“I don’t believe the problem with the Apple TV is about technology. It’s a (you can’t believe how amazed I am to be writing the next few words) failure by Apple to successfully market a product.”
In that post, I suggested that the first generation (or, “the Hobby Model”) Apple TV failed to catch on because Apple did not support it with the typical advertising juggernaut the company uses to push out products.
A lot has been written today about the new Apple TV and if it now has the correct mix of features and the right business model.
I’ll judge if it’s a serious effort by Apple if, during NFL football games, I see ads for the Apple TV mixed in with the ubiquitous spots for the iPad. And it will help if they’re not a lame as that ad from three years ago.
(P.S. I own a first generation Apple TV which means I am even more reluctant to believe in the Apple TV do-over.)
Like the New York-centric consumer magazine industry, commercial book publishers and, frankly, most everyone, thinks of books found in bookstores and libraries when they consider what book publishing is. Perhaps, they’ll concede there are some independent book publishers out there somewhere, and perhaps lots of books that are published by “the academic press,” but that’s about it. Oh, except for those “vanity press” things people publish, that no one reads. And text books, yes, there are those, also. And, come to the think of it, there are lots of reference books that are in bookstores and libraries also, but they would never show up in any review of books. And then, there are all those manuals that come with every product you purchase — I guess those are books, also. So there are many types of documents formated as books that are not listed in the New York Times best selling lists each week.
Our understanding of “vanity press” and self-publishing is evolving rapidly — even if the traditional publishing powers-that-be have refused to acknowledge it (with some notable exceptions.) However, with progressive authors like Seth Goden leading the way, and, the proliferation of a wide-array of technology (like on-demand printing and eBooks) and enticing business models (like Amazon’s 70-30 split of eBook revenues), the term “vanity publishing” will soon be placed in the trash heap of pejoratives.
Last week, a small, but perhaps significant step was made in this inevitable march towards the day when an organization or author who wishes to sell a book will finally finish off the disintermediation of what we currently think of as Book (with a capital “B”) Publishing: Apple announced that an update to its desktop document software Pages includes the ability to save a document as an ePub file is included.
While some observers have cast this as an Amazon vs. Apple move, such characterization makes little sense to me now that the Amazon’s Digital Text Platform (how one publishes an eBook to be sold via the Kindle Store) now supports the ePub format. I’m not a student of this particular skirmish of the technology wars, but it seems more of a slam at Adobe’s PDF format than a swipe at Amazon. (Adobe is also the company behind Flash, the video format that doesn’t work on the iPhone or iPad.)
So, here’s the deal: If you have a Mac and iWorks and you want to self-publish an eBook and sell it via Amazon.com or Apple’s iBookstore, you now have all the technology you need. (Of course, there are ways to do this using Microsoft Word and some hacking, but I’m talking about the easy way, not the Word way.)
(I feel the need to add a sidebar comment at this point: If you’ve never tried to sell a self-published book, you’re better off not trying it the DIY way first time out of the gate — or maybe, never. If it’s a book you actually want to sell, I suggest you enlist the assistance of what Apple calls “iBookstore Aggregators.”)
The professional designers who work with me have professional tools that export beautifully designed documents to more formats than I knew existed. However, I predict that for those who are comfortable in Keynote (the software, Pages, works exactly like Keynote, without the “effects”), this “save as ePub” feature could be a very significant step in the journey towards you becoming a book publisher.
Also, while this post pertains to “digital” eBooks, the process and “aggregators” also can be used with Print-on-Demand, as well.
(Note: This is adapted from a segment of a recent project that included an explanation of how Twitter is not just what one sees on the Twitter.com website. For many readers of this blog, it is “old ground.” I thought others might find something in it of use. Later: And it’s especially timely as the official launch today of Google Realtime adds yet another major example of how people can view Twitter content without ever visiting the website, Twitter.com. For an excellent overview of Google Realtime, see (as always with Google feature launches like this) the explanation by Danny Sullivan.)
As I (and others) have said, the reason no one gets Twitter is because each user’s experience with Twitter is unique. If you follow more than a dozen or so Twitter accounts, the chances of you and another Twitter user being part of all the same Twitter conversations and observers of the same information stream becomes statistically improbable. Add to that, the Heraclitean nature of the ever-flowing stream (or, river) of tweets and you’ll realize that even as individuals, we can never step twice into the same experience with Twitter.
