Keith Nowak

Wireless - The Tiny Giant

Wed, 08 May 2013 12:26:00 -0400

Sometimes, what you believe to be true in the abstract truly becomes concrete when you experience the effects first hand. Over the past few years, I have commented to friends and colleagues about how dramatically the wireless landscape has contracted. Not in the overall size of the market (while growth in the US at least has pretty well plateaued, the total annual unit volume is still about as high as it has ever been), but the number of players in the market.

But in the most recent weeks and months, as my concentration has focused on finding full-time employment once again, it has become crystal clear the extent of this contraction. I recently wrote a post about how the handset market is reaching a state of duopoly – but it isn’t just handsets - this contraction is endemic across the entire breadth of the industry – from network equipment to handsets to operators to distributors. What was once a dynamic job-creation machine has entered a state of ossification. And while my immediate (self-centered) concern is my own employment, this also causes me concern for the future of the industry as a whole.

As I look around on people’s LinkedIn profiles (as those of us on a job search are wont to do), I look back into former colleagues’ job histories and see company names that were once big names (or at least candidates to become big names) in the industry. Oki, Ericsson, NEC, Panasonic, Technophone, Denso, Siemens, Philips, Audiovox, Novatel and other even more obscure relics from wireless’ past are names that I have been reminded of recently. But those are only the manufacturers.

Who remembers names like GTE Mobilnet, PrimeCo, Bell Atlantic Mobile, Ameritech, BellSouth, Western Wireless, VoiceStream, or Omnipoint?

Those who have worked on the operator side have reminded me that the carrier landscape is even more dramatic in its consolidation. Who remembers names like GTE Mobilnet, PrimeCo, Bell Atlantic Mobile, Ameritech, BellSouth, Western Wireless, VoiceStream, or Omnipoint? And more recently, names like Alltel and MetroPCS have disappeared or are quickly fading away.

When I first entered the wireless industry (in paging – a segment of the wireless industry that has all but disappeared of course) I felt that I had made a very wise move (even if I had really just stumbled into it). At that time, a seemingly endless cycle of new companies were entering the arena faster than the old ones faded away, so a new job opportunity was never a rare commodity. New entrants were forever searching out experienced talent to complement the newest crop of new and enthusiastic faces just entering the industry.

But today, the situation is very different. As I look up the names of old and talented colleagues, many of them came to the conclusion that the industry doesn’t hold the opportunity that it once did and have (often reluctantly) moved on to new, unrelated areas. And as I scour job sites, not only do I see the remaining wireless players not creating many new jobs, I also see them creating virtually no new entry level jobs. That means no fresh new faces coming into the industry to shake things up – creating new ideas and innovations. And even more than the difficulty of my finding a job within the industry in which I grew up, I worry about how the industry will continue to innovate without infusions of fresh blood to renew the innovation stream.

Certainly, there are startups creating new mobile applications all over Silicon Valley – and they are bringing new ideas and excitement into that specific area. But applications are to phones what performance equipment is to cars – while they can make the overall experience better, without continuous innovation at the foundation (i.e. the phone or the car), all of the bells and whistles on top end up being counterproductive – good new ideas built on old outdated ones.

Expensive became accessible. Slow became fast. Dumb became smart. Difficult became intuitive.

Certainly, there have been cycles in the wireless industry before – the big collapse before the big bang. And I hope that is the case again – as those cycles of renewal served to reinvent the industry each time that they happened in the past. Expensive became accessible. Slow became fast. Dumb became smart. Difficult became intuitive. But somehow, this time feels different. Possibly that is because for the first time in one of those cycles, I am on the outside looking in. For those of you still inside – keep fighting to innovate, try to bring in new blood, and bring on one of those cycles again – because that it what makes the industry so damned appealing.

And, if you need someone who has been down the road before to come along for the ride, well, you know where to find me.

klachtanski: Why is saying “I’m sorry” in business so hard to...

