From flat screen to smart screen: Google TV’s U.S. launch

Scenario: Your best friend is obsessed with Zach Galifianakis, the comic actor most known for his role in the slapstick comedy, The Hangover. Knowing this, you speed dial your friend when you hear the teaser for Zach’s interview on tonight’s Jimmy Fallon. But then you remember that Abby is on vacation in Paris, and definitely won’t answer, as she is most likely devouring crepes and touring the Louvre. Why she didn’t take you with her is another story…but you can still let her know you’re thinking about her by recording the show. You rummage through your junk drawer to find a blank VHS tape and then set your VCR to NBC for 12:30am.

WAIT, WHAT?

Fast forward to 2010 please. Simply ‘fling’ the show from your TV to Abby’s phone with Google TV, a smart TV platform launched by Google on October 17th of this year. Google TV integrates the web with traditional television – a medium that already captures four billion viewers every day across the world.

The rundown:

Search – Google TV allows users to browse the internet as if they are sitting in front of a computer screen with unlimited web access. The system uses Google Chrome and Adobe Flash Player 10.1 to allow users to do any and all things they normally would online: view photos and videos, chat with friends, check game scores, and pay bills.

Apps – Not just for the iPhone anymore. Google TV comes pre-loaded with applications including Netflix, Twitter, CNBC, a picture gallery, and many more. In the next few months, amateur developers will be able to create their own applications as well.

Remote – The days of lost remote controls are over, that is, as long as Americans are glued to their cell phones. With Google TV, iPhone and Android users can control their TV through the keypad or with their own voice. Smart phones can also fling content from the phone to the TV and vice versa.

Sync – Users can sync their smart phones and HDTV systems.

Personal – Google TV is customizable. Users can set their home page much like that of a computer’s home page, with their favorite websites and applications right on the home screen.

Dual View – Picture in picture mode is hardly a new concept. But Google TV offers the ability to purchase a product on the same device in which the ad was shown. Switch between TV and web, or watch both at once. Check the standings in your fantasy league as you watch the game.

Enhanced – TV becomes the largest picture frame in the house, with the ability to stream from any photo sharing site. Additionally, Google TV acts as the largest computer screen with the best speaker system of all.

Currently, Google TV is available to connect through existing televisions through Logitech’s set-top box. The cost is about $300. And for those who don’t want another set of cables spidering their way through the living room, Sony offers Google TV built-in to their 2011 HDTV televisions.

But will TV and internet junkies acclimate toward the integrated content platform? It depends. On one hand, Google has adopted Apple’s approach to product development by taking technology people are already familiar with, and catapulting functionality to the next level. Example: iPod = walkman + computer. Google TV = television + computer. On the other hand, gamers already have a similar software system in Nintendo’s Wii and Sony’s Play Station 3. Other competitors include Yahoo’s Connected TV and Apple’s Apple TV.

As web meets TV and TV meets web, consumers have the ability to take part in a continuously evolving entertainment experience. And while Google and Apple and Yahoo and Sony take stabs at capturing the ‘techtainment’ market, the battle for the latest and greatest gadget continues…

Utilizing social media in legal marketing

With the constant influx of new technology, the economic recession, and the adoption of disruptive technologies, new media appears more attractive to marketers – especially the rapid development of social network marketing.  Distinctively different from the tangible products industry, professional services are confronted with the dilemma as to whether or not social network marketing is a comparably effective tool.

Despite the skyrocketing trend of social media usage, it has yet to play a main role in the marketing communication plans of major companies.  Most law firms are aware of these new online tools (and some are using them) but there is still obvious hesitation and most depend on traditional media.

Social media and the purchase decision process

In order to fully understand consumer behavior within legal services, I first looked at the purchase decision process.  Because the characteristics of tangible products differs from that of legal services, the purchase decision process differs as well.  The following chart shows the framework for product purchase decisions.

Problem recognition -> Information Search -> Evaluation of alternatives -> Purchase -> Post-purchase behavior

As seen above, social media acts as an effective marketing tool in the products industry as it offers a simple and accessible platform for consumers to share information with others.  Potential customers can easily conduct information searches and evaluate alternatives with online features like product review platforms.  A purchase decision can then be made quickly and with confidence.  The cycle continues as the new buyer’s online review can act as the trigger for other potential purchasers, thereby initiating stimulus to others’ need recognition.  Social media has greatly reduced the length of the entire purchasing process with quick turnaround of consumer preferences and postings.

However, social media does not have the same influence in the purchase of legal services as it does in the products industry.  This is primarily because legal services are intangible, variable, inseparable, and perishable.  It is difficult for post purchasers to share information online, especially in the case of the legal field where confidentiality serves as a huge liability.  In terms of potential clients, the challenge lies in the ability to understand information on services and to evaluate alternatives, including the final purchase decision.

Opportunities for Social Media in Legal Services

Legal marketing will undoubtedly work at a slower pace in marketing trends but can indeed utilize the digital social experience to their advantage.  In choosing to utilize social media as part of the marketing mix, law firms can leverage web-based technology for both client retention and employee recruitment.  As a two-way conversation between the firm and the client, firms can build customer engagement (which translates into long-term revenue growth) by gathering feedback, responding to concerns, and sharing educational content.

