Modern Tech Has Turned Us into a Bunch of Neutered Wimps



A recent family vacation provided a fascinating revelation about the current impact of tech. And it depressed the hell out of me.

Here’s the backstory:

We have a cat. Well, more specifically, my wife and kids have a cat. I personally hate cats. But the creature came with the deal. So, I am now a cat owner. Kind of sucks.

One of the cat-owner problems that I inherited was the ‘what do we do with this beast when we go away for an extended period of time?’ problem. I always assumed you just sent the damn thing to some cat hostel and be done with it – but since the cat in question is like 95 years old in cat years, we are unable to leave the thing in some unfamiliar environment or it will die of xenophobic shock. So, we had to hire some kid to come over a few times a day to “be the human” and give the cat some company.

Another challenge we had to manage was feeding the damn thing. The kid we hired couldn’t come over and feed the cat consistently enough to keep it alive so we needed to come up with another solution. So, the geek that I am, I purchased one of those auto-feeder things. This one specifically:

Screen Shot 2016-06-07 at 3.14.37 PM 1

I got the thing set up, timing it to dispense 3 small servings of dried feline nibs 3x a day – at 7am, 1pm and 7pm.

Before the trip, we tested it out for a few days. The cat responded well. It even got to the point that the beast sat and stared at the thing like a horny freak at 6:59 – waiting for it to spit out its portion of dried bounty.

So, we shoved off for our vacation – my wife and kids secure in the knowledge that consistent food and company would be provided to the animal.

Upon returning and seeing that the cat was still alive and properly fed, we collectively determined that the food dispensing wizamajig was so good that we would just keep using it. So now, instead of the kids having to feeding the cat 3x a day, we simply re-filled the food reservoir once a week. One full load was enough to feed the cat for about 5 days. It was a lot easier – and it removed a chore from the kids to-do list.

After a week of this, I noticed something fascinating, and heart-breaking.

Something I really did not fully appreciate before becoming an accidental cat owner is that cats are born hunters. As such, at night, every night – and when we all left for the day – the cat would, well, hunt.

It would bring us offerings – mostly stuffed animals from the beds of the girls, and leave them in the hallway; strategically placed in front of doors or in the middle of the living room – as if to say, “Thanks, man, for the food and shelter and shit. Here’s some fresh kill. Let’s keep it coming. You all rock.”

This nocturnal hunting ritual was accompanied by a loud series of yelps and meows. This night yelping and hunting became a ritualistic moment for all of us – and it became part of the regular cacophony of sounds associated with our NYC apartment living.

Despite my dislike for cats, this nightly hunting observance struck a chord with me. Listening to the cat, I connected to this primal activity – and how the animal’s vestigial instinct carried on even in this modern urban environment.

What had happened is that once we set up the feeding contraption, the cat stopped hunting.

No more night yelping, no more stuffed animal eating, no more, well, cat balls.

What I came to realize is that by simply automating a helping of dried cat nuggets 3x a day, we essentially removed its need for instinctual survival behaviors. We gave the cat a techno-neuter.

The hunting ritual was the cat’s own internal way of maintaining its instinctual connection to its own survival. On some level – pre-contraption -the creature associated its hunting ritual with us providing its food.

The “animals” that the cat “killed” were not edible, but they nonetheless satisfied its feline instinct. Somehow this ritual linked us humans to its survival. Pre-contraption, the cat took an active role in its feeding. This “relationship” was part of its instinct engine. It was part of the cat’s identity – tied back to eons of evolution.

And the techno grub-feeder made all of this obsolete.

It was depressing to witness.

Upon coming to this realization, I immediately removed the batteries from the device and told the kids that the auto-feeding respite was over.

Damn if the beast didn’t start hunting again that evening. Its primal directive re-activated, almost within hours.

In addition to the cat neutering, the introduction of the grub-feeder also eliminated one of the core responsibilities from the kid’s chore rituals. This realization brought to focus how this was happening in other areas – that the same had been done-in by the dishwasher, and the auto-coffee maker, and the remote controls. These devices had turned my kids into lazy blobs of couch beef.

