according to Brandweek, Apple just revealed that it sold one million iPads in less than a month. It took the iPhone twice as long to get this many sales. The iPad will be sold internationally later this month. I was kind of doubtful that this product would be successful so it has been very interesting to see how many have been sold.
Starbucks has recently announced that stores in over 1000 Targets and other locations in Seattle and California will now accept mobile payment using the Starbucks Card Mobile Application. Using this application, the customer can pay for their coffee by scanning their phone at the point of sale. All they have to do is enter their card number and the phone will display a barcode can be used the same way as the Starbucks Card to make purchases. “Now that customers can use the Starbucks Card Mobile application at Starbucks locations within Target stores nationwide, they will have more opportunities to experience the ease and convenience of paying for their favorite Starbucks beverage with a flash of their iPhone or iTouch devices” says Brad Brewer, vice president of Starbucks Card for Starbucks.
This application is targeted to any Starbucks junkie, however it is extremely convenient for someone who commutes and gets Starbucks every morning because they are typically on a tight schedule and their time is valuable. It’s for someone who likes to get coffee everyday on their morning commute but can’t afford to wait in a long line to pay. No one wants to miss their daily cup of coffee because they are running late, and no one wants to be late because they had to get their daily cup of coffee. Making paying for their drinks and food so much easier and faster by speeding up the line queue time and the time it takes to purchase their items will help these loyal customers out. Having a card like this on a phone is good because you don’t need to pull out your wallet and it can’t be lost. It’s also convenient for Starbucks to use this type of a mobile card because it’s helpful in keeping track of customers and analyzing consumer behavior. It’s a good marketing move because if customers have put money on this card on their phone, they will be way more inclined to get coffee at Starbucks than anywhere else.
A recent Google conviction concerning privacy laws and the website’s liability over the user-generated content it hosts could have a huge impact on Web 2.0 and the digital age. Not only is this case current and relevant, it is being considered to having a huge impact on the operations of the Internet. Three Google executives have been criminally charged and held responsible for a video posted on the their website in 2006, claiming that it violated the privacy of the subject featured in it. The video at the center of this case is a three-minute cell phone video featuring teenagers bullying a boy with Down’s Syndrome that was posted in to Google Video, before they bought YouTube. Once an advocacy group found this unarguably questionable, it was taken down by Google after being viewed about 500 times and the bullies were identified. The controversy remains over the fact that Google had allowed it to make it to the website in the first place. When looking at this case, it’s important to remember that this took place in Turin, Italy, not the United States, but nonetheless affects the Internet all over the world.
This is the one of the first instances in which individuals have faced personal criminal charges for violations of data protection laws occurring by the company they work for. Currently, Google doesn’t screen anything before publishing it, and United States law as well as European Union copyright law protects them from liability if they respond to offensive or questionable content, but the law in Italy is not protecting these men. So, this conviction is implying that the Google isn’t a tool for users, it’s more comparable to media such as newspapers or television that provide content that should be regulated. This is a real challenge to the business model Google has built itself on, where the responsibility lies with the users to control the content, not the company itself too.
Google defends itself by claiming “We feel that bringing this case to court is totally wrong. It’s akin to prosecuting mail service employees for hate speech letters sent in the post. What’s more, seeking to hold neutral platforms liable for content posted on them is a direct attack on a free, open Internet”. None of the employees charged actually had anything to do with the offending video, they were just company executives. They are also arguing that the ruling contradicted a European Union law that gives service providers a safe harbor from liability for the content they post. Many U.S. technology associations are defending Google for fear of what this conviction may do to the future of the Internet. “If the conviction is allowed to stand, it will chill the provision of Web 2.0 services that provide user-generated content platforms” claims Leslie Harris, president of Democracy for Technology. Seems like there is a push to suppress Internet freedom. The lawyer defending Google called the verdict astonishing and “It attacks the very principles of freedom on which the internet is built,” “If that ’safe harbor’ principle is swept aside and sites like Blogger, YouTube and indeed every social network and any community bulletin board, are held responsible for vetting every single piece of content that is uploaded to them — every piece of text, every photo, every file, every video — then the web as we know it will cease to exist, and many of the economic, social, political and technological benefits it brings could disappear.”
