Mediaboss Marketing

20 hours ago May. 9, 2014 - 2:00 PM PDT

Ask almost any professional writer who has covered the tech industry during the years from the 1990s dot-com boom to the Facebook-buying-drones-era what their most difficult assignment has been, and theyll almost universally identify one of the most iconic companies in American history: Apple.

In the years following the second coming of Steve Jobs, which saw Apple ascend to heights the tech industry had never before seen, Apples public relations effort was viewed with equal parts awe, disdain, and outright hatred. It was led by Katie Cotton, an executive who was as much an extension of Jobs brain as famed designer Jony Ive.

Apple confirmed earlier this week that Cotton is retiring. The last time I saw Cotton, she was hurtling toward me with an outstretched arm, successfully trying to ruin a photo (from an iPhone, no less) of CEO Tim Cook chatting with former Microsoft executive Steve Sinofsky on the sidelines of last years D11 conference. She leaves behind a PR department that has shaped the direction of tech PR in general, for better or worse.

Yet Apples notorious strategy of ignoring almost all media requests and inquiries unless it considered you an ally or had no choice but to deal with you was more than just the public extension of the culture of secrecy Jobs enforced. It was a response to huge demand for its products coupled with the willingness to exploit an obvious weakness in tech media business models.

The Wintel-driven tech industry of the late 1990s and early 2000s, which was the primary story in tech media during those years, was much more accepting of media coverage than Apple, even when Apple was struggling. This was an era in which the tech industry was much smaller and more business-oriented than it is today. Microsoft, Intel, and its PC partners needed the fledgling tech media to spread its message and it needed a place to advertise its products before IT managers: Intel even invested in one of the earliest versions of CNET Networks, a company that later gainfully employed me from 2006 to 2011, and where I covered Apple as a single beat from early 2007 to 2009.

A product of that earlier era, Hubspots Dan Lyons who at one point somehow thought he could parlay a hilarious blog skewering one of the most revered technology executives in history into a serious job covering that very same company with top-level access highlighted several of the changing tactics Thursday that were used by Apple during its ascent, before going off the rails with a bizarre theory about masochistic journalists.

But he did touch on something notable about the Pax Apple era of the tech industry. It is no secret that during the years from, say, 2005 (the seminal event was probably the dramatic upstaging of the Moto Rokr by the iPod nano) through the launch of the iPad, no single topic in the tech publishing generated web traffic quite like Apple, just as the web was becoming the dominant medium for tech publishing.

Around the same time, a brand new class of tech media blogs was growing quickly, groups that were less interested in traditional notions of journalism and more interested in telling readers exactly what they thought about technology. This meant there was an explosion in tech content just as it was becoming clear how much consumers wanted Apples products, and somehow, demand outpaced supply.

See the rest here:
Why Apples PR strategy frustrated tech media for almost a decade

Sprint product ambassador: Samsung Gear Fit Media control demo
Disclaimer: The Product Ambassadors are Sprint employees from many different parts of the company that love technology. They volunteer to test out all sorts ...

By: Paul Vu

Continued here:
Sprint product ambassador: Samsung Gear Fit Media control demo - Video

In Microsoft's perfect world, the Xbox One Media Remote wouldn't exist. Everyone would be happy controlling the Xbox One using their voice or gestures, and remotes would be a relic of our TV-watching past.

In reality, the Xbox One experience -- outside of the gaming realm -- can sometimes be a frustrating one. You have to give credit to Microsoft for recognizing that with the release of the Xbox One Media Remote (US$25/20/AU$30). In reviewing the Xbox One's living room capabilities shortly after its launch, I wrote that it "cries out for a dedicated remote", and that's exactly what the Media Remote delivers, letting you do simple tasks like adjust the volume without using your voice or breaking out the controller.

The small clicker is well-designed, with nice touches like a velvety texture and backlighting that turns on as soon as you pick it up. It can't completely fix all the Xbox One's living room shortcomings -- DVR control is still an issue -- but it makes it a much more tolerable conduit for your cable box.

The Xbox One Media Remote may not be the remoteless future Microsoft envisioned, but it makes using the Xbox One fit into your living room a whole lot easier -- and that's well worth your $25.

