Our longstanding Twitter followers will remember our (hugely successful) caption competition from back in the day. We’ve been meaning to start up a new competition to allow the witty, intelligent people who follow our blog, Twitter and Facebook accounts to show off said wit and intelligence, but haven’t quite got round to doing so.
We promise that we’ll get our thinking caps on (we are creatives afterall) over the Christmas holidays to come up with something new, shiny and exciting for January! In the meantime however – lets play festive caption competition!

You know the drill – all you need to do to take part is tweet your “caption” to @revolverpr, post it to our facebook wall or add your comment to the blog below. We’ll announce the winner tomorrow – good luck!

This week’s winning caption, chosen by Account Director Helen Reid came from @anniemac63 :

“The first person to laugh gets clawed”

This made us giggle – Garfield does indeed look very unimpressed with his get-up and ready to pounce! Congratulations, a virtual mulled wine is winging its way to you!

Our longstanding twitter followers will remember our (hugely successful) caption competition from back in the day. We’ve been meaning to start up a new competition to allow the witty, intelligent people who follow our blog, Twitter and Facebook accounts to show off said wit and intelligence, but haven’t quite got round to doing so.
We promise that we’ll get our thinking caps on (we are creatives afterall) over the Christmas holidays to come up with something new, shiny and exciting for January! In the meantime however – lets play festive caption competition!

You know the drill – all you need to do to take part is tweet your “caption” to @revolverpr, post it to our facebook wall or add your comment to the blog below. We’ll announce the winner tomorrow – good luck!

This week’s winning caption came from @summerdaze7 :

“Roger was convinced they’d said ‘Office swig in the middle’ not ‘Office pig in the middle’” – This made us chuckle, he definitely does look like a Roger! Congratulations – a mince pie should be winging its way to you!

Given their usually docile disposition and sexual reluctance there will be a bitter taste of irony in the mouths of those that feel they have been rigorously shafted by Google’s Panda; it’s a lesson that needs to be learned, quickly, as this marks the most significant shift in Google’s algorithms as a migration away from more scientific methods, to one of subjectivity; now more than ever, unique and original content is king.

It has been a frenzied year for anyone with an investment in SEO – not dissimilar to conservationists the world over, waiting tensely; jumping excitedly at even a wink from Mr. Panda at Mrs. Panda – the roll-out that started in February, and that has gradually been updated since, has been met with a flurry of blogs, opinion pieces, how-to-beat articles and suicide notes as pagerank plummeted along with traffic. These changes shouldn’t come as any surprise, for too long those who manipulated the algorithms have taken Google for granted and diminished the web-users experience with spammy, poor-quality content (content farms, I’m looking at you). Google’s prerogative is to give its users the best experience possible, to provide searchers with the most credible, qualitative and above all relevant content, if Panda serves to better process the validity of links and the most up to date information, then it means an improved experience for us all.

The question that is raised so very often with SEO techniques is: is their value in correlation with the time spent achieving them? Panda will further fuel the nagging doubts and the trend is in their favour. The reductio ad absurdum points to Google’s algorithms getting to the point where even the subtle tricks of link building will be cast off with everything else, eventually, they’ll be able to view the content and pass subjective opinion on each one, although, with the rate these things are progressing reductio ad inevitable-um, is probably more apt. The fact is, whether it is here with Panda or whether it’ll require another update inhabiting the endangered species list, the realisation is that the best way to ensure you’re not overlooked by the world’s gateway of choice, is to produce relevant, high-quality content.

The critics of course, point to YouTube and Zagat and say that it’s all a move, by means of subtle shift, of Google dominating content as well as search; they’re fed up only being able to monetise their users until the point that they’re lost through the door that Google opened for them, if they can push their own content then the users remain a possible source of revenue. Google would argue that all they’re doing is pandering to the wants of a more discerning consumer: quality content. We want what we want, and we want it now, if you can’t give it to us, we’ll find someone else who can. It’s the mantra that Google has used from its inception through to it’s Super-brand status now, and they recognise that it’s one they share with consumers, everyone else would do well to do the same.

