In a recent Blog post, I began to uncover some of the shifts in the communications industry. In this article I will focus on three companies (each traditionally recognized in different categories) that have made major shifts in their corporate focus over the past few years. I will highlight the significance of actions taken by these various companies and address the role that media convergence plays in the strategies.

Nokia: From Paper Mill To Internet Platform

You may not know this (I did not know it either until I did some digging) but Nokia started out as a paper mill in 1865 (it was founded on the banks of the Nokianvirta river in Finland, hence the name Nokia). A lot has changed in the long history of this company. In 1992 Nokia helped pave the way for the mobile revolution. However mobile was defined quite differently in 1992 than it is today. At that time mobile technologies had little to do with the media industry, and I imagine there were not many articles written about Nokia by media/marketing practitioners such as myself.

A lot has changed between 1865 and 1992, but that volume of change does not rival the massive changes that have taken place between 1992 and the present day. Today, Nokia’s mission statement reads:

“Nokia is the world leader in mobility, driving the transformation and growth of the converging Internet and communications industries. Nokia makes a wide range of mobile devices and provides people with experiences in music, navigation, video, television, imaging, games and business mobility through these devices. Nokia also provides equipment, solutions and services for communications networks.”

Much of the populous is familiar with Nokia, as defined by the last sentence in this mission statement (an equipment manufacturer), but I imagine the rest of the statement is news for many of you. In reading this corporate mission statement it is hard to uncover what Nokia does not do. Nokia has become a full fledged interactive platform equipped with a music store and mapping service, all rolled into their recently announced suite of internet services entitled, Ovi. As if that were not enough, Nokia has also created a social network entitled MOSH and has shelled out 8.1 billion dollars on navigation services company, NAVTEQ (the company’s largest acquisition to date). Nokia is making a strong push to create something aligned with one of the major upcoming trends occurring in the internet space; cloud computing.

Nokia has also begun to build out the ability to access video content and is working with a partner on a mobile multiplayer game. One may wonder how Nokia plans to monetize all of these new efforts. Well, wonder no more! Nokia has acquired a company that specializes in the sale of mobile advertising; Enpocket. So the pressing questions are what exactly is Nokia’s core business? As a media buyer/planner do you need to start considering Nokia during planning season? As a marketer, is it time to give Nokia a call to see how you can integrate your brand with their new platform?
AT&T

AT&T’s corporate roots date back almost as far as that of Nokia. AT&T’s history dates back to 1876 when it started its path to domination of the global telecom market. AT&T’s historic market position has been obscured (to a certain degree) by the types of things that AT&T is doing today. Like Nokia, AT&T has jumped head first into the content syndication business. With the launch of products like Blue Room, AT&T’s streaming content destination, it becomes hard to define AT&T’s core business. Let’s take a look at how AT&T defined their corporate strategy in a recent press release:

“The deployment of next-generation video services reflects AT&T’s strategy to become customers’ preferred communications and entertainment provider and to deliver a video solution that provides greater value, flexibility and simplicity than competitors’ offerings. AT&T U-verse TV represents a critical new service in the company’s video portfolio, which includes AT&T Homezone(SM) service and satellite broadcast offerings. AT&T U-verse TV also underscores the company’s strategy to deliver integrated services to the three screens that consumers value most: the TV, the PC and the wireless phone.”

This quote is taken from a press release discussing AT&T’s TV and Internet services entitled, U-verse. It is very interesting that the second line positions AT&T as “preferred communications and entertainment provider”. The fact that AT&T is describing itself as an entertainment provider begs the question: Will AT&T one day adopt an advertising model to monetize its services?

Another important element to highlight is AT&T, like Nokia, is taking a platform agnostic approach to their initiatives. Each company appears to be achieving a certain amount of ubiquity across various hardware devices. At the beginning of this article I mentioned the notion of convergence, and it is the types of strategic developments by AT&T and Nokia where convergence is most prevalent. Each corporation is aiming to create platforms where content can converge across various pieces of hardware. According to Henry Jenkin’s “black box” fallacy many think of convergence as the coming collision of hardware devices. AT&T and Nokia’s strategies signify that this is clearly not the case. The element that is convergent is the content.

Google

No article discussing attempts to conquer multiple communications markets would be complete without a segment on Google. While Google’s history is not as lengthy as the other two corporations mentioned in this article, over the last few years we have seen the search giant enter many unlikely markets. However, Google’s recent attempt to acquire control of the 700 Mhz, is in my opinion the most compelling.

To some, it may seem difficult to find Google’s mission statement, “organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful” reflected in Google’s potential strategic move to acquire the 700MHz block. However, it can be argued that controlling this bandwidth can allow Google to live up to the universal accessibility portion of their mission statement, especially since Google lobbyists have convinced the FCC to keep this spectrum open to everyone, regardless of who owns it. Still, the 700Mhz strategy, coupled with the rumors of the impending gPhone makes it difficult to refer to Google as merely a search engine.

So what does all this mean? Where is the media and communications industry headed as companies such as Nokia, AT&T and Google (and many others not mentioned in this article including Apple and Verizon) continue to redefine themselves. While I have no crystal ball, and don’t know exactly what the future has in store, there are certain factors that can be gleaned from all the activity in this space. In order to remain competitive it is important that major media and communications corporations work towards creating a platform capable of satisfying various consumer needs. In light of all of the fragmentation in this industry, consumers will begin to gravitate towards the communications offering that is the most inclusive. Furthermore, as content convergence becomes more prevalent, consumers will increasingly desire the ability to access all of their information at any time, from anywhere and through any number of devices. The platform that is the most robust, and is able to efficiently deliver the greatest number of services across various devices and channels will no doubt have the competitive advantage.

In 2006, the phenomenon of “consumer conversation” became an inescapable reality and focus for marketers. Ad Age ranked the term number nine on its list of “10 words or phrases that are so 2006.” Esteemed marketer and author Joseph Jaffe has announced that his upcoming book will be titled Join the Conversation. The ubiquity of this phrase signifies that marketers are beginning to accept the fact that consumers are becoming increasingly empowered and influential. Acceptance of this fact does not, however, equate to an ability to react to it. Many marketers are left befuddled when strategizing in this new environment.

It is not enough to acknowledge change. We are living in sink-or-swim times where learning to swim requires a deep understanding of what has changed, as well as a tactical plan for succeeding in the new environment.

Many marketers are devising strategies (for better of worse) that leverage the social nature of the Internet. Much to my surprise, it appears that many paid search engine marketers are not as quick to embrace “the conversation” as fellow marketers operating in other interactive channels. The abundance of irrelevant and untimely paid search results makes it apparent that many search marketers rely heavily on automated tools to control much of their search processes. While many of the automated tools on the market provide the search marketer with tremendous value, it is apparent (when analyzing a paid search results page) that these tools leave some marketers in a complacent state.

The result is that marketers are missing many opportunities and leaving money on the table. This complacent nature can be dangerous. Search is a conversation, and conversations require two parties; a keyword (the query) and either paid or natural results (the answer). If a marketer does not learn to actively listen to consumer questions in real-time, she will inevitably be left out of many conversations.

“We’ve got some ideas for you too: some new tools we need, some better service. Stuff we’d be willing to pay for. Got a minute?” from the 95 these of The Cluetrain Manifesto

Feeding Your Search Strategy

Search Strategist Emily Las constantly refers to the speed of search. “We are not servicing our clients properly if we are not working at the speed of search,” she says. Having worked closely with Ms. Las, I have acquired a precise understanding of the implications of her statement. First, her statement refers to the rapid way in which search engines gather information. Second, her statement refers to the rapidly changing nature of online buzz and the necessity for search marketers to not simply listen to the buzz but to be nimble enough to quickly respond to it. Let’s consider a hypothetical situation in which company X, a retailer selling portable music devices, has just launched a search campaign.

Newspapers extended media’s reach through sight; radio through sound; and television through site, sound, and motion. The Internet added a layer of social interactivity to what television had previously provided. Virtual online worlds add a new dimension to this paradigm; an unprecedented social dimension. While there are many manifestations of the new social interactivity, from Blogs-to-Podcasts-to-Wikis, one can argue that the most compelling manifestation for marketers is the virtual world called Second Life. This article briefly explains what Second Life is and is not and explores why marketers should care.

What Second Life Is and Is Not

For those of you who are not familiar with it by now, Second Life is a 3D virtual world created by Linden Labs and propagated by its residents. Upon entering Second Life, residents create an avatar — which may or may not bear similarity to their own likeness — and venture into this unique world. When people first hear about Second Life, they oftentimes liken it to The Sims, World Of Warcraft or other MMOG’S (Massively Multiplayer Online Game). Although there are similarities in graphic implementation, Second Life is quite different.

What Second Life Is Not

1. Second Life is not a game.
2. There are no winners (by any formalized standards).
3. There is no predetermined purpose, and there are no rules other than such minimum regulations as are necessary to maintain a peaceful community. Generally, if you can dream of doing in Second Life, it can be done.
4. There is a real human being associated with every avatar; there are no non player characters (NPC’s).

If Second Life Is Not a Game, Then What Is It?

I may not be as heavily ingrained in the world of Second Life as some, but I seem to be doing a lot of evangelizing these days for the opportunities that exist for marketers in Second Life. I have formulated my own simplistic description of Second Life as “a 3D version of the web.” This description is admittedly vague, but it has value because it disabuses people of their natural misconceptions.

When referring to Second Life, I never use the word “game,” rather I refer to it as a “platform.” Given that much of my evangelizing is done with respect to marketers, or people in related industries, I tend to highlight the economic structure of Second Life (the Lindex- which “works by matching existing buyers and sellers of L$ currency together to automatically reach the best price for currency” ) and the real world brands that have embraced this new platform (American Apparel, CNET, Adidas, Major League Baseball, and Vodafone to name a few).

If people are still not convinced, I reference the barrage of articles written about Second Life in the past few months (The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, Businessweek, Wired, and many more). With or without my evangelizing, I know that it is merely a matter of time before Second Life is a concept as commonly known as “podcasting.” Disruptive technologies are generally met with fear before adoption, but the adoption cycle is not far off in the case of Second Life.