Archivo de la etiqueta: Apple

El futuro del gerenciamiento de marca

Los consumidores están sufriendo de DDA (Desorden de Deficit de Atención) debido a la gran cantidad de opciones existentes en el mercado. Las nuevas tendencias imperativas que van desde el calentamiento global a comprar localmente, la compra ecológica están por sobre las ya desconcertantes alternativas existentes. Las personas están reconociendo que cada decisión de compra tiene sus consecuencias, y saber cuáles son esas consecuencias es muy difícil.

Se supone que los consumidores tienen mayor control sobre este mundo tan complejo al utilizar diferentes medios para poder tomar mejores decisiones. Buscadores, redes sociales, comparación en línea de precios y productos, pero en realidad el mundo online de la búsqueda o del boca en boca es tan complejo y confuso como el mundo offline. Como resultado, el consumidor seguirá persiguiendo una simple y consistente promesa de marca. Si encuentra que la marca es consecuente con su promesa entonces probablemente el consumidor permanecerá vinculado más tiempo con esa marca. Para qué tomar otra decisión? o por que no recomendarla a otras personas? si el apoyo incondicional a una marca es más efectivo que un buscador o inclusive que un anuncio en televisión.

Esto quiere decir, que una marca aún necesita hacer que su promesa sea escuchada, y las personas necesitan  que esa promesa sea relevante. Necesitan sentir que pueden creer en la compañía que hay detrás de la marca. Dada la diversidad de intereses existentes en las sociedades, muchas marcas necesitan ajustarse para llegar a comunidades más estrechas. Si una marca no puede sostener su atractivo en grandes mercados , entonces deberá hacer foco en las necesidades de segmentos de consumidores más específicos, los que son definidos más por actitudes en común que por sus aspectos demográficos. Las marcas que puedan atender las necesidades de un grupo determinado podrán compensar la falta de “masividad” con la alternativa de adjudicarle un precio premium a sus productos o servicios.

Un marca puede ser transversal a diferentes categorías de productos. Apple ofrece la misma filosofía y sentido del diseño a través de sus computadoras, laptops, reproductores de música y teléfonos. Dove ofrece la misma promesa a través de jabones, lociones, desodorantes y cuidado del cabello. Disney abarca parques temáticos, cruceros, películas y video juegos.Apple-RED

En el futuro lo que va a ser difícil para las marcas es expandir su atractivo hacia otras comunidades en donde su conexión es inexistente. Cuanto más una marca establezca contundentemente su atractivo en una comunidad más probable que se produzca un efecto de polarización. En este marco Apple se ha establecido en contra de las PC con su tono de superioridad y auto satisfacción. Dove, en búsqueda de instalar su atractivo basándose en los valores de la autoestima, ha logrado enfrentarse a la comunidad de mujeres que aún hoy aprecian la adulación que la belleza externa puede ofrecer.

doveCada vez más crear un lazo estrecho entre las marcas y el mercado va a tener que ser más que crear una experiencia de marca atractiva. Para muchas marcas, este vínculo estará basado en lo que esa marca significa para cada individuo. Una creencia o conjunto de valores, e invitar a los clientes a seguir esos ideales juntos. Las marcas necesitan declarar cuales son sus ideales y actuar en consecuencia.

Declarar o vivenciar esos valores no debería confundirse con simplemente apoyar una buena causa, lo que es muy loable pero no es parte del ADN de la marca, sino que podría verse como una mera acción de marketing. Las personas saben bien cuáles marcas están realmente comprometidas con algo y cuáles están intentando vender más de sus productos.

El futuro es incierto pero una cosa es segura. La personas prestan más atención a lo que las compañías hacen que a lo que éstas dicen. La personas respetan a las compañías que tratan de hacer las cosas bien. Si creen que las compañías están trabajando más allá de su propio interés actuarán de manera menos cínica sobre sus motivos. Por el otro lado, las compañías que buscan promover sus marcas a través de un maquillaje se encontrarán en la picota tanto en el mundo online y offline.

