Revolutionary Measures

CES goes mobile – the lessons for marketers

Amid all the excitement and hype of last week’s Consumer Electronics Show (CES) – products demonstrated included a games console for dogs and a smart belt (unfortunately called the Welt) that monitors your waistline – there are some big trends that will potentially affect us all.

English: Jari-Matti Latvala, winner of the Nes...

While last year was all about wearables, CES 2016 was focused on travel and transport. In fact, there was more noise about cars than at the once dominant Detroit Motor show held a week later. GM announced a $500m investment in Lyft, as well as launching its latest Bolt electric car. BMW showed off a concept car controlled by gestures (taking giving the finger to another motorist to a whole new level), while Ford talked about its progress in self-driving cars. There was even a hoverboard or two – though not something that Marty McFly would recognise from Back to the Future.

What’s interesting is that it shows that the traditional car makers are waking up and fighting back hard against tech companies in the battle for future motoring. As cars essentially transform into computers on wheels, manufacturers risk becoming relegated to providers of hardware (the car chassis), with all the value and ongoing profit going to the tech firms providing the software that makes them intelligent, self-driving, more efficient or more comfortable spaces. Allied to this, there is a lot of talk about the Uber effect, with younger consumers turning away from car ownership and instead just hailing one when they need it or renting on an ad-hoc basis.

So car manufacturers are worried – fewer people buying their products and margins squeezed as the profits go elsewhere. Personally, I don’t think it will be as bad as some naysayers predict – younger people have been hard hit by the recession, so don’t necessarily have the money to buy and run a car. And owning your own vehicle isn’t absolutely necessarily if you are one of the 54% of the world’s population that lives in a city. For those living in the countryside without Uber or buses, the picture is very different.

But what is interesting is how the car giants are changing their behaviour. They have realised that they are up against a smaller, more agile foe – but one that has access to new ideas, brands well known for innovation, and no preconceptions about the business. They have to market themselves better, embrace technology and work together to convince consumers that traditional car makers have what it takes to meet their future needs. Hence investments in start-ups such as Lyft, car clubs and the joint purchase of mapping firm Here by a consortium of VW/Audi, BMW and Daimler.

But both sides face significant marketing obstacles. Aside from a few supercar manufacturers, the majority of car companies are not sexy – and VW’s issues with faked emissions tests back up the view that they can’t be trusted. Cars are expensive to buy, depreciate quickly and require ongoing maintenance and fuel. I’m not saying that tech companies are angels, but the majority of people pay nothing to use Google’s services, even if that means that they themselves become the product. So tech companies need to convince consumers that they combine style and innovation with security and safety, and that they won’t have to reboot their self-driving car before driving away in the morning. Essentially the incumbent needs to show a bit of excitement, while the new player needs to demonstrate a bit of gravitas – a classic marketing dilemma.

As the battle moves from the phony war to full on combat, and new companies (such as Apple) join the market, then expect a much greater focus on marketing from both sides – as each one aims to convince us of their benefits in the brave new motoring world. My money is on whoever develops a proper hoverboard first…………….

Advertisements

January 13, 2016 Posted by | Creative, Marketing, PR | , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Do we want smart TVs?

This month’s Consumer Electronics Show (CES) in Las Vegas is a good pointer to the latest trends in technology. Last year the event was all about tablets, and this year smart, internet-connected TVs were all the rage.

English: Taken at the 2009 Consumer electronic...

Image via Wikipedia

The aim of these machines is essentially to make the TV the hub of the digital home, replacing the laptop or even tablet when it comes to entertainment. The viewers of the near future will be able to use social networks, run apps and play games all from the comfort of their sofa.

Now I’m the first to see the advantages of TVs that can stream programmes through services such as BBC iPlayer, Netflix and even YouTube straight to your screen, without needing to fiddle around connecting your laptop to your TV.

However some of the big claims being made for smart TVs simply don’t yet translate to the real world – often because the misinterpret how and why people watch TV. Here’s my top 5 reasons the smart revolution won’t be immediately televised:

TV is passive
The industry jargon is that TV is a sit back medium (as opposed to a lean forward PC), essentially for the majority of viewers interacting with their TV involves shouting at the screen rather than fiddling with a keyboard. Often people have had enough of interacting with a computer by the evening, so want the alternative of slumping on a sofa.

The user experience
It may appear basic to the titans of Silicon Valley, but TVs are simple and intuitive to use – even if you have hundreds of channels to surf through. And that’s what people expect – while lots of the smart TVs were voice and motion controlled this needs to be better than the remote if viewers are going to switch.

The TV replacement cycle
TVs are normally the most expensive consumer electronics device in a house – costing more than a phone, tablet or most PCs. So people don’t tend to replace them that often, which has two main issues for smart TV adoption. Firstly, it will take time to build up an installed base of smart TVs and secondly people are going to be wary about investing in a set that will potentially become obsolete in a year or two. Maybe this is the time for a revival of the concept of TV rental?

The internet by other means
There are already lots of ways of accessing the internet in your living room. Aside from laptops, you can get connect using games consoles, blu-ray players and a host of other devices. These all tend to be cheaper than a whole new TV so provide a simple method of getting online without breaking the bank. 

Competing standards
We’re used to different standards and technologies when it comes to technology, but the plethora of competing approaches – whether Google TV, Linux or the much-mooted Apple iTV could lead to fragmentation. The last big standards war was in first generation video recorders – and no-one wants to invest in an expensive TV that turns out to be the new Betamax……..

Don’t get me wrong – I think that the breadth of content on the internet and the ease of delivery mean that the future of TV is connected. However it will take time and a bit more industry-wide thought and collaboration if it is move to the mass-market and beyond the early adopters.

Enhanced by Zemanta

January 17, 2012 Posted by | Creative | , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment