Apple, complacent with not being innovative

The iPhone launched in 2007 - A year that saw MySpace still ruling Social, Kevin Durant a Freshman at Texas University and the New Orleans Hornets still calling Oklahoma City home.

Since that time: MySpace died. Kevin Durant became a worldwide superstar and the Oklahoma City/New Orleans Hornets moved back to New Orleans, making way for the Seattle SuperSonics to move to the Midwest. But what about the iPhone? It just released newer models, 2, 3, 3s, 4, 4s, 5 and the 5s. Sure Apple made other products like a bigger iPhone they named the iPad (and the technology gasped) and then released newer models, 2, 3, 4, iPad Air and then two Mini-iPads which is the middle ground between the iPhone and the iPad... so very clever. Not creative, but clever. Clever in the sense that you bought one or three...possibly four or five of these mentioned. Apple "cleverly" took the world by storm, but these past few years (due to the lack of innovation) Apple has just sat back and watched as Google passed them by.

Sure, here in the Oklahoma City market, we love Apple and rarely will one find an Android cellular device before you'll see 10 iPhones - but Apple has been a sleeping giant that stayed in hibernation too long.

Google's Android devices have far surpassed those iOS devices, in fact the past 3 years Android went from 49.2% of the market in 2011 to 62% in 2012 and up to 78.6% in 2013 - while Apple went from 18.8% in 2011, down slightly to 18.7% and even further in 2013 to 15.2%. You would think that would make Google smile and "coast" into world dominance, right? Nope. They aren't finished being "innovative" yet.

Google is betting that you'll use your smart device as much or even more in the future, they just want to control how you use it. 2014 seems to be the year Google goes all out launching "Wearables" for the public. Think watches are a thing of the past? Maybe, in the sense that you used it primarily to tell time. Now, you can use for just about anything, at least that's what they're hoping according to this new online commercial:
 

Google Glass still has a LONG way to go. I've put on a few different pairs over the past 12-18 months - and they have become much better over time. But only time will tell whether or not they're here to last. While Apple lives in the land of Texas-Freshman Kevin Durant, it is Google that is living in the land of OKC-Thunder-World-Champion Kevin Durant.

What do YOU think? Do you see yourself wearing "Wearables" in the near future? Let me know in the comments.

Education System Woes

I can't imagine how dumb our next generation would be if the Internet did not exist. With the many restrictions on our school systems, rising student/per teacher ratios and lowering budgets on education - we are also seeing dramatic rises in college tuition but a lowering in salaries in regards to inflation (going back 50 years).

Because of all this, students have less one-on-one time with teachers, teachers don't get paid enough to care (unions keep many employed anyway), and the restrictions on what can/can't be taught in school is so limited that there is little time left for creative thought or communications building amongst peers. Even if students do make it out of school (with less knowledge than previous generations) they head into college where the average cost of a 4-year university has doubled (in just the past 15 years http://federalstudentaid.ed.gov/static/gw/docs/FiveYearPlan_2012.pdf), meaning more students are going in debt for higher amounts just to obtain a degree for them to stand in line with the other students who now have an overpriced/under-delivered education - where many now have degrees in dying industries.

So again, I go back to my original statement. the Internet may just be saving our next generation. People are free to learn what they want/when they want it, all for the price of $39 a month.

Do I think the Internet is better than one-on-one learning? Absolutely not. But if we don't stop this decline of our standards in our Education system, it may turn out that way.

(Do I have a solution? No. But isn't that why we pay our Congressmen/Legislators?)

Social Media Strategist - Job Opening

Post by VI Marketing and Branding.

Social Media Stats to Show Your CEO

This blog by Belle Beth Cooper shows off 10 stats that will more than likely surprise you. You probably won't even click on the link to read them (although I encourage it) so let me give you the bullet points:

• The fastest growing demographic on Twitter is the 55–64 year age bracket.
• 189 million of Facebook’s users are ‘mobile only’
• YouTube reaches more U.S. adults aged 18–34 than any cable network
• Every second 2 new members join LinkedIn
• Social Media has overtaken porn as the #1 activity on the web
• LinkedIn has a lower percentage of active users than Pinterest, Google+, Twitter and Facebook
• 93% of marketers use social media for business
• 25% of smartphone owners ages 18–44 say they can’t recall the last time their smartphone wasn’t next to them
• Even though 62% of marketers blog or plan to blog in 2013, only 9% of US marketing companies employ a full-time blogger
• 25% of Facebook users don’t bother with privacy settings

While all 10 of these statistics should raise a few brows, I want to comment on three in particular - let's start with the first one:

"The fastest growing demographic on Twitter is the 55–64 year age bracket."

Twitter is for the socially obsessed, right? Those who need attention and feel the need to share every moment of every day with the world as if there is something special about the moon that THEY are seeing (as if nobody else has stepped outside that evening). My 21,000+ tweets certainly suggests that I am pointing this all-judging finger at myself, but if this is all Twitter was, would it still be around? I mean, how many "socially obsessed" people are there in this world? The answer seems to be more than the 500 million that Twitter already has, people just don't know it yet. Twitter is about as good as it gets for socially connecting online with people on a one-on-one or group-on-one basis. Twitter is more than sunsets, full moons and home-cooked meals, and it sounds like an older demographic is about to find that out.