Pero para estar en la cresta de la ola del futuro se requerirá anticipación, equilibrio y agilidad. Requerirá que las marcas actúen de mejor manera, comprendan a la audiencia y se anticipen a sus necesidades. Necesitarán encontrar formas para diferenciarse y destactarse del resto buscando ofrecer beneficios funcionales para crear un sentido de identidad.

Las marcas necesitarán ser adaptables, cambiando para poder ajustarse a diferntes condiciones. El futuro de las marcas globales ya no se podrá sostener bajo el concepto de one size fits all. Las marcas más exitosas serán aquellas que atiendan a la diversidad de personas, comunidades y culturas. Las que se ajusten a una forma de pensar y no a un grupo etario. Las que ofrezcan una experiencia marcaria que atraviese una variedad de canales de comunciación. Para ser efectiva y eficiente, estas marcas deberán permitir a los equipos locales a actuar con libertad y sentido común.

 

Anuncio de Samsung parodiando a quienes hacen cola para obtener un iPhone

Apple parodia a quienes hacen cola para comprar un iPhone en el nuevo anuncio de su Galaxy S II.

Si ayer hablábamos de un típico anuncio de Apple, hoy Samsung ha lanzado un nuevo anuncio para su smartphone Galaxy S II que parodia a la gente que hace cola para comprar su principal competidor: El iPhone.

El spot  muestra a varias personas haciendo cola a la puerta de varias tiendas tópicas de Apple esperando turno para hacerse con un iPhone, cuando de repente ven a alguien usando un teléfono que no logran identificar de cual se trata. Se quedan maravillados con el tamaño y la calidad de su pantalla o su velocidad, empezando a plantearse si no sería mejor idea dejar de hacer cola para hacerse con el nuevo Samsung Galaxy S II.

El vídeo del anuncio, a continuación.

Vía | iLounge

How Apple And Gucci Tickle Your “God Spot”, by Martin Lindstrom

And how other brands could get messianic in their message and convert consumers to acolytes.

A few years back, an Australian teenager with an unusual surname submitted his bare neck to a plastic surgeon’s laser. The doctor worked carefully, slowly eradicating the tattoo of a striped bar code with the letters G-U-C-C-I etched underneath. An hour later, the tattoo was history, and so was Will Andries Petrus Booye’s brand-obsession, one that had become, in his words, “My one and only religion.”

I first met Will in the late 1990s, back when the ink on his tattoo was still wet. For Will, Gucci was companion, confidante, soul mate, hero, mirror image, and friend with benefits combined. When asked, he could go on at length about the company’s designs, colors, and textures, as well as about the distinctive smell of the stores. Entering the Gucci flagship, he told me, was like coming home. From the store design to the overhead music playing overhead to the uninterrupted luxury of the place, everything Gucci put Will completely at ease. And of course, the brand’s sheer exclusivity made him feel like a member of a small, choice, like-minded club.

Fast-forward five years. Almost overnight, the Gucci brand lost its grip on Will. Suddenly the thrill was gone. So what do you do when you break up with your soul mate, your reason for living? You get a haircut, and you lose the tattoo. Some people even join the military. Will did all three.

To me it was fairly obvious: He’d lost his religion.

A recent study conducted by the BBC found striking parallels between how one devoted Apple fan responded to religious imagery and to the brands he loved.

In fact, I devoted a whole chapter of my 2007 book, Buyology: Truth and Lies About Why We Buy to this very same subject. The similarities between the world’s great religions and some of the world’s most renowned brands has been one of my passions ever since I stumbled onto Bangkok’s Pariwas temple nearly a decade ago. There I found myself confronted with an extraordinary-looking Buddha. The Buddha was compelling in part because of the modern-day company he kept. Carved into the altar below his form, alongside several other less well-known deities, stood a resplendent gold-leaf statue of mop-haired soccer icon David Beckham. This wasn’t a case of vandalism, or sacrilege; a Thai sculptor had created the carving in 1998 as part of the World Cup celebrations. Said Chan Theerapunyo, the temple’s abbot, “Football has become a religion, and has millions of followers. So to be up to date, we have to open our minds and share the feelings of millions of people who admire Beckham.”