The unconverted would also do well to study the implications of Panda, it is the most significant step so far on the inevitable migration from outbound to inbound marketing. Getting a brand or company’s message out through content is a humble way of becoming part of the conversation or becoming part of the community which undoubtedly already exists. Arrogance and pushy sales will not serve a long term credible campaign, because people won’t abide it. Rather than pushing sales messages at consumers, it is far more effective to understand the target consumer, becoming involved in the community on whichever platform they are already using, talking about the issues which are important to them and otherwise embellishing their experience.

Consumers know what they want and demand it instantly. Google Panda has shifted value towards regularly updated quality content around a subject, making websites or brands which are linked to topics rank higher than those without. Consumers, therefore, will find what they’re looking for if you produce quality content, optimised for search. Maybe it’s time to stop resisting; face the inevitable, the best way to be seen and remain seen is not to try and force yourself in front of them and shout, but to continuously improve your consumers’ experience and earn the right to be seen.

Waiting. Waiting. What on earth is taking so long? Everything is there, surely? You know what? I’m not waiting any longer, that’s where I need to look so I’ll just go ahead and click now, done, okay… woah now, what’s this? It’s all shifted down… what’s this emerging where I’d clicked? An advert. And now my screen is engulfed in the combined visual embodiment of an awful marching band, dragging their way through a particularly ill-timed rendition of the Spanish flea, as a wide-smiled goon of a master-of-ceremonies, with all the hyperactivity and condescension of a children’s TV presenter yelps about something amazing that I absolutely can’t live with out.

And so I’ll leave, never to return, and within moments I’ll have found somewhere else with equally good content.

And I’m not the only one.

In fact, 84% of 25-34 year olds have left a favourite website because of intrusive or irrelevant advertising and this is marking a trend of a worrying shift for marketers and companies alike, one that is unlikely to go away. The reason? The fundamental shift in the way we, the consumers, behave, and the tools we can now use that put us in control. And that is the problem: we are now in control.

Outbound marketing and advertising puts the company in control, they insist on their spot in front of us, distract us, preach to us, try to set our social agenda and try to manipulate our self-esteem to engage our interest. But now, people don’t have to subscribe to it. The fragmentation of media; the internet and its infinite resource of content, has given control to the consumer and they’re unlikely to want to hand it back to the advertisers.

It has given birth to the rise of content marketing; these are the people who understand that consumers use their media platforms to access quality content, so if you want to get yourself in to that spot in front of these consumers, you’re going to have to earn it. They understand that PR stunts, digital PR campaigns and two-way interaction can become more far-reaching than outbound marketing, because it is all about creating quality content, creating content your audience wants to find. But what is the cost?

What this all comes down to, is the age-old argument: how do you monetise websites? Part of the problem, of course, is that there is so much good quality (and above all) free content that any attempt to monetise it is just an open-invitation to the users to go and find it elsewhere – garish, irrelevant advertising? Subscription fees? Abandon ship!

Some websites have managed it of course; interestingly, a quick Facebook search of “pay for Facebook” throws up a multitude of groups, events and organisations, whose total members number in the tens of thousands; all protesting through their membership at any attempt by Facebook to levy a fee for its services. So, given the demands of the armchair militants, instead of making the website a product, it made its users the product. It seems a regular occurrence now that a change in facebook’s privacy settings makes headline news, along with a scandalous list of the information pimped off to advertisers… but the truth is, that’s the cost of keeping it free, the result? Targeted advertising, stuff that – chances are – you might be interested in. Google uses sponsored search results, but these are things you were looking for anyway, so who can complain? Twitter remains the enigma; its format makes it a lot trickier than sponsored links or targeted advertising but you can be damn certain there is a team somewhere trying to figure it out.

Of course, the more tech-savvy out there have embraced things like Adblock, and you sense that these plug-ins will become more available and more accessible as the need grows, the question is: when will the freedom of control over our consumption kill-off outbound marketing for good? And more pertinently, what will the implications be? The trend is one of less and less tolerance, but if the passion of the demand for an end to advertising matches that of that of the refusal for paid subscription, where does that leave Facebook and its 700 million users? I’ve seen the Social Page, Mark Zuckerberg doesn’t strike me as the charitable type.

