In the “old” world, we were in a push environment.  The only thing that counted was the product.  The battle was for share of shelf space in a confrontation between distributor and brand.  And, in on the television, we had (especially in countries like France) the rigid 8pm news (“journal de 20 heures”) or the equivalent prime time news (as in the US).

Of course, in the “old, old world,” if we move back before the 18th century, we were in a community-based commerce where local product was on offer and where word of mouth was probably the strongest marketing tool available.  But, that sounds oddly like today, no?

Today, we see that marketing and media, in general, have undergone a tidal wave as we move toward true pull (undertow?) marketing, community-based, meaningful relationship building, fighting for share of mind and Facebook “likes” on a myriad of distribution platforms.  Under the wave, to a certain degree, the old fashioned marketing tools and old school mainstream media channels have taken a real washing.

What's new, doc?

Watching the evening news the other night, in a throwback to the old days, I was struck that none of the news concerned old news.  In fact, all the channel fed us was the new news.  For some, that may seem normal.  Not for me.  First, I find the news barely interesting.  The curious part is that the news is never complete.  It is just a snapshot in a point in time.  Is there no news worthiness in followup?  For example, what ever happened months/years later to that victim of such and such a crime?  Was the money of a bank heist ever recuperated?…  Of course, sometimes, there are saga (like the Woerth/Bettencourt/L’Oreal story) that keep coming back like a broken record.  But, for the most part, news is easy come, easy go.  You are left hanging.

Taking a marketing parallel to this notion, I think that too many companies keep spewing out a deluge of new products — more or less meaningful for that matter — and do not successfully allow the product to mature.  While innovation is absolutely the lifeblood of companies, the very notion of NEW is taking on a new meaning for consumers.  NEW means lots of investment, hype (if not hyperbole), replacement of OLD (increased garbage), yelling and shouting.  And while the companies are proudly brandishing the latest novelty, the prior new product gets left in the dust.  One perfect counter example of this is Apple, which launches sparingly, but brilliantly.  They give a new product a huge PRE-launch existence (PR, hype and buildup) and, because there is a healthy gap between iterations, you get to live with your NEW item for a while.  Brand marketers then need to figure out how to deepen and broaden the launch, building up accessory and merchandising add-ons and dollars, etc.

All New(s), All the Time...

I believe that news media could find mileage from authentically rehoning news to include more full-cycle stories, adding in more education and meaningful stories.  I see some strides when I listen to ABC with Diane Sawyer.  I think NEWS can thus gain another sense of value and viewership.   Similarly, marketing teams would do well to learn the much more arduous task of how to grow the new products they launch and to foster a longer term relationship with their clients rather than rely solely on the value of NEW to drive top line sales.  Turning one’s products into a media is not necessarily possible for all, but certainly merits being highlighted as part of the Apple strategy.  In any event, by focusing on building relationships rather than “spewing new” every month, brands may find better success in marking their territory.  Thus, marketers will be able to move from friend’s liking them to fans loving them. The real marketing of marques!

A book I wish I had written!

“Marketing Lessons from the Grateful Dead” (Amazon).  Talk about a book that I wish I had written.  As a long time fan of the Dead (“Deadhead”) and a travelling businessman, I feel like my involvement with the Dead very much had a positive impact on the way I conceived of marketing and client relations.  Albeit, I never truly made the connection.  I have a sneaking suspicion that fellow Dead fan, Steve Jobs over at Grateful Apple, may have.  Written by David Meerman Scott and Brian Halligan (CEO of HubSpot), “Marketing Lessons from the Grateful Dead” picks out all the great and unorthodox methods that the Grateful Dead used (more or less intentionally, one has to believe) to build up their franchise.  It is, to quote Robert Hunter (the Dead’s lyricist), one of the greatest stories ever told!