$25 may seem like a lot for an add-on remote, but the Media Remote feels particularly well-made. It had enough weight to feel substantial, without being heavy, and it's covered in a soft, textured finish that's pleasant to hold. Pick up the remote and its backlighting immediately kicks in, making it easy to see its buttons even when your living room is dim.

Sarah Tew/CNET

The buttons on the Media Remote are unusually flat, raised ever-so-slightly above the front of the remote. Even the directional pad is just slightly recessed, except for the button in the center. Typically, remotes with such a relatively even surface is a bad sign, but there are enough subtle tactile cues that it's actually pretty easy to navigate without looking. The button rockers for volume and channel changing are large and centrally located and even the completely flush mute button in the center has a texture that lets you know it's there.

Sarah Tew/CNET

Read the original here:
A must-have clicker to simplify the Xbox One

Heres a question to ask yourself if you arent sure whether media mogul pay reflects merit or cronyism: DidViacom and CBS executive chairman Sumner Redstonedeserve $93M, an 80% year-over-year increase, in the combined compensation he received from the companies in 2013? The answer to this query, and others like it, seems especially relevant here in Deadlines fourth annual effort to try to make sense of the outsized sums media companies pay their leaders. Theyre among the most lavishly compensated in corporate America where CEOs made 206 times what the average worker did in 2011, up from 26.5 times in 1978, economist Thomas Piketty notes in his surprise bestselling new book about growing wealth disparities.That strikes many as fundamentally unfair: The California legislature is weighing a bill that would raise tax rates for companies that give their CEOs more than 100 times the average pay for their workers.

Heres our contribution to the discussion: a tally of the highest-paid executives in media, with metrics and analysis to help you decide what theyre worth. The chart on the right (click to enlarge) shows media execs whose compensation exceeded $10M in 2013 according to company proxies.Below youll find our in-depth look at the top 11 earners on the list. Why 11? That enables us to add Rupert Murdoch, who shouldnt be left out of any discussion of media wealth and power. Those in this Group of 11 collectively made $448.6M in 2013, +15.6% vs 2012, with their median pay +8.3% to $32.5M.

Related: Out Of Whack 2012 Out Of Whack 2011 Out Of Whack 2010

One of the things youll see is how much Redstone contributes to the high level of executive pay in media. He and other leaders at corporations he controls occupy four of the 11 spots on our list. That has a ripple effect: All companies represented here (with a caveat, discussed below, for News Corp) include Viacom and CBS in the list of peers against which they benchmark pay for their own execs. And Redstone isnt all that unusual. You frequently see high pay at enterprises, like many in media, run by families that own little equity but control decision-making by virtue of their supervoting shares.

Boards usually justify their high outlays by pointing to metrics of company success, which they credit to the CEOs. But while those on this list are smart and shrewd, its worth asking how much of their good fortune including their rising stock prices also represents good luck. Keep in mind that all of the media powers represented by this years top 11 own broadcast and/or pay TV channels. Cable and satellite companies complain that these programmers have oligopoly power to raise prices on distributors. Many are aggressively doing so, which distributors say pressures them to raise your rates. Programmers also benefit from a new source of cash: license fees from digital services including Netflix and Amazon Prime.

Our list and the charts that follow include Deadlines annual Out-of-Whack analysis. It illustrates not only that CEOs make vastly more than the public. Some boards are far more generous to the top dog than they are to others in the C-suite. Thatcould be a sign that directors are in the CEOs pocket, or lack confidence in their executive bench, many corporate governance experts say. In any case, research shows that lopsided outlays promote groupthink, damage morale, and often depress a companys stock price. Its a judgement call as to how much of a disparity is too much. Yet those who track the phenomenon typicallybecome alarmed when a CEO makes more than three times the median for the four other top execs whose income must be disclosed to shareholders per SEC rules. Eighteen of the 30 companies we monitor and that have filed information for 2013 failed the test, often miserably, up from 14 out of 31 last year.

