Call it nDVR.  Call it VOD.  Call it on-demand streaming.  Call it ad skipping.  Call it TIVO, SlingBox, or ORB.  Call it place-shifting, copyright infringement or distribution democratization.

The outcome is the same.

The present is changing.  The past has changed.  Now is too late, but Tomorrow may be to soon.  The key to success in today's market is adaptive innovation, planned flexibility that protects today's revenue streams while laying the foundations of tomorrow's solutions.

Broadcast Networks and Content Owners will by and large continue to cling to what is known, familiar and therefor immediately advertiser friendly.  They will fight change for the upheaval and turmoil it will cause the industry, for the massive investment and effort required of both manpower and resources (not to mention infrastructural costs) towards deploying a new model.

But a new model will emerge.  And fighting the future will not keep it from coming.  I tried.  I took the batteries out of my watch.  But the day ended.  And tomorrow came.

The battle over nDVRs will continue.  And it should.  This court battle matters.  It sets a strong precedent for future technologies... which will in turn demand new models.

The Mainstream Media outlets and Cable Providers are smart.  They are battling to protect their current revenues.  But most importantly, while they are battling to protect their wallets today, they are innovating, fostering tomorrow's future all the while.  Hulu is out and is (to my mind) a success.  TheWB relaunches in weeks.  But this is only the beginning. 

The entire concept of change is still in it's infancy.  And I for one, am looking forward to quite a ride.

Comcast had some service issues.  They did the right thing.  They reached out.  The became responsible digital social citizens. 

They are resolving issues. 

Sure, they may be more that they could be doing, there is always room for growth and optimization.

But perhaps the most notable component of this effort (of late) is the amazing New York Times writeup on the Comcast Cares initiative.  This mainstream recognition of Comcast efforts has driven massive spikes in buzz across the interwebs.  Comcast is on fire.

But what are they doing with this spike in conversation?  How are they fueling and enabling brand advocacy?

Ian Schafer suggests, "I would find more 'Franks', and let each of their subscribers know that it's an option."  Great idea.  But I think the immediate opportunity here transcends customer service.

Consider the conversation captured (on Twitter) below:

Comcast looks to be missing out on a tremendous social PR opportunity.

It's one thing to build a social customer service capability. It's another to internalize digital social media across an organization. 

Comcast Cares is a great program.  Here's to hoping that Comcast integrates this dynamic across the rest of their organization.

This weekend my wife planned a trip to her family's vacation home in upstate NY.  Living in NYC, this promised to be an fun filled two hour drive.

It was quite a trip.  Our car skitzed out on the way out of town (3 hour delay), our local dry cleaner's work space and storage areas behind neighboring storefronts were closed off by the government for reasons unknown (so we didn't have all of our clothes), and a 2 hour trip took nearly 8 hours in total (thanks to some traffic thrown in for good measure).

But we made it and the weekend was pretty nice.

Saturday night, my wife and I went on a date to Walmart.  As NYC natives, Walmart MegaStores are stock full of fun and great deals, and a great time was had by all... for about 20 minutes.  Then we ran into a sales person harassing/poking fun at an 8 year old girl because she had a speech impediment.  One associate was leading the "fun", with another playing backup, making this little girl repeat her request over and over again while they stood by and laughed at her.  It was just pathetic.

We left with our items in hand (we needed the clothes), but with a different view of what was once a favorite destination.

On the way home, we stopped a Getty station in New Jersey.  Traveling with an 11 month old is always fun, but also often requires making additional pit stops along the way.  While I was gassing up and our son was asleep, my wife utilized the opportunity to use the restrooms.  They were filthy, lacked any toilet paper, and has no soap or other cleaning supplies.  When we asked the station attendant for soap and other basic necessities, he told us to purchase it at the station store.  We were told that this was "station policy" as it promoted the sales of toiletries.

And here's the kicker - at the restroom exit was a clearly printed and displayed plaque reading as follows, "All station employees must wash hand thoroughly with soap."

It's a shame that some companies don't care as much for their customers as they do for themselves.

Company A messes up.  Consumer B complains. 
Company A offers Y restitution.  Consumer B demands Z restitution.

What happens next?

Should Company A give into Consumer B's demands?  Who is the arbiter of fair?  

Where do we draw the line between fair and satisfactory?

In today's relationship oriented market, where consumer loyalty is increasingly more important, how far should Company A go? 

Pandering to the demands of every consumer is not a sound business strategy.  Customer satisfaction and retention are key to doing business in today's marketplace, but where do we draw the line?

How far can/should a major corporate entity go, to issue not only fair but satisfactory restitution to loyal customers?

