How about some mango? How about no...kia?

This is a part anecdote and a part about marketing.

Beautiful picture from the Mango page on wikipedia.

So I found out I'm allergic to mangoes a few months ago. I've never been allergic to it my whole life leading up to this event.
The story goes:
One day, feeling a bit healthier than usual, I went and made a mango vanilla chocolate banana protein shake.
I out everything in except the mango (because I haven't peeled it yet). As I finish peeling the mango and proceeded to eat the middle part that I can't dice up (the seed part), I felt an itch in my eye. I did what any normal human being without a mango allergy would do and scratched my itching eye with my unwashed hands (dropping with mango juice).
I then took the bus and went to school for my routine without.
Unbeknownst to me, while I was napping on the bus, my eyes started to swell. By the time I arrived at school, my eye swelled up as if I'd been in a fight (also seemed like I got beaten pretty badly).
And kids, that's how I found out I'm allergic to mango.
What does this have to do with marketing? Nothing.

But thank you for indulging me there.
Now onto the marketing bit.

About half a year ago (give our take), Nokia found a new CEO in Steven Elop. This was a pivotal moment in the company's history because it was his role to steer the back on track. At the early stage of his new job, he delivered a brutally honest speech about the company's failing state and tried to address what he thought to be the main reason why Nokia went from global market leader to a failing business. This was the famous burning platform memo. You can read it here. The main analogy was a man standing on a burning offshore oil rig. The decision to change and improve the company was liken to the man's decision to stay on the rig and wait for rescue, or plunge into the freezing waters of the ocean and not burn to death along with the rig. From the company's decision to forgo their prized and beloved (newly-developed) operating system, Meego, to marry Microsoft and their Windows 7, they decided to take a leap of faith. But did they jump too early?
There are some arguments for and against.

First of all, was Meego really that bad?
This guy didn't think so. And generally I agree with him.
I don't wanna cover the same points he did, but I'll say a few things:
- Yes it was resource-demanding to maintain the upkeep (MTG reference ftw) of the department, but pay off can be huge.
- Building an entire ecosystem for the phone is not an overnight thing
- Perhaps developers aren't flocking to your system because they see the lack of support for it in the future (should adopt the "if you build it they will come" philosophy)
- From what I gather from the reviews, people actually like the Meego phones

Second, why Microsoft?
At the time, Windows 7 was horrible. Only recently, with the Mango iteration did users and critics praise the software mogul. Could they have foreseen this? Perhaps.
But really, at least keep your options open and have Android in your portfolio as well!
Most of the top mobile manufacturers own a wide option of operating systems (LG, Samsung, Motorola); maybe Nokia should do the same, make Meego phones, Symbian, and MS 7 Mobile.

Feed the crowd.
Nokia is actually doing a great job with this. They started with the design and continued on with the open SDK to developers on the Meego platform. What Nokia has to do right now is incentivize the development project.
Perhaps a contest? Funding for the developer's next project (on the order of 1000's of dollars). Or even give exclusive Nokia freebies (perhaps a customized Meego phone for bragging rights).
Key is, the people who are willing to spend their time to dabble in this are probably not looking for traditional forms of compensation, so find out what they want and provide it as an incentive to them when they build the system.

However, the main thing is: Nokia still hasn't addressed their issue.
The problem at Nokia wasn't because of the a horrible OS (okay partially it's due to a horrible OS), but it's because of their lack of focus on the smartphone arena - they missed the ride on the wave.
When they decided to play catch-up, they're not churning out smartphones as quickly and efficiently as their competitors. Even when they do launch a phone, their phone's qualities aren't on par with the benchmarks set by others (OS, ecosystem, features etc).

I really hope Nokia does better. Because when it does, hopes of picking Meego back up is exponentially higher. With their own operating system, Nokia will be able to better differentiate itself in the market.
There's very little Nokia can do right now to turn the Meego project around (especially after being so adamant about dropping it). It's also too little, too late with the marriage with Microsoft.

I think the best analogy is: Nokia's boat has a hole in it and is filling up with water quick. Microsoft was left behind at the shore. Out of desperation, Microsoft jumped onto Nokia's boat (their boat was close by and convenient since it was leaking and didn't get too far away from the shore). In the end, the hole isn't patched up. They're both still sinking.
Sad.
Unfortunate.
Fall of a giant.

/gg no re

Liver, fava beans, chianti and the Lion

I wonder how many people can make the intended reference.


If you connected liver, fava beans and chianti to Dr. Hannibal Lecter, then you're certainly bright in my books.
Just yesterday, I received a questionaire as part of my interview process for a marketing position. One of the questions read: "What do you think is the most difficult part of ‘Marketing’ from the point management decides to add a particular product to their existing product line?".
I answered managing the cannibalization of the existing products in the line is probably the most challenging and difficult aspect of marketing.
If you push out a new product, you obviously want people to purchase it. At the same time you wouldn't want the sales of your older products to suffer.
Let's take a look at the basic principles from a case study of two companies. Their products do not go through the traditional product life cycle but the basic principles to prevent market share cannibalism within a product line are there still.
I think taking a look at the way Microsoft and Apple does their operating systems.

First, the Windows operating system.
In the past, the software giant has dealt with this problem rather poorly.
New operating systems offered little differentiating features. The reasons for switching to the new OS is not compelling. People can get by whether they are using the new version or the old.
That said, the problem back then didn't actually affect their performance as a company that significantly though - I guess that's the perk of being the acting monopoly in the market.
More recently however, they are addressing the issue much better. Creating versions of their operating system that are vastly different than the predecessors thus maintaining both versions' functionality and uniqueness.
The usability of both Vista and 7 are still high. Both are unique but the key is that Microsoft is phasing out the older systems.

The Lion

Beautiful picture from National Geographic (check them out here)

The large cat motif is rather fun when it comes to branding the big A's flagship operating system. Historically they have used: Cheetah, Puma, Jaguar, Panther, Tiger, Leopard, Snow Leopard, and Lion.
The brilliance of the OS product manager is that upgrading to the new iteration is so simple for users and often inexpensive in the grand scheme of things.
The difference with the big A is that with the efficient distribution system, they aim to bring all the users of the old OS onto the new one. In essence cannibalization of the market share becomes replacement.

In the bigger picture though, cannibalization isn't too big of a factor here because the two products are still within the same company. Overall, the market share of the company may actually increase due to the new product.

My next post will revisit this topic. Look forward to it.