Here’s where it gets even sadder.

I have an older stepson, who is 21, and like most throbbing young men, he uses Tinder and other dating apps.

He was over for dinner last week and I watched in amazement – like an old grizzled fart looking at a TV for the first time – as my son casually swiped away pictures of babe after babe, determining which one he wanted to slay that evening.

After my initial amazement wore off (‘holy mother of moly, if we had this when I was a kid…’) it was replaced by despair. I realized that with this contraption he and his ilk would never fully appreciate the value of the hunt. And even worse, he is being stripped of a scarring ritual that made me – and my entire generation – who we are today.

The heart-pounding act of walking straight up to a girl, face-to-face, looking her right in the eyes, smelling her perfume, and asking her on a date – and getting rejected – is just as inherent a part of the human experience as a cat hunting for its supper.

Primal interpersonal rituals like courting and proposing (and breaking up) build character, create skills, and formulate the rites of passage that we take into our adult lives. I saw that hidden behind the protective veil of these digital dating gizmos, his generation will miss out on an entire component of personal development. Learning to navigate the pick-up ritual is as critical to young people as the eggshell is to the baby chicken. The mere act of breaking out of the shell builds strength and provides that initial proving rite to development.

Technology is stripping us of our connection to human trial and error. Human connection is no longer necessary. We have become encased in a soft, fluffy protective shield from the very things that gave our ancestors the grit to endure and propagate. Our reliance on technology is propagating a society of soft, untested, pantywaists.

Mind you, I am not saying that this is the end of society. Being a mobile technology advocate and self avowed nerd, I am fully aware of how advancements in technology have made the world as a whole a better place.

I have simple become more aware of the reality that the rise of the mobile era is making our kids miss out on an entire spectrum of developmental experience – who will never fully appreciate what these rites of passage provide. Sure, more is possible, and the wonders of mobile and automated technologies are endlessly fascinating and brilliant.

But at what cost?


Great Brands are Born.

famous-brands-collageGreat Brands are Born that way.

Great Brands, like great sales people, are born.

The idea is quite simple (sort of). Here’s how it works: Someone with an idea, or inspiration and some talent – creates a product. It delivers value to its users, remains consistent, and stays true to its inherent promise. The product, its name, packaging and associated imagery become entrenched in the hearts and minds of its satisfied consumers. A Brand is Born. That’s it.

It’s not a chicken and egg sort of thing. This formula is like gravity – or time.

The sequence of events is simple:

Product or service is created.

Product or service is awesome.

Product or service consistently delivers on its promise no matter what.

Outcome: Great Brand. Or Born Brand.

This dynamic remains consistent throughout all industries.

Take music, for example.

Led Zeppelin simply wrote and performed the greatest sound imaginable in the history of rock. (Go ahead, argue). Four guys in a room, banging it out. Making magic and delivering the goods – time over time over time. My children’s children will be listening to Dazed and Confused (a live recording, I hope) and will no doubt be experiencing the same feelings of awe that I did back in 1974.

They BECAME a brand.

A Born Brand.

And here’s the key: They never set out to become one.

They just did what they did, solved what they solved, delivered what they delivered – and did it better than anyone.

Their resulting Brand was an OUTCOME of their excellence and consistency.

Then something happened.

Corporations got their hands on this great new thing called Brand Marketing.

“What a great brand!” “Let’s build a brand!”

This spawned the era of the petri dish-ification of Brands. Scientifically researched, focus group approved, pre-packaged brands – built just for you.

