Why Apple Removed the iPhone's Headphone Jack

Everyone is talking about Apple's big move to remove the headphone jack from the new iPhone 7. There seem to be two camps of opinion: those supportive of the change, and those adamantly against it. Apple is failing it its marketing to this second camp of customers - and this has the potential to hurt Apple's revenue (albeit, most likely in the short term).

The biggest criticism from the naysayers stems from their annoyance Apple's overt greediness when it comes to demanding customers purchase new add-on products in their product redesign - not a new sentiment from customers, but heavily reinforced by their decision to remove the headphone jack. Wireless headphones are more expensive, in some cases double or triple the price of normal headphones, and Apple's timely release of its wireless "Air Pods", as well as the $40 headphone jack adapter, was enough to disillusion some of the most avid Apple brand supporters.

Apple - Air Pods - http://www.apple.com/airpods/

Another critique of Apple's recent product launches, in addition to the iPhone 7 launch, is Apple's failure to release any dynamic and game-changing new products since the original iPhone release in 2007. Apple has been making minor "tweaks" to its major products - the Macbook, iPod, iPhone - instead of releasing something entirely new and innovative.

The overly dramatic presentations at Apple's Special Events only serve to underscore the lack of new products to truly celebrate. There is an obvious disconnect between Apple's "overwhelming" presentation and "underwhelming" delivery of new ideas. It seems that in an effort to keep alive the spirit of Steve Jobs' dramatic presentation style, Apple feels the need to apply a similarly dramatic presentation style for all of its Special Events. Instead, Apple should cater its message to the importance of the announcement and the target audience. Improving Apple Special Events will also allow Apple to fight the current negative image as an arrogant, snobbish, and greedy company.

Recently, Apple's arrogant attitude is best exemplified by Philip Schiller's now viral quote, announcing that Apple's removal of the headphone jack, "comes down to one thing: courage." You don't need to be the host of the Daily Show to realize that this is a majorly overdramatic statement for Apple to make regarding their decision to change one aspect the iPhone. As Trevor Noah so eloquently puts it, "When I think of courage, I think: Martin Luther King, first responders, and what a bunch of cowards they were compared to the dude who removed an iPhone hole."

Apple's decision to remove the headphone jack was not one made without careful business considerations (this, I assume, is what Philip mean by having "courage"). Instead of waiting for technology to advance to the point of wire obsolescence, Apple made the choice to proactively change the iPhone 7 to meet that future vision.

In the era of advancing smart technology, it is not at all difficult to picture a future without wires. Wires including, yes, your headphones. While Apple's removal of our headphone wires may seem a tad premature, since wireless headphones are still pricier than their counterparts; however, Apple is certainly not "crazy" in betting that our future will not include headphone cables. And deciding to get a head start on that future.
_________________________________________________________________________________

Apple would benefit from reframing their overall narrative when it comes to Special Events. Apple is not just thinking about what the future will look like - but designing its products to create the future it envisions. This is a narrative that would resonate with a wider audience.
_________________________________________________________________________________

Apple is obviously doing its homework when it comes to mapping future scenarios and strategically adapting their product for a future demand. Apple is proactively designing its products for a future world - this message is often mistranslated by Apple's representatives and Event Keynote speakers (who have already "drank the kool aid.") It has failed to market the concept of creating the future to a wider audience - its technologically dogmatic, as well as its disenfranchised, customers.

Apple needs to remember that its customer can't "see" the future it sees, and it needs to paint that picture more clearly for its customer base. While this commercial for Air Pods is a good start, it focuses too heavily on the technical aspects of the product, rather than the overall story Apple's vision for the future and its role in designing products for that future.

So yes, it does take a bit of courage for Apple to redesign its products for a future reality. And, let's be honest here, with a rising stock price from ~$10 (2006) to ~$100 (2016), Apple can afford to take some risks. But, Apple should not say it aloud - its products' designs need to speak for themselves. With time, I think that we will all come to realize that is this was a decision that makes sense, and like any old technology, we will forget why we were using it in the first place. And hopefully, when Apple does release its next innovative product, it's worth the fanfare (my bets are on the iCar!).