People are prepared to put-up with advertising on Facebook and Google because it’s subtle and – they would argue – embellishes the users’ experience. And that is the key to the future of advertising and continued monetising of websites. So long as the adverts are as much content as the content itself, consumers will abide them. Facebook will certainly be well aware of this, their demand for quality content may end up outweighing their users, but then they’ve the headstones of MySpace and Bebo in plain-sight; they were weakened by advert-inspired emigration, a combination of epilepsy-inspiring banners and spammers can share out a sizeable portion of the blame, the rest goes to a website that was doing something similar but without the adverts and spam; Facebook will know them very well indeed.

The battle of the superbrands continues to wage like two mob gangs, Apple will be murmuring discontently at Google’s moving in on their racket, realising all the more that this isn’t a competitor they’ll be able to shake off by dressing its personification in a tweed suit.

While not exactly innovative, what it does is give Google a presence in arguably the last major digital-media outlet that Apple still holds dominion over; indeed, Apple have sat very comfortably at the top, it took them just 6 years from launch to become the largest music retailer in the U.S, currently, 1 in 4 songs sold in the U.S. are sold through iTunes. Apple’s iTunes currently holds about 63% of the market share, a formidable total, and while companies like Spotify and Rdio have made their impact on the market, the fact is, they’ll struggle to ever match up to the iTunes service due to its close integration with Apple devices. Which is where Google comes in.

Google’s android, which was embraced lovingly by manufacturers such as Acer, HTC and the Korean giants LG and Samsung, exploded on to the market, outselling Apple halfway through 2010 and this year Android’s share of the worldwide smartphone market has doubled to 52.3%. That seems incredible, right? The iPhone is everywhere, yet iPhone’s share has dropped to 15%. Well, Apple has to shoulder some of the blame, while its congregation gathered and the masses stood ready to be converted by the iPhone 5, they were given the iPhone 4S… while the mob just about kept themselves from baying, they also kept themselves from parting with a slice of their ever-depleting income for the benefit of an “S”.

So Google has the devices, is Google Music up to scratch to sit aboard its platforms and truly rival iTunes? Well, they started in the right place – though it may have pained them – by creating a system with a great many parallels to iTunes, MP3s are available for $0.69, $0.99 and $1.29 and coded at 320Kbps, the same as Apple. And Apple’s launch of iTunes Match: giving those who own any device that runs iOS the opportunity to download a copy of any of the songs currently in the music collection on their registered computer, for a mere $25 a year, has also been replicated/preempted by Google; though it will require you to upload the songs directly it is free, giving Jamie Rosenberg an opportunity to have a little dig by pointing out that Google doesn’t make it’s users pay to listen to music they already own. Ooh, put those claws away.

Will it prove to be a worthy rival? That is a lot less certain. Not least because Google’s motivation for entering the market is questionable – is it something they’re genuinely interested in making ground in? Or, as the cynic in me believes, is it just a means by which to ensure that their ever increasing share of the smartphone market is jeopardised by not being able to match the offerings of its competitors? Perhaps that’s a little unfair, they have after all managed to build a library of over 13 million tracks already, giving smaller acts a huge amount of control in the control and distribution of their music and bringing on board all the major record labels with the exception of Warner Music, so, unless you can’t live without Cher, Savage Garden and Vanilla Ice, watch this space!

They say that life imitates art, and with the news of Angry Birds breaking the 500 million download mark – making it the world’s fastest selling mobile game – we see an imitative stand-off in our wholly less catchily theme-tuned reality as members of Occupy seek to topple the (capitalist) pigs from their flimsy institutions – any paraplegic bankers should start getting very nervy if they see signs of a large catapult being erected. And while Occupy sit and wait for this inevitability, they’ll probably be all the more incensed at the news from The Atlantic that that funny-avian-flinging frolic is alleged to have cost the US economy $1.5bn in lost productivity.

$1.5 billion. That’s an awful lot. You could fund Manchester City FC for an entire transfer window with that (just). And all for the simple reason, that people just cannot put the damned game down. So what is it that has made Angry Birds the most fashionable drug of the past 5 years? Well, it’ll come as little surprise to anyone who has actually played it: fun, colourful characters, quirky humour, a gradual development of skill level with each passing fling and very simple game-play. It’s success as a game can be condensed in to two words, memorable and intuitive. We all know the characters, red bird et al. their faces a picture of steely grit as they squawk their way across the skies; lacking in story line? How much do you need? Those brief stills show quite clearly that the green pigs have stolen their eggs… their eggs, for the love of God! And what shreds of lassez-faire mindset that might still exist at the point of gameplay, will be stripped away the moment that awful mocking, grunting laughter shrills your ears as the pigs revel in your inability. Makes me want to climb in to that damned catapult myself; see who’s laughing then. But that of course is a huge part of it, seasoned players anticipate that awful laughter; will pause and will restart the level to avoid the ordeal – adding to its irresistible “just one more try,” appeal.

