Home|
03/14 |
RFID. The Radio Frequency ID tag (RFID) is
the most powerful retail identification system since the Universal Product
Code (UPC). Gillette bought a billion tags to mark every one
of its new razors. Clothing designer and manufacturer Benetton just
announced it will tag each garment costing $15 or more with RFID to cut
costs, track garments through their lifetimes and reduce theft.
Privacy advocates worry about the system, because it could tell someone within yards of an individual what he or she is wearing. That seems overdone, but, nonetheless, one will broadcast the presence of a product for a short distance if the product has an RFID tag. The tag is a tiny radio transmitter that sends the product's unique code to receivers located close by. In spite of privacy worries, there are strong reasons for using RFID. For one, each product identifies itself through the distribution chain without hand scanning or tallying. That saves time and labor. Secondly, within the store, checkout is faster because one only needs to be close to the receiver for it to pick up the signal from the product and register it. It should reduce lines. Third, it should reduce theft, or shrinkage, that raises costs for companies and consumers. Fourth, and here it could get spooky, it allows a store to track what you are or were wearing to serve you better. Imagine someone asking you, "You own a red sweater in last year's design, right? You were in here just last week wearing it. Let me show you a new ensemble piece for that." I suppose some people would like to be tracked that closely. I wouldn't. RFID will allow a number of consumer promotions and public relations approaches to draw retailers closer to customers, as long as it is used carefully. For example, one could have a permission marketing program in which a retailer asks consumers if they would like the store to track their wardrobes. Secondly, a manufacturer could use it to reward consumers for buying its products -- for example -- an automatic discount for an individual entering a Benetton store wearing Benetton clothing. Third, it will foster in-store systems that speed shopping, such as kiosks that automatically match a garment with colors and products that go with it and show the visual result. On the other hand, if there is a typical system foul-up, a garment could set off an alarm and embarrassing questions when a customer enters a store. RFID is not new, but until recently, the technology was too
expensive for general use. Now, it is on the verge of entering mass
product distribution and it will be as powerful as the UPC code when it
entered general usage. |
|
03/12 |
Dream On? The giant CeBit trade show in
Hanover Germany is Europe's answer to Comdex in the US. Actually,
Comdex has faded as a trade show, but CeBit marches on. Even with a
smaller crowd, CeBit expects 600,000 attendees this year -- down from
750,000 last year. Comdex wishes it could get a third of that. I was interested in a report about the opening of the show. Politicians and business leaders declared the tech slump was coming to an end. O? I think there might be wish fulfillment in those remarks. Maybe if we declare something loudly enough, it will actually happen. Maybe, if we make believe the king is wearing clothes, we won't see he is naked. But nothing I read in the US indicates the tech recession is ending. Sure, the Internet has settled into a business and yes, large technology companies have survived, but have you talked to any venture capitalists lately? There is no surge of startups on the horizon and tens of thousands of high-tech workers continue to look for work or to scramble in downsized jobs. Certainly PR practitioners in high-tech would not declare an end to bad times. So it is good of German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder to proclaim the end of the high-tech slump, but I do not believe it yet. Other industry leaders at CeBit said they expect zero percent growth this year, but that is an improvement because last year, the industry suffered negative growth. However, zero percent growth doesn't qualify as the end of anything. Why do industry leaders and politicians have a difficult time telling facts as they are? They just make our jobs more difficult in the PR business. |
|
03/12 |
Of Course. Commentators predict the
Internet will play a key role should there be an Iraqi war. Yes,
certainly. It has already played a part in conflicts and the latest
will be one more instance.
