Jonathan Salem Baskin's Dim Bulb

Warrior, Brown & Rubinstein

A new Silicon Valley VC?  A hoity-toity law firm?  Maybe the latest power-chord rock trio?

No, just three execs with three different pedigrees when it comes to handling the confluence of technology hardware and software.

First, there's Padmasree Warrior, who left Motorola after 23 years, serving most recently as its chief technology officer, to wreak the same havoc at Cisco.  Ms. Warrior's claim to fame is her conviction about "seamless mobility," which is one of those catch-phrases that feels like it's saying a lot generally, while not really saying anything in particular.

The last dozen or so iterations of Motorola have been stunningly unsuccessful at producing anything more than catch-phrases that might have momentarily mollified its stock critics, but consistently failed to manage the relationship between hardware and real life. 

Can anyone say Iridium?  How about Razr and then...well, good question. 

Mobile phones are about as mobile as you can get with communications these days, and there's little that's seamless about anything you do on a Motorola product (or any handheld, really).  It's hard to wax poetic about postage-sized video ubiquity when calls get dropped, the interface is kinda kludgey, and customer service varies by carrier.

There's the rub. 

Motorola is in the hardware business world, but its customers live in the hardware-meets-software-and-service world.  It's grossly unfair, I know.  Imagine if a musician recorded a brilliantly beautiful CD and then, when the player malfunctioned at a consumer's home, she blamed the band?  Or how about a company builds a great car, but a buyer drives it into a foot-deep pothole...so he holds the automaker accountable for the road?

But that's the way it is.

So having a hardware vision of "seamless mobility" is kind of like architects designing an artistically perfect public square without accounting for the fact that people will actually have to walk, drive, use, or otherwise loiter in it. 

It's not a hardware thing.  If Cisco has imported this so-called vision, I humbly suggest that you sell its stock.

Greg Brown is the new CEO at Motorola, and he might have a slightly different take on hardware and software.  Although publicly vowing to he'll stick to the politically-correct branding nonsense, he acknowledged in the Chicago Tribune that "...software will be an even more important driver of Motorola's success."  He stated in the same interview that he wanted to focus also on "functionality," which sounds scarily gearheaded of him, but he actually ran a software company for a few years, so maybe there's hope. 

Motorola needs as new gizmo like it needs a hole in the head, yet there are endless opportunities to build, market, and serve uses for devices that integrate communications -- not just talking, songs, and inane video clips, but information and knowledge, sometimes behind-the-scenes -- into everyday experience.  We're going to be living in a world of ubiquitous information sooner vs. later (see yesterday's and last Friday's Dim Bulb entries on the nascent world of Augmented Reality, or "AR"), which will entail connecting every one to everyone else. 

Call that future "seamless mobility" or call it "Fred."  Just do it.  There's a slight, course-reversing sort of possibility that Motorola might actually build hardware and software combinations, and thus become relevant again.

Speaking of relevance, there's Jon Rubinstein now running Palm.

Here's a guy who lived with one foot each in hardware and software during Apple's rebirth last decade, and helped conceive and deliver home-runs like the original iMac and the iPod mp3 player.  These elegantly designed hardware artifacts (remember the iMac teardrop?) would be incomplete without the software and services that support them.  In fact, in the case of iPod, one could argue that it wouldn’t matter much at all without iTunes as an integral component.  Apple's products fully blur the line between hardware and software.

Palm is pretty much only a blur.  Maybe a smudge. 

It has given up its relevance, and much market share, to other hardware companies.  Now Apple has entered the fray with iPhone.  The world needs another handheld manufacturer like, well, like Motorola needs a new gizmo, and that fact probably weighs heavily on Rubinstein’s mind as he is reportedly frantic with efforts to shore up the quality of Palm’s hardware. 

I suspect what he’ll accomplish next, however, is come up with products, software, and services that are truly integrated. 

There's little reason to believe that Cisco's Warrior even grasps the potential for such an approach, or that Motorola's Brown will be able to steer such a mismanaged, giant ship in its direction.  But Rubinstein could do it with Palm, mostly because 1) he's done it before, more than once, and b) Palm is small and desperate enough to actually make it happen.  After all, these are the guys who pretty much invented the PDA category, didn't they?

If this dim bulb had to bet, that's where I'd put my money. 

Branding a Dull Razr

I wrote a week ago about Motorola and its marketing opportunity/necessity for its new Razr 2 mobile phone, but if this ad is any indication, the branding isn't looking all that sharp.

Let's see...what can we learn if we deconstruct the ad? 

Of course, that's already giving it far more attention than 99.9% of humanity will.  Most folks will flip past it in a nanosecond, capturing little if anything from the encounter.  Reviewing ads like they're movies is like calling a spell-check program Shakespeare.