A good example of this reverse engineering is Blue Moon Beer. Masquerading as a hipster microbrewery, Blue Moon is actually produced by suds-giant Coors Brewing Company. Blue Moon is the spawn of a Brand Strategy team at Coors who were looking to appeal to the artisanally inclined, home-spun, Billyburg / Portland set (and all of the poor lost souls who for some bizarre reason aspire to emulate them). Blue Moon’s Belgian White recipe with the trademark orange-slice garnish and “Artfully Crafted” product messaging are all components of a marketing scheme engineered to capitalize on the then-burgeoning beer-craft hoopla taking over universities and farm-to-table restaurants in gentrified neighborhoods near you.

The brand’s TV spots expertly tell a story about a basement grown beer product and feature two local hip-meisters regaling the story of how the orange peel garnish accidentally became the crowing identifier of the brew. Cutesy, folksy, accessible, home grown, the messaging emulates a sense of organic discovery. But it’s all smoke and mirrors. Now the product itself may taste good, but this is not a truly Born Brand.

Modern Brands are engineered in a lab by Corporate Marketers and Product Engineers in the pursuit of category representation in new or emerging markets.

Invariably, and not without irony, most of these new markets (like the micro-brew market) were inspired by the emergence of authentic products made by people who simply wanted to share their passion or clever idea with others – or, by Born Brands.

Markets that were created by Born Brands:

  • Starbucks: Coffee Bar
  • FedEx: Overnight Delivery anywhere
  • Coke: Soft Drinks
  • The New York Dolls: Punk Rock
  • Sony: Personal Music Player
  • IBM or Apple (let the argument begin): Personal Computers
  • Levi Strauss: Blue Jeans
  • McDonald’s: Fast Food
  • Disney: Animated Entertainment

Each of these Born Brands spawned a new market and each quickly became populated by competitors and imitators.

Some of them succeeded in creating a brand following, others did not.

However, one thing is certain: Born Brands are here to stay – even long after they are dead and buried. Born Brands bring something to the marketplace that a run-of-the-mill Corporate Engineered brand cannot: Legacy.

Born Brands in their pristine form cannot be engineered.

But some would argue that this is not the case.

Is a test tube baby a “real” baby?

Was Neo a “real” human?

Hard to make the case against both for sure. Purists would argue that Born Brands are “true” and “authentic” brands. And it makes sense. A 2014 study by Cohn & Wolf on Brand Authenticity revealed -among other things -that 63% of global consumers would buy from a company they consider to be authentic, over and above competitors.

While suckers are born every minute, consumers are savvy to fakery and pretense. They may take a bite, but they don’t stick around and order another plate.

Brand Marketing as a science has spawned a galaxy of products and services that have no soul. And we marketers have become their enablers.








Thoughts on the Agency Business Development process…

tombstone_smallDespite my focus on mobile marketing for the last 7 years, I am at my core business development person. Selling was how I cut my teeth in the digital space in the mid-90s and how I evolved into my current role. It stands to reason that one’s ability to successfully sell professional services offerings will ultimately result in one becoming capable of delivering them. You sort of have to become the product. Which is what happened over a period of 10 years. It wasn’t really until the mid -2000s that I began to take on more of a SME role as my level of seniority developed. This has afforded me a unique perspective of the professional services industry in which we both dwell.


Marketing / Creative services are either tactical (we build/make stuff, we have some black box technology, we create rich media units, etc.), consultative (we get hired to think and solve complex problems), or a combination of the two (we solve strategic problems then have unique solutions for implementing those strategies).


It was really just dumb luck that at the beginning of my career that I fell in with some very smart people who took a consultative approach to selling creative services. I was very very fortunate to start out immersed in selling problem solving services (thinking and doing) as opposed to selling a new ad widget or video rendering technology. I mostly worked for small boutique firms who offered some sort of highly specialized solution within a focused discipline (gamification, multi-media, Pharma marketing, etc.). Most of these firms were still small enough that they did not have the benefit of an established marketplace reputation or an adequate level of brand awareness to drive inbound leads. So, we had to cold call: identify appropriate target brands, find the names of the key stakeholders who held the budgets, get their attention and force them to consider our expertise or solution. I did this for years – calling, emailing, networking, cajoling, and harassing brand managers and CMOs to take notice give me a shot. The nuances of this process seemed laborious at the time – we would literally spend weeks tweaking phrases and words on outbound prospecting emails, honing, fine tuning, optimizing until we hit the exact note needed to drive a response. Once we were able to distill the message down the to perfect pitch we would save these intros and use them across all of our sales channels: elevator pitch, phone calls, website copy, PR, etc. There was something about this process that became fun, game-like and rewarding once the message worked. This process enabled me to get the attention of some extremely hard-to-influence executives. I became quite effective – I once got legendary auto executive Bob Lutz to respond directly to one of my emails –which prompted a 3 year relationship with GM on a host of strategic programs to help usher Chevy, Pontiac and Cadillac into the branded gaming space.   Doing this for so long afforded me not only a valuable set of skills- but more importantly it provided me with a different perspective on selling – and specifically the process of selling in our industry and how to grow professional creative / marketing service businesses.


Large agencies conglomerates (WPP, Publicis, Omnicom, and their ilk) are NOT by nature sales-driven organizations. The nature of these organizations is built on sheer size, capacity and the resulting reputations that are fomented as a result. Most of them (I’d go out on a limb and say all of them) lack a sophisticated business development and sales process. I am sure that there are people within these organizations who will passionately disagree – and be pissed off at that notion. Please note: this is not a knock on the many great and extraordinarily competent folks who work in the BD departments at these monoliths. Not at all. They are not the issue. It’s the nature of the industry and the structure of the large agency business in which they work that is the issue. The sales process issues we face are not germane to one single agency – it’s an industry-wide affliction. BD in its true nature is just not part of the big agency culture. Mainly this is due to the place that large agencies hold in the market. Their size and reputations afford them a spot on the list of ‘go to’ options for large brands and corporations who are looking to spend big sums of money on marketing services.

When Amex or Pfizer or PG have a new marketing initiative, they all have the same short list of agencies that will automatically get the RFP. Hence, the business development culture of large agencies is by and large a reactive model – where entire teams are hired to respond to RFPs. An entire industry has been created around RFP creation and RFP response. This ecosystem includes a myriad distinct support services and organizations. A simple search for RFP support services on Google brings up a slew of offerings: rfp response templates, rfp consulting services, rfp response software, rfp contract negotiation platforms, rfp pricing software, rfp presentation solutions, rfp mediation services – and the list goes on.

We frequently work with a consulting firm whose entire business is a RFP development consultancy – who evaluates the client need, writes the RFP, identifies the target providers, and manages the entire agency vetting and assessment process for the brand. It’s their whole business. How did we get to this point? The culture of RFP response is now so ingrained into the fiber of the agency industry that it is nothing short of an addiction. But it makes sense: how can any agency not respond to a potential $100mm revenue RFP? It simply has to.

The reality is – and this is not a secret – the vast majority (90%) of RFPs are really nothing more than self-indulgent fishing expeditions on the part brands who KNOW of this culture and rely on this process to verify and uncover invaluable marketing expertise from agencies at no cost. For the agencies, it’s a huge resource drain that expends an incredible amount of human capital with minimal return. Imagine if you were sick – like deathly ill – and had the opportunity to have a world-renowned medical specialist come to your home (after having prepared hours upon hours of vast resources of expertise) to present you with critical information on the state of your health and include in this assessment free diagnosis and strategies to improve your health. Now, imagine if you could have 10 Doctors offer the same thing, each with a difference approach, a different set of research and a unique perspective. At the end of these 10 presentations you would know more about your own health than anyone in your entire age group. And it wouldn’t have cost you a dime. As a matter of fact, each of these Doctors would be clamoring to have the opportunity to share this information. Doctors who went through years and years of specialized training, paid top dollar to go to the most specialized schools and spent countless hours working in emergency rooms to hone these skills. And they give it away for nothing so they can win you as a patient. What brand wouldn’t participate in this process? They would be dumb not to. But we are the dumb ones. We are the doctors, the specialists, and the experts. And we give away our stuff for nothing. (Now, of course we don’t save lives or perform heart surgery, but brands pay top dollar for the important role we play in the lifeline of their respective businesses).


Harsh Reality: Most RFPs have been pre-awarded to the winner long before the actual evaluations and dog and pony shows have even started. It’s an obscene system. One of the many outcomes of this process (aside from the waste of human capital and lost hours from key executives) is a lack of sales skills and business development know-how.


Few people know really now how to sell. It’s just a reality. It’s a specialized skill – no different from someone who is an expert in something as specialized as Data Analytics or coding software. And despite its value to an organization, it is a skill that is not highly respected. People hate sales reps. Sales people have gotten a bad rap – in large part due to the ineptitude of most salespeople. Many (I’d say most) are just out for the sale, the revenue, the deal. They don’t offer any added value. It can be said with little argument that the entire idea of a “salesperson”, particularly in the service sector, is an antiquated role. Sales is an art and a science – a process – driven by a well-organized effort of a professional services firm that offers and delivers expertise to a specific marketplace. Of course the best sales people are the opposite of these things, but as there are very few good ones, the bad ones drive the perception of the sector.


I have an entire course in my head as to how to revamp the entire RFP process but in the short-term before anything radical can be proffered, I have some simple ideas that can make the whole process a bit more efficient and a lot less costly:


  • Throw back the bad fish. First and foremost, agencies need to create very clear criteria of the type of RFPs that they will respond to. This process in itself is really a re-evaluation of their entire business – and its worth its weight in gold. Who is our ideal client? What level of spend? What verticals are the best fit? What type of businesses do we service best? Size? Location? Once this is established, it becomes easier to evaluate incoming RFPs and know which “bad fish” to throw back. There is nothing more dignifying than calling a brand and saying “Thank you for the consideration, but this opportunity is not a fit for us. Best of luck.”
  • Push back. 98% (some would say 100% and would be right) of RFPs are garbage anyway. Most are poorly written, lack clarity and ask for things that the client doesn’t really understand. (Somewhat like walking into a Doctor’s office and saying, “Hi, I’m looking for heart surgeon. Can you please fill out these forms? It will help me determine if you are the right one – oh, and be prepared for a full presentation next Wednesday”). Brands self-diagnose and make things up and create false needs all of the time. Or they provide a prescription of what they think they need and then look for the agency that will best deliver on that assumption. We should be demanding clarity –and offer to re-write the RFP on occasion – in partnership. I know this may sound Pollyanna but it works – I’ve done these countless times successfully.
  • Specialization and not commoditization: Successful agencies should not be pursuing commoditized assignments – they should be targeting strategic relationships with clients. Commoditized service inquiries invariably turn out to be price-shopping expeditions. In these scenarios, your value propositions are secondary to the costs – and that is a bad way to start a professional services relationship. Define your area of specialization (digital media services for CPGs, or, Mobile Marketing for B2B, etc.). Deep and narrow roots have stronger footing.
  • Fewer people on the RFP response team. Adding more bodies looks/feels good (its “inclusive” and “democratic” and “diverse”), but makes the process painful. While I understand fully that most large RFPs are complex and require input from specialized units, the strategic direction of the response can usually be formulated by a small group of strategists who understand the digital ecosystem enough to weave the larger story.
  • Identify the real sales people in the company – and use them. Sales people tend to look at things a differently: A ‘Lets win the account’ context, as opposed to a ‘lets solve their problem’ context will drive a completely different approach and outcome. Sales is 95% a relationship thing – and 5% capability. People hire (and fire) people – not processes and technologies – those they buy or rent.


I recommend you read the book: Winning without Pitching Manifesto by Blair Enns – best book I’ve read on this – ever.

