Microsoft's "All In" Journey "To The Cloud", Full Of Hot Air & All Out Of Gas OR Azure Blue Skies Ahead?

Kevin Murphy (a former CTO and now my colleague in an EMC/Cisco cloud computing joint venture) and I were discussing the so-called Cloud Computing "To The Cloud" campaign by Microsoft, just a few days ago.
Today I read an article by Jeff Kaplan, one of my fellow contributors to the very respected INTERNET EVOLUTION media site. Jeff's piece was titled: "What Microsoft's 'To the Cloud' Ads Really Promote".
He is right that the definition of Cloud can still be considered somewhat fluid. But, quite frankly, among actual cloud buyers and vendors, there is enough general understanding and agreement of it, that Microsoft's ads cannot use a vast, errrr, umbrella definition, where everything can be stuck with the Cloud tag.
I ask: If McDonald's burgers can be promoted by a coupon in an iPhone app, is suddenly Hamburger the latest "solution" going "to the cloud"?
I agree with Jeff about how various consumer-driven technology companies' (like Amazon, Apple) great success with cloud based solutions has been a huge driver for the corporate acceptance of the concept. Nothing in these Microsoft ads makes a Cloud Computing industry or corporate buyer think of Azure, their cloud platform offering, which I see having immense potential. So, one assumes the target audience for the ads is consumers.
I think Jeff gives too much credit to Microsoft, thanking them for giving everyday meaning to users to make cloud a tangible benefit providing service. But, that is counter to the already stated fact that Apple, Amazon, FaceBook, etc. were what even Salesforce's go-to-market approach was driven by. So, in that case, Microsoft is offering too little, too late for the consumer cloud services business.
Almost nothing I see in the Microsoft cloud ads shows anything that is a specific service or feature or offering or value added solution from Microsoft. Or something they are not already familiar with. That is why I think Microsoft is doing itself a great disservice.
But, that is typical of Microsoft. When you don't understand something well enough, try to confuse everyone else. Maybe it is not intentional in the case of cloud. At least Microsoft did not completely miss the boat and then try to jump on board trying to become skipper of the cloud ship, like Larry Elison of Oracle.
Even AT&T's decade-old ads of "putting your kid to bed from a world away...." and "the company that will bring it to you, AT&T..." clearly showed the vision, and their attempt to stake a claim in the then-budding network based services future. They were touchy feely, but showed specific use-cases in a not-so-distant future. And they showed how the telecom network (a primary business of AT&T at that time) would be the carrier of such services. Not that I would trust AT&T (that shows Call Failed on my iPhone far too many time, even in areas showing full signal strength!).
Microsoft's ads for Cloud are not as lame as the Windows 7 ads I could not stand, where a dweeb (I hope that is not a dirty word) walks around the house describing things in Windows 7 that were "his idea" — yet were doable in Macs and even Windows PCs for years. But they neither serve the business audience with a clear compelling story, nor show anything that consumers can't already do.
So, what do I make of these Microsoft ads? Even while I am working at a cloud computing vendor focusing on private cloud, I feel Microsoft has huge potential to be a strong force in Cloud Computing with its Azure platform. But, it seems for now they have not completely figured out what to do, and how to do it. In the meantime, the poor marketing folks likely are under pressure to do something, air something, that shows Microsoft is committed to the cloud. Sorry guys, hate the ads, but, I've been through similar situations as you probably are in.
Even as a frequent Windows critic, I have to say the company is getting much better. Windows 7 is the first Windows OS I purchased with my own money even to run on my VMware Fusion and Parallels emulators as virtual machines rather than XP that I already had. While I could not stop laughing at the Zune, I marvel at how amazing Xbox is as a platform -- and how far behind Microsoft current consumer gadgetry king Apple is on the TV front.
I can curse at PowerPoint but I bought and love having the latest versions of Office on my Macs and Windows machines. If Apple ever thinks it can make a real play for the enterprise, all Microsoft has to do is pull the plug on Office for Mac. And, much that I love my MacBook Pros, Macs and OS X, the first thing I insisted on deploying in my CIO role was Microsoft's SharePoint --- when even the PC using techies reporting to me did not think it was a good platform. It really goes to show that Microsoft is starting to get it, and hence will be a strong competitor to any current leader. Just give it two or three years.
But here is the downside that I think Microsoft needs to be aware of. In typical fashion like many big companies with shallow understanding of disruptive market forces but deep pockets, their ads annoy those who know what Cloud is about, confuse those who don't know what Cloud is, and just enrich TV channels and an ad agency — with touchy-feely ads which mean nothing, today, or in the future.
That is just In My Humble Opinion.

The Worst Of Times, The Best Of Times To Come?

Grim economic news is all around us. Not only are individuals facing the toughest economic times, businesses are hurting and entire industries are facing extinction. There has been a lot of discussion going on about several industries. Even though the headlines may be full of news about the problems faced by individual companies - like Citibank, AIG, Bank of America, General Motors and Chrysler - few are debating whether the entire automobile, banking, insurance or even real estate industries will shut down completely. But there are several industries whose very existence is being questioned.