That’s not it, of course. There are plenty of excellent, memorable and intuitive games that have never measured up to the success of Angry Birds, so what else? Well, it benefited hugely from being one of the best early offerings on the iPhone; as its platform-of-choice’s popularity increased, so too did Angry Birds’ and as a result primed people as the go-to game for touch-screen gaming. And the endless string of updates means that Rovio keeps the game interesting for those who play it often; it all makes for a very rewarding experience. Of course now, Angry Birds is an institution, its self-sustaining popularity means that the 500 million mark will likely soon be a distant checkpoint, Rovio, are not one’s to sit back though, in the midst of countless updates and film partnerships – they’re shamelessly cashing in, unleashing plush toys, t shirts, books, key-rings… and frankly, who can blame them?

What is perhaps a little questionable, however, is the news of an Angry Birds film. First off, it is difficult to envisage anything that wouldn’t stray from the main “plot” that wouldn’t just be 90 minutes of watching someone play angry birds. Though I think my concern is on a personal-level, if it was a wholly tongue-in-beak (Hey-oh!) account of a serious and grim skirmish (like this), then it has the potential to be brilliant. But while I enjoy a good bout of Angry Birds, what I don’t enjoy is a formulaic American kids’ movie whereby a young, disadvantaged child – who has just moved to a new school, with one or possibly no parents – has a hard time fitting in… then one magical evening, almost certainly on the back of a particularly humbling beat-down from the antagonist(s) they discover a nest and a catapult… well, actually there might be a few things wrong with that, more likely, he befriends the birds who teach him – through means of montage – that the only way to earn the respect of your enemies is to hurl yourself out of a catapult at whatever building they’re inhabiting, and as the child is removed from the undamaged wall with a large spatula, the previous tormentors will stand, with their heads bowed and talk about how they were actually a “pretty cool kid”. No less gory, but it’d keep PETA off their backs.

Honestly, I hope the film is all a ruse, just a hilarious example of the believability of the extent of leveraged franchises, assuming however, that it isn’t, then they could certainly have a worse starting point than this.

Credit where it’s due, Rovio deserve all their plaudits, but they know there is a shelf-life. The stage is always set for something new, so who’s up to the challenge?

Anyone who has attempted to search for an app without knowing it’s name will know it can be tricky to find exactly what you’re looking for.

That’s where Quixey comes in. A shiny new start-up company, based in California and providing a functional search engine for apps,  Quixey aims to address the common failings in adopting accurate app search keywords. Tomer Kagan, co-founder of Quixey, explains that many apps on Facebook, for example, “don’t even have a description attached –  just a name, (and) from a search perspective if all you have to work with is three words, it’s extremely difficult.”

With the app market growing rapidly, the problem could significantly worsen. To put it in context, across all platforms Twitter boasts more than 1 million apps; Facebook some 500,000. In Apple’s App Store, there are 400,000 apps. In the Android Marketplace, 300,000. This is coupled with web based apps and those developed with API’s from well-known sites like Dropbox, aswell as newer social networks like Google+ and a full array of mobile devices and operating systems.

Considering this dilema, Quixey came to the table recognising the increasing need to develop a new type of search, molded specifically on the unique characteristics of searching for hard to track down apps. Their solution is a “functional search”, which scans major app stores along with blogs, review sites, forums, and social media sites to build a comprehensive picture of what an app can do – through reviews, word of mouth, and demos.

This search engine allows users to type in queries such as “find the nearest Indian restaurant,” with results appearing as a list of apps which can be filtered by platforms. The search engine will also support Windows, Chrome and Mac apps and not just the usual Apple, Android and Blackberry options generally available.

The company will use investment of over $4 million to continue securing top-level partnerships with app stores and various other big third party app resources. In a recent interview with the Quixey team, they hinted that there are more than 25 potential partnerships in the pipeline with app stores, manufacturers and carrier networks. The more partners they have, the more effective the search engine becomes for users.