Another way we each experience Twitter uniquely (from one-another, and as individuals at different times) is the ability for users (and publishers and developers) to easily syndicate (or, subscribe to) content appearing on Twitter and then, “re-display” that content in near endless ways.
The creators of Twitter were wise enough to understand a few fundamental laws of the web (some of which are still confusing to those who bring legacy media logic and conventional business rationale to the internet).
From Day 1, they accepted as indisputable truths the following:
Those who use a service like Twitter aren’t creating content for a company. They are communicating with one another.
It’s extremely rare, not impossible, but rare, for a a pure-play Internet company to achieve a $1 billion if the strategy is limited to one URL. (In other words, “Twitter” has never been just about http://twitter.com.”)
Never explain what your service is or does or how you’ll make money. It’s weird, but those who are important at different stages of the development of something like Twitter, will know the answers to those questions by the time the product hits their radar. New Internet things are like jokes, if you have to explain it, there’s something wrong with the person you’ve told the joke to.
As I have used the telephone as a metaphor in previous Thoughts on Twitter posts, let’s consider that again: individuals “own” the content of their telephone conversations and we really don’t care what kind of equipment the person at the other end of the conversation is using. So it is with Twitter: We can initiate or receive tweets in countless ways (and, pushing forward the telephone metaphor, Twitter wants to have a monopoly on the enabling infrastructure — oops, that’s another post for another day.)
So to recap what I just said: Twitter.com is a website, but there are millions of Twitter users who rarely, if ever, visit that website. If you are reading this on my blog, you can see a “widget” in the right-hand column that display my most recent “tweets” — so you are using Twitter, without actually visiting Twitter.com.
Viewing Twitter Content via a Twitter Client
Additionally, there are countless Twitter clients, computer software applications, web-applications and mobile “apps” that are created by companies and individuals independent from Twitter that allow users to post or read Twitter content. These clients are designed for special purposes and special types of use, and provide various ways for individuals to manage and display content from Twitter . Such clients can be dashboard-like (one example: Seesmic), simple iPhone apps (Twitterific) or category-bending new ideas like Flipboard. (And, literally, thousands more).
Twitter.com displayed with PowerTwitter browser extension
One of the reasons Twitter is so gigantic is that Twitter’s creators granted the permission and provided the tools and methods for third-party developers to create such products — for free. (Some heavy-duty users of Twitter data have special relationships that enable them to have even more access.
Viewing Twitter.com in New Ways
One of the downsides of being such a third-party developer of applications that run “on-top” of a product like Twitter (or, perhaps a more correct metaphor is “on bottom”) is the knowledge that Twitter will continuously add new features that “fill holes” in the service — so if your “product” is something that Twitter believes is merely a “missing feature,” your “product” is likely going to one day be redundant to something on Twitter, itself. For example, I am currently experimenting with a browser extension called Power Twitter that enables a layer of features that could one day be user options, or a part of the product. Currently, with the third-party extension activated, I can make Twitter.com appear like it is shown on the photo to the right. It embeds into the Twitter stream the photos and videos that are linked to by the people I follow. (This feature is a part of several Twitter “dashboard” clients, as well.) It also translates the truncated URLs that are character-saving tactics used by Twitter users into a full-description of what the linked-to content is. (On the downside, it probably collects a lot of data about how I use Twitter that I don’t mind, but may bother others — so for that reason, I don’t recommend you use it, unless you familiarize yourself with its terms of use.) In other words, the extension pulls in content to my personal display of Twitter.com on my computer desktop, making the site appear more like what one might expect to see on Facebook or certain RSS newsreaders.
To some people, that may be a good thing. To others, it may seem at odds with what they think Twitter is all about. But that’s what I mean when I say, we’ll never “get” Twitter: Each person has an individual preference for how things should be sliced, diced and displayed — which, come to think of it, is also the only explanation I can think of for mullet haircuts.
“1. Crisis communications may be a good hammer, but stop thinking every corporate crisis is a nail.
2. Don’t dive into another guy’s oil slick. It makes you appear slimy.
3. Not even the most brilliantly executed crisis communications plan can compete with the impact of one photo of an oil covered pelican.”
My bottom line on that post was that “No amount of spin control could have, or will ever, help BP salvage the company’s or its brand’s ‘reputation’ in the U.S.”
It has been over 20 years since I have professionally advised clients on crisis communications, but I used to have a job that required me to wear a beeper and be on call to work with a client whose size and scope made them a magnet for controversies, big and small. Most of my theories of crisis communications are based on that experience — as well as doing all the required study and testing that allowed me to earn an “accreditation” by the Public Relations Society of America, which I must say, lapsed shortly thereafter.
While long, gone from such professional duties, because of that experience, I perhaps now observe the handling of communications during corporate crises like former college football players watch games on TV: with a cringing, painful understanding that might be overlooked by other fans.
My main complaint with the notion that “crisis communications management” is a solution to crises is the knowledge that every crisis is different; each with a unique blend of “chaos” and cross-purposed priorities that can never be anticipated. So, while it is important to plan for crises and to have a strategy, there’s a reason the expression “hits the fan” is applied to crisis situations: You don’t know which way things are going to fly.
In today’s New York Times, Peter Goodman explores the challenge to the conventional wisdom related to “crisis communication” (better “handling” of communication during a crisis will lessen its blow) that the BP and other recent corporate-related controversies have raised.
Goodman’s piece looks at both sides of the argument, but is one of the first times I’ve seen a main-stream organization like the NYT question the notion that poor “crisis communications” isn’t always the problem PR Monday-morning quarterbacks suggest it is when a crisis occurs. The problem can be the problem.
While I do not completely agree with him, I find that Eric Dezenhall’s quote in Goodman’s piece a refreshing challenge to the notion that the “standard playbook” is useless when the facts are sufficiently distasteful.
Quote:
Mr. Dezenhall is particularly scornful of the classic imperative to “get out in front of the story,” as if swift disclosure provides inoculation against all ugly realities. When the facts are horrible, he argues, the best P.R. fix may simply be to absorb the pounding and get back to business, while eschewing the sort of foolish communications gimmicks that can make things worse.
If you’re in PR or are fascinated with this topic, I recommend reading the entire piece.
As for my own beliefs on this topic, just to be clear: I believe crisis communications planning and execution are good things. I just don’t believe they are a panacea some PR people want us to believe. Most important thing I believe: I’m glad I hung up my beeper 20 years ago.
I’ve posted on Flickr a set of photos of the new and highly anticipated (well, for some people) BookBook iPad case. The case is handmade and (I swear) looks and feels like a century-old leather-bound classic. You can learn more about the company that makes it on their website, TwelveSouth.com. The company has a Nashville connection (the Twelve South name should give that away to locals) as an alumni of Griffin Technologies founded it. I had seen one of their MacBook Pro cases, but am not a “case” person for my laptop. When I heard they were coming out with an iPad version, I placed my order immediately. (In other words, I bought this and have no relationship in any way with the company (now, a small company in Charleston, S.C.) — except as a fan.)
Since the dawn of time, humans have been seeking a breath mint that tastes like a candy mint and a candy mint that works like a breath mint. Yet, whenever someone comes out with two-, two-, two-mints-in one, the only people who actually believe it are those who sell the product.
As consumers, we get it. If, for example, we want to purchase a camera that is dual anything, the savvy consumer will know not to expect the best of either. We merely hope the compromise won’t end up with the worst of both. We are consumers, okay, so we understand that the best camera is the one you have with you when the photograph or video-worthy moment presents itself. Accessibility is the feature that trumps all feature compromises when you see the Loch Ness monster. (Frankly, in the hands of a talented photographer who knows what he’s doing, a hole at the end of a shoebox can capture a great photo.)
So, despite the hype and whatever marketers tell you, it’s never a “best of both” and most of the time, it’s just “never” — it doesn’t matter if you’re talking about flying-cars or writing devices that are both “pen-like” and “pencil-like.” Lots of promises and predictions, but the best we get are “roadable planes” and “erasable pens.”
Unfortunately, the 2-pack version of the new liquid-pencil won’t be available until next month (apparently, back to schoolers buy pencils by the bushel).
