State of the Media

Maybe engineers need to grow up

When you've been in the communciation game as long as I have, you want to run, screaming, from the room when a marketing guy says, "We really don't need much media coverage.  Our customers are engineers and they all talk to each other.  So we just need to reach a few of them."  I swear, if I had a dollar for everytime I heard that I'd be an angel investor (who could fire a long of marketing guys).

So when UBM TechWeb CEO Tony Uphoff tossed out a Facebook link to an article on word-of-mouth marketing I was immediately drawn to it.  I was surprised to learn, however, that the age group most influenced by word-of-mouth marketing are teenagers, while adults will use word of mouth early on in their shopping process but rely more heavily on media when they make their decision.

That immediately brought to mind the axiom above.  If it is true, that engineers make buying decisions based on what their peers tell them, without benefit of third-party input, than engineers have the research skills of high-school students.

I'm sure that's not what the marketing guys are implying.  At least not what they wanted to imply.  Maybe they should go talk it over amongst themselves.

95% Of Facebook Wall Posts Not Answered By Brands

via www.allfacebook.com

If you are a company using social media, do you ever wonder why you don't seem to be getting any results? Maybe it's because you are doing it wrong?

How often do you even look at whether anyone is engaging in your site? How often do you respond to posts. do you even take the time to find out who, exactly, is looking at your content?

Social media works, but not in a vacuum. And, yes, I am saying most companies suck at social media.

Knocking the ball back to Gabe Moretti

Just got Gabe Moretti's email newsletter where he takes me to task for bagging on the EDA industry's lack of marketing acumen.  Always like to know when people disagree with me and Gabe makes some good points.  But there was one that popped out to me:

"Lou repeats the old mantra that EDA companies area really not making the tools that the costumers want, and that should they ever get smart enough to just do that they would become widely profitable. There is nothing farther from the truth than this statement. I agree that EDA could benefit form an injection of capable marketing know how, may be even using social media. We do not need to discover what is needed to take a design to silicon: we have done that for over thirty years as an industry and longer than that as in-house CAD departments."

To which I answer with an old adage, "If you guys are so smart, why ain't you rich?"

I'm off to check out a profitable industry.  C ya.

UPDATE:

Just got home to find a big, steaming pile of DeepChip from John Cooley that talks about the acquisition of Azuro by Cadence.  John, no great lover of EDA marketing people, calls it a "fire sale" and describes Azuro as a company that could not market itself properly, in spite of having great technology.  As I was saying...

DAC is here and EDA begins the Rodney Dangerfield impressions

Just got the latest newsletter from Gabe Moretti. He opens with an overview of #DAC and gives a pretty good critique of the weak attempt to bring attention to embedded software at the conference, but about midway through he blames the media's lack of attention to the industry on parochialism.  He specifically calls out United Business Media's scheduling of ESC Chicago at the same time as DAC.

"Finally, has anyone noticed that ESC20 is taking place in Chicago during DAC?  Once again the EDA industry falls victim of parochialism, and the greed to make money at the expense of both users and vendors.  People at UBM certainly knew the DAC schedule.  So couldn't they schedule ESC20 around DAC?"

Let's call a spade a spade here. #EDA doesn't get attention from the media because they make no effort to explain themselves or their reason for being.  The attitude that "a good product sells itself" is stupid marketing, especially when your definition is yours alone.  In order to know if you've actually made something worth buying, you have to know what the market thinks is good. And you don't know that unless you invest in marketing... which EDA doesn't.

But let's just say UBM did make a conscious decision to rain on EDA's parade. Why would they think of doing that? Could it be that they make a boatload of money promoting an industry that actually pays for advertising and exhibit space from them? Could it be that putting a major conference at a transportation hub that can be easily reached by direct flights from all the nations of the world makes more sense than placing it at a vacation backwater that requires multiple stops to reach (San Diego doesn't make the top 10 of any business or vacation list I can find)? Could it be that there is more going on in other industries judging from the level of "news" I have seen coming from EDA companies the past few weeks, I think I know that answer)?

There was a time when mahor publication houses bent over backwards to cover the EDA industry.  EE Times, at one time had four editors dedicated to covering the industry and only two to the much larger industry of semiconductors itself.  Today, Electronic Products, Electronic Design, EE Times, Chip Design and a couple of online pubs all cover the industry and it's events, but not as comprehensively as in the past for the very simple reason that it is unprofitable to do so.

Just because you think you are important doesn't make it so. You have to demonstrate value, not assume everyone knows it.  Trust me, it's not the media being parochial. It's the industry.  Wake up and smell the coffee folks.  And stop being so damned cheap.