More reading:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/airpods-are-apples-vision-of-a-wireless-future-1473294909
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/08/technology/iphone-7-apple-headphone-jack.html?_r=0
http://appadvice.com/post/apple-and-a-truly-wireless-future/721239
http://www.techradar.com/news/phone-and-communications/mobile-phones/iphone-7-headphone-jack-the-story-so-far-1324866
http://beloved-brands.com/2016/09/09/did-apple-just-break-the-steve-jobs-golden-rule/

Big Food and GMO Labeling: If You Can't Beat 'Em, Join 'Em

Recently in the news, some large food corporations including ConAgra, Kellogg’s, Mars, General Mills, and Campbell Soup Company have decided to implement nationwide genetically modified organism (GMO)labeling of their products due to the mandatory GMO labeling law passed in Vermont that comes into effect for companies on July 1, 2016.

Campbell Soup started the flood of GMO labeling declarations first, announcing in January 2016 that it supported “federal legislation to establish a single mandatory labeling standard for foods derived from GMOs.” Essentially, Campbell Soup “broke ranks” with the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), which was in support of the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling (SAFE) Act (or as opponents called it, the “Deny Americans the Right to Know”, or DARK Act). This Act, if passed, would have pre-empted any state law that mandated GMO labeling, and set up a federal voluntary “non-GMO” labeling system run by the USDA. The bill, however, was rejected in the Senate on March 17, 2016. Perhaps Campbell Soup had a premonition that this would be the case--or, as Campbell CEO Denise Morrison purported, Campbell truly believed in corporate transparency and that “printing a clear and simple statement on the label is the best solution for consumers and for Campbell.”

Whatever the case may be, with their proclamation, Campbell essentially attacked their consumer packaged goods (CPG) rivals’ “blind spot” as members of GMA--rivals who may not have planned for Campbell’s proactive announcement. Campbell gave itself a leg up on its competition early by attempting to force its competition to follow suit, even if they may not have been ready to do so. Whether its early announcement really made an impact on consumers, however, can certainly be debated. If Campbell had made this decision two years ago, rather than two months before its competition, it may have had a much greater impact on consumers’ mindset and brand loyalty.

So far, Campbell’s proactive strategy seems to have worked--although, all of the GMO labeling announcements from CPG competitors came after the defeat of the SAFE Act in the Senate. For this reason, it seems that policy, rather than competition, was the main influence in big food companies’ (other than Campbell’s) decision to implement nationwide GMO labeling.

If the SAFE Act had been passed, this federal legislation would have pre-empted all past and future state law, due to Article VI of the constitution.  Companies would have been able to follow federal law, and voluntary label their products for GMOs; federal law would supersede Vermont’s mandatory GMO-labeling law. The defeat of the SAFE Act allows states to now create a “patchwork of state labeling legislation” until another bill can be created and passed through the House and the Senate, which could take years. So for now, big food companies are stuck having to label for GMOs only in the state of Vermont--but are still forced to label some food products to be compliant.

It seems that the defeat of the SAFE Act, and the impending Vermont law taking effect has forced large food companies to admit defeat. According to food company spokespersons, including Paul Norma, president of Kellogg North America, creating a “special” label in Vermont only would be costly, and this cost would be passed down to the consumer. This makes sense for large companies like Kellogg and General Mills, whose business model is built on scale, creating one different label in one state does not make good business sense. Therefore, Kellogg, Mars, General Mills, and ConAgra all followed suit with Campbell and announced their commitment to the labeling of GMOs on products on a national scale.

These food companies are promoting that their decision to label GMOs stems from their initiative to be more transparent with their consumers. Whether is it because of the sudden urge by food companies to be transparent, or the defeat of the SAFE Act, it looks like nationwide GMO labeling is here to stay.