What we have seen are individuals close to a conflict who report to friends in other parts of the world, especially the U.S. These friends, in turn post the messages for others to read along with photos, videos and anything else they can get from the site of the conflict. The only barrier to such communication is the severing of links from the area. It is highly likely, for example, that communications lines from Baghdad will fail in the first day or two of bombing. On the other hand, links from Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and Turkey should remain active. Observers can present a "you are there" view that, even though they are personally removed from the battlefield, still provide a sense of events. What is not well-researched, as far as I know, is the use of disinformation. We know the U.S. military services are advanced in this dark art, but they don't say much about what they are doing. I expect sympathizers with various viewpoints will bend facts through misleading reporting. They are now before the conflict starts. We should be prepared as well for disinformation through imagery -- that is, artful use of Photoshop to make a point. Should the Iraqi conflict occur, it will
not be the first Internet war, but it might be the conflict in which the
mature use of the Internet for good and ill is recognized worldwide.
How that will play out, I have no idea, but from a PR perspective, it
should be fascinating. The power of the Internet medium can
overcome the power of traditional media if enough people use it. |
|
03/11 |
Inertia.
I noted with interest that the governor of the
largest state in the U.S. -- Gray Davis of California -- is so disliked
that his popularity has plunged to a 27% approval rating. Yet, for
all the disgust with him, no one wants to recall him. Inertia is amazing in politics and organizations. It takes constant communication to drive a point home then repetition to keep it there. It makes little difference if one drills a message repeatedly. Some get it and some don't -- even when individuals have acceptable IQ levels. I learned long ago, for example, that people come with two views about technology. Some fight it and some adapt. The ones who fight constantly are aggressively ignorant. They defy you to teach them. Aggressiveness is not the same as belligerence. They can be nice people, but a computer to them is foreign and dangerous. Those who adapt come in two varieties as well -- ones who can and ones who can't. Some folks are thumbs. They try hard but they don't get it. Some are athletes. They adapt to technologies as if they were customized for the individual. Between the two is a wide range of competencies. Why have I digressed? Because one communicates to all kinds of individuals when making a change and their many inertias accumulate to bog a system. This is why great leaders are relentless communicators. They know it takes time, and they also know they don't have as much time as they would wish -- especially in corporate America. CEOs turn over quickly now. Let them have three or four bad quarters, and they are gone. Yet, inertia never goes away. Think about this as you plan your next PR campaign. |
|
03/10 |
Groupthink Redux.
It was interesting to read an opinion piece in
yesterday's New York Times about Groupthink and its part in the
destruction of the space shuttle.
A Yale psychologist coined the term in 1972 to describe the Bay of Pigs disaster under President Kennedy and the escalation of the Vietnam War under President Johnson. (One might apply it to the escalation of the war against Iraq, but it is too early to make that estimate, it seems to me.) Groupthink is a "mass" psychology in which opposing points of view are ignored or excluded. It happens even to the most rational of individuals in a group because they unknowingly bend to cues from leaders, experts or the loudest voice in argumentation. Groupthink is based on the natural human tendency to seek consensus, but it can steer rational discussion to a wrong or dead end. Leaders, more than any other individual in a group, cause Groupthink. Few want to buck the Boss who determines one's career. It only takes a stare from the CEO or a scowl to cause dissidents to fall in line. When that happens, Groupthink takes over. Groupthink is dangerous in PR as well. A company and its leaders will decide on a point of view and act without sufficient evidence. For example, "there is a media conspiracy to write nasty stories about us because no one likes us." That might be true but it also may be that the media themselves are victims of Groupthink. They are focusing on the same topic because of the times or environment. There is, for example, the invidious comparison. Every quarter journalists report company A's earnings and note they are not up to company B's earnings, and "what has happened to Company A? It used to be so successful." It is tempting for Company A's executives to believe the "media are out to get us." They aren't. They're looking in the same rear-view mirror as everyone else. It is hard work for PR practitioners to snap reporters out of Groupthink but it must be done to get an objective appraisal. It is even harder work to snap companies out of Groupthink, especially when a CEO resists an interpretation that does not coincide with his views. But, that is part of what PR practitioners are paid to do as translators between the public and the organization. This is also the reason why a PR practitioner must have personal credibility with the CEO, something that most of us do not have. On other hand, how many of us are
prepared to risk our careers by telling our CEOs they are wrong? |