What is it about the Grateful Dead that made them so great?  Well, as expressed by their name, as a fan you always felt that THEY were grateful for your support and subscription to their road show.  As opposed to so many other ‘big time’ artists or bands, the Dead showed up day in and day out regardless of their level of fatigue or state of mind.

In terms of a product, they did not follow the traditional model for musicians whereby the record label drives the story and the record sales drive the profits.  Au contraire, the Dead mockingly recorded albums according to their contract and allowed the fans to record and share their concerts at will.  The core experience (and business model) was the concert; and every concert (all 2,318 of them) was an unique experience in which fans just had to partake.  Moreover, the members of the band would each go off and do their own gigs on the side to pursue the experience (Jerry Garcia did about 1,000 more shows with his Jerry Garcia Band with very much the same attitude and concert experience).

Sales of tickets, as documented in the book, were managed by the Dead, not systematically outsourced to some impersonal ticketing agency (albeit ticketmaster was used as well).  Once tickets were surreptitiously (and unceremoniously) put on sale, fans would send in their orders with magnificently hand-decorated, glow-in-the-dark envelopes in order to capture the attention of (and a smile from) the ticket distributors.

The notion of building a community was pratically inbuilt in everything the Dead did and the fans voluntarily participated.

For some who read this blog regularly, you will know that I have been writing about the 5 E’s of the new marketing paradigm.  The Dead executed, perhaps unwittingly, but certainly ahead of its time, a perfect 5E programme.

Engagement – The Dead were committed, performing on average more than 80 concerts every year (other than 1975) between their founding in 1965 and 1995 when their lead singer, Jerry Garcia died.

Exchange – Rather than using middlemen, the Dead did their own ticket distribution.  On the back of their 1971 album, Skull & Roses, the band asked their fans who they were.  ’Tell us where you are, and we’ll keep you informed.’ By the end, the Dead had a mailing list with a half-a-million people on it.   Unsurprisingly, every concert was sold out.  Just imagine what they might have done with the social media.  [In 2010, the main GD Facebook fan page has well over 600,000 members and 30 different applications.]  Every time they played live, they fed off their audience, exchanging via the cadence of their music.

The dancing bears

Emotion –  The Dead were passionate and inspired a passionate following, to say the least.  The dancing bears logo will bring a smile to the faces of the Deadheads (fans).  As one Dead song states, “nothing left to do, but smile, smile, smile.”  (Lyrics from He’s Gone – this from a show in Copenhagen, Denmark 1975).

Experience –  As we liked to say, “a Grateful Dead show was not a concert, it was an experience.”  With 501 different songs (of which 184 were original songs) in their concert repertoire, every show was unique in its composition and its delivery.  The Dead shows very much had a before (the road trip and arriving in the parking lot), during and after (back in the parking lot and readying for the next show) — a total and immersive experience.

Essence – Music by itself is the essence of life, encouraging movement, celebration and sharing.  More to the point, the Dead did plenty of “cause marketing,” as part of their Haight Ashbury 1960s culture.  A couple of examples: The Unbroken Chain Foundation (clean drinking water for developing nations).  And, in the 1992 Olympics, the Dead helped out the Lithuanian national basketball team which wound up winning the bronze medal (they wore tie-dyed shirts on the podium in recognition).  The Dead were consistent and fully congruent with their mission.  The concerts were the lifeblood for their fans, literally.  And the Dead lived that way to the end…. and, for the surviving members, the meaning and experience remains at the core of their philosophy.

The three takeaways? (1) The Dead were original in their content and innovative in their business model.  (2) Some brands would do well well to hire a few Dead Heads (at least those with the Dead’s attitude) as part of their customer service.  Take care of your fan base before your data base.  (3) But, the biggest take away is that, if you want to build a durable model, you should think first to build a community, and the community will pay you back over time.

Getting down and personal with your clients and employees is surprisingly foreign for many companies; yet, I maintain that it is going to be an increasingly important element of success for marketers in the future.