Fri, 03 May 2013 13:26:04 -0400

klachtanski:

Why is saying “I’m sorry” in business so hard to do?

I’ve been reading a lot about JCPenney’s its No Secret video and social media campaign today (#jcpListens). In a nutshell, previous management made some changes that customers did not like (sales declined even further) and new management wants you to know that they are now listening to their customers.

JCP is not a store I frequent but it has been around forever so it caught my interest. I remember the catalogs my mom had around the house that were as thick as a phone book. Remember the Montgomery Ward catalog anyone? (For that matter, remember phone books?) So it is nice to see JCPenney is using social channels to do a mea culpa and woo their customers back.

But wait a minute…they didn’t actually say they were sorry. In fact, what they say is that you didn’t like some of the changes they made recently. From this mistake, they have learned to listen. Full text of the video is below. It is a classy video but an apology is implied not given.

I find that most people are forgiving when there is an apology. Bump into me and mutter a sorry or excuse me and we’re good. Gesture apologetically after cutting me off in traffic and I’ll wave you on your way. Many retail successful businesses will freely offer an apology along with generous return policies (Amazon, Nordstrom). No harm, no foul. In fact, these businesses continue to get my business because they are polite, apologetic when something goes awry and go out of their way to keep me as a customer.

Celebrity apologies happen all too often. Time will tell if customers will flock back to JCP. Today, it seems there are too many alternatives to box stores for them not to do whatever is needed to get customers back into the store.

Full text of video:

It’s no secret, recently JCPenney changed. Some changes you liked and some you didn’t, but what matters from mistakes is what we learn. We learned a very simple thing, to listen to you. To hear what you need, to make your life more beautiful. Come back to JCPenney, we heard you. Now, we’d love to see you.

Why is tech PR broken?

Fri, 08 Feb 2013 20:30:43 -0500

Recently, I have been seeing a growing flood of posts and tweets from members of the media (print, online and otherwise) bemoaning the current state of PR (specifically tech PR). While some level of friction between media and PR reps is nothing new (and probably healthy to some extent), it seems as though the methods that many tech PR practitioners are now implementing are changing the historical role of the PR department as a liaison between members of the media and the inner workings of a company into something far different – and far less effective.

When I first entered the PR field, there were a few simple lessons that I learned from the very experienced team with whom I worked:

Listening is more important than speaking.
Before blindly engaging, take time to understand a journalist’s interests by actually reading their writing.
Always take time to respond to an inquiry – even if you can’t give an answer, acknowledge that the question was at least heard

But the most important lesson that I learned was that the relationship between a writer and a PR pro is a two-way street. A PR pro can’t expect that he or she can ignore their media until needing to pitch a story to them – and then expect an enthusiastic reception. A good relationship is built by a PR pro working hard to help a writer obtain the information and access that they need to do their job. Certainly, a PR practitioner’s first concern needs to be their company (or client), but doing everything possible in order to assist a writer in gathering timely and accurate information is a very, very close second.

A PR pro can’t expect that he or she can ignore their media until needing to pitch a story to them – and then expect an enthusiastic reception.

Now, this certainly isn’t rocket science (or brain surgery, or whatever difficult task you wish to insert here). In our personal lives, it is understood that only taking, and never giving, is the fastest way to destroy a relationship. “As ye sow, so shall ye reap” has been understood for so long that people were still saying “ye” when it was first written. So why has this simple lesson been forgotten (or ignored) by so many when it comes to the PR field?

Actually, I don’t believe that these lessons have been forgotten – they have just been buried under the detritus of today’s business environments. The self-contained corporate PR department is becoming a relic of an earlier time when healthy profit margins roamed the earth. Instead, a company may have an internal PR team (at best), or more likely, an agency that acts as a company’s in-house team. In both of these cases, they are more than likely reporting to the marketing department. And this is where the problems start.

