Al Ries is Wrong, Part 2
In my last post – on a dare to evaluate an Al Ries video – I launched into a rather lengthy rant about why the internet would lead to the eventual obsolescence of traditional TV. Leave it to one of my colleagues (thank you, Justin) to make my point much clearer: “It’s not about the convergence of technologies, but the convergence of mediums.”
The main thrust of the Ries Report video was not really about TV-PC convergence, but used it as an example of convergence hype gone awry. He mainly employed the concept of convergence to predict the failure of Apple’s iPhone. “All hype, all hot air, no sales in the long run.”
Let me explain. No, there’s no time. Let me sum up. Al Ries believes that divergence is good; convergence is bad.
To demonstrate divergence, Mr. Ries uses several examples, including telephones: first there were regular phones, then cordless phones, walkie-talkies, and cell phones. He forgot two cans with string stretched out between them …
Convergence? “Well, with all the hype, everyone in the world is running around trying to put two things together that don’t belong together.”
As examples of the dangers inherent in the urge to converge, Mr. Ries – and this was hilarious – runs down a list of convergence failures: a Refrigerator-TV, Radio-Binoculars, Radio-Toaster, Camera-Printer, a Hamburger Hotel (a personal favorite), and MP3 Sunglasses.
Mr. Ries compares Apple’s iPod (divergence) with the iPhone (convergence). The iPod is a divergence device because it was the first high-capacity MP3 player unlike the original, low-capacity, versions. He implies that the iPhone is just another cell phone, and is thus doomed to fail. And here is where – if we use his own thesis – he is wrong.
With the iPhone, Apple has created an interactive user experience that surpasses other smart (cell) phones. Its large, touch screen user interface and internet browsing feature represents true innovation (divergence). Every iPhone feature is a simple touch away, and its screen does not offer a menu bar or other confusing buttons.
If Apple’s iPhone fails – as Mr. Ries suggests – it will not be because it is a “convergence device,” but because of flaws in 1-3 of the 4 Ps (no one can argue with how Promotion has been handled):
- The Product does not live up to its hype, or it is not substantially different than other Smart Phones.
- The Price is too steep (Up to $599 is a little pricey for a unique fixer-upper).
- Placement becomes an issue due to the exclusivity deal with AT&T.
Despite all of its recent marketing coups, don’t forget some Apple blunders: the Apple Lisa (1983), or the more relevant point, their refusal to share the Apple operating system with generic (or other) PC manufacturers, which opened the door for Windows and the explosive Microsoft growth that nearly buried them! The AT&T deal could prove to be equally limiting to the product’s success.
In my opinion, the easy to use, interactive experience with fewer features make the iPhone a divergence device not, as Mr. Ries insists, a convergence one. Look for it to be a big hit.
Al Ries is Wrong, Part 1
An industry peer recently insisted that I view an Al Ries video on the subject of Convergence (http://riesreport.com/index.php?video_id=16), and dared me to dispute his contention that high-tech convergence does not work, and never will.
Before I start, let me first go on record stipulating that Al Ries is one of my personal heroes. In the video, his examples and opinions are funny, insightful, provocative, and in many instances – wrong.
“TV / PC convergence will never happen!” I watched Mr. Ries assert with conviction. In a sense, this is true. The PC will not converge with TV, but disinter mediate it. TV, as we know it, eventually disappears, and the PC becomes TV. Think of the computer as the modern day equivalent of the Model T and Broadcast & Cable TV as the horse and buggy. You get the picture.
Broadcast and Cable TV networks are distribution systems, and TV sets are merely receivers. Broadband, when it reaches its true potential, renders both moot, because it combines (converges) content with distribution. The internet becomes the distribution system, and the PC, in whatever iteration – desktop, laptop, wireless, or hand-held – becomes the receiver. What about screen size? Right now, I can plug my computer in to any flat-panel monitor in the house and watch streaming video on a big screen.
So, TV / PC convergence will never happen? It’s already happening. Need proof?
More than a million visitors watched streaming video of March Madness round one b-ball games on their computers during the first two days of this year’s NCAA Division I Tournament, and these numbers would have been far higher with greater delivery capacity.
I can visit AOL’s in2TV and watch episodes of classic favorites like I Spy, The Man From U.N.C.L.E., and Gilligan’s Island, all for FREE, and in Gateway 24″ Widescreen, Digital splendor!
Sony is now offering mini TV episodes on MySpace. The so-called “Minisode Network,” cuts down sitcoms, dramas, and talk shows into 3-5 three-to-five minute chunks (a sad commentary on the state of episodic TV when one can truncate a sixty-minute show into five minutes without viewers missing anything).
Production companies routinely post TV pilots on the web in an effort to generate enough viewer interest to get them placed on network schedules. I ask, “Who needs the networks?
Later, I discovered that TV Guide has a new online video feature, “What to watch on the web,
” and they boast that they have listings for 13,881 shows. After checking it out, I found thousands of shows on the web that I’d love to watch and will never have the time to. Brilliant!
When confronted with these findings, my peer grudgingly admitted that he never watches Sports Center highlights on cable’s ESPN, but watches them religiously at ESPN.com. Absolutely loves the videos and hates the pre-roll ads (hasn’t bothered to watch the last 50!). As an aside, and to recap: never watches on TV; never misses online; and, is immune to the push of pre-roll. My peer is not alone. A staggering percentage of internet video viewers either detest pre-roll ads or dismiss them altogether. Anyone in traditional advertising paying attention? Didn’t think so.
In the end, viewers are loyal to shows (content) not networks (distribution). Do I really need TV networks once image quality, image size, and interactive features catch up to my desire for what I want, how I want it, and when I want it via the web? As long as I can find the content, I don’t care how it gets to me.
Here’s how it might work: a production company posts a new webisode on the internet. A fan of the show, I have subscribed to their RSS feed, which alerts me when the new (original) content is available for viewing, and I check it out at my convenience. Interactivity allows me to pause the show at any time to pursue an interest I might have in a featured product. For instance, I could click on the car a character is driving to see a promotional video of the vehicle in action, or browse through a web-based version of the model’s catalog. I might even make an impulse buy, if I have enough dough and need a new car. And then, it’s back to the irregular, unscheduled webcast.
This scenario won’t play out overnight, but it is coming. Once distribution capacity reaches critical mass, the advertising / marketing community figures out a viable business model, and others develop simplified, menu-driven search, TV goes away.
Mr. Ries covers a lot of ground while discussing his 22 Disputable Laws of Convergence and Divergence.* In upcoming blogs, find out why I believe Mr. Ries has confused convergence with synergy and divergence with innovation; and, why he is mistaken about the future of Apple’s iPhone. Hint: one of the iPhone’s key features is an innovation that – by Mr. Ries’ definition – makes it a divergence device and not a convergence device as he insists.
Stay Tuned.
*My apologies … couldn’t resist.