In this post, I want to lay down another anchor for why brands need to get more personal, using the as yet unvanquished Apple example.

The Apple Universe

As the Apple tsunami moves through the early adopters, internet geeks and the C-suite “down” to the masses, the Apple portfolio of i-products (ipod, itouch, iphone, ipad and itunes) will oblige brand marketers to think differently about how they interface (read: interfere) with their customers.  Of course, there are many other competitive products to Apple which will have similar effects, but I am going to focus on Apple in this piece (and with reason).

The Apple phenomenon is most sexy when you consider its string of game-changing innovative products, the smooth, elegant design, the marvelous Apple community and its outstanding Apple Stores.  But, at this point, the part that is most intriguing for me — and important for the marketer — is that these i-products are entirely personal and customized to each individual.  Whether it is my ipad, iphone, itouch or itunes, each has my photos, my agenda, my music playlists, my films, etc.  I download my applications and interface with my friends on Facebook, read my bookmarked sites or my book.  Not only that, but since these products are all mobile, I am going to be where I want to be.  Really, the “i” stands more for the ego than the i-nteractive element.

Moreover, all the Apple products are running on a harmonious (if still proprietary) operating system — now called Apple I-OS — which means that the Apple user with multiple i-products will expect to navigate fluidly from one platform to another.  Marketers will therefore need to take care not only to participate in my world, but to do so in a seamless way whether it is on itunes, the ipad or iphone.

Emotion & Interaction

The July 2010 soft launch of i-Ads is likely going to provide another revolution in the way marketers can and will “play” with their clients.   To quote TUAW, “Steve [Jobs] went so far as to project that Apple would have 48% of the mobile advertising market locked up by the end of this year.”  The smartphone user experience on the iPhone is leading the way in terms of internet surfing, not just because of the interface, but because of the fantastic supply of applications.  And, with i-Ads, the advertiser has the opportunity to combine “interaction and emotion” at the end-user level.

Apple is clearly going to get past the iPhone v4 problems and continue to make waves (not Google Waves) — and marketers are going to need to get used to the new normal:  How can a brand inoffensively participate in the Apple ecosystem, seamlessly moving and messaging between each platform with each of his/her customers?

Here are three keys, in my opinion, for marketers as they create their blended (i.e. off and online) communication plans:

1. Make your communications entertaining, social and/or educational.  Think less about your product and your sales in the first instance.  You have to give to get back.

2. Think mobile.  What and where is the user when she/he interacts with your app or your site?  Consider what your customer would want or need as they are chatting with their friends, traveling to work or relaxing on a Sunday morning?  An interruption (or a technical blip) is hostile.  A relevant, contextual message based on where the customer is at the time of delivery could be a plus.

3. Your customer is one person in many places and with different moods and needs according to the context.  Personalized “Customer Relationship Management” needs to be fine-tuned to capture his or her (opted in) information from the multiple sources and to interface with him/her in the most appropriate way.   Make sure that the communications are consistent with one another in experience and content, yet adapted according to the platform being used.  Of course, this also goes for your offline communications, which need to be coordinated with the online.

And, down the line, you know that Apple is going to come up with its i-TV (not to be mixed up with ITV, the GB channel!); and, I’m not talking about an upgrade of the fairly lame Apple TV box they have today (in a case of timing is everything, I have just seen on engagdet that they have started to develop an itv).  In any event, I am sure that when/if Apple comes up with its own TV (iExperience?), the living room will suddenly take on another allure — and perhaps, once again, become the family room revisited.  And that will mean that marketers will have to learn how to engage in a whole new and complex personal interaction.

What are your thoughts?  To what extent will the IOS change the way customers behave and how marketers will need to adapt their communication plans?