The Thai people are far from alone here. Pay a visit to India, and you’ll find that the local Bollywood film scene has spawned an entire celebrity-obsessed generation, so much so that you will find countless temples built or sponsored by Indian celebrities to honor or worship their own graven images.

If Hindis and Buddhists are willing to bend the rules of religion to cater to our worldwide celebrity obsession, wouldn’t it follow that brands might be next in line?

The short answer is yes. So in 2007, I carried out a scientific research study testing 32 volunteers. By using an FMRI to scan their brains, I found that religious imagery not only stimulates the same regions of the human brains as an iPod or the Apple logo does, but that a handful of other global brands, from Hello Kitty to Harley Davidson to Guinness, also ignites these same “God spots.”

Notice I said handful (I unearthed only a half-dozen examples in all). In the weeks, months, and years following the study, I couldn’t help but wonder: Why doesn’t every brand in the world pursue this tactic? Wouldn’t it be the ultimate behind-closed-doors strategy? Think about it: a campaign that makes your customers so preoccupied with your brand that they camp out overnight in sleeping bags in anticipation of a new release, cannot be rationally argued with, and are so blindly smitten that in one case, an adolescent boy gets a bar code tattooed on his neck?

Problem is, the way 99% of companies manage most brands is entirely, thuddingly, concretely … rational. They focus on consumer awareness. They ask consumers about a brand’s benefits, attributes, and functionality. Can you imagine trying to explain why you “love” one religion over another? Why do you love your old college or school? For that matter, why do you love your spouse or partner? Bet you have no rational explanation whatsoever.

As any religious devotee knows, it’s not about the church, the minister, the congregation, the sound of the bells, or the old-wood smell of the pews. Belief isn’t rational. It’s about a lot of things: our intermingled senses; our desire to lead a simpler life; our relationship with ourselves; our need to belong to a community, to feel as though we’re not just drifting in space. And that’s just for starters. Placing your faith in something or someone may be fanciful, and out-of-vogue among the smart set, but I’ve long believed that creating belief is essential to brand-building.

In light of the recent BBC study, what I wrote about in 2007 certainly bears repeating: The successful brands of the future will offer consumers the same ingredients that the world’s great religions serve up, including mystery, powerful storytelling, sensory appeal, and a sense of belonging. They will have an enemy (think Coke versus Pepsi, Mastercard versus Visa, or even Harvard versus Yale). They will create a constellation of their own icons, rituals, and in some cases, branded language. They will inspire church-like evangelism in their users, hey, maybe even a sleeping bag or two.

Obviously, as Apple’s market cap shows, consumers are more than ready to throw rationality aside and believe. As for companies, the only thing I can do is say a little prayer.

[Homepage image: Flickr user wowstanley; top image: Martin Lindstrom]

Apple Fanboy = Religious Fanatic?

When you stick a big Apple fan in an fMRI machine and show him Apple images, his brain lights up in the same areas associated with religious belief. And, according to a BBC TV show, one of the scientists associated with that study proclaims, “big tech brands have harnessed, or exploit, the brain areas that have evolved to process religion.” A typical example of the press coverage of this is this article from CNN.com: Apple triggers ‘religious’ reaction in fans’ brains, report says

This doesn’t merit a whole lot of discussion, but it’s worth a mention because of the press coverage it’s getting. Comparing Apple to a religion, and Steve Jobs to a Messianic figure, is simple and irresistible for the mainstream press.

First, I don’t doubt the fact that Apple “true believers” exhibit religious fervor. They evangelize for Apple, they demonize the (evil) competition, and reject even the mildest, most objective criticism as heresy. If you have any doubt, read the comments on my post, Revealed: How Steve Jobs Turns Customers into Fanatics.

Second, I don’t think that Apple (or any other brand) has found the secret to push some kind of “religion button” in the brain. It’s enticing to fantasize about how powerful that would be, but, like the rest of our brain processes, forming a religious belief is far to complex to accomplish with some clever ads.

Having said that, I think the point I made in my earlier post about Apple’s rivalry strategy does have parallels to organized religion. Religious fervor is often intensified when there is an enemy that can be demonized. The focus on the external threat and emphasizing the differences between the two groups solidifies the faith of the believers. For decades, Apple has exploited this technique, and its true believers spread the message with unrelenting zeal.