Along with their web based search engine, Quixey’s business strategy includes offering specialized search services to mobile providers, app stores and handset makers – at no cost to the company’s customers and uses their existing tools. One prominent idea is for a mobile provider or handset maker to fill a users phone with a selection of apps based on their personal interests. For example, one set of apps for journalists and a different set for doctors.

And for the future, the company has identified an opportunity to provide ad-supported search results along with organic results – similar to what you now get from Google. With a better understanding of how the world views an application, they can also allow developers to make changes on their end to better reflect that understanding. By tweaking these items, developers should be able to improve their rankings and ratings as they may think their app belongs in one category, while the public and apps users think it belongs in another. * Developer accounts are still in private beta for now, but Quixey is reporting a positive response from testers.

With reported competition among themselves and Chomp, Kagan says Quixey is thinking bigger than their mobile focused rivals: “We’re building with a different long term goal. We want to be a completely independent platform.”

After a play around with Quixey we found the results spot on! We’re looking forward to following it’s continual development and find it a useful tool for monitoring Digital PR, in terms of tracking the success and development of a variety of app releases.

Have a look at the below video from Quixey which explains exactly what they do:

The Revolver PR team are frequently asked for tips by start-up businesses looking to get things moving with the help of some publicity-based momentum. After all: not everybody has the budget to hire in Digital PR support, but every entrepreneur needs a quality communications strategy to generate interest in their products, people or services.

We’re always happy to help, so here’s the six essential questions every start-up company needs to ask itself before setting off on the public relations trail ….

What’s the scoop?

Think about your readership; is what you have to say interesting? Is it newsworthy? Hundreds of companies start-up every day, chances are (unless yours is truly unique) that news of your business starting isn’t going to be inspiring enough to make it’s way to print… but don’t despair, there is always an interest in something, it’s just a case of figuring out what! So, if not your launch then consider: a new product or feature, promotional events, or your company’s position on a relevant newsworthy topic.

Remember, you want to interest the journalist, journalists want to interest their readers – so make sure you’re targeting their readers with something they’ll want to read!

What are you trying to say?

Obviously the most important thing about PR is making sure your message is understood by the public, right? Well, you’d be surprised how many times the key message in a press release gets lost in a sea of jargon and off-topic dialogue. Make sure that you can keep your message as clear and concise as possible, after all, you want as many people to understand as possible to maximise your exposure, and of course, journalists aren’t interested in things they or their readers won’t understand.

Easier said than done? Unsure if your message is clear? A lot of people involved in jargon-heavy industries can sometimes struggle to recognise it, try getting a friend to read it and tell you what it’s about, if they can’t figure out what you’re trying to say, chances are others won’t either.

Who’s going to read it?

Everything is interesting to someone, and chances are, there will be a publication for that someone, so make sure your releases are going to the right kind of places to be read by the right kind of people. The simple fact is, not everything your business does is going to have a widespread appeal, but it will have some appeal! It’s important to recognise who is going to be interested in what you’ve got to say. Consider building a variety of different mailing lists that can target specific areas, what might interest a journalist from a trade website may not interest a regional newspaper journalist, so make sure the right releases are going to the right places.

How do you build a mailing list? Hit the search engines; look for news items and articles with a similar content to your own, find the kind of publications that would be willing to publish items that can cover a variety of different demographics. And phone them! Ask for email addresses; remember, journalists always want stories, so they’ll be happy to have them sent directly to them or to a generic address… but, all the more reason to target your releases. If they know you only send relevant releases they’ll want to read them, but if you get a reputation for spamming them with everything, you’ll end up getting ignored.

What else will you need?

You’ve sent your release and generated some interest. Fantastic. But some journalists think there is more to the story than just running the release and they’re on your case, now what? It’s always good practice to make sure you’ve got readily available resources that you can send at request, this can include: photos, videos, quotes from key people, any data or infographics or a deeper explanation and insight in to the topic.

Make sure that you mention that there are resources available in your pitch; it may seem obvious, but make sure you enclose contact details too. Give a little information about what resources are available, whether images are hi or lo-res and who potential quotes would come from.

When should I use embargoes?