The first test should be to blink at it once, and then try to remember something.  Here's what my iconic memory registered:

• A member of the band Village People wishing he was holding a bat?
• Something is growing out of the back of the guy's head?
• He's holding a knife, or taking a whiff of his armpit?
• Whatever he's holding takes two hands to support?
• Glowing orb and glistening arms mean ad for suntan lotion?

So much for first reactions.  But what does the ad communicate to that rare reader who dwells on such stuff?

The Razr 2 comes with a stereo Bluetooth headset.  It's a phone, but now it's a gizmo that holds "over 30 hours of music."  Ok.

But wait a minute.  The asterisk reminds us that the music storage only comes with the optional 2GB card.  Lots of fine print along the left-hand margin provides more warnings and caveats than a cigarette ad.  The Motorola web URL nearly hidden at the bottom takes visitors to a page promoting the headset on David Beckham, and it costs $129 on top of the phone.

And, by the way, the Motorola store features lots of Razr phones, including a V3 version, which may or may not be the Razr 2 featured in the ad.  So the ultimate purpose of this branding isn't to actually sell anything.

How inane.

The Razr 2 is a make-or-break product for Motorola, and it needs to be marketed in a field crowded with a confusing array of products and services.  Where does the music come from that goes on the phone?  How much does it cost?  Can you use the phone as a, well, a phone, or is it only good for listening to music? (there's no obvious mic on the headset) 

What about the branding makes this offering truly unique and must-have?

Nothing.  It's just some broadly thematic, unmemorable branding, courtesy of some dim bulbs who value image and color schemes over messages that compel people to take action.  The only behavior prompted by tripping over this ad is to turn the magazine page.

Oh, and by the way, the Razr 2 guy isn't the first band member to appear in a forgettable ad:

   

A Razr Thin Margin for Hope?

Motorola has very quietly announced plans to introduce in the next few weeks the successor model to the most popular mobile phone in history, the new Razr 2.

The news got minor pickup in the mainstream media, and a few blog mentions.  The press release is buried on Motorola's site, though one of its rotating home page graphics will take visitors to a promotional site to enter a contest for more information.

An info site is sort-of visible on the home page, too, where you can find lots of animated phones flipping and spinning, all to the soundtrack I think they used to play before Yes took to the stage at concerts in the 70s.

It is on this new product that Motorola hopes to make some margin.  I say good luck.

Past all of the exquisite and obviously expensive branding already wasted on the launch, I think there are at least five things Motorola could do to sell products – not just "position the brand" – and make the Razr 2 a must-have purchase:

First, highlight a function, not a functionality laundry list.  I know the rage these days is to offer phones that floss your teeth and read your mind in addition to placing calls, but most people find it impossible to grasp (let alone value) lists of attributes.  The Razr 2 functions are many and diverse, but it all adds up to more uncertainty – it begs the question "how well does it do any of them?" – instead of simply offering to do at least one thing flawlessly.

There should be an obvious reason why it’s not just an enhancement or cosmetic update to the original Razr, but something truly worth owning.  Save the list for supporting arguments, if anybody asks for it.

Second, tout reliability.  Not only did the first Razrs capture lots of sales, but users clocked lots of time using them.  You’d think Motorola could claim to have put all of that experience into ensuring that Razr 2 calls don’t get dropped, data isn't lost, batteries stay charged, etc.  Right now, the phone is as technocute as any other.  It claims to do a lot, but what's to believe?  (see Point #1 above)

Third, create adoption incentives, not just slick branding.  There's noting in the current marketing, or in the descriptions of the various service provider offerings, that says buy now.  Are they just above such crass commercialism?  Don't tell that to Motorola's shareholders.

This could be the time to invent novel incentives, such as hardware subscription offers, back-end loaded pricing, or actual financial reward for referrals that result in sales.  The company needs early adopters to get the word out.  It's strange that the marketing isn't laser-focused on this outcome.

Fourth, Motorola could approach Razr owners as members of a community, not just purchasers of a device.

Beyond the obligatory send to a friend and Digg This options on the product web page, why not create the real qualities of community: shared purpose, reward, incentive to communicate, responsibilities.  Perhaps Razr 2 owners could get special content – like product or entertainment reviews based on their calling areas – to which they could contribute, share, or do whatever else people in communities do.

After all, phone users are de facto participants in a network.  Why is that network conceived only from a technology perspective, and not the basis for an interactive community?  The marketing folks are strangely quiet on this front, perhaps because it's the purview of technologists.

And, finally, the company could also approach Razr 2 loyalty as a usage program, not just a CRMified opportunity to throw more sales offers at unwitting customers.

Imagine if callers could accrue frequent call minutes the way fliers collect miles?  Higher use would result in more benefits, perhaps additional ways to feedback to the company, or anything that developed a sense of participation and loyalty through experience, not just the hype of marketing collateral.

There's lots Motorola could do to make Razr 2 the success it needs it to be.  The only stumbling block will be whether there are any bright bulbs there who are able to consider options beyond traditional branding.