This case is a perfect example of the new ethical and legal questions that come with new technologies. Privacy is obviously a gray area when it comes to the legalities of sites like this, so new laws or clearer laws should be made so that other executives can avoid this fate.
Sources:
“Google conviction could have wide impact on Web”. The Salt Lake Tribune. 26 Feb. 2010. http://www.sltrib.com/business/ci_14471210
Donadio, Rachel. “Larger Threat Is Seen In Google Case.” The New York Times. 24.Feb. 2010.http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/25/technology/companies/25google.html
Welcome to the digital age, where marketing is all about focusing on mass customization over mass production and the more personalized a product or experience feels, the better consumers' attitudes are toward it. It’s easy for small businesses to make a customer feel that they are special and have the ability to cater to that person’s specific needs and wants, but up until recently this seemed to be a problem for huge companies that really based their marketing strategy around efficiently producing high quality products to their extremely large customer base. When you introduce the Internet into this mix, the problem is basically solved. Technology gives these corporations easy ways to make the customer’s experience more personalized and customized whether it’s welcoming a returning shopper to the website by name or letting that person customize their product to fit their needs and style. Nike ID and Puma Mongolian BBQ sites go with the latter strategy, letting their customers design their own sneakers on the website and then purchase them if they are happy with the outcome.
Buying sneakers is so overwhelming that if you are not completely loyal to one brand, you won’t even know where to begin. Each sneaker brand (Puma, Nike, Reebok, etc.) has so much to choose from. Sneakers are now commonly used to express style so they way they look can be just as important as they way they function. Instead of Nike and Puma designing a look for your sneaker, you are in charge of the look, giving you control over the customization we crave in this day and age. This option is offered on each company’s online store homepage. Puma’s grabbed my interest because of the quirky “Mongolian Shoe BBQ” title, while Nike’s site basically had you search for their ID option. I think Puma was a lot more effective in directing their customer to the page that enabled them to customize their own shoes. It also took me a while to figure out that you could customize any type of sneakers, not just the ones being featured at the time. Puma’s site gave you a few options to choose from, but not as many. As a picky shopper who is used to the idea of endless choices, I felt this lack of freedom was irattating and began this process with a negative feeling towards Puma. The more choices a consumer is given the better their attitude will be about the experience, especially in today's age of rampant consumption.
I’ve always worn Nikes therefore I was familiar with the concept of the Nike ID, however this was the first time I tried to customize my own sneakers and I was surprised to see how fun and easy it was. I went to try to customize some running shoes. The website lets you change an existing product or if you really want to get creative, start with a completely plain shoe. I will definitely be the only girl on the treadmill with bright green shoes. The site was fast, easy, and very straightforward. There were also videos of professional athletes endorsing the product, giving it more credibility. Nike used technology really well, making it almost impossible for the shopper to NOT watch this video because it was on the same page they were focused on.
Puma’s website is a little different. It’s set up like a Mongolian BBQ restaurant. It was a lot more interactive with sound and “menus” to choose your shoe from. The only thing that struck me as odd was that the site didn't seem to have any relevance to shoes because it was so similar to a website you would find for an actual Mongolian BBQ restaurant. The fun and interactive direction the brand is going for made me smile, but I’m not sure it made me like it better than Nike. Nike had no problem with displaying it's famous "swoosh" logo all over the website as well the brand's name. It made the experience a little more relevant for me. Instead of being at a restaurant, I knew I was at a shoe store and this made me want to design the best shoes for myself, instead of just playing around on the site. Note how it’s interesting that basic graphics and animation threw me off task.
Both sites seemed to use technology to the fullest in order to make the customer experience better. You could even write anything on the shoes you wanted, taking customization to the highest level possible. Unless anyone has my name AND lucky number, I should really have one of a kind shoes.
Whether it was the fact that I got to design my own shoes or the fact that both sites let me write on those shoes to personalize them, something about the whole experience made it a lot better than simply ordering a pre-made shoe online or going into the store, looking for a specific style and coming out disappointed. I was in control of my shopping experience and designed sneakers that fit my personality and style. Check them out and tell me what you think!