It’s no surprise that lawyers use in-person networking events to gather referrals.  Therefore, LinkedIn can act as the virtual equivalent of such events.  Law Technology News suggests that LinkedIn, if used properly, can be a strategic tool in seeking out new business opportunities through referrals.  As with in-person meet and greets, online introductions are more effective when individuals are introduced by mutual acquaintances.  However, this only works if lawyers make a deliberate point in devoting time to the resource.

Employee recruitment is another strategic use of social media.  Top firms know and prepare for the loss of great attorneys due to retirement and firm switching.  But they also know that eager, young law school grads are constantly seeking out employment as well.  And where are young people spending their time in the job search arena?  None other than…social media.

The importance of brand consistency

A brand tells a story, sets expectations, and makes promises.  In an ideal marketplace, brands would be able to provide a positive emotional connection for satisfied consumers.  Unfortunately, some companies fall short of delivering quality results and fail to meet expectations.  For me, that brand is Comcast.  Their communication efforts lack consistency and constantly leave me frustrated.  Every consumer touch point should be strategic in both keeping customers and attaining new ones, but Comcast has undoubtedly missed the mark.  The following examples show this brand-damaging oversight:

Customer Service

At its most basic offerings, Comcast provides services that enable subscribers to watch TV, connect to the internet, or talk on a landline phone.  Should any of these services go awry, I would like to have a simple way of resolving the issue.  Comcast claims to “make it easy for you to connect with someone if you have a question about your Comcast service, 24/7.”  However, “easy” is the last word I would use to describe such a situation – inconsistent messaging example #1.  Just the mere thought of having to contact this company makes me cringe.  Prior to calling, I know that I will wait on the phone for many, many minutes in hopes of speaking to a customer service representative.  While the automated message on the other end informs me that “your call is very important to us,” I begin to doubt such a proclamation as the line cuts off (through no fault of my own) and I have to call back and start the whole disheartening process all over again.  Even Rick Germano, Senior VP of Customer Relations, quotes on their website that “it’s important to me that you get the answers you need as quickly as possible.”  Well Rick, your team fails me even before a representative is reached!  Other conflicting brand message points include the multiple line transfers and unknowledgeable representatives.

Website Features

There is no slogan that comes to mind when I hear the word Comcast.  I can’t even find a slogan on their website.  It could very well be there, but the site is so cluttered that it’s like searching for a needle in an extremely messy haystack.  So the inconsistency lies in the fact there is nothing to benchmark against.  Additionally, Comcast has an extension of their website which takes you to a finance/stock market page.  I can very well understand a complementary entertainment site (which they have) but I don’t see the finance connection.

Product Offerings

Comcast’s product offerings are just as confusing.  There are bundles and fast packs and lions and tigers and bears, oh my!  But it’s hard to distinguish one triple play package from the next.  I would bet that the average internet surfing consumer is puzzled by the different rates and promotional deals for each product.  As a result, it’s hard to figure out which deal and which package works best to meet individual consumer needs.  There is also a new product called Xfinity, which claims to be TV, Voice, & Internet.  But how does that differ from what they currently offer?  And why do the Xfinity commercials confuse me instead of educating me?  If Comcast just cleaned up their site and streamlined their services into an easy-to-understand format, then “simplicity” might have a shot in the Comcast/consumer conversation.

Billing Issues

Yet another way Comcast communicates with its customers is through the payment cycle.  Once initial credit card information is exchanged, monthly transactions should be efficient and flawless.  However, there are several documented instances in which this is not the case.  One infuriated blogger explained that Comcast charged him $12,400 for a $124 bill.  This situation may be the extreme but there are many other customers who have had painful billing experiences too.

Every communication that a company has with consumers can either strengthen or weaken brand image.  The fact that there is a devoted website entitled ComcastMustDie.com is pretty indicative of a major communication breakdown.  According to a letter written by Rick Germano in 2007, Comcast committed to a company-wide improvement strategy…but they obviously have a lot farther to go.

Come and get it while it’s hot! Free brand awareness.

The other day I was listening to the radio and, like a typical American consumer, focusing on eight things at once.  A Dunkin’ Donuts commercial squawked in the background while I checked email, folded laundry, updated Twitter, etc.  But then, I stopped in my tracks as I realized that what I was hearing was not an ad for Dunkin, but a commercial for Boar’s Head deli meats.

Why the confusion?  As I multi-tasked, the only part of the commercial that registered in my overadvertised brain was the voiceover.  I automatically linked the familiar audio to Dunkin, without realizing that the donut promoter also speaks for the Boar’s Head brand.  (Joseph Sirola, the man behind the distinctive voice, also did several TV voiceovers for Wendy’s until 2003.)

This ‘revelation’ sent me into marketing mode and I wondered if this phenomenon happens to other radio listeners.  A Boar’s Head spot with intention of making me drool over my next lunch option unintentionally caused me to crave a Dunkaccino and bagel.  Or at least, I thought about.  Brand awareness – check!

So what does this mean for the brands intertwined in this voiceover triangle?  My conclusion is that the result is free brand recognition for the non-advertiser.  DD piggybacks off of BH and vice versa.  And while this example didn’t cause me to buy turkey or a donut, it definitely registered with me as a unique (and most likely unintentional) marketing flub of genius.