All these food companies still stand by the fact that there is no scientific evidence to date that genetically modified or engineered foods are less safe or healthy than other foods. But the new initiatives now beg the question: by choosing to label products, are food companies opening a can of worms by agreeing to label their products for GMO or GE ingredients? As one professor from University of Illinois at Urbana-Campaign, Dr Bruce Chassy, puts it, “Studies have suggested that some consumers may regard the mandatory GMO label as a safety warning. After all, why would government mandate a label on food if they weren’t trying to warn us as something?” Choosing to label GMOs may catch companies in a catch-22, by potentially adding justification to anti-biotechnology’s groups arguments that genetically modified and engineered foods are not safe for consumption. Kellogg's and General Mills, however, would probably argue that in this case, their hand was forced by the state of Vermont--and it would not make sense for them to change their labeling process just for one U.S. state.

Companies who have not yet joined the GMO labeling camp are DuPont (now DowDuPont) and Monsanto. It remains to be seen if these large CPG companies will jump on board, or keep their current wait-and-see attitude towards GMO labeling legislation and its impacts.

But for now, it seems that most food companies have taken a “if you can’t beat 'em, join 'em” approach to GMO labeling. Check your local packaged food product label in a store near you to see how companies are implementing their new GMO labeling policy.

Doing Good First, Doing Good Advertising After: The Kraft Mac & Cheese Success Story

Kraft, like many other large food corporations, is starting to feel the heat from consumers demanding only natural or naturally derived ingredients in food, beverage and even supplement products. In the industry, this has been called the "clean label trend" and while there is no clear definition of what a totally "clean" label is, surveyed consumers told Innova Market Insights that it included "no preservatives (49%), no artificial flavors (47%), no artificial colors (39%) and no artificial sweeteners (35%)."

Consumers have increasingly become more vocal and definitive about their preference for no artificial ingredients or additives. For color additives, much consumer and media outrage over synthetic colors originated from the findings of a study completed by researchers at Southampton University in 2007, which linked the consumption of artificial colors with increased hyperactivity in children.

Kraft is not the only large food manufacturer making the switch to natural ingredients for some of its products - recently, the food giant Mars announced that it would be phasing out artificial colors from its food and drink products over the next five years (yes, that means naturally colored M&Ms!). Kraft and Mars have just recently joined the "no artificial" bandwagon, which also includes similar announcements from Nestle, Hershey and General Mills last year, in 2015.

So if all of these big, consumer packaged goods (CPG) brands have promised to change for consumers, why is Kraft the only one making such big waves in the media and with consumers?

With Kraft's It's Changed, But It Hasn't campaign, the marketing team has potentially hit more gold in advertising, public relations (PR) and brand equity than with Velveeta's Liquid Gold Rush campaign in 2015 (also a Kraft brand). It is interesting to note that in the Kraft Heinz merger that finalized in July 2015, Kraft consolidated its creative accounts to four agencies – one of which, CP + B, is responsible for the new campaign.

The strategy behind Kraft's campaign was nothing short of brilliant. Kraft used humor and authenticity (see related article here) to appeal to its target customers, millennials and "clean label" advocates, while also not alienating its brand champions and long-term customers with a different product (think of the Coca Cola disaster of 1985).

In It's Changed, But It Hasn't, Kraft went beyond just understanding their customers’ preference for no artificially derived ingredients – they understood that consumers not just prefer these types of food products, but that they EXPECTED food companies to be doing this in the first place. To underscore their commitment to the original recipe, Kraft released the new, no artificial colors recipe in December 2015, but only added the new labeling (except the ingredients panel, of course) on March 7, 2016, after which they launched their media campaign.

Kraft walked a fine line between upsetting long-term customers (who really weren't interested in a so-called clean label in the first place) and appealing to more "health conscious" consumers (and no, the irony of making a butter and cheese product being "healthier" is not lost on many, including Steven Colbert) who want no artificial colors in their foods and beverages. While many customers currently expect food companies to working towards a "clean label", for big food manufacturers, re-formulating a recipe takes copious amounts of research and development and testing dollars, and not to mention regulatory compliance costs (if any) to analyze the consumption of these products. Kraft's answer to all of these challenges was careful, meticulous, perfectly timed and flawlessly executed. Not only did their campaign show perfectly that the taste of their quintessential recipe had not changed (because you didn't notice) they were also able to do an uninhibited, three month market test of their product to make sure that consumers did not taste any difference. And, hopefully they had a back up media campaign plan if customers rejected the new recipe! 

 Essentially, Kraft's message to their customers is this: we did everything in our power to met all of your expectations. We listened, we changed our recipe, and we did it without you noticing a different product. And now we know that most of our customers don't read the back-of-the-pack nutrition facts labels anyway, or they would have noticed that our ingredients changed! (Which was actually also shown by a study in 2011). It remains to be seen if Kraft will benefit enough from the positive PR this campaign generates to justify reformulating additional classic recipes moving forward; however, if Kraft and other big food companies continue to “do” good things before advertising their good deeds, I think that Kraft could set a precedent for future CPG media campaigns.

Authenticity in Advertising: How Dollar Shave Club is Winning the Millennial Market

"We're living in what I like to call the 'Thank You Economy,' because only the companies that can figure out how to mind their manners in a very old-fashioned way - and do it authentically - are going to have a prayer of competing." -Gary Vaynerchuk, The Thank You Economy

This advertisement convinced me to buy its product in less than 5 days:

I am 23 years old and female. I officially fit into the "millennial generation," but with a bit of a sentimental nod towards my predecessors, Generation X. I consider myself a feminist, and I do not like when companies try to sell me hot pink razors named after female goddesses with commercials featuring Victoria Secret models. In fact, I really hate it.

The key to this advertisement and my decision to buy was one word: authenticity. This advertisement spoke to me, directly to me, appealing to me visually, psychologically, and in a medium where I (regrettably) spend an exorbitant amount of time - Facebook. While social media marketing is seen as "the way of the future" for targeting millennial buyers, simply placing an advertisement on a medium frequented by the millennial generation and targeting with Facebook's algorithms is not enough to win new millennial buyers. There is an extra effort that needs to go into this advertising to make the message feel authentic to its buyers, and in my opinion, Dollar Shave Club is (so far) winning the millennial market much more effectively than its competition.

In case you were unaware, there is currently an advertising war going on in the shaving razor industry. The players: the "old" brands and large company players (Proctor & Gamble, owner of Gillette) and Energizer Holdings (owner of the Bic brand) versus newcomers like Dollar Shave Club who are trying to shift consumer expectations about how, where and when they buy their razors. At this point, there is no question that Dollar Shave Club was able to disrupt the market, enlisting 12,000 new customers in the first two days its e-doors were open. The big brands are starting to feel the heat, and attempting to reach out to consumers that may have been alienated by past marketing failures - not just their failures in advertising, but also failures in product placement and quality. But at this point, is it too little, too late?

Compare these three shaving razor commercials, each produced 2014-2015, from Dollar Shave Club, Gillette, and Idea Village:

[Dollar Shave Club, 2014]

In its 2014 commercial, Dollar Shave Club puts itself directly into the mind of the consumer and forces the consumer to question why they buy razors they way they do. Then, Dollar Shave Club adds a dab of the absurd into the recipe. The end result is a commercial that delivers the type of ironic humor that millennials (and even Generation X-ers) crave, and an exaggerated humorous situation everyone that has difficultly buying a razor can relate to.