Sadly for marketers who want to be like Apple, though, their hunt for the religion button will be futile.

Via: http://www.neurosciencemarketing.com/blog/

Siete secretos de la innovación por Steve Jobs

Siete secretos de la innovación, por Steve Jobs

Steve Jobs es, sin duda, un personaje controversial, aunque respetado hasta por sus detractores más feroces. En primer lugar, por haber creado de la nada a Apple y luego por haberla rescatado y transformado en una de las empresas más innovadoras del mundo.

Lo cierto es que, por más creativo que sea, el hombre no improvisa sino que se atiene rigurosamente a su propio credo innovador. Varios libros han analizado, en mayor o menor profundidad, el “modelo Apple” y los métodos que utiliza Jobs para conducir su empresa. Uno de ellos es “Innovación: 100 consejos para inspirarla y gestionarla”, en el que Enric Barba presenta siete principios clave que utiliza Jobs. Estos son los siete mandamientos de Apple:

1- Haga lo que le apasione. la pasión es la clave del genio. Jobs descubrió en su propia experiencia cómo alinear el trabajo con los propios gustos e intereses redunda en mayor energía, creatividad, constancia y resistencia a la adversidad. Si no está trabajando en algo que le guste y no puede cambiar eso a corto plazo, dé pasos que lo lleven con el tiempo a trabajar en algo que le sea más agradable. Si lidera personas, asegúrese de ubicar a cada uno en la tarea que más ajusta a sus habilidades y preferencias. Es la forma de sacar lo mejor de cada uno.

2- Cree una visión. Las visiones inspiran y motivan. Nos llevan a pensar en grande, a superar los límites y ayudan a liderar y unir los grupos de trabajo y darles un sentido de dirección y pertenencia. Jobs fue comparado muchas veces con un evangelizador, más que como un hombre de negocios. Puede estar lanzando un reproductor de audio o un nuevo teléfono, pero en su discurso parecerá que está cambiando al mundo. Y de hecho, lo está haciendo.

3- Reactive su cerebro. Hágase las preguntas que no se hace nadie. ¿Por qué? ¿Qué pasaría si.? Conecte aquello que parece disociado. Jobs vivió siempre en la frontera entre la tecnología y la cultura. Es un apasionado del diseño y la estética, y aplica permanentemente esa sensibilidad al desarrollo de productos electrónicos de consumo. Además los productos de Apple en los últimos años son excepcionales muestras de hibridización. Combinar telefonía, reproducción de audio, video, navegación web, etc. es la forma en que ha buscado dar a sus dispositivos una ventaja.

4- Venda sueños, no productos. Ayude a sus clientes a mejorar sus vidas con sus productos. Después de todo, es eso lo que ellos persiguen. No están enamorados de su empresa, sino de sus propias aspiraciones y deseos. Ayúdelos a alcanzarlos. Por ejemplo: la capacidad de edición de música y video que traen las computadoras Apple es importante sólo porque permite que el cliente se exprese creativamente, aunque no sea un profesional. El resto son detalles técnicos.

5- Mantenga el foco. Diga que no a 1000 cosas. La verdadera pregunta que debemos hacernos todo el tiempo es: ¿por qué me comprarían este producto? Todo lo que no lleve a responderla satisfactoriamente puede y debe ser eliminado. El resto no crea valor, dispersa energía. Elimine los productos no rentables de su portfolio y concéntrese en los más interesantes. En los negocios, la efectividad es hija de la concentración.

6- Brinde una gran experiencia. Preste atención no sólo al producto sino a la experiencia que provoca en el cliente, desde el momento mismo en que lo adquiere. Cuide el entorno en que ofrece sus productos, brinde un gran servicio, haga que el proceso de compra sea fácil y práctico para el cliente. Permita que experimenten su producto antes de comprarlo.