Bleeding Apple Logo

As reported by ZDNET and BBC News “Apple offers free iPhone 4 cases,” Steve Jobs has shown himself and the company to have flaws.  I am a total and avowed Apple convert, but I am of the variety that never rushes out to buy the very first model (a late early adopter?). I have found that the risk/reward of being a front runner is just not worth it. Inevitably, the first model is “nice to have,” but the functionality is systematically a little imperfect and, for me, below expectation in certain basic elements.  Here are some examples of v1 flaws that I deemed I could live without…

• Ipod v1 – fragile hard-drive, poor search mechanics, battery lifespan…
• Iphone v1 – no random access search; poor battery life (still a problem)
• Ipad v1 – no 3G access
• Iphone 4 v1 – not good reception if you hold it in your hand [wrongly]

I will give Apple all the necessary credit for their innovation, category invention and masterful marketing.  And, I acknowledge and marvel at Steve Jobs’ obsession for simply beautiful design.  AND, I still believe that it does not pay to buy the first model.

That said, the Apple afficionados clearly have a good tolerance level for these imperfections and, in the community spirit, participate happily in the improvement suggestions for the follow-on version.  Apple’s ability to hold off and only do a second version once they have improved as far as they can (including adjusting pricing, etc.) is quite remarkable considering the amount of negative flack they receive.  But, as a LOVEMARK (3548 love it, 373 lose it as of today), they continue to host a vibrant conversation with their loyal fans and the company has kept going from strength to strength.

The iPhone 4 is potentially a turning point, however.  The competition on the phone / portable music player / camera is at least catching up… Meanwhile, Jobs’ off-hand, hands-off type of comment about the latest antenna problem is perhaps a bit symptomatic of a backhanded slap — almost as bad as BP’s CEO, Tony Hayward, saying that he wanted his life back.  And, in his appearance announcing the “case” patch,  you see Jobs comparing itself to other phones…. clearly a recognition of mortality.

The iPhone is like the others...

To even think that this could be compared to a Watergate type plot against Apple is a little scandalous.  ”There is no Antennagate,” claimed Jobs.  But who set whom up?  The conspiracy seems more linked to the shrouded internal politics of Apple.  Moreover, the problem is that one expects more of Apple… and, therefore, I believe that the “lucky” people who were able to get their hands on the early run of the iPhone 4 are right to be demanding.  The errors (read imperfections) that have accompanied this Apple 4 launch are manifold.

To call the reception problem a perceived problem is marketing mistake number 1.  Perception is reality.  To act with arrogance is marketing mistake number 2, especially in today’s world of transparency and authenticity.  To compare yourself to the competition: marketing mistake number 3.  To provide a bandage rather than a proper fix is possibly marketing mistake number 4 — rather than dig in on some of its huge profit margin to find a real fix.

Apple’s shine is still great and their stock price performance has been nothing shy of perfect (total disclosure, I own some Apple stock).  I can’t wait to get a newer version of the iPad.  But, clearly, the Apple has a little bug (aka a worm) that might be a little hard to shake off.  The wiggle room may just be getting smaller for upcoming launches.  And let’s keep an eye out for how the lovemark starts just getting some mere like-marks or, worse yet, lose-marks — that would mean a real bite taken out of the apple.

An out of town friend of mine recently told me about this very different kind of boutique hotel in Paris, called Mama Shelter.  Isn’t it funny how, sometimes, it takes a tourist to tell you about your own city.

First of all, Mama Shelter is a breakthrough name for a hotel, in that it truly breaks through the clutter.  Secondly, the space is an attractive combination of quirky, comfortable and not too expensive.  Thirdly, they dare to be different in the details.  And if my friend is anyone to go by, it has a way of treating you that is different as well (especially when compared with your typical snooty-nosed hotels).  Yes, it is a bit bo-bo, but not in a boring-bourgeois way, but more in a beau-bohemian kind of way…

Just a look at their browser menu of their site brings a smile to the lips:

Located in the still-to-be-chic area of Paris 20th arrondissement, at 109 rue de Bagnolet, 75020 Paris, the prices are very affordable (ranging from 89 to 160 euros for a room).  The hotel — which is still a one-of-a-kind — has not gone without being noticed, having won awards with the Condé Nast Traveller’s Guide 2009 and CNBC Best Business Hotel 2009…

Not your run of the mill Hotel Image

What’s the take for other brands: watch out for the flanks! The hotel industry is, in the broad scheme of things, bound to be one of the major beneficiaries of the baby boomer’s wave of retirees.  But, just because a hotel has a recognized name and is part of a big chain does not (a) guarantee the level of service and (b) guarantee a memorable experience.  Designed by the ever present Philippe Starck, Mama Shelter marks a break with tradition, providing unicity, a 10/10 checklist on the key ingredients of a comfortable hotel stay and, not least important, a great value for money.  And not to be forgotten, it is not because the price is reasonable that they skimped on new technologies.  The rooms are equipped with big screen Apple Mac’s.

Cozy Rooms, good mattress and Mac computer

Anyone else know of other great examples of innovative hotels, helping to take the industry in new directions?

Just over a week ago, Google Docs released a new version, or should I say they added some necessary improvements?

Google Docs new features

Some of the highlight new features (taken in part from Google’s only laundry list here):

• The ability to upload, store, and share any file in Google Docs. Your files will be stored in their original format and downloadable from anywhere.
• When multiple people are editing a document, the app will automatically track who says what in different colours (at last!).
• [for the international groups], Google Docs will translate and detect languages in Google spreadsheets.  You can also now translate an entire document into over 40 languages.
• In that Google Docs now includes co-editing features, similar to Google Wave, which will be the winning platform?  For example, GD now has sidebar chat making it possible discuss documents as you co-create and edit documents with your on-line team.
• In terms of editing rights in the spreadsheet app, with two levels of validation, “strict and lenient,” you can now control what you and your collaborators enter into a spreadsheet.
• In an echo of slideshare, you can now track how much traffic a particular published document is getting through Google Analytics.
• Another evidently fun new feature (with which I have yet to play) is the Google Drawings which allows for co-editing, and you can download into standard formats, as well as copy/paste into a document on Google Docs.

At a certain point, maybe Google Wave and Google Docs will do a sort of merger (without the need for Investment Bankers fortunately).  The big issue remains that Google Docs is not mobile friendly — neither on the iphone nor the ipad.

Here is Google’s own YouTube 1min46 overview video.  If you have never used Google Docs, now is a good time to start.

As I have written before, I attended the LeWeb Conference 2009 in Paris, and have collected my thoughts here over a collection of three separate postings (the first and second posts). This is the third one with three more observations. In a further post, I present what I believe are the ramifications of these particular highlights for business.

7. Apple was in the house. In terms of laptop usage, it was announced at the close of the Conference that, of the 2,937 unique devices connected at LeWeb, 1,827 (62%) of these were Apple devices [initially sourced from SMNZ, thanks Michael]. There were 1,008 iPhones registered… quite the over-representation versus the “outside” world. Notwithstanding the handy app created especially for the conference (see here for a YouTube explanation of the app), it felt as if Macs and iPhones were everywhere. See this photo taken by Robert Scoble on stage with everyone saying iPhorgot that there was even a choice.

Apple-ification of LeWeb Conference 2009

8. eLearning was not mentioned once in the two days. I may be partial, but I believe the eLearning is one of the big avenues of innovation ahead for the “outside world” which will lead them to want to get hooked into the internet, social media, new technologies, etc. — especially since we will start to see eLearning applications for the mobile world (learning to the doorstep becomes learning in the palm).

9. There are still few women in the public internet world — there was a grand total of five female presenters on the mainstage (granted they were of a significant stature: Queen Rania, Minister Nathalie Kosciusko-Morizet, Violet Blue, Marissa Mayer and Danah Boyd). Of the total 94 presenters (including in the siderooms), there were 7 women (7%). And in terms of the participants, I did not find official statistics, but I would have to go with about 10% female participation.

