In this episode of PRobecast, Justin Martell and Amanda King join me in talking about Facebook’s latest plan to release Timeline to brands, why QR codes haven’t taken off, and AT&T’s latest fee increase.

Facebook to release Timeline for brands – Although the majority of Facebook users don’t approve of Timeline, Facebook will be rolling it out to brands, or fan pages. At the time of the announcement, the company said it would wait to roll out the new feature for brands. David Fischer, VP of Marketing and Business Partnerships, said Timeline for brands would be consistent with the Timeline look, but not an exact copy, of users’ timelines. Numerous polls have reported that most people don’t like the “new Facebook”, but it seems Facebook doesn’t care. What are your thoughts? Should they keep Timeline for brands only?

Why QR Codes won’t last – QR codes seemed to present an accessible and uniform way for people with smart devices to interact with advertising, marketing and media. Those little squares of code seemed to open a world of opportunity and potential. But after using them for a length of time, the perspective shifted a bit. And in many instances, the rewards (received as a result of scanning the code) did not measure up to the effort of the transaction itself. Consider a recent study by comScore, which states that only 14 million American mobile device users have have interacted with a QR code. In essence, less than 5% of the American public has scanned a QR code. So where’s the disconnect? Inadequate technology, lack of education and a perceived dearth of value from QR codes are just three of the reasons mobile barcodes are not clicking with Americans. But it goes deeper than that. Humans are visual animals. We have visceral reactions to images that a QR code can never evoke; what we see is directly linked to our moods, our purchasing habits and our behaviors. It makes sense, then, that a more visual alternative to QR codes would not only be preferable to consumers, but would most likely stimulate more positive responses to their presence. What mobile purchasing technologies do you use, and which do you see as the “clunkiest”, or the ones that won’t last?

AT&T doubles upgrade fees for existing customers – When you get a new phone under an AT&T contract, you pay a one-time $18 upgrade fee, which is allegedly what it costs the company to upgrade your new phone. They’ve raised it to $36, and without a clear explanation, the increased fee will look to consumers like just another way for the company to make money. Last month AT&T reported selling a record number of iPhones during the fourth quarter of 2011, which helped increase revenues to $32.5 billion from $31.4 billion a year ago. However, it posted a $6.7 billion loss, largely stemming from its breakup fee after a collapsed merger with T-Mobile USA.

We didn’t choose a PR Power Ranker this week, because we felt none of them deserved our approval! In reality, we couldn’t agree on which company deserved it.

Who do you think should have won? Or do you agree that none of them were worthy?

In late January RIM replaced its co-CEOs Jim Balsillie and Mike Lazaridis with COO Thorsten Heins. As a now-former Blackberry user (I just switched to the HTC Rezound) this news certainly got my attention.

I expected to hear Heins address all the concerns of Blackberry users like frequent “white screen of death” issues, latency and even my chief concern (since I am becoming kind of a nut about this stuff), Blackberry models having some of the highest radiation in the industry.

Instead, the headlines were that Heins believes no major changes were necessary, or as Bloomberg Businessweek put it, RIM is “Staying is the Course”.

Bloomberg’s Peter Burrows and Hugo Miller’s article essentially skewered Heins for this – and used a Blackberry buried in a grave to depict where they really thought RIM is headed. This is about the worst image a PR person wants to see, yet it was no great shock because Heins didn’t say the right things in his interviews. This is a shame because it was his golden opportunity to do so. A new CEO’s first public outing is the chance for him/her to state goals, address challenges, explain the way forward and, ideally, re-shape people’s perceptions.

Had I been on the public relations team counseling Heins I would have told him to accentuate the positive while acknowledging challenges. I’d have counseled him to state the big ones, which would give him a chance to explain the steps the company is taking to tackle problems. Everyone knows RIM has serious issues. It is ridiculous to try to hide them. The trick is to re-frame the discussion while addressing how problems are going to be fixed.

The old adage “honesty is the best policy” may sound a bit old fashioned, but when you are talking about a company like RIM, and the state it’s in, they would have been better served by being open and honest. Unfortunately it is too late for Heins’ public introduction.

Perhaps moving forward RIM will learn from its mistakes and carve out a better public relations outcome. To change perceptions they must publicly acknowledge the obvious – significant products are necessary not only to stave off Apple, but also to stay relevant in the mobile marketplace.

Maybe they’d even win back former customers like me.

Share on Facebook

Technorati Tags: RIM Blackberry Public Relations PR

Share/Save

by Sam Friedman

If you’re a shareholder with Apple, you’re quite happy: shares are up about $30, or 4.3%, since Tim Cook took over as CEO of Apple from the late Steve Jobs. If you’re a fan of the iPhone, you’re in good shape: the iPhone 4S sold over 4 million units in its launch weekend, even without the presence of Jobs. Apple said about 20 million people activated their free iCloud accounts in its first week, a record for mobile software.

Cook has big shoes to fill. People associated Apple computers with Jobs, who along with Steve Wozniak (who actually built Apple I) and “adult supervisor” Ronald Wayne (who later sold his share of Apple stock for $800 and received a total of $2,300 from the whole ordeal-his 10% stake would have made him $22 billion now), designed the first Apple computer in 1976. Although Jobs was exiled from Apple’s management from 1985-199 , he returned with a new vision-to make Apple and its Macintosh computers the most dominant OS on the market. For the next 15 years, Jobs oversaw the rise of Apple from a second-tier program to Bill Gate’s Windows PC giant to the most dominant and wealthy corporation on the planet.

Tim Cook, who has been with Apple since Jobs hired him in 1998, served as Apple CEO briefly in 2004 when Jobs was first diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. He also served a brief stint as CEO in 2009 when Jobs underwent a liver transplant, so it isn’t as if Cook is a stranger to running Apple. The question is: how will he manage Apple’s success following Jobs’s death? Whereas Jobs was visible, and associated with Apple, Cook is described as being more reserved, someone who is laid back and prefers things to be kept in the boardrooms until the final moment. Gartner analyst Michael King is quoted in a CNN story as saying by August 2013, 2 years after Jobs resigned as CEO, his effect on the company will have worn off, and everything after that will be part of the Cook legacy.

Cook has been handed a gifted opportunity as CEO of a corporation even the other 499 Fortune 500 CEOs would love to have. So far, all indications appear to show Cook is prepared to continue the work Jobs did, and not make any bold, radical changes to a winning formula.

Share on Facebook

Technorati Tags: Apple, Consumer, iPhone, Mobile, Steve Jobs, Tech, Tim Cook

Share/Save