While to the C-level executives looking to trim costs, burying the PR function within marketing seems like a great idea (“Hey, PR is just free advertising, right?”), the reality is that no two functions are as diametrically opposite than PR and marketing. This may seem like an overstatement until you look at the very core of these professions. Boiled down to basics, marketers create a message, and then pay someone to deliver this message. PR practitioners create a message, and then leverage relationships to try and sell this message to someone (who may or may not deliver the message, and furthermore, may or may not deliver the message in quite the way as it was hoped.)

However, since these corporate PR teams (or PR agencies) are now reporting to (or at least subservient to) the marketing department – they are being directed to act as though they were simply placing advertising. Marketers are used to paying a specific sum of money, and getting exactly what they create placed exactly where they want it at the exact time that they need it. And unfortunately, now the expectation is that the PR team can do the exact same thing (except for free). And in the frenzy to meet those expectations, today’s PR practitioner is forgoing those basic lessons of how to do their jobs the right way, and are blindly using non-targeted email lists to carpet-bomb media with whom they have no prior relationship in hopes of creating a hit that can be inserted into the weekly PowerPoint presentation in a desperate bid to validate the continued existence of a PR team.

This isn’t an indictment of the marketing profession. Many marketers are extremely talented, creating outstanding campaigns and helping to make their organizations successful. Unfortunately, this talent is not directly applicable to the PR field – and when the methods of marketing are applied to PR, the results are unfortunate for everyone – including the PR practitioner and the journalist.

While I don’t know what the ultimate solution to this problem might be, maybe it does help offer some insight into the next tweet that pops up asking “Why the hell did some flack pitch me a story about X?” It’s probably because today’s business reality is forcing some unfortunate PR practitioner to swallow their pride and press “Send” on that bulk e-mail that he or she knows goes against their very best instincts – just to hopefully stay employed for at least one more paycheck.

The Rule of Two

Fri, 01 Feb 2013 19:33:00 -0500

This week’s introduction of Blackberry 10, and the surrounding punditry around it (is it innovative enough to succeed? Are there enough apps? How’s the battery life? etc, etc.) led me to thinking about whether the question shouldn’t simply be “Does it matter?”. There is absolutely nothing new about the hypothesis that the smartphone market has bifurcated into two camps – iOS and Android. Given the cost to develop a new platform and the necessary ecosystem to support a platform, the supposition is reasonable. But, is it really simpler than all of that?

To date, most comparisons are made to desktop operating systems – Windows and MacOS. It’s a fair comparison, given that the rationale for success or failure of a desktop OS is not all that different from that of a smartphone OS. In a nutshell, both need critical mass to support the platform with software (which is the lifeblood of any computing platform, unless consumers are destined to learn advanced coding and create all of their own applications.) There have been spectacular failures by players looking to grab a share of this market (OS/2), and niche entrants with a small, but enthusiastic base (Linux). But for almost 30 years, the desktop OS market has been very much a duopoly.

But is the theorem that ecosystem support, defined by the (understandable) unwillingness of application developers to invest resources in more than two incumbent platforms, the main driver of this two-player-only phenomenon? I would venture to say that not only is it not the only driver, it isn’t even the primary one. The simple reason in my estimation is that consumers simply don’t have the bandwidth to absorb more than two potential choices in most purchase decisions. Certainly, there are esoteric differences around the edges that may drive a specific brand or model choice – but as for the core proposition of a consumer choice – more than a binary decision is too much for the average person to undertake.

Look no further than a far less complex product to prove the point – cola. While little more than sugar (or corn syrup) and water – countless attempts to break the Coke/Pepsi duopoly have resulted in either utter failure, or relegation to being a niche player destined to always being looking way up at the big boys. Attempts to compete on price (RC Cola) have failed. Competing with a better tasting product (again, RC Cola) has failed. Such a simple product should be ripe for commoditization – with multiple brands competing on equal footing with a reasonably low barrier to entry. But after a century – it is still Coke versus Pepsi. Everyone else is the beverage equivalent of Linux. Certainly – early in the game, there was a lot of jockeying for position – hundreds of regional brands vying to win over the taste buds of a nation. But in the end, two remained – and anyone looking to compete has found the market to be less than a sweet and bubbly experience (sorry, couldn’t resist).