Disclaimer: the views represented in this post are entirely my own and do reflect those of my employer.  Photo credit.

Let's face it: much of the sizzle known as web 2.0 does not have a sustainable business model.

Advertisers are not equipped for ultra-niche marketing, and most web 2.0 ajax/flash heavy experiences are not well suited to traditional banner buys.

And so, we end up with engineers building blindly for uninterested advertisers.

The engineers and technologists creating these platforms often seek to embed advertising or marketing opportunities into their products, with little understanding for either:
    (a) the advertising/brand marketing construct and the resulting needs and opportunities, or
    (b) the need for a strong dual core value proposition - uniquely and suitably addressing both the needs of the users and the needs of the brands and the broader branding community.

Smart startups consult with people who get it.  Smart companies are constantly in touch with their strongest customers/target customers and users, optimizing their offering for their core constituency.  Few companies can pull an Apple out of their hats, generating products that are insanely popular on instinct and insight alone.

If you are a web 2.0 company, if you are looking to succeed in the age of accelerated socialization, it is time that you started socializing.  There are people who get it.  Just because you think you know your business, doesn't mean that you understand the intricacies and eccentricities of your target audiences and clients. 

My Advice: Never stop consulting with visionaries.  Never stop creating meaningful relationships with the "people who get it" at their respective agencies/unagencies.  Just because someone has a senior title doesn't mean that they understand the new digital dynamic, and just because you may have a large user base or a flashy tool, doesn't mean that you're going to have a successful or compelling business.

If you aren't learning, you are growing.  If you aren't using GPS or a map, you're going to make a wrong turn, because trust me, these roads are unlike any we have seen before.

I recently had a horrible experience with one of my client's customer services.  Their failure to deliver on their brand promise caused significant inconvenience and discomfort, both yesterday and today.

If this business were not a client, I would be calling them out on this blog.

But they write the checks that fill the account that feeds my paychecks. 

So I am not writing about my experiences with this brand over the past 24 hours.

Am I wrong for not writing about this client?  Am I wrong for not calling them out?

Is silence a minimal form of non-neutrality when I regularly write about customer first marketing and media?

Where do we draw the line?  Am I a coward?  Or a savvy business person?  Or maybe a bit of both?

The internet is just a series of tubes, right?

It's a connection, it's a lifeline, that can be turned on and off.  It's a utility.  That's why we need net neutrality, right?

While the world of the internet within the browser or within a dedicated connected application (ex - widgets or Outlook) is far from gone, the time has come for marketers and technologists to look at the internet as more then a channel.  The connected web is the natural evolution of the human experience.

Higher speeds, open platforms, more intuitive development kits, these are all small pieces in a larger puzzle.  There is a greater endgame at play.

Consider:

• Social media has evolved via digital connectivity, and it continues to evolve.

• Video viewing has evolved, and will continue to evolve.

• Mobile connectivity has evolved, and clearly will continue to evolve.

We cannot look to the future without remembering the past.  The media and technology landscapes have greatly evolved over the past century.  And they will continue to evolve.  But the world didn't turn on a dime, it will not change with a single keynote.

Your brand has many storefronts.  Every marketer knows the importance of window dressing in retail.
After all, every impression may be a first impression, and in the words of one of my colleagues, "You don't get a second chance to make a first impression."

Whether it be In digital media, in social media, in traditional retail or CRM management, you are always creating first impressions. 

But what happens when your store is closed?  What kind of first impressions are your generating to your user when you are unavailable?

It is understandable that your services may become temporarily unavailable; you may have to close your storefront at night, your website may go down, your tools may occasionally crash.  But what kind of first experiences are you creating when you aren't available?  How are you marketing to them in this void?

Retailers know the importance of window displays during off hours.  But do service oriented companies appreciate that the same principles apply to their business as well?

This weekend, I spent nearly an hour on hold, waiting for AT&T customer service.  The hold music was an up-sell for addditional services.  This would have been frustrating on it's own, but was only exacerbated by  the fact that I was calling to get cell phones service back up and running.  There was no apology message for the hold time, there were only sales messages.  After nearly an hour, the rep finally came on the line and not only resolved the issue, but offered a complimentary compensation for my experience.

This was not my first interaction with AT&T.  But it was my 18 year old nephew's first exposure - as he was in the room throughout this experience.  There is only so much AT&T can communicate through paid messaging - and you can rest assured that the damage caused by their poor service fulfillment will far outweigh their media in influencing my nephew's mobile carrier decision.  All because of a laughably pathetic customer service call.


photo credit here.