These include the newspaper, music, book-publishing and Hollywood film industries. Each of these industries has been in flux for more than a decade. Each has had predictions associated with it that ranged from their growing even larger and more successful to completely dying within a matter of years. In the case of each of these industries, even more than changing consumer behavior, challenging economic times, bad management or unsustainable business models, the threat cited most frequently has been the Internet.

There are several key points I make to my consulting clients in the media and technology industries when starting a discussion on crafting their strategies for the next 10 and 20 years. The reality is that the Internet did change everything. What the Internet did was give every industry an opportunity to become stronger, more efficient, more effective and smarter. Or they had to choice simply to use the Internet as just another business tool - without any thought being given to reconsidering outdated business models.

The following four industries muddled along for the last 20 years. They talked about how they were leveraging the Internet. They even started several initiatives to show how they "got" the Internet. They bought nice domain names and set up slick websites. They even hired people and gave them fancy titles like Vice President of Internet Strategy etc. but they did not truly "get" it. They did not go back to the drawing board to re-evaluate their business models and see how the Internet could help or hurt, especially if bad economic times ever hit. That is exactly what the bad times did do. They hit, and they hit hard.

That is why these are the industries most at risk. A respected commentator and very powerful writer, Cory Doctorow, had written a good piece, in Internet Evolution, analyzing these four industries. He made some good points, but I had a slightly different opinion. Here is what I think about the following industries and how they can still survive, maybe even thrive, in the coming years.

- Newspapers

Even though old industries, and their biggest players, are often threatened by new technology - it can sometimes take 100 years or more for an entire industry to die. One way to ensure that death is for the industry not to take threats to its existence seriously. In the case of the newspaper industry it is already several hundred years old (well, almost).

In the past it survived by actively leveraging all the available new technologies, from the printing press to desktop publishing, not just to survive but to thrive.

When radio and TV started to be a threat to the printed newspaper, it was the newspaper owners that went on to own most of the radio and television stations. But that means they co-opted, not leveraged, the new technologies and challenging platforms.

The reason the newspaper is having such a hard time with the Internet, especially in these dire economic times, is two-fold.
One is that the element of huge investment requirements that former newspaper (and added radio/TV) empires were built on is now gone.

As a matter of fact, it is now a serious liability. Almost anyone can now start a "newspaper" or information service. Online news services now abound. There are even white label companies and websites allowing anybody to set up their own "newspaper" simply by slapping together a combination of news feeds from multiple sources. The newspaper industry, in the meantime, remains hobbled by huge investments in real estate, printing equipment, high salaries and administrative costs.

The second is still relying on the old economic business models. An over-reliance on advertising became a disaster when first the Internet took away a lot of the advertising revenue, and then the recession killed ad sales even more. I still think newspapers, as an industry, will not die any time soon. Newspapers still offer things online media cannot do at this time. Some are tangible, some intangible.

In tangible, the quality of print and the subtleties of layout and design are still unmatched on the fanciest LCD screens or in most complex HTML pages. Intangibles, like convenience, the ability to tear out an article for later reading, are important. But most of all, permanence of record and trust, are "solid intangibles" that newspapers have not yet learnt to push into the value proposition their readers associate with them.

In my humble opinion, newspapers will survive, in new and different forms. They need to leverage and market the tangible and intangible values they offer to grow. But they can only do so if and as soon as they figure out the ability to move from a bundled "all the news we see fit to print" to an unbundled, micro-payments enabled, micro-targeted, 100% customized, personal tool and service that readers cannot live without holding in their hands.

- Music

Ironically, the death of the music labels industry will actually be the rebirth of the music industry. I do not even refer to "the long tail" business model (where the idea is that instead of making lots of money from one big splash, one can make lots of money over a long period of time, or over a large number of small sales).

The new positive fact is that creators of music can get paid directly, even 100%, from their consumer and clients - without a middleman. That renders obsolete an entire industry built on many middle layers. That means that music as an industry can actually thrive now that it is unshackled and the long overused, even clichéd "disintermediation" is here to stay.

This new world will be the death toll for middle-later but it can be music to creators' and consumers' ears. This will require a new way of doing things. Music production and distribution online have already changed the way the business is starting to run. What is still missing is musicians, bands and other talent from getting on the electronic micro-payments bandwagon (no pun intended!).

As micro-payments become more prevalent (in my opinion, the indie music scene should be one of the biggest champions of that) I see huge opportunity for musicians of all types to make good money, - even without having to rely on live performances as a source of income.

- Books

Just like the introduction of electronic documents was supposed to have brought about the death of the paper-products industry, predictions of the demise of the book industry are premature. The future of the book industry is still being written. How and where and it's published is still in the industry players' hands.