7- Comunique efectivamente. Que todos sepan que tiene un gran producto. Diga las cosas de forma sencilla. En una presentación no transmita más de tres ideas. Explique con dibujos y utilice historias. La comunicación es casi tan importante como el producto. Después de todo, ¿de qué sirve haber creado el mejor producto si no sabemos comunicarlo?

Fuente: La Nación.com

How are Mac & PC People Different?

In an infographic that’s bound to cause arguments and perhaps fistfights, researchers at Hunch placed data from about 700,000 of its website visitors onto a deep illustration that shows just how different users of Macs and PCsare.

They came up with interesting correlations between users’ chosen computing platforms and their demographics and personalities, as well as tastes in food, fashion and media.

Did it sort out like a comparison between Tea Party members and liberals? Are PC users geeks and Mac users hipsters, in keeping with common stereotypes? Almost. Mac users are more educated, eat more hummus, prefer modern art over impressionist art, and are 21% more likely than PC users to say that two random people are more alike than different.

Dive into the infographic below (feel free to click the graphic for an enlargement), full of insights and data, drawn from a huge sample. Of course, there are exceptions to every trend. Please let us know in the comments if you think its data is accurate or not.

Infographic courtesy Hunch, used with permission

El mundo en 30 años

De aquí a 30 años Apple conquistará al mundo con su tecnología.

 

Aporte de Adriana Ochoa, alumna de la Maestría de Diseño de la Universidad de Palermo.

Hackean las pantallas de Times Square con un iPhone

Times Square es una de esas zonas de una ciudad que parece que todo el mundo es capaz de reconocer. La hemos visto en el cine, la televisión o la prensa en infinidad de ocasiones y muchos soñamos con poder estar allí alguna vez en nuestra vida.

 

Esta calle de Nueva York cuenta con grandes pantallas, donde se pueden ver anuncios publicitarios durante todo el día. Seguro que tener un anuncio en estas pantallas no es algo barato y ahora ha aparecido un video donde se muestra la escasa seguridad que tienen estas pantallas. En concreto han conseguido hackear las pantallas con un iPhone y una pequeña adaptación.

Tras el salto les dejo con un video donde se puede ver el hackeo en cuestión. Por supuesto la polémica está servida. ¿Se trata de un hackeo real o es una simple farsa? No lo podemos afirmar a ciencia cierta, pero si es una farsa lo han hecho muy bien.

Via: Tengo un Mac

The Untold Story of How My Dad Helped Invent the First Mac

The guiding principles laid out in those early days — from “think small” to top-down control — still run through Apple’s DNA to this day.

Jef Raskin, my father, (below) helped develop the Macintosh, and I was recently looking at some of his old documents and came across his February 16, 1981 memo detailing the genesis of the Macintosh.

It was written in reaction to Steve Jobs taking over managing hardware development. Reading through it, I was struck by a number of the core principals Apple now holds that were set in play three years before the Macintosh was released. Much of this is particularly important in understanding Apple’s culture and why we have the walled-garden experience of the iPhone, iPad, and the App Store.
Even better, I found some sometimes snarky comments Jef had made to the memo as part of the Stanford Computer History project. The annotated memo follows my commentary.

Apple Learns to Own the Entire Experience

Reading the memo, we see that Apple was struggling with an explosion of fragmentation with the Apple II:

It is impossible to write a program on the Apple II or III that will draw a high-resolution circle since the aspect ratio and linearity of the customer’s TV or monitor is unknown.

This is the exact problem that Google Android now faces. The revolutionary idea back in 1981, even to Apple, was to throw away the Apple II’s corner-stone expandability in exchange for owning the experience from top to bottom:

The secret of mass marketing of software is having a very large and extremely uniform hardware/software base.

To combat fragmentation, for the Macintosh:

There were to be no peripheral slots so that customers never had to see the inside of the machine (although external ports would be provided); there was a fixed memory size so that all applications would run on all Macintoshes; the screen, keyboard, and mass storage device (and, we hoped, a printer) were to be built in so that the customer got a truly complete system, and so that we could control the appearance of characters and graphics.

We also see Jef articulating and forming Apple’s nascent core principle of innovation being prioritized over backwards compatibility.

The Apple II/III system is already lost. We cannot go back and simplify, we can only go forward.

This became a key differentiator to Microsoft’s no-matter-what policy of maintaining backwards compatibility. Apple willingness to ditch the old for innovation, left it nimble and able to overcome the innovator’s dilemma.

Interesting Sound Bytes

Quotes from my father

Another key concept is ‘think small’. We have not begun to reach the limits of what can be done with 64K bytes of memory and a single mass storage device. It is important to hold to these limitations in order to keep the project from burgeoning into a huge, expensive and time consuming effort.

In my first conversations with Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak, back in the garage that was the original location of Apple, I argued that the Apple I (and later, the II) needed upper- and lowercase on both keyboard and screen. At the time they disagreed rather strongly–a position they now somewhat regret having taken.

It does not take much imagination to see that a portable computer will open up entire new application areas, and once again give Apple access to totally untapped, yet ripe, market.

Having been associated with PARC, I repeatedly called Apple’s attention to the kind of thinking going on there, and it was gratifying that the company took note of and eventually based a lot of the LISA software on the published work done at PARC.

We see that the ideas behind universal-access computing, like Ubiquity or Enso or the Services Menu, are already in place:

The original concept gave the word processing program access to calculator ability without having to leave the word processing environment. Studies have shown that having a multiple level system is more confusing than a single level system. The iPhone in particular suffers greatly from this problem.

The Original Document

 

Via http://www.fastcodesign.com

What Apple Can Learn From Walt Disney | Fast Company

 

No one knows how long Steve Jobs will be absent from the helm of Apple. The challenge for Apple one day–and I hope it is decades from now–is to find a new CEO. Right now the decision would be straightforward. Tim Cook, the current COO, is a skilled operations man, and according to The New York Times very much “in charge” at Apple. He is the ideal person for the job.

Finding a replacement for Steve Jobs, as the Times noted, the breakthrough innovator, dealmaker and person of influence, is frankly impossible. And so Apple would do well to forget trying to find one. Rather, as many have pointed out, it would be wise to turn to a committee of people to do what Jobs has done.

Steve Jobs is irreplaceable as was another innovator-entrepreneur, Walt Disney. He began his career as a cartoonist but early in his career turned his talents to thinking and creating and running a creative department. The Walt Disney Company became the tour de force in animation. Walt’s genius was in storytelling and in getting so many other talented artists to go along with his ideas and work together. He shepherded the Imagineers, creative types who thought out of the box but were willing to work collaboratively to create the most exciting entertainment products their day.

Disney was also restless. If you could create fantasies on celluloid, couldn’t you do it in real life? Thus was born Disneyland where so many of his characters came to life in 3D in the form of walking characters and amusement park rides. Disney also created and hosted a television series on ABC as a means of promoting the park as well as finding an outlet for the many Disney films, including specially produced nature films.

Disney’s attention to detail ensured that his park would not be the sleazy carny style he knew from boyhood but would be very different. Customers were called “guests” and cleanliness, service and hospitality were paramount. When Walt died in 1966, plans for his next big thing, Disney World in Orlando, were well under way. The park opened in 1971. A succession of CEOs ran the company as caretakers, doing what Walt would do operationally but not what he would do creatively. They were not innovators.

It took a new generation of management, headed by Michael Eisner, to take the Walt Disney Company to new horizons. Eisner’s lieutenant, Jeffrey Katzenberg, let the company’s return to producing animated features. It also expanded its theme parks and found new sources of revenue in merchandising its characters and in the steady release of its film library on videotape and later DVD.

The company acquired Capital Cities, which owned ABC television and ESPN. [It even bought Pixar, a company headed by Steve Jobs.] Eisner unlike Disney eventually drove off senior talent and was replaced by Robert Iger. Today the Walt Disney Company remains an icon force in entertainment, theme parks and retail.

Walt Disney, like Steve Jobs, was a once in a lifetime executive. Companies do not replace them. They prepare for their departure by promoting the cadre of people of many different talents and do what Walt did better than anyone–get them all to work together to create something valuable that consumers will want to experience.

That challenge will be one that will define Apple’s future.

Via FC Expert Blogger John Baldoni