It’s at times like these when having a friend like the amazing blogging anesthesiologist Joe (bookofjoe.com, @bookofjoe) comes in handy. (I devoted a post to Joe five years ago.) When Joe saw me tweet that I was looking forward to trying out the new “liquid penci,” he let me know that he had ordered some online. But, as he didn’t need the entire bushel, he’d be glad to share. Yesterday, I received two “test pencils” from the private collection of Joe.
I’m sorry. That was a way-too long setup for a brief review, but before Joe will tell me what he thinks of the device, I had to promise I’d go first:
1. No surprise here: It’s a compromise: It’s neither a great pen nor a great pencil. Of course, it’s not intended to be “a pen,” except it is — after a period of time (Sharpie says three days, but I’m beginning to see it within 24 hours), the erasable liquid (I’m not sure exactly what it is, so I’ll just say “liquid graphite”) becomes permanent.
2. Its tip (equivalent, Sharpie says, to laying down the line of a No. 2 pencil) reminds me of the “fine tip” version of the Sharpie Pen (not to be confused with the “fatter” Sharpie markers you’re probably thinking about). When it comes to pen tips, I’m solidly in the Pilot G2 (blue ink) camp, so the whole “fine point” thing is a bit dainty for my “pen” tastes. However, as a pencil, I’m definitely “fine point” so this actually gives the new liquid pencil a “plus.”
3. So, for doing sketches or things I like to do with a finely sharpened pencil, I was thinking, “Okay, this is nice, except…uh, it’s doesn’t lay down a very good mark. Indeed, at first it seems like you’re writing with a pen that’s running out of ink. Splotchy and skippy are two words that spring to mind. In other words, not a good “pencil experience.” A traditional mechanical pencil is better, but, unfortunately, I never seem to be able to hang on to one.
4. But wait! I wrote #3 last night, during my first test of the pencil. Today, I’ve decided there’s a break-in period that can take at least 20-30 minutes of writing with the device before you get it working in a way that lays down a line correctly. I’m not sure, but I think it’s working better for me now because of three different factors that have kicked in: The tip (nib? point?) is loosening up so that the liquid flows better, I’m tilting the pencil a little more vertically than I usually hold a writing device and third, I’ve adjusted the pressure I’m applying to be more “pen like” than “pencil like”
5. Something potentially very bothersome: Like a mechanical pencil, the tip will retract into the barrel with a “click.” However, the way in which the “clicker” is engineered allows the eraser end of the pencil to slide back and forth. Nervous types will discover that when the writing tip is “out,” the pencil can be shaken to make an very annoying percussive sound.
6. Where I can see the liquid pencil coming in handy: For those who sketch and then apply ink over it (I’m sure some crafters do it, but I’m thinking of certain kind of illustrators), I can see an application. I’ll be trying it out for several weeks with a Moleskine sketch pad I carry in my (stop calling it a man purse) bag. Another great use: Sodoku and crossword puzzles, etc.
7. Issue I didn’t look into: I have no idea if it’s refillable.
Bottomline: I like the concept and I’m pre-disposed to be a fan of Sharpie products. However, I was very disappointed at first with the way it “skipped.” I’m warming up as I test it more and can see it being great for certain uses and situations.
Recently I complained (using my account’s rarely updated Status Update) on Facebook about receiving a flurry of friend requests that are obviously from spam accounts. The requests feature profile photos of, well, let’s just say these photos indicate the requester may have a future in the fast-growing field of professional “marketing contracting.”
To prevent such requests from making it to my in-box, I changed the privacy settings on my Facebook account so that only “friends of friends” can request to “friend me.” (The spam requests come from new accounts with no friends displayed.)
As a couple of friends (the real kind) have asked me to explain how I adjusted my privacy settings, I thought I’d post it here for the 499 million users of Facebook who find it difficult to figure out the settings.
Here’s all you have to do:
1. Use the pull-down menu under the tab “Account” and select “Privacy Settings.”
2. Click on the “View settings” link found under the heading “Basic Directory Information.”
3. Choose “Friends of friends” from the options for the setting “Send me friend requests.”
If you get such a request, you can always block and report the spammer, but I didn’t volunteer to be a Facebook policeman, so I’d rather they just disappear.
Earlier this summer, I had the privilege of speaking to a group of independent school (private school) administrators from around the country who were attending an institute at Vanderbilt University’s Peabody School of Education. (I hesitate to mention my speaking there, as I don’t want it to bring down Peabody’s ranking as the best graduate school of education in the nation).
Had it been around then, I would have shown them that funny venn diagram accompanying this post. It’s been making the rounds among the university (and beyond) web development crowd because it satirizes a universal truth about institutional and corporate websites: Too many institutional websites seem designed to appeal to the institution’s senior management, not the people who actually use the site — the audience.
While I didn’t have the cartoon when I spoke with the administrators, I did spend some time warning them not to fall into the trap Finnish communications theorist (and person I’ve quoted more than anyone else for the past 20 years) Osmo Wiio warns us about: Jos itse olet sanomaasi tyytyväinen, niin viestintä varmasti epäonnistuu. Or, for those of us who do not know Finnish: “Being content with the formulation of your message is a sure sign of having formulated it for yourself.”
I believe I said something like the following to the participants: “Osmo Wiio suggests to us, if the head of your school really likes your website, chances are it will fail.”
Recently, I received the following email from one of the people who attended the institute. I thought I’d share it here because in some parts of the country, school doors are already opening again for the fall. Note: In order to “protect the innocent,” I’ve changed some names and job titles.
Dear Rex:
I had the pleasure of being a member of the (group) you presented to at Vanderbilt in June. I, like everyone there, was so impressed by your presentation and was utterly convinced of the necessity to assert my school’s presence on social media outlets like Facebook and Twitter. In fact, I was so convinced, that I thought it would be a non-issue when I returned and proposed it. Much to my dismay, I was shot down by (the powers that be) for the following reasons: (He or she) doesn’t want anything to draw attention/traffic away from the school’s website (I already know that both Twitter and FB can DRIVE traffic to your website), secondly, and more importantly (he or she) thinks a school’s communication needs to be more substantive than the space Twitter allows.
I was not deterred. I redoubled my efforts and have now come up with a formal proposal stating the reasons for having this social media presence. However, as I prepare to make this presentation, I was wondering if you had any thoughts that sum up (again) why schools should move in this direction. I have all of my notes from your talk but fear that in all of my drafting and re-writing, I may have missed some perfect encapsulating nugget that will have the effect of convincing (the school’s power that be) to move forward.
[Name Withheld]
(Okay, okay. I should have warned that the email contained a shameless plug for my “utterly convincing” presentation skills.) Here’s a slightly modified version of what I sent “Name Withheld” in response:
Dear Mr or Ms Withheld:
I don’t have an encapsulating nugget, but I’ll give it a try.
First, as I emphasized in my presentation, if you develop a web strategy (or any communications effort) to please the powers that be, it is doomed to fail. Your experience is what I was talking about when I spent way too much time talking about Osmo Wiio.
That said, I’ve had a little success with some non-academic corporate clients (who also don’t enjoy telling their bosses they are wrong) by explaining the issue of “attention and traffic” in the following way:
Unless your business model is one where you make money directly from visits to a website (translation: advertising or e-commerce), the reason for using the internet should not be focused on driving on-site metrics like “traffic” or “page-views.” Unless you are a media or e-commerce company, the internet should be viewed as a means to communicate and build relationships (for example, in a private school context: to recruit future students, communicate better with parents and alumni, develop better ways to “teach,” facilitate and improve development and fundraising activities). If you can accomplish those things better “off” your website than “on” your website, then your “business model” may be served better “off your site” rather than “on.”
If your students, parents and alumni are found on other websites like Twitter or Facebook, why should you focus all your energy and limited resources into trying to get them to come to your website. A couple of years ago, a friend of mine who is a professor at Vanderbilt called me to ask if I knew of a way she could set up a private place on the web where her students could share research, post photos and other digital media and have discussions leading up to and after classes. “Yes,” I told her. “Set up a private Facebook group.” Not only did it work, my friend’s approach became a role-model for others.
Don’t get me wrong: I am a strong believer in a school or business or non-profit having its own presence on the web. But I view the internet as a “place” and like in the real-world, it’s not always the best strategy to stay inside your own four-walls if you’re wanting to communicate with others. It is better to also be in those places wherever your “community” can be found. And, as I hope you can find in your notes from my presentation, the best “social places” on the web provide you with ways to publish content on your site and their’s simultaneously — so using those sites are not duplicating efforts, but providing ways to be several places at the same time. (Note: The participants of the institute asked me to come back for a second “lab” session during which I demonstrated to them how to use Posterous and Tumblr as a means to post once and publish to many places simultaneously.)