[Gillette Shave Club, 2015]

Gillette, on the other hand, attempts to follow the same recipe as Dollar Shave Club, but the result is found wanting, to say the least. This television advertisement simply comes off flat and not funny. It seems that a sales guys busting into your bathroom while you are shaving just is not as hilarious as it used to be (and, honestly, it was never funny or absurd to millennials to begin with). Gillette's lacking key ingredient? Authenticity. 

[Idea Village, 2014]

And then, there is the Microtouch "Tough Blades" sold by Idea Village, who markets themselves as the "As Seen on TV Leaders." They also are attempting to capitalize on this "advertising war" against the big brands in shaving razors. Idea Village, on the other hand, seems to have decided to forgo all efforts of selling authentically. The advertisement's goal is to get you to "buy now!" I mean, if these razors are good enough for Brett Farve, they are obviously good enough for you. The advertisement follows the cliche infomercial model of success, with celebrity endorsement as an added bonus.

This advertisement obviously does not target millennials. This commercial, compared to the others, gives a great contrast to the new versus old advertising models. The older generations, the Baby Boomers and the Silent Generation, still respond to this kind of advertising, and it will continue to be around as long as it continues to work. But any millennial viewing this advertisement would simply not take it seriously; this is the advertising of the past, the advertising that causes our grandparents to spend our entire inheritance during late night television.

While the message is a key part of the advertising war, it is not the only component that weighs into the minds of consumers as they make their buying decision. In this case, while I am not usually a proponent of the traditional 4 P's as a marketing model, comparing the three companies in these four different areas very much elucidates the key differences between the brands' marketing strategies.

The pricing model for each brand is very different. For the Idea Village's "tough blades" you're paying on an "annual basis" ($19.99+ $7.99 = $27.98). This model would technically amount to $2.3 a month. Compare this to its competitors, Dollar Shave Club offers three price steps: $1/ month, $6/ month and $9/ month, plus free shipping and start off razor. Gillete's plan runs from $3.50-$4.90/ month, plus free shipping and a discount on a razor. The quality of the "Tough Blade" seems obviously less well-made than it's competitors, and it's advertising model seems to lean towards a large amount of one time buyers (hence the annual cost), compared to the other shave clubs, which are based on keeping you as a monthly customer. In this way, it makes sense that Dollar Shave Club chose to be authentic in its advertising messages - without brand loyalty from its customers, its business model would not succeed.

As Dollar Shave Club exemplifies, authenticity is the key to advertising of the future because it fosters brand loyalty. In the age of open information, advertising is no longer a one way street. If customers do not like your message, or your product when it arrives, they will tell not just you - they will tell everyone on their Facebook page, all of their Twitter followers, and they may leave you a couple of reviews on Amazon, Yelp, etc. Advertising authentically, in many ways, is no longer optional for brands who are looking to not just convert customers, but maintain a steady stream of monthly repeat purchases.

Can the big brands still fight the newcomers like Dollar Shave Club? Absolutely. But to fight this type of advertising, the marketing strategy needs to be long term, and, of course, authentic to the brand's core customers. Advertising authentically can look like many different things to many different people. Copying the competition's advertising strategy is not authentic, and this seems to be Gillette and P&G's main tactic has been so far. In my opinion, if there is one thing that millennials will buy into, more than humor, it is the authenticity of being "Made in the USA." Unlike Dollar Shave Club and other competitors, Proctor & Gamble and Energizer Holdings manufacture their blades domestically. This could be a huge authentic selling point for their advertising. Why are they not using it to their advantage?

There is certainly no ready-made formula for targeting millennials, but many lessons can be learned from Dollar Shave Club and it's founder and CEO Michael Dubin. In the age of digital marketing, the conversation is no longer a one-way street; successful marketers will know how to use not only digital platforms, but create messages that are authentic and conversations that are rewarding to gain and retain the next generation of buyers. I hope that you will follow this advertising battle with me as it unfolds, and as an informed consumer, consider how a brand's authenticity (or inauthenticity) plays into your buying decisions.