As a reminder, I also wrote up a piece on the Business Consequences 2010-2011 of the nine points which I covered from LeWeb. Welcome your comments, even if they come several months after the event!  With time comes hindsight!

Putting Social into Social Media

It is most interesting to observe the rise of social media out of the ashes of human tragedy.  The outpourings that have followed major calamities speak to the strong social component of social media.  I think of it in three steps, to date that is…

First, there was #sandiegofire for the forest fire in San Diego in October 2007, when the hashtag was born on Twitter.  With this first hashtag, Twitter started to galvanize attention around a singular event or issue.

Secondly, in mid 2009, there was Iran with the Green Revolution. You had on-site Twitter reporting (#iranelection among others) and Facebook Groups (100 million people 275,000 people on Facebook!), with the creation of sites like the Green Wall (10,000 strong).  With the Green Revolution movement, there was no doubt that Twitter was made a headline MSM newsworthy affair.  The “what are you doing now?” question had a sense of real urgency, both real (human) and urgent (legitimate and newsworthy).  And, according to the Huffington Post, the Green Revolution is gaining traction…helped in part, I do not doubt, by the continuing internet buzz.

Now, we have had the Haiti disaster.  And the social media machine has been thrown into the fray again, with mainstream news journalists reporting on the use of social media, not just the unfolding human drama.  Again, social media is putting the social into focus.  This time, the cause is bringing not just a stampede of Twitterings and Facebook pages, but also concrete help in the form of millions of dollars of aid.  On Twitter, there is #Haiti which is registering between 5% and 8% of all hashtags since the earthquake.  On Facebook, there are now — between the four Haiti groups — over 1.5 million “members” with over 1 million members on “Every person that joins we will donate $1 to Haiti”.  Unfortunately, this latter group does not identify who the “we” is… so it is presumably just some miserable scam.  Another Facebook group “Earthquake Haiti” (with over 185,000 members) is designed to help locate missing people and reunite families.  Meanwhile, the American Red Cross (which now has 50K followers on Twitter) has reported that, thanks to the social media / digital support, it has raised some $10 million in aid for Haiti, just four days after the event.   The American Red Cross allows anyone in the US to text HAITI to 90999 as an easy way to donate $10 to the recovery effort. The money is billed to your mobile phone account. Naturally, the celebrities who have garnered a strong social media following and are discussing Haiti have helped bring the media pitch up and out to a wider swath.  Lance Armstrong, for example, with some 2.5 million followers on Twitter, pledged a quarter million dollars in Haitian relief to two different associations.

The use of technology and the internet in the Haiti disaster has been both widespread and innovative.   I think of Apple’s iTunes app (“donate to Haiti“) which allows people to make donations with its easy-as-pie pay scheme. Google has ramped up its google maps (and donated $1 million) to help geolocalisation for the relief efforts.  As reported on the AFP, a number of sites such as FamilyLinks and haitianquake were posting pictures and messages to help reunite families.  Google is also offering a “person finder” at HaitiCrisis.appspot.com.

All in all, the social media platforms have clearly managed to bring speed (real time) and globality (new word) to an unfolding crisis. Perhaps, Haiti, which ranks as about the 25th poorest country in the world, will come out of this tragedy with some lingering benefits on the worldmap.

Even if it’s tera-bly fast, it’s still a slow long tail. The digital world is a seemingly fast paced world, but there are not so many short cuts to create the real world.  The rules of engagement on the internet are not fundamentally different from the real world.  As my friend Mitch Joel says, it goes so fast, it goes so slow, thinking more about the take-up of internet by the mainstream corporate world, but the statement also applies to the notion that you can’t hurry or hustle up a strong community spirit.  And, as time progresses and the internet becomes more ‘clogged’, the easy opportunities to go truly fast are probably diminishing. But, regardless of the many unique opportunities which remain, one of the major messages is that digital solutions and marketing will not provide the quick fix for which so many companies wish. You can’t buy friends (social network) like you used to buy customers (through ads).  With the oncoming notion of social search, building an authentic network will clearly be absolutely critical — and if it is to be a large circle of friends, that can only be built up over time with care.  Developing a digital strategy — and a subsequent online presence and network — requires time and commitment.  But, it a true digital strategy requires alignment with the overall company strategy above all else. If you are not (yet) a customer centric organisation (B2B or B2C) than there is less benefit from hitting the digital waves.

