekend.  And I really do have to run, as the dogs need a little, ahem, firm attention right now.

I don’t know what it is - but for all the “similarities” between PR and dog training, I think I’m way better at what I do at the office than what I’m dealing with at the house right now! ;)

Sarah Evans has an great post on the Top 4 skills all new PR professionals must have.  I really like the post - and every point rings true to me.  But I do want to add my 4 favorite skills to the list.  Yes - this is a far more snarky, sarcastic set of skills, but I think they have their validity.  Perhaps they are not really skills - but I think all of them can be learned, and therefore I see them as skills.  Here they are:

1. The ability to ignore everything you learned about PR or marketing in college. The tricky thing about this one is that you have to do it while at the same time beefing up your ability to embrace the most important thing that college taught you: that you should never stop learning, trying to learn, or questioning what you hear.  Two things happen when you get into PR: you realize that it is nothing like what you thought it would be, and that you’ve landed in the real classroom for your profession.  I’m not saying that your degree doesn’t matter, but you have to understand that the education you receive on the job is FAR more important than the basic foundation you received in college.
2. Killing your ego. The PR industry, for some reason, has and deals with a surprisingly large amount of egomaniacs.  The PR ones can generally find some level of success because other people find it easier to deal with them by giving them what they want.  But the egomaniacs, I imagine, will one day realize that they spent their lives in a career where they were given the opportunity to meet an enormous amount of really interesting, genuine, memorable people and they wasted all of it thinking about themselves.  More importantly, your going to run into a lot of situations where your ego is not as important as doing the job right.  You provide a service that is still hard to measure and easy to bash - so swallow your pride and choose your fights carefully.  Also - client service will always be an important part of the service you provide, no matter how great you think your results are.
3. Ditch digging. Seriously - if you haven’t done any manual labor, you will be hard-pressed to understand PR. It is a strange, strange profession.  Far more frequently than you would expect you will find yourself brainstorming some creative way to get a 300-pound buffet table from the car to your office lobby with minimal help, or building out a 300 page document at 2am with burning eyeballs and minimal help (because everyone else around you is doing the same exact thing).  If you have experience doing something that could, at times, be a bit repetitive or back-breaking in nature then you’ll understand why my buddy Josh Dilworth says that “PR Is a Blue-Collar Job”.  A lot of PR is about pure effort, and if you understand the jobs that require a strong back, then you will understand the unique way in which PR is “back-breaking.”
4. Honesty and Transparency. This is a big one and it’s not easy to discuss it briefly.  But here’s the short version:  Your client doesn’t want to be lied to, the media doesn’t want to be lied to and your colleagues don’t want to be lied to.  In fact, nobody wants to be lied to!  Yeah - this applies to every industry.  The difference in PR?  PR has a strange reputation - somewhat like lawyers - and people will, at first, assume you are a liar more often than they will assume that you will be truly honest.  The easiest way to be honest is to be yourself - and that is a notoriously hard skill to learn (or hold onto) for people who are under pressure and trying desperately to succeed in their careers.

So my suggested skills are nowhere near as technology or social media-centric as Sarah’s - and there’s a reason for that.  New PR, to me, is not only about the tools that are available to PR folks.  It’s primarily, I think, about the underlying cultural purpose and applications of those tools.  Maybe I’ll write a bit more on that for a post next week…

Golf Galaxy (a golf equipment chain) started a pretty awesome e-mail campaign recently.

I created an account with them to save a few bucks here and there and to get updates about new products. It’s actually pretty useful considering how many golf balls I lose on the course and how many clubs I break over me knee after losing all the balls…

The cool thing is that they send me an e-mail every Monday which tells about the clubs that the previous day’s winner was using.  Now - I have no need to recieve an email every week about a new driver or putter that I should buy.  But I actually am interested in hearing about what clubs the pro’s are playing.

There used to be a section in every Golf Digest, I think, which showed you what a certain player had “in the bag”.  It was a surprisingly sticky feature - for no reason other than to get some perspective on how much different players relied on their equipment.

Nonetheless - props to Golf Galaxy for putting together a pretty creative email campaign that I actually look forward to reading - and did I mention it has pretty much solidified my loyalty to buying my gear at their store?

I think the idea of a “PR Major” is great.  But I often wonder (mostly in ignorance) - does learning how to write a press release really prepare you for a career in PR?