How to make a presentation hard to follow

 Last week I went to the inaugural Smart Power Grid Technology Conference put on by ISQED.  It was a great conference with about 100 engineers packed into a tiny conference room in a Santa Clara hotel.  Lots of great information... if you worked hard to get to it.  And as I watched about five presentations I came to the realization that these guys must have had the same presentation training.  So I decided to go looking for the school they went to over the weekend.  I found it.  It was in the basement and a San Francisco cigar store.  The sign, hanging from a single nail on the left side on the door, said “Crappy Presentation University” in 9-point type.  So I went in.  What luck! There was a class in session.  Here are some excerpts:

1. Typography:  If you use a font that is clear enough and large enough for people in the back rows to see, they will get your point right away, so whenever possible use a font that is difficult to read even if you printed the slide out and were holding it one foot in front of your face.  That way, when it is projected on the screen, it’s possible that the people in the first two rows will be able to read it, but no one else will.  Whenever possible use a very thin, calligraphic font, tightly kerned so the text looks pretty to the one or two women in the audience. they won’t know what you are talking about but they may appreciate your artistic sensibilities.  Remember, the more illegible the text, the harder it is for them to follow you.
2. Staging and Lighting: Whenever possible, in fact, at all times, stand in front of the projector and block half the slide.  If you stand in such a way that the light makes you squint and blink, all the better.  It will make your audience wonder why you are blocking everything and they won’t pay attention to what you are saying.  If you wear glasses, angling your head correctly might make it possible for the light to bounce off the lenses and temporarily blind individuals in the audience.  The disorientation will las for as much as two minutes.
3. Audience interaction: Use the slides as a script, reading the words exactly on the screen to the audience.  Assume they are illiterate idiots.  If you are opening the event for several speakers, tell them what is about to come, even if you have already given them programs.  Once you finish your presentation, tell them they will enjoy the day.  Don’t let them make up their minds from the content.  At all time, limit your audience’s ability to make decisions for themselves.  Extra credit:  If you represent a large, well-known and successful company, make sure you spend the first five minutes introducing your company and how great it is, assuming your audience are morons who have no understanding of their own industry.
4. Content:  Whenever possible, avoid the subject matter of the conference and just do a sales pitch for your products. This is especially ineffective when the audience has no purchasing authority.
5. Audio: If there is a microphone, try not to use it.  It is much more ineffective to wander back and forth and yell at the audience.  When you first step away from the microphone, ask the people in the back if they can hear you.  If they don’t respond, assume they heard your question and start talking.
6. Graphics: When putting together graphics, remember the rule about fonts.  The elements must be small enough that only the first two rows can decipher.  And put as many as possible on each slide connecting them with arrows that denote some sort of flow.  Never, under any circumstances, explain that flow.  It doesn’t matter.  There just has to be the assumption of a flow.  Extra  credit:  When describing a particular graphic, always highlight to what you are talking about by pointing directly at your computer screen, never on the projection screen. That way you will know what you are talking about, but, with any luck, your audience never will.

 After the lesson I went up and talked tot he instructor. I said I noticed that he did not use any kind of presentation technology to deliver the lesson.  He explained that they guaranteed their students would learn to give ineffective presentations. If he actually employed any of the techniques they described, they would never learn anything, so they don’t use them.

Very instructive.

 

Brian Fuller nails it.

The redoubtable Brian Fuller posted a great column on EE Life today and I just had to share it with you.  I think it closes the door on whether engineers are or will embrace social media.  Anyone who doesn't see this is destined for the unemployment line.

Who's in charge? Finale

The announcement of Steve Jobs taking another medical leave is an unfortunate but timely bit of news to put this series wrap up in perspective.  Jobs has established Apple as the leading consumer electronics company in the world.  For all intents and purposes, what Apple does drives the rest of the industry. Apple did not introduce the media player, it just made one that most people could use.  Apple did not introduce music sharing, it just made it legally acceptable.  Apple did not introduce the smart phone, it just made the smart phone practical for the mass market.  Apple did not introduce the tablet computer, it just reintroduced it when the public actually wanted one.  Jobs was at the center of all these decisions. 

Important to note: Jobs is not an engineer.  He has some technical experience but he has stated the college course that was most responsible for the creation of the Mac was a calligraphy class he audited at Reed College, shortly after he had dropped out of the school.  What made him successful was not technical knowledge.  He knew smart engineers that could realize his ideas, but the engineering never interested him.  The user experience did.  This is the man that has driven the direction of the electronics world for most of the past two decades.  But if he showed up today at any of the leading electronics companies for a job, he would not even get in as a janitor.