One of the most common questions I encounter when I discuss with CEOs about their digital strategy — in a seemingly pavlovian manner — is: What’s the ROI? The issue is that the ROI is along different axes than companies are used to measuring.  For example, doing a blog can cost zero dollars; the investment is time and energy to create great and valuable content.  Content is the new media, as Mitch Joel says in “Six Pixels of Separation“. Why would you want to give away great information? is another mainline executive refrain.  Because the return can be customer engagement which can foster, over time, long term loyalty and a desire to share with their personal network.  The real question is how much is that worth?  Much more than a singular product launch, I wager.  New(as in innovation) is still an important concept, but collaboration, conversation and community are becoming the real levers of business and trust truly is going to become the new currency. Learning how to put the customer at the heart of the business, whether it is B2C to B2B, is the crux of the issue.  As Chris Brogan said at LeWeb after he heard about Zappos‘ sense of customer service, “Now, I know the ROI of customer service: $928 million” (the price at which Zappos was sold to Amazon).  And the opportunities to provide excellent customer service are infinitely augmented via the digital waves once the company has the right disposition and employee workforce.

Another important facet of the LeWeb conference was the human factor.  As virtual as the digital era may appear, the digital natives have humanity inscribed in their core values.  Human contact, emotion and a deeper sense of meaning are vital triggers.  Well beyond devising a digital strategy, companies need to keep these issues in mind because the digital natives are, first and foremost, natives — born, natural and community-focused.  Social media is essentially social, where the long-term values of society are just as valid.

And finally, the overriding presence of Apple among so many early adopters at LeWeb surely indicates the path of things to come.  Not that other companies will not find great alternative solutions, but the key is that that iPhone is paving the way and attitude of ubiquitous connectivity.  The question for companies is going to be less about their internet strategy and more about their mobile strategy — and for some companies, that seems like an awkward stretch considering their difficulty to adopt the new ways of the internet.  If slow food and quality of life remain aspirations for the healthy of mind, the fleet of foot in the new world — in our palm — have a unique opportunity in the coming 2 years to take markets by storm by reinventing how they interact with their customer.

What are your reactions?  Which companies are doing a great job of taking advantage of the new world?

—–

*I first published this post on Dec 23, 2009, on www.minternet.biz, but have chosen to transfer over to this blog.

I was not able to find a ‘best practices’ site or space on the ‘net listing the best “personalised” automatic signatures (which one can add on to the end of emails). Recently, I have noticed a couple of novel signatures tacked on to messages sent from smart phones — if not smart friends! I thought I would share them with you, as well as suggest a few others to start a possible best practices meme on the topic of automatic signatures… (if only Facebook would allow the same, don’t you think?)

1/ “Sent from small keyboard – pls excuse the brevity” (from Brad C)
2/ “Sent via Blackberry Handheld – Please excuse typos” (from Charlie H)

My own suggestions, trying to look at a more positive spin:

3/ “Think before you print (even if it’s a stretch to think to print from your iPhone”
4/ “Sent from my iPhone. In virtual heaven.”
5/ “Sent from my blackberry, while in a boring meeting.”
6/ “Typed in the toilet.”

Lastly, in total disclosure, here is the one I am currently using on my iPhone:

7/ “Sent from my iPhone… so, please excuse the virtual typos, merely a figment of the imagination.”

Would be very glad to hear of other suggestions out there!