What today's technology is enabling people to do is to see themselves as potential authors, not just book buyers or readers. Lulu, Blurb, CafePress, XLibris and many others are offering to make us published authors for little cost. That means the actual number of book editions, eBooks or printed, will actually rise as almost everyone becomes an author. What will be surprising will be that the actual total number of physical book shipments will also rise.

This is almost similar to how more pages of paper went through laser printers the more documents became available to read online. In the case of the new books industry, will each one of them be a blockbuster? Most probably not.

However, even if the total number of blockbuster books physically printed goes down, in my humble opinion, the actual physical number of total books printed, using the newest services and technologies, will significantly rise.

At least for the next 30 years I still see authors believing in the higher perceived value of having a published paper-based book in their bookshelf than an eBook on their hard drive.

- Movies

Even though I am now equipped with a fully tapeless HD camera, and as well as the latest Apple tools for video editing, I do not foresee any of my creative endeavors, even in my wildest dreams, in any way threatening the amazing world of magic that comes from the best of Hollywood. (We're talking about the good stuff, not a lot of the recent Adam Sandler and Ben Stiller stuff).

The fact that some Hollywood blockbuster movies can cost $300 million is not a sustainable business model. That is not because YouTube type videos threaten it, but because of the sheer lunacy of the numbers.

The huge chunk of money that is paid to movie stars, some making $25-$30 million per movie, regardless of how famous they are, is the biggest needed cut I see coming. The falling costs of special effects and computer animation, and easier availability of the skills for them, are becoming more tangible forces on the industry. That gives technologists and the IT industry a bigger cut of the next generation Hollywood Dollars Pie.

I foresee more, and better, Hollywood movies being made for a fraction of today's costs., with more reasonably priced talent and higher reliance on technology and creativity of individuals, not large companies. Hollywood can do that while still being significantly better than most low-budget flicks, thereby ensuring it an audience worldwide, for many years to come.

Throw in the ability to make micro-payments for movies streamed or downloaded from the Internet to our devices of choice, and you can see a whole new revenue stream becoming available to sustain Hollywood as well as Bollywood.

==

Imran Anwar is a New York and Miami based Pakistani-American entrepreneur, Internet pioneer, inventor, writer and TV personality. He can be reached through his web site http://imran.com and imran@imran.com . You can follow him on Twitter at http://twitter.com/imrananwar

MADvertising: Old Stereotype Underlies Sports Authority Under Armor New Prototype

Generally, I am not a big fan of people or organizations that see, or cry, racism, or sexism, or something-ism or the other, in almost anything, even if none was implied.

However, I also strongly believe that, regardless of the (low) merits of political correctness, it is imperative for businesses, especially those in communications or consumer industries, to be cognizant of how their work(s) may be perceived. Sometimes, a racist, or bigoted, or sexist, person may deliberately create advertising, or TV characters, or movie situations that play up stereotypes. Other times it is sheer cluelessness that leads to the same results.

The latest example of such, most likely clueless, MADvertising came into my Inbox just now. It is a Sports Authority electronic promotion for Under Armor brand sportswear.



What amazes me about this image is the deliberate or inadvertent combination of racism, sexism, stereotyping as a big, strong, and apparently determined Black male is seen running after (or behind) an obviously weaker (single?) white female. Even worse, look at the expression on her face. She is not out running in a determined manner of an athlete. There is almost an expression as if she is concerned and stressed, and looking for shadows on the ground to see if someone is coming after her.

Yes, I can be accused to seeing imagery that is not there and imagining these issues where none were implied. But, that is the whole reason I call it MADvertising. Smart communicators and marketers avoid such potential pitfalls to the best of their abilities. This particular ad surely could have been done a lot better.

What do you think?

===

PS. This comment generated a lot of comments, as you can see below. I am quite amazed, and amused, by some of them, but displaying them regardless of the personal attacks. As can be seen, everyone's comments have been posted.... even the ones from the same 'anonymous' using the same computer a few minutes apart. :-)

It is also interesting to see many people completely miss my referring to this as most likely an example of clueless advertising (the world is full of more examples than just this) or MADvertising.

I think people also miss that I am personally sick of political correctness (or of pandering to particular races that a lot advertising is now doing). I am also sick of having to squint my eyes to read English instructions on product packaging because half of the space has been given up to Spanish. I detest having to choose between English and Spanish when I call banks or other companies' phone numbers. This is America. We speak English. I feel if an organization has so many customers of a particular language or ethnic group then they should set up a separate 800 number for them instead of making their (most likely) 90%+ of English speaking customers to have to select what language to speak in their own country.

But, that does not mean I can claim there is no racism here. (I will be accused of being racist for the above comment, while being accused below of seeing racism where it does not exist!)

I do raise eyebrows when I see particular ads where, for example, the likelihood of seeing Black models tends to be higher if the ad depicts some sort of stupid behavior. Again, it is not only Blacks shown doing stupid things. There are plenty of ads showing stupidity (in the name of humor) with models who are white males, females or even groups of people. (I will post something about those separately later).

But, everyone's comments are appreciated and posted here. Thanks!

Imran