And this is despite the “ecosystem” of sugary sodas being far less constricting for beverages that it is for smartphones. Soft drinks are truly cross platform (my Pepsi glass will happily accept a pour of Coca-Cola), and the cost to switch is virtually nil (you may need to toss that “I’m a Pepper” T-Shirt, but that’s about it). Yet the market looks eerily similar to smartphones – two major players, and a bunch of wannabes fighting over the scraps.

People that know me know that I always like to compare the market for phones to the market for cars. In my mind, there are a number of learnings that can be made from this far more mature category. In 1964 (and a half to be accurate), Ford introduced the Mustang – the first pony car (and the car which spawned the name of the entire category). Despite being not much more than a tarted-up Falcon (Ford’s economy car of the era), the Mustang was perfectly positioned for the era of baby boomers, who were reaching driving age and endlessly looking for something new that reflected their unique lifestyle. For two and a half years, the Mustang had this market to itself – becoming a monster hit in the process. Not until 1967, when GM introduced the Camaro (and its platform twin, the Firebird), did the Mustang have real competition.

Quickly thereafter, lines were drawn, and the market was fairly well split between Ford and GM for the lucrative pony car market (with the competition driving rapid innovation and improvement in the category). Even with the enormous sums of money being made, it wasn’t until 1970 when Chrysler finally got in the game (with the Dodge Challenger and Plymouth Barracuda). These Pentastar twins brought new innovation (like the Hemi engine) and slick new styling to the category. But despite that – the three year gap between the Camaro/Firebird and the Challenger/Barracuda was all it took to create a two-horse-race in people’s minds. The Chrysler entries were never viable competitors, and only lasted a few model years (the recent redux of the models notwithstanding). It should also be noted that AMC got into the market with the innovatively different, and ultimately unsuccessful, AMX – which could easily be seen as the WebOS of the pony car market.

Android or iOS. Windows or Mac. Coke or Pepsi. Camaro or Mustang. No matter how much innovation or improvement that the third (or fourth or fifth) entrant brought to the market – there has never been room for #3 to become a truly viable competitor. At best, #3 has been able to gather enough people who just want to be different to stay in business – but never to truly challenge the status quo. Blackberry 10 is more than likely destined to be the next Dodge Challenger, King Cola (look it up) or OS/2 Warp. It’s not for lack of trying – or being more innovative than the other guys – it’s simply that infernal rule of two.

What do the iPhone and George Foreman have in common? (Hint: It’s not a grill)

Mon, 30 Jul 2012 19:39:00 -0400

With the upcoming release of the sixth iteration of the iPhone, there have been plenty of educated (likely correct) suppositions that unlike the devices that have come so far, that the new iPhone will lack any sort of numerical designator - and simply be named “the new iPhone”. This seems to align with the most recent iPad - just known as “the new iPad”. Most commentators think that this is a fine idea, and that since automakers have done well with this model for as long as anyone can remember, that it won’t be a problem.

However, I say “not so fast”. The automotive example is not really a valid comparison. I drive a Nissan Frontier (yes, I live large) - and Nissan has used the Frontier name for over a decade now, ever since it supplanted the previous “Hardbody” model name in 1998. (Yes, I said “Hardbody”). In those 10-plus years, the Frontier has gone through at least two generations - but I have no problem always identifying the right parts. Why? Because the model year is an integral part of any automotive designator. I drive a 2008 Frontier. Other people have 1965 Mustangs, or 1957 Bel Airs. But the model year is what identifies the generation.

But, in the world of mobile phones, nobody uses years. At least I have never heard anyone say that they carry a 2009 LG Envy or a 2011 Samsung Galaxy S. But as Apple switches to a “they are all simply iPhones” model, I believe that this ultimately does a disservice to the ecosystem that has made the iPhone so incredibly successful. Without a generational designator, it becomes less clear as to which speaker dock has the correct system connector, which bumper fits which device, or which applications require specific features only found in the most recent hardware.