Embargoes can be very useful when you want to time coverage at exactly the right time. Got an exclusive bit of news? A new product? New service? New launch? If you place an embargo on a release you can ensure that all your targeted journalists can have stories lined up to coincide with the big day for maximum exposure! And as the velvet cloth is whipped away to the open-mouthed gasps of onlookers, the rest of the world can share in the adulation as publications mirror the big reveal in writing, what could go wrong?

Be careful! Embargoes are there when you want journalists to have advanced warning of a big event, either to give them sufficient time to develop the article or to coincide with an event day to get maximum publicity. So make sure that an embargoed piece falls in to one of these categories! If a pitch is needlessly embargoed journalists may ignore the embargo or, more likely, forget about the piece come the big day.

How can I build a relationship with journalists?

So you’ve built your custom mailing-lists, and your sending your tailored releases. But somehow, it doesn’t feel enough, you want a better idea of what these journalists want so you know you’re sending the right stuff. If only there was some way of being able to stay continuously connected to this large number of people so you can know what they’re thinking. Good news! Social media is the future! …it is also the present, and no self-respecting journalist will miss out on the benefits of an online presence; following journalists on Twitter will mean you’re constantly plugged in to their wants and needs. This insight can be invaluable when tailoring your releases and pitches.

But don’t feel you have to be totally passive, the clue is in the name, SOCIAL media – a little interaction can go a long way and can be a great way to build a relationship that extends beyond solely professional.

The Mangoes are here! A raucous cheer from the back-seat of the car, as the weeks-long campaign of “are we there yet?” finally ends. Microsoft, presumably, are as relieved with the brief respite from this barrage as they were to finally launch Windows Phone 7.5.

Of course, the critics are already pointing to the faintly visible sails of Google and Apple on the horizon, but the idea that anything in this industry can be left behind – stood, teary-eyed, suitcases in hand at an empty port – is ridiculous. If it has something innovative to offer then it has every chance of challenging, the question for Microsoft and Mango is: does it? Or, more importantly, can they convince us?

The challenge is a sizeable one; the decaying headstones of HP’s WebOS and Microsoft’s own Zune will serve as an ever-present reminder that these things can and will fall flat, if neglected. Both could provide valuable lessons: first, the death of an – arguably – excellent operating system born of mismanagement, and second, that innovation is born out of a conviction in the product; not abandoning it at the first sign of trouble.

To give you an idea of the challenge that faces Microsoft, in 2008 13% of smartphones ran a Windows operating system; the first half of 2011? 2%. This, compared to Apple’s 19% and Android’s 42%.

Should Mango, therefore, have the right to assume it’s place on the shelves alongside Android and iPhone, it still won’t be mission accomplished. The problem for Microsoft is that matching its competitors in terms of actual product, was only ever going to be half the war. For Mango to truly succeed it needs to escape the culture of failure.

At the root of this, is Microsoft’s partnership with Nokia. At a quick glance, the world’s largest computing corporation and a telecommunications company that sells more handsets than any other, looks a mighty team. The slightest of deeper analyses reveals that it counts for nothing. The ghost of Windows Mobile will still haunt the corridors, now clutching that leaked Stephen Elop memo. It will float up and point to the lines that say ‘The first iPhone shipped in 2007, and we still don’t have a product that is close to their experience.’ and ‘Android came on the scene just over two years ago, and this week they took our leadership position in smartphone volumes.’

Scary stuff.

So it is a necessity that the Micria/Nokiosoft partnership recognises that the success of Mango, and the Nokia smartphones it’ll inhabit, will be in their ability to make sure that everyone but them forgets about their prior ventures.

If Elop & co. thought it was a challenge to take on the iOS and Android in a battle of technology, they’re in for hell when it comes to the battle of the brand. Apple and Google have permeated every part of their brands with a culture of innovation; Apple is practically synonymous. A sweep of the messageboards shows that it is so embedded in people’s mindsets that they want to believe that everything they do is new and wonderful, even if the technology has been around for ages and developed independently (read Siri). These are companies that the term “Super-Brand” might as well have been coined for.

So how?