A few notes on the data: Most comes from information that the SEC requires publicly traded U.S. companies to disclose. That means we dont have compensation info from some media powers including Sony (based in Japan) or MGM (privately held). Regulators require companies to disclose pay figures for the top execs, usually the top 5. We dont know when a high-ranking, but unlisted, leader at a very large company makes more than a top 5 officer at a smaller one. Weve tried to determine whether the CEOs were job creators, but the SEC only requires companies to report year end employment a figure that can rise for companies that buy properties and fall when they sell. We made a judgment call to include Internet companies heavily focused on content creation, AOL and Yahoo, but not giants only tangentially involved in media such as Amazon, Facebook, Google, and Twitter. Also, weve provided our admittedly subjective assessment about whether the exec is a flight risk, a potential justification for an over-the-top package.

Heres our tally of the media worlds top-paid execs in 2013:

1. Sumner Redstone, Executive Chairman Viacom & CBS: $93.4M, +80.5%. CBS paidthe 90-year-old executive chairman $57.2M, +83%, while Viacom awarded him $36.2, +77%. What did he do to earn such prodigious sums and raises? The proxy statements dont really say.CBS directors note that while he was executive chairman last year the Company had exceptional results in key metrics, strengthened its financial position, and executed strategies to create and deliver value to its shareholders and to positionthe Company for long-term success. Viacom was more glowing, crediting Redstones leadership and vision as factors that enhanced [the company's] financial position and continued to strengthen itsoverall business in the current economic environment.

Heres another ingredient to consider: Redstone controls National Amusements. It owns relatively little of the equity in the two media companies, but it has supervoting shares that give it and, therefore, him 80% of the votes at CBS and 79% at Viacom.Flight risk: none.

Read more from the original source:
Big Media Moguls With Out-Of-Whack Compensation: Exclusive Deadline List

Evan Schuman | May 7, 2014

Marketers will want to use tools like Snapchat's Here feature to bend consumers to their will. IT has to inject rationality into the resulting discussions.

Marketing has gone gaga over social media. (Come to think of it, gaga may be marketing's default state.) Marketers being who they are, they are trying to figure out ways to use social media to control consumers and bend them to their will. As they seek to do that, they will look to IT to make their visions reality. It's up to the adults in IT to inject some rationality into those discussions.

What brings this to mind is an interesting and deliriously over-the-top feature announced by Snapchat on May 1 and called simply Here. The intent of the program is innocuous enough. It's supposed to allow people to pop up on your mobile screen without the phone ringing and here's the tricky part without you agreeing to it. If you have ever seen marketers in action, you can probably see why I think this will appeal to them.

The video that Snapchat made shows how the program would work when everything goes perfectly. And it indeed looks like an attractive feature if you buy into Snapchat's assumptions about how people should interact. As a Business Insider piece described it: "It's all part of Snapchat's strategy called 'Here,' which strives to make all users feel like their friends are constantly present and attentive."

The catch is that friends especially the rather all-encompassing definition of friends adopted by users of Snapchat and other social media are in fact not constantly present and attentive. What better way to drive that point home than to force people to make a binary choice: interact with me now or not at all?

Snapchat differentiated its original photo-messaging service with its Mission: Impossible twist: Photos and videos vanished 10 seconds after they were viewed by the recipient. The Here Feature introduces social risks, though. With the original service, you sent an image, and if it was ignored, no one was insulted. But the more personal and real-time the conversation attempt, the more insulting it will feel when it's ignored or rejected. Bizarrely enough, this is why email is arguably the most polite of communication methods. You can send an email whenever it suits you, and it quietly and politely waits until the recipient has the time to deal with it. With Here, you show up on the recipient's screen instantly, and the recipient is either going to start to talk to you right then or just swipe you away into non-existence. Ouch!

Here's the IT headache. This is going to plant ideas into the heads of your marketing counterparts. "Gee, I'd love to be able to pop up on the screens of our customers whenever I want. Make that happen, IT. Of course you can do it. Snapchat's already done it." (As a grown-up, you will want to resist the urge to respond, "And if Facebook jumped off the Empire State Building . . . ?")

1 2 Next Page

See the article here:
Snapchat's latest feature shows why IT must tame marketing's inner monster