I wouldn’t know - I was an English major.  And by “English Major” I, of course, mean a college student that was fond of wine.

As it turns out - this job is made up of such a wide variety of odd tasks and completely random assignments that you can’t really be “prepared” for what you’re getting yourself into.

The thing that did provide me with, I think, a decent “preparation” for PR was an education in reading and writing.  Seriously.  I spend more time reading than I ever thought I would.  I simply can’t do my job if I don’t have a feel for what’s happening today, what has been happening, and at least an educated guess of what might happen tomorrow.

I also can’t properly support my clients without the ability to write reasonably well.  I don’t mean to say that I’m a rock-star writer (and this blog does, and should, suggest quite the opposite).  But if you really struggle with writing, you’re really going to struggle with a lot of the stuff you’ll be doing in PR.

So what’s with the PR major?  If reading and writing are so critical to the job, why do so few PR job descriptions mention English majors?  And please don’t get me started on asking why none of the job descriptions in any industry mention English majors…ever.

But it’s worth pointing out - the “basics” of PR are pretty easy to learn.  Executing on the standard tactics is just about as simple as it gets.  So how does an education in PR take you beyond the stuff that you will learn, by default, in the first few months of your career?

I don’t mean to imply that the English major deserves more glory.  Once you’ve read Beowulf, it’s not that you’re all of a sudden smart or an intellectual or “cultured”, rather, it’s a point of exposure to the bizarre, the zany, and the seemingly impossible that does something to the way that you think - it opens up your mind a bit, and helps you to ignore constraints and solve problems in strange, strange, but frequently effective ways.

This could go on forever - but it does get at the heart of the issue, which I believe is: The skills and traits and qualities of a really good PR person are really, REALLY hard to describe - and the job descriptions may never adequately reflect the actual type of talent you are looking for.

Unless you hire an English major to write them… ;)

I just finished a pretty interesting post-dinner discussion with my fiance, who is, suffice it to say, a bit disappointed in some of the “lavish” events that bailout companies have held in recent months.

I’m really not sure where I stand on all of this stuff - and to be honest, I desperately want to separate the political from the business-oriented stuff.  I’m not really interested in discussing specific examples.  What I am interested in is how the general public reaction may actually affect marketing people and the industry itself.

(For the record, my fiance delivered the quote of the week during our conversation - pointing out that people who attend parties that are sponsored by companies that have accepted bailout funds are, in fact, “drinking the bailout”.)

But what I pointed out, in all seriousness, was that a lot of these “sponsorship” opportunities, lavish parties, and corporate events might be legitimate marketing activities that benefit a company’s brand, visibility, or they might even deliver leads and drive customer acquisition.

This points to a bigger problem, though.  The vast majority of the population reacts in outrage largely because they’re not willing to acknowledge that corporate events and general marketing shenanigans may actually have an ROI.  Therein lies the problem: marketing still has not learned the language needed to explain the value of all of the seemingly excessive spending on their initiatives.

How do you explain to the general public that the sponsorship of a sporting event, and all the parties and affairs that your name is attached to during this event, is actually really important for building awareness for your products and services?  And to make this even more frustrating - how do you explain this to the general public when you struggle to explain it to your CEO?

I think there’s something useful brewing here.  If Congress, the general public, and a variety of other interested parties are persistent in pressuring these companies to explain themselves, we might just find a breakthrough in conveying the value of marketing in a concise and meaningful way.

That’s not to say that absolutely no marketing person out there can explain the value of marketing, but rather, the act of explaining it to the population at-large is a better litmus test for our ability to explain the value of what we do.

Yes, measurement and ROI is getting better and easier each day because of the growing set of quality tools and best practices made available to us, but that doesn’t mean that we’re measuring the right things.  And to take that a step further - measurement is not the issue I’m interested in here.  What I’m saying is that measurement and analytics is not the only thing you need if you’re trying to successfully demonstrate value - it only tells part of the story, and we may never be able to adequately measure engagement in the same way as traffic on your web site.  This issue I care about is that many (or maybe most) marketing, PR and advertising people still stumble all over themselves when they are asked to demonstrate the value of what they do!

Enough for now - but I am eager to see how some of these companies react to accusations in future incidents - because there will certainly be a lot to learn from the most effective of these explanations - and I do expect the best of them to be hybrids of hard data and broader language.

Congrats to the whole team at Siri - This is well-deserved recognition and beyond exciting.

(Siri is a client)