• Home
  • Who We Are
  • What We Do
  • What We’ve Done
  • Contact

Archive for January, 2010

Anarchy as a political strategy

Thursday, January 21st, 2010

The Massachusetts special election to fill the U.S. Senate seat held by the late Ted Kennedy had a twist of an ending — Republican Scott Brown defeated Democrat (and current State Attorney General) Martha Coakley.

In moves reminiscent of a call to “round up the usual suspects,” Democrats are pointing fingers and conjuring conspiracies while Republicans cite the one-state result as evidence that the nation has rejected the policies of President Obama.

Sadly, it is not important which, if either, has a leg to stand on.  What matters is that politics, the way it is practiced in the United States, has again played its trump card over policy.

The status quo may need to change, but change is unsettling to the special interests who benefit from holding it at bay.  Worse, it may be that those who need the status quo changed the most had a hand in maintaining it.

Newly minted Senator Brown won the election with about 1.17 million votes.  Combined with the 1.06 million cast for Ms. Coakley, the total represents just 54 percent of Massachusetts’ registered voters (and only about 45 percent of people in the state eligible to vote).  Where the heck was everyone?

In November ‘08, 72 percent of registered voters went to the polls to elect President Barack Obama.  The 18 percent difference in registered voter turnout between then and now represents 750,000 votes.  Brown beat Coakley by 110,000 votes.

The Presidential and special Senate elections suggest there is a positive relationship between the number of people who vote and the responsiveness of our politics.

As more people vote, the contributions of special interests hold less sway.  As more people vote, politicians are caused to listen more closely to constituents so as to keep elected office.  As more people vote, there is a premium put on leadership. These seem like good outcomes.

So, why don’t we vote?  Where were the good people of Massachusetts who turned out at the end of 2008, but stayed home in early 2010?  Maybe they did not think they had a reason to vote. This is not a political problem but a communications challenge.

Perhaps they felt the race was over days in advance as media reports persisted in reporting on the race, not its reasons.  Perhaps they thought their cause was lost, having learned of the U.S. Senate’s new math where 41 is a majority.  Perhaps they resented the way each candidate was foisted on them, wishing a pox on both their houses.

Here is a thought.  Presidential advisor Rahm Emanuel has said “change requires a crisis.”  If he is right, when it comes to elections the best kind of change might be the anarchy that would arise if everyone voted.

If all 4.2 million registered Massachusetts voters had gone to the polls, it would have created havoc for those who benefit from the status quo.  If all 5 million who could vote, did vote, it would instigate just the kind of uncertainty that leads to anarchy.  And if that became the norm, well, now we’re talking real change.

Share

Tags: anarchy, elections, Senate

Posted in Uncategorized, lobbying, political strategy, politics | No Comments »

Add this post to Del.icio.us - Digg

Microsoft has a context problem

Thursday, January 7th, 2010

A report today from Information Week supposes that Microsoft will introduce its own slate-type tablet computer.  The key bit in the story had nothing to do with the quality of the product, but the lack of enthusiasm it has so far engendered.  “Microsoft has not officially confirmed the (New York) Times’ report, and investors largely shrugged at the news. Microsoft shares were up .16%, to $31.01, in early trading Wednesday on the NASDAQ.”

True, this is the company’s second bite at the tablet apple (pun intended) and so naturally would not create the “shock of the new.” But it is more likely a response rooted deeply in the minds of consumers who more comfortably categorize Microsoft within the four software walls of Office, than among untethered consumer-focused devices.  It is a matter of context.

We make sense of a noisy world by applying context created at the point we first encounter a company or product and is then reinforced by performance.  This makes it really hard to expand or pivot a company’s reputation.  If Apple is a design company, what isn’t it?  If Dell is a manufacturing company, what isn’t it?  If Microsoft is a desktop software company, what isn’t it?

Google, with its introduction of the Nexus One “smartphone” has demonstrated one way to break away.  Afterall, if Google is an advertising-driven search service, what isn’t it?  It is not so much advertising-driven as it is advertising-disruptive.  It has taken the market’s acknowledgment  of these qualities — shaking up the stodgy for the benefit of consumers — to add new services (like gMail), buy other companies (like YouTube) and enter new markets in need of disruption (like mobile phones).   Microsoft has no such market permission.