Yesterday, after establishing my evidence for the lack of vision or even understanding of the consumer market within the leadership of the electronics industry (most of whom are engineers) I said something drastic had to be done.  I repeat my assertion from the first part of the series: Engineers need to be removed from the management of the electronics industry. Specifically:

1. Any member of management, in fact, that cannot demonstrate a basic understanding of modern communications practices (yes, that includes Twitter) needs to be contained in the engineering division and kept away from the financial and technological marketing decisions.  This includes anyone in finance that continues to defund marketing programs. These people should be replaced with personnel within the company that have this knowledge, or my consultants who can step in immediately. (I can make recommendations.  In fact, I know several in EDA companies that should be recruited)
2. Any marketer who utters the phrases: "We know who our customers are...," needs to be reassigned.
3. Any employee who asks: "What is the ROI...?" and cannot answer the same question for the company's product in specifics and on his own job, needs to be shown the door.
4. Budgets must be immediately reworked.  At least 1 percent of R&D budgets should be reassigned to real market research.  If staffing does not provide for that research, it must be acquired either through personnel or outsourcing.  At least 10 percent of all trade show budgets should be applied to social media budgets, including measurement tools (If you want to know how, my rates are reasonable. If you don't want to work with me I can suggest a lot of good people) At least 10 percent of sales collateral budgets, including that assigned to press releases, should be reassigned to advertising, based on the information developed by the new market research and input from the conversation developed from the social media program.
5. Everyone in the company with any connection to the decisions of company direction and vision should be required to spend at least 15 minutes a day maintaining a social media presence and conversation, and then providing regular reports to management about what they have found. (there are tools available to manage this process.)

I would make a comment about venture capitalists working in the electronics industry, but they abandoned it long ago so I don't think there is any point in bringing it up

We have a very short window to turn this mess around.  Let's get to work now or call the grave diggers.  There will be no bail-out this time.

Being in good company in the 21st Century

Looking back over the past decade has not been easy for me.  The recession really began in 1999 and is just now coming around in my view.  It's been a rough 10 years and I'd rather not dwell on it.  There have been some very good things that have come out of it, however.  One is the satisfaction that I was pretty much right how things would go (pat on the back), even though I was unable to change the outcome (sigh of resignation).  Another has been watching my family cope with the negative changes and seeing them adapt and support me and each other.  As an only child with two dead parents and no other family ties it has been great having these remarkable people teach me what family means... even though we don't seem to be like any other family we know.

But the one grand thing of the past decade has been the new relationships that have developed over the past 10 years and that have been honed by the use of social media.  At present, I have more than 1500 relationships spread over Facebook, Skype, Twitter, Linkedin, DeHood all of which, at one time or another, have provided insight, support, opposition, laughter tears, prayers... everything that a physical relationship provides but spread throughout the world.  There is pretty much no place in the world I can go and not have a friend within a two-hour drive.

These relationships have helped me adapt  to what the world is today.  One of those key relationships has been Brian Fuller of EE Times who recently posted about reinventing yourself.  That's not an easy thing to do and I've done it several times in my lifetime.  I've went from music teacher to top-40 DJ to birdcage cleaner at Marine World before I hit 20.  Then came journalism, professional minister and nuclear weapon systems technical editor. That preceded freelance writer, marcom management, PR for semiconductor companies and then communications consultant... which is kinda what I am today but the definition is still morphing.  But it has been the support of my family and friends, the insight of people like Brian, Dan Holden and IdaRose Sylvester that has showed me that evolution is not a goal but a process.

And as we enter into this second decade of the 21st century I hope that is an encouragement for those who are still trying to find where or if they fit in.  I'm here to tell you that if you don't fit into your current hole, there is another waiting for you.  Don't wait for your environment to change to suit you.

Don't evolve! Legislate or litigate!

The hot weather must be making me cranky.  I'm stewing over the return of competitive litigation over competitive innovation and then I read Bill Schweber's blog over at EE Life about a potential mandate from Congress to put an FM chip in every cell phone.

So I decided to do a little research and found an article on Information Week finding that this non-taxpayer funded bailout of the radio industry and the recording industry. In exchange for bumping up bogus listener numbers to boost ad sales, the NAB is promising to to pay the recording industry $100M annually for broadcasting music. 

If the adage, The road to economic recovery is through innovation" I guess this means that we are recovered since we seem to be moving to an attitude of stopping people from doing something different and making sure the government and the courts are helping us do it.

Really folks, isn't there something better we can be doing right now?

Your good-news-from-unexpected-source of the week

I closed our storage facility today (finally got rid of a bunch of crap) and was saying good bye to the lady I've been working with for several years as we've been consolidating, recycling and tossing stuff and she gave me a very hopeful economic indicator.  She says things are looking up.

OK, is she crazy?  Maybe, she's got kind of a wild look in her eye, but she's been working in the self-storage business for several decades, and like me, she has seen her share of recessions.  She told me about five years ago she predicted to her bosses that a recession was coming based on patterns she has seen in the storage usage of Stanford students.  They told her she was crazy then, but she started making plans accordingly.  

So what is the pattern?

Whenever a recession is about to hit, Stanford students start consolidating stored materials in shared units.  Whenever the economy is about to rebound, they start getting their own units for their own stuff.  She said the pattern has repeated itself for every recession she's seen since she started in the industry during the Carter administration.  It usually takes about two years to see the actual effect of the downside or the upside of the pattern.

So, why does she think things are on the upswing?

She just closed out the last shared unit this morning.  All Stanford students using units at the three facilities she manages all now have their own.  

Hope, like gold, is where you find it.