As for the belief that messages from the school need to be more substantive than what Twitter allows, I’ve found that despite it being impossible for school headmasters to understand Twitter, here’s one way I try to explain Twitter and other social media so that “even principals” might understand them:
You can think of “social media” on two levels:
1. At a basic level, they are merely another channel to “distribute” or “syndicate” content. In other words, “Twitter” doesn’t need to be thought of as the place where meaningful conversation and community is going to take place. (And while it is, and I can prove it, that’s not my point.) In many cases, Twitter should be thought of as just another way to disseminate short messages that need to get out fast. Let’s say your school has some breaking news — like it’s on fire. By any measure, that’s substantive communication that can be summed up in less than 140 characters. Since dozens of your parents are already using it for other purposes, Twitter is a perfect message-relay channel to send out updates — in multiple ways (including via text-message to their cell-phones) the subscriber controls. If that is the only way you use it, Twitter is worth using. (Note: Yesterday, Twitter announced a new feature that means you don’t even need to have a Twitter account to get text-messages from, say, your children’s school who send out emergency messages via Twitter.)
2. A higher level of thinking about social media services (beyond a syndication or distribution channel) has to do with developing extended relationships with students, parents and alumni on the platforms THEY have chosen. If you don’t host these online gatherings, they will do so themselves. And if you don’t participate, you’ll be strangely absent. Let’s say, you have alumni associations in different cities around the country. Would you say to those local groups, “I’m sorry, if you want to get together or get messages from us, you’ll have to travel back here?” If your alumni are already hanging out with one-another on Facebook, then support them there: They’re doing all organization work for you — all you need to do is show up and smile.
I hope this helps in some way. If not, maybe it will next year.
Good luck,
Rex
I haven’t heard back yet on how the follow-up strategy session went. If nothing else, I hope this school — and your’s — can make the venn diagram of how you communicate, and how your audience wants to communicate, overlap a little better this year.
“For years, the strongest companies on the Internet were the ones with the most visitor traffic. Today, the power resides with those that have the richest data and are the savviest about using it.
If what you do for a living has anything to do with online marketing or media, I suggest you memorize those two sentences. (Although in the second sentence, it should be those “who” have, not those “that” have.)
When I read this CJR.com article about Forbes.com launching a new True/Slant-DNA’d blog approach, all I could think about was that five-year-old cover-story in Forbes magazine that started out, “Web logs are the prized platform of an online lynch mob spouting liberty but spewing lies, libel and invective. Their potent allies in this pursuit include Google and Yahoo.”
Another irony: That 2005 article was written by a Forbes writer who would later become one of the most famous bloggers ever, for writing a fake blog that, at times, spews plenty of invective.
Sidenote: Visiting Forbes.com for the first time in a long time, I noticed the cluttered design, page-view-inflating gimmicks and numerous other user-hating approaches of Forbes.com seem to be undergoing a transformation into something that might work when their competitors throw up pay walls.
A few months ago, I shared how Google used “good old fashioned” paper-based direct-mail advertising delivered via the U.S. Postal Service in its “marketing mix.” Yes, Google, the web-advertising juggernaut actually uses “non-internet” advertising approaches to build its brand and help sell its services. (And, unlike some people believe, they also have a huge army of sales people.)
That post was written when Google ran its first Superbowl ad (quick, you remember that ad, don’t you?) and to augment the comprehensive retrospective of Google’s past use of traditional advertising written by Danny Sullivan. The point, of course: Great marketers like Google don’t limit themselves to one form of media or one channel.
Since I posted those earlier Google direct mailings, I thought I should also take some photos (with my iPhone 4 for those who care about such details) of a mailing our company received yesterday from Yahoo! promoting its advertising solutions for businesses.
As with Google’s efforts, this isn’t a review. I don’t think either company changed any behavior on our part.
Way, way back in 2003 on this blog, I started using the term Dejazine to describe defunct print magazines that, at the time, were being resurrected as websites.