"189 million of Facebook’s users are ‘mobile only’"

Mobile ONLY. I know I use mobile quite a bit (more than I'd like), but I also use the desktop for Facebook - yes, my job actually pays me to do that...it's a pretty sweet gig. This number '189,000,000' just blew me away. I think it says quite a bit about not only how people are using Facebook, but also about how people are consuming media in general. Does your business run commercials? If yes, that's great - but do you have a second commercial geared towards an online audience specifically? People unconsciously think of TV viewers as one set of people and online viewers as another set of people, and that just isn't the case. The same people that watch TV also get online. The same people who watch the news on your local stations more than likely ALSO have a social presence online as well. Are you reaching them offline AND online, or are you continuing to only reach them in the most expensive places (TV/Print)? TV stations and newspapers are great sources of media - but if they are going to survive (and I believe many of them will) they will need to move fully online in the next 5 years.

Target them specifically on mobile/social (by gender, by age, by interests, by habits) and pay for only the impressions that you want. Sure, 'impressions' is probably not how you should judge success of your campaign, but it would help if you knew the 1,000 impressions you paid for was to reach the 1,000 people most interested in your product.

"YouTube reaches more U.S. adults aged 18–34 than any cable network"

You should probably read that again, so here, "YouTube reaches more U.S. adults aged 18–34 than any cable network." First thought, wow, and second thought, that's a HUGE segment of the population! Every business needs to ask themselves something after reading a stat like that, "Is that age group likely to expand, or will this just be a fad and it will go away?" I am no soothsayer so I will not bet my home on it...but I'll bet my '03 Honda Civic that this new online audience will not decrease and that the amount of audiences watching/receiving content online (more than cable) will expand pass that 34 year old age group quickly. Netflix? Amazon Prime? Hulu? Apple TV? Facebook News Network (ok, that Facebook part is made that up...but what if?)? Many options are already available on the cheap and this is not a "fad" looking to leave. 

So, what is YOUR outlook on reaching a customer base in the next 12 months? 24 months? 5 years? In 5 years, people will either say about your business, "I love doing business with _______." or they'll say, "Remember when we did business with ________?"

The statement they choose to say is up to you.

NBA Player Power rankings

Photo via Andrew D. Bernstein/NBAE/Getty Images

Heading into the final week of the season, the Oklahoma City Thunder look to win the exclusive "60-Win Club" - a winning percentage that has improved every single season since the relocation to Oklahoma City in the summer of 2008.

Player Power Rankings are always a fun thing to read and debate, and no better blog breaks down the Thunder and better than Royce Young's Daily Thunder blog.

Check out his rankings here: NBA Rankings - April 15, 2013.

Do you agree with these?

Prop 8 and DOMA, What are we really arguing about?

1st Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

Everyone giving a religious reason to why the law should be a certain way, in my opinion your argument is invalid.

Church does not make laws. They did at one point - and even through force gave the world the crusades...not exactly a highlight for humanity. The church (and religion in general) can be a beautiful thing (and in many cases, proves this daily - especially in Oklahoma), but when it comes to making/setting/influencing laws history has told us that is not smart. That is why those smarter than most decided we were to have a separation in Church and State.

Considering the idea of marriage as an official sanction derived from the Church/religion I have absolutely no problem in the Church standing behind their beliefs - stand behind them 365 days a year - you have the freedom to and that's what makes America great. Shout it from the Church rooftops that you want marriage to be a man/women union as it relates to your congregation. But from a legal standpoint, let America do its thing.

What this should be is a discussion on what the country deems acceptable as it relates to citizen equality and the benefits (taxes included) that should be given to those who choose to love each other and provide for each other throughout the rest of their lives - it does not take religion to tell us that is a wonderful thing.

Maybe the problem is in the wording. Maybe the government should stop calling it marriage - and continue to harp on branding it a Civil Union - as that actually is MORE of what it truly is from a legal standpoint.

I am not smart enough to break down the tax system of the United States government, but I do know that I am smart enough to know that if I can be recognized as being united in a Civil Union by my government (and receive financial benefits from my government) and my friends (and your fellow Americans) are not legally allowed to do so - that is wrong. I think it's time we officially stop making our neighbors drink from separate water fountains.

Who Saved Whom? Blog vs. Micro-blogs

It was 2004 and unless you were in your 20s (or an enormous geek in your 30s), you considered blogging to be solely an online diary for those wanting attention. How did bloggers get the attention? Through their Juno or AOL accounts? Word-of-Mouth ("Hey, checkout my blog on the Interwebs! It's http://www.ILikeToSparkle.geocities.com! It's the greatest!) - Not too effective.

Time Magazine 2004 Best Websites List

A look through Time Magazine's 2004 Complete List of Best Websites, you'll find sites of Christmas Past like Mojam.com, Noggi.com and Yoox.com - a look through the "Communities" list and you'll probably only recognize 2 or 3 from the 8 listed (Craigslist, of course and maybe Friendster).

What was the future of Blogs (or "Web logs" as Time Magazine helpfully points out)? What would have happened if that Zuckergeek hadn't been coding his college experience away during those long nights in 2004? Thankfully, we'll never know. What we do know, is that sites like MySpace, Facebook and eventually Twitter would come to not only change the world offline - but online as well.

Blogs now had a separate community and audience to say "Hey, checkout my views on why Bush deserves a second term!" or "Here's my movie review on why the new Tom Hanks film, Ladykillers, will be his best ever!"

People no longer had to ask what blogging platform someone was writing on and then use non-helpful search boxes to search for a specific Web log. They would go to Facebook and see it posted on their friends' Facebook accounts as most of you have undoubtedly done today. Thus, blogs live on. They give the microsites, that you're now more familiar with, content and people to truly be personal journalists. Which begs the next question...who will save whom next?

Will micro-blogs save or hurt professional journalism? Only Time (Magazine) will tell.

Facebook 2004