And, if the current Apple strategy of creating a “good, better, best” portfolio by keeping prior devices in market, how do retailers differentiate the offerings? Today, I can walk into an AT&T store and choose from an iPhone 3GS, an iPhone 4 or an iPhone 4S. In 2015, does that portfolio become a choice between an iPhone, an iPhone or an iPhone?

Don’t get me wrong, I can fully appreciate that a continuation of the current strategy would eventually result in some very unwieldy names (iPhone 8, the Ocho, anyone?). But, simply stamping out multiple generations of phones which will undoubtedly have different capabilities and form factors and giving them all the same name is simply not the solution. If you disagree, just go ask George Foreman what things are like for him at dinnertime.

So long, and thanks for all the fi(nni)sh...

Thu, 26 Jul 2012 15:17:12 -0400

Even when a 3 year detour is taken into account, 11 years is a long time to spend at any one company in these days of serial job-hopping. More than half of my working life has been spent at Nokia, and while there have been a fair share of rough spots along the way - I still consider my decision to join an unknown company from a little-known country back in 1998 to be the best choice that I ever made. Even my decision a year ago to leave a then-thriving HTC to return to my roots is something I do not regret. But today, as the grim restructuring reaper taps upon the door, my time at Nokia comes to an end.

Since finding out that I, along with other colleagues who I admired and relied upon every day, would be casualties of Nokia’s understandable need to “sharpen its focus” and cut costs, I have spent a lot of time reminiscing on the unbelievable ride that I have had the privilege to take. In that time, I saw phones shrink from loaf sized bricks that delivered less than an hour of talk time (yet were still wonders to behold) to Zoolander-miniscule handsets that could get lost in a pocket. And also to witness a progression of technology from when musical ring tones and alphanumeric displays elicited oohs and aahs to where a phone with infinitely more processing power and memory than my first Nokia-issued laptop can be labeled as “woefully underpowered”.

And I saw all of this from a single vantage point. That’s the equivalent of having a ringside seat at Ford from the concepting of the Model T to the advent of today’s hybrid electro-cars. Hell, that’s understating it - it’s more like being part of the progression from the Model T to the flying car.

It’s hard to overstate just how amazing the experiences that have been afforded to me truly were. Nokia allowed me to visit three continents, traveling north of the Arctic Circle and south of the equator. I jumped in a frozen lake and survived (twice), experienced every variation of the sauna, and rode snowmobiles under the Northern Lights. I met three presidents, actors, musicians and sports figures of varying levels of talent and fame, and even Bill Gates during the era when Nokia and Microsoft were still fierce rivals fighting over the direction of the mobile Internet. (How things change!)

But most important to me are the people with whom I have worked over the years. In the early days, Nokia was a small, motley crew of hard-working, hard-playing folks who lacked fancy degrees and impressive resumes - but who gave everything they had every day to take Nokia from an unknown entity to a world-leading force. These were the true pioneers of our industry, and I am honored that I was able to play a small role in their accomplishments. I have worked for people who shared with me the knowledge and tools that have allowed me to get to this point in my career, and have worked side-by-side with people who have become friends that mean more to me than they will ever know.

Even at this moment, pink slip still firmly in hand, Nokia is giving me an incredible opportunity to hit the reset button. For the next few months I am just going to step back and enjoy life a bit. I have a feeling that this break will turn out to be yet another amazing gift that Nokia has given to me. And that is why I don’t feel a drop of anger or bitterness. Instead, I am simply grateful for the experiences that I have had and the people I have met along the way.

The phone history display in the Nokia Sunnyvale office. Weird...

Thu, 26 Jul 2012 11:46:00 -0400

The phone history display in the Nokia Sunnyvale office. Weird to think that I worked, in some capacity, on every one of these phones somewhere along the line.