A large portion of this roll-out, you would hope, will be a big online presence, and in online communities perhaps lies the window of opportunity (pun not intended). At the moment, Apple and Google have filled the general public’s cup in terms of what they’re willing to consider innovative, but the Tech community are a little less susceptible to the smoke and mirrors of branding. This is a demographic that Microsoft should not overlook in terms of its sway on public opinion. HTC found themselves presented with a clear path in to the mass-consumer market after years bubbling under the surface as the reserve of “people who know what they’re talking about”. It is these people’s allegiance that will provide the most compelling case for Mango to be taken seriously as a competitor, the “My mate Dave, who knows computers…” that will always have ear of peers when it comes to new technologies emerging on to the market place.

The fact is, an informed approach to social media can connect a brand to the right individuals and communities; those that are setting the agenda and advocacy. It can ensure that these messages translate in to a fertile online reputation.

This is something that will need to be keenly managed. Aiming at a more informed demographic means a much higher degree of scrutiny – the product had better be up to it. Also, Microsoft can not afford to wait for tech-savvy positivity to roll-out organically, they’ll need to be plugged in to every engaged community and ensure that it makes it in to the public-eye. And this lot are not a forgiving bunch …a saying vaguely comes to mind, something to do with swords and living, or was it dying?

It would certainly be a brave move were Microsoft to pin their reputation on the scrutiny readily-damning tech community, but that’s the thing about innovation, you have to be prepared to take risks. If not, they had better hope that Mango becomes the new benchmark, because the side-effect of allowing yourself to fall behind is that you’ll need to be running faster than the men in front.

The untimely death of Steve Jobs, co-founder and CEO of Apple who died last week at the age of 56 has left people throughout the world saddened, but hopefully inspired by the story of his career. To use a quote that has been circling around the internet in the last week: ‘Bill Gates put a PC in nearly every house, but Steve Jobs put one in every pocket.’  Jobs’ achievements included not only the re-imagining of how technology could be used, but the redefining of how it should look. One of the many factors contributing to Apple’s success under Jobs was his realization that the digital generation not only wanted access to an endless array of information and entertainment, they wanted it delivered in a way that projected their personal image, substance needed to be matched with style.
Part of what made his vision transformative was that he took new technology and made it cutting edge and even high fashion: Apple products made technology accessible by bringing it into the mainstream. Jobs and his colleagues invented the iTunes store and the iPod, thousands of songs later, it’s the only way many of us buy music today. People now i-chat with friends and family in all corners of the world, track traffic jams on apps we download to our iPhone, and effortlessly take and send photos electronically. Whilst I’m sure it’s misinformed to say that none of this would have materialised without Jobs – it’s an interesting thought to think how different technology could be if the Apple brand had never been formed.
It seems that even in his final days Steve Jobs was thinking of the future, and had according to reports stockpiled fours years worth of blueprints for fresh products to ensure his company’s future success. Despite his illness, Jobs had been creating updated versions of the iPod, iPad, iPhone and MacBooks, and overseeing the development of the delayed iCloud project, which will allow Apple users to store music, photos and other documents remotely.
Carl Howe, director of the Yankee Group’s Consumer Research group explained that he was not surprised at Jobs’ forward planning, noting that the design for the iPad was completed in 2004 but not introduced to the marketplace until last year. “It’s not like these guys plan only a quarter or two in advance,” he said. “Jobs anticipated new products years and years in advance.”
In the days following Jobs death, american telecommunications company AT&T said it received more than 200,000 preorders for the iPhone 4S, marking the most successful debut yet for an Apple device. Demand has been “extraordinary” for the new iPhone, AT&T said in a statement.
Howe said the stunning presales confirm a survey that was completed before the introduction of the new iPhone. Consumers were asked if they were interested in the new Apple phone and a whopping 40 percent of those polled said they would buy a new iPhone without knowing what was in it.
This kind of reaction from consumers further highlights the power of the Apple brand and their constant striving to deliver what consumers want. An example that many global brands could learn from.

We’ll finish this post with a quote from Revolver’s Managing Director Iain S Bruce:

“Steve Jobs’ major accomplishment wasn’t in business and his legacy won’t lie in the designs he left behind. What he did that was truly great was tune ordinary consumers into the technology dream – opening up the public imagination to the infinite possibilities the computing universe offers in a manner few could equal.”

“He was an innovator rather than an inventor, and it’s fair to say that he stood on the shoulders of giants, but without him the dot.communist revolution would be several years further behind.”