It can get it, though.  The early reports on its new operating system suggest the kind of exceptional performance in a core business that is required for acceptance in adjacent ones.  This is what helps the success of the company’s market leading Xbox game console.  Think of it as a desktop for the home.

Increasing market demand for wireless devices will earn Microsoft a second look for its software-driven smartphones and tablets.  Turning consideration into market leadership will depend on the company’s ability to reveal how it has been looking out for our interests all along.

Share

Tags: Google, Microsoft, smartphone, tablet

Posted in Rebranding, advertising, branding, product development | No Comments »

Add this post to Del.icio.us - Digg

First, do some good

Monday, January 4th, 2010

There is nothing like the excess of Las Vegas to focus the mind.  And, as the consumer electronics industry gathers in the Nevada desert this week, it is only fitting that a product no one really knows exists is on the minds of  most.

The so far mythical Apple tablet has turned a lot of e-ink and burned even more cycles among those who hope the Cupertino company can again bring some clarity to a market segment in chaos.  As consumers and business users continue to seek a single device that can satisfy the need to text, talk, watch, play, create, edit, find and report, the task is getting harder even as the stakes get higher.

In a report in the Financial Times, the countervailing forces of hope and hype are on display with regard to the introduction of smartbooks — a computing device for people who “don’t necessarily need the full PC functionality of a laptop or netbook all the time, but they do desire a device that can give them a rich web and media experience on the go with a stylish and cool design…”

If you use a netbook or iPhone or Droid, the news may have you scratching your head.  I suspect that would be the likely reaction from the New York Times’ media reporter David Carr who has written what ought to be a rule for our age: “…for a product to have significan value, it has to solve a problem or be very useful, or both.”
Too often consumer electronic and computing products are designed to fill a gap in technical specifications (smartbooks promote screen size, or example) when they ought to be fulfilling a market need.  Better yet if they can meet a need that can only be described once the solution is at (or, rather, in) hand.

Share

Tags: Apple, CES, Droid, iPhone, netbooks

Posted in consumer electronics, innovation, product development | No Comments »

Add this post to Del.icio.us - Digg

  • Twitter

    • Privacy's like the head on a beer. Poured badly, it overuns. Flat, salt helps regain its form. If BT's the first, is Privacy 3.0 the last? 2010/09/06
    • RSS feed
    • Facebook
    • Follow on Linkedin


  • Context in Context

    Good products, responsive customer service, smart management and a culture of innovation are only the raw materials of market share. Delivered, they can be refined into trust, the key to market share. Credible Context helps companies tap into the persuasive power of their own story.
    More   

  • Tag Cloud

    advertising advocacy Amazon Apple Baseball blogs brain brand BT CDT CEO cloud Congress consumer context Facebook Fox FTC Google health IBM influence Jobs Kazemi labels legislation lies marketing McNair media Microsoft networking newspapers Obama Oracle Phorm privacy regulation reputation Salesforce.com Sotomayor statistics teenagers Toyota trust
  • Archives

    • August 2010
    • July 2010
    • May 2010
    • April 2010
    • March 2010
    • February 2010
    • January 2010
    • December 2009
    • November 2009
    • October 2009
    • September 2009
    • August 2009
    • July 2009
    • June 2009
    • May 2009
    • April 2009
  • Blogroll

    • Andy Lark
    • Auto Extremist
    • Brand New Day
    • Cheskin Research
    • Consumer insight
    • Epicenter
    • GigaOM
    • Politics in context
    • The Future
  • Context in Action

    • Blogging long-term investment
    • Forbes, Tiger & me
    • Forming a pre-blog blog strategy
    • Internet Goverance POV
    • Launching “Credible Context”
    • Linking deep technology to daily lives
    • NYTimes Tips on Networking
    • Primaries bring a new age of comms
    • Privacy now a public matter
    • Quintaris
    • Rebranding Zeno
    • Trust is a terrible thing to waste
  • Diversions

    • Diversion: Football
    • Diversion: Song parodies
    • Diversion: The art of ideas
  • Home
  • Who We Are
  • What We Do
  • What We’ve Done
  • Contact

Designed by MIF Design - styles by Nancy Rodger
Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).