So, when I saw the news that the defunct Benneton customer magazine, Colors, has come back to life (yet again) as an iPad App, I decided it was also time to bring “dejazine” back to life as “deja-app.”)
But unlike the website dejazine, the iPad version is something I find promising — and not for the reasons most early magazine apps have implied are what magazine apps should be. (My thoughts on the future of magazine apps are for a long-promised series of future posts.)
I’m hoping — indeed boosting — this is a trend: The iPad come-back of formerly thriving and popular print magazines that collapsed under their owner’s heavy overhead or mis-directed strategy.
Or even better, the customer magazines that were once very popular and effective, but that got axed because some new marketing director (who inevitably got fired six months later) wanted to “head in another direction” by killing the magazine and building an island on Second Life, now have a chance to be resurrected on the iPad and other “slate” devices.
This is the kind of stuff that makes me all verklempt.
[The following is as close as this blog ever gets to solicitation.]
I sure hope so, as that’s something Hammock Inc. is ready to help our clients accomplish.
In fact, if you own the rights and archives to a formerly thriving magazine — say, a corporate-owned magazine your customers used to love but some former employee whose name you can’t remember killed it — email me at rexhammock@gmail.com.
My MacBook Pro spent a couple of days this week hanging out with the service folks at Nashville’s MacAuthority.
The less-than year-old (so therefore in warranty) MacBook needed its trackpad replaced. It seemed odd to me that something so new would need to be replaced.
Because the malfunction coincided with the announcement that Apple is coming out with a peripheral device for its desktop machines called the “magic trackpad,” I had just looked at that Apple.com page and had noticed that, unlike on my MacBook Pro, there seems to be no way to actually “click” the new device – everything is done with tapping. (Thanks to a comment below, I stand corrected. I should always try out a device before deciding what I think it does or doesn’t do. It clearly says the entire pad “clicks.” )
Over the years of using each new generation of Macs, I have typically brought along my “legacy methods” of controlling them from one generation to the next. Usually, any major change in interface is gradual or extremely intuitive, so I wondered how such an ingrained user-interface action as “clicking” could be missing from the “magic trackpad.” (This is something akin to what hard-core geeks experience when some obscure key-command doesn’t work the way they expect it to.)
It was only then, months — perhaps years — after using the current model trackpad, that I, in a classic “duh” moment, realized I have been “clicking” my trackpad when I should have been “tapping” it hundreds, perhaps thousands, of times a week.
Now, the difference in clicking and tapping may not sound like a big deal, but “tapping” is electronic and “clicking” is mechanical. The life time of a trackpad is probably related to a specific number of “clicks” while the number of “taps” is likely many times that.
After getting my MacBook home and diving into the whole “tapping thing” at a much deeper level, I realized that, had they chosen to, the MacAuthority service people could have pulled a Steve Jobs on me and said, “Hey, you voided the warranty by clicking it too much.”* But, in this case, they honored my warranty and didn’t charge me for the repair.
Even though they’ll fix it if “clicking” is the way I want to control it rather than tapping, I’m working on tapping more and clicking less. But old user-interactions are hard to give up. Even when Apple (as they do in the “systems preference” trackpad controller) bakes how-to video into the interface for setting ones preferences (which is, by the way, a rather impressive user-aid), I imagine there are lots of people who use “click and drag” commands rather than the “tap-tap/hold-drag-tap” method.
But the time for “tapping” is nigh, people. You probably need to learn to master the tap. Why? For two reasons: Your MacBook trackpad will last longer and, more importantly, you’ll be preparing yourself for life without a mouse. That’s right. We’re moving to a “click-free” world where tapping (and then gestures with our hands or eyes) will mean there is no reason for a mouse. Learning to tap will help you get there quicker. (But, don’t worry, mouse users — I’m sure you’ll be able use your mice for a long, long time.)
Bottomline: Even if your name is not Rex, you have to remember that old dogs need to constantly learn new tricks. (And Apple needs to make a bigger deal about “no more clicking.”)
*To knee-jerks: That is a joke. It is a reference to Steve Jobs saying “you’re holding it wrong” and Apple saying that jail-breaking an iPhone voids the warranty. It’s just a joke, and, come to think of it, a very lame one. I apologize to fanboys that I even included it.