The Three Main Reasons that the Dress Went Viral

There have been many articles recently about why the infamous dress went viral. Many authors compare the phenomenon to other viral episodes, and discuss a so-called "equation of virality" (which, in most equations, includes a key component of luck). Some argue that virality, or making something go viral online, is completely random and based on luck. Others, on the other hand, have put their careers on the line in the pursuit of making content go viral (see Viral Gains). In this instance, however, it was certainly more than luck that turned #thedress into the viral image that took the Internet by storm this past week.

There are three core reasons that this very simple tumblr post turned into a national sensation. The dress asked us, in a unique way, the basic question that we all struggle to understand each and every day, "how can someone view something so differently than myself?" With that in mind, these three key factors led the dress to occupy the minds of a nation.

The dress had to be shared with someone else

Without sharing the picture of the dress with another human being, either through text, online, or in person, there was no way to ask that person what they thought the color of the dress was. In this way, the dress was perfectly positioned for virality; if you did not share the image in some way, you could not receive either confirmation or contradiction that the colors that you were seeing were "accurate."

The dress created polarized communities 

A core component of the dress' success in latching onto people's psyche was the image's creation of two opposing camps: those who saw the image as blue and black, and the people who saw white and gold. Immediately after the image began to be shared, questions and hypotheses arose regarding the deeper meaning behind why you saw one image or the other. For example, one Twitter user, BradTheLadLong, swore that people who saw the image as blue and black had a more negative emotional state. 

Later, Twitter users, and even celebrities, started to chime in with their identified camps of #blueandblack and #whiteandgold. This appeal to the viewer's identity created a feeling of camaderie with people who saw the same colors, and adversaries between those who saw differing colors, leading to intense debates and continued conversations to find more comrades and disprove the adversaries. Large news websites, including Fox News and Buzzfeed, even started a national poll in order to monitor these groups in an attempt to "prove" which of the groups was right.

 The dress challenged us to understand another’s visual perception

At the heart of this phenomenon is the deeper human craving to understand others’ points of view. In this case, our lack of understanding was a literal one; those who saw blue and back simply could not understand why someone else saw white and gold, and vice versa. In our society, we teach kids to “walk in someone else’s shoes” in order to emphasize with them. There comes a time, however, when that child (or adult) realizes that he or she cannot take this advice literately; we cannot actually see the world from another's perspective because the self is too deeply rooted in our physical beings. The dress reminds us of this limitation; that we are truly blind to other’s physical, visual perceptions. It prompts us to consider just how closely our perceptions are tied to our physical reality. Without this underlying idea, the dress would not have been successful in capturing our minds, thoughts and imaginations.

If any one of these key factors were missing, the dress would have been just another passed over Tumblr post. The picture’s innate shareability, its natural creation of divided groups, and its appeal to our need to understand others led to the national spectacle that continues to amaze, spark intense debates, inspire blog posts like these, and, of course, be shared all over the Internet.

Why Advertising Agencies Have Trouble Rebranding

I don't know. That is all. Could someone explain it to me?

7 Personal Items You Will Forget to Pack for Your Next Trade Show

1. Extra Coat Hangers

Do hotels really think five hangers is enough for all your outfits?

2. Toe Nail Clippers

Walking all day at a show has a certain way of reminding you that your toe nails get in the way of your shoes when they get to a certain length....

3. Chapstick

And I mean real chapstick, not lip gloss, or the kind that gives your lips a little bit of shine. The chapstick that you can rub all over your face when needed.

4. Tums

Eating convention food all day will get to you eventually. Be ready!

5. An Actually Working Hair Dryer

This is for you, ladies. Who has time to dry their hair for two hours? No one.

6. Tweezers

Those hotel mirrors will show you EVERYTHING you do not want to see, including perhaps things you did not know existed. Be prepared.

7. Extra Coffee and/ or Tea Packets

Try not to let friends into your hotel room for any reason; however, if you must, be sure to check all pockets before leaving your room.