What are the limits of Technological Intrusion?

big brother2Since the early 1900s, Hollywood, TV and fiction have been chock-a-block with visions of a future rife with hyper-connected citizens, oppressive government overlords, wearable computers, self-driving hovercrafts and voice-activated central computer systems that know our every move, thought and location. I’m currently reading Dave Eggers’ “The Circle,” which foretells the emergence of a “Google”-like mega corporation that eerily oversteps its own technological ambitions under the guise of servitude and transparency. 

While this story contains most of the standard sci-fi elements, what is interesting about it is the fact that it takes place in the current time — seemingly only 3 or 4 years from now. Most of the techs featured in the story are really only a few simple updates of programs in use today. I’m no alarmist. New X-ray widget? Sign me up. Nonetheless, reading this creepy tome, it occurs to me that like the frog witlessly wading in the simmering pot of water, we too may soon ‘wake up’ in 2015 only to find ourselves surrounded by a network of all-knowing proximity monitors, connected environments, iBeacons, wearables and drivables — all under the auspices of easier, smarter and more personalized lives (and to make us more targetable to offers from Cinnamon Toast Crunch).

It’s worth pondering: will this new dawn of connectivity really ever take root the way we have imagined? Today we see daily examples of how “transparency” exposes the everyday citizen’s (and celebutard’s) goofs and gaffes: impulsive twitter rants, knuckleheaded photo posts on Facebook, publicly shared personal text messages, IRS email shenanigans, etc. One could argue that these outcomes are a good thing. Corruption is exposed, infidelities are unveiled, errors are debunked, morons are unmasked and all is set right in the world. But do people want everyone to know what they buy? Where they shop? What they drive? Who they meet? Why they like? How they think? I am not too sure. And the evidence seems to point toward a much tougher challenge ahead for those interested in a connected planet.

Point in case: I had the privilege of mediating a panel on Beacons at Media Post’s mCommerce summit in August, where real-world examples of proximity marketing technologies were shared and explained. It was a very provocative discussion and the panel members were a diverse selection of seasoned experts in varying facets of this emerging platform. They included:

Michael Foschetti, managing director, Havas Discovery; Phil Hendrix, director, IMMR; Henry Lawson, CEO, AutoGraph; Scott Varland, creative director, IPG Media Lab;and Jesse Wolfersberger, director, consumer insights, GroupM Next.

One of the prevailing agreements among the panel was the idea that in the end, personal choice is and always will be the final arbiter of any new tech, no matter how intrusive or invasive it may be. Henry Lawson provided a real-world glimpse into how a Beacon-ized installation may soon be like for consumers. He detailed an interesting ‘Minority Report’-like Beacon initiative on London’s Regent Street — called, appropriately, Regent Street. The app connects passersby via Beacons to participating retailers (there are now 120 at last count), which detects those consumers who are within proximity. The Beacons activate the app, which sends personalized promotional notifications with the hopes of luring the potential shopper into the store. The app is showing promise — but the question remains, do consumers want to be electronically nudged when walking down a busy retail area? Its not a pass/fail test. Some will, some won’t, and this is where the real barrier to hyper-connectivity lies.

Here’s the challenge, and it’s a biggie:  Many disparate factors need to be in place for these kinds of programs to work — and they all come down to personal choice. People must first download the app, which requires awareness and a compelling value proposition. The user must then activate the app; so again, sufficient value must be present to ensure that this entire process is completed. The user must then we willing to turn on and keep on their Bluetooth connection, which for some can be a battery drain, or simply a pain in the neck to do. The user then must agree to allow the app to send notifications — adding another interrupter into their already cacophonous mix of alerts, reminders, alarms and buzzes. And then of course, the promotional offers themselves not only need to be relevant and valuable but in addition the promise of the offer must be delivered or the user will abandon the new tech into the trash bin of history.

This is a very complex chain to construct, particularly with the overload of so many other competing apps and techs screaming for attention from the average phone. Not to mention the forthcoming slew of purported features due to enter into the marketplace this month will seemingly add an additional barrage of distractions — health monitors, distance meters, payment actions, watch nodes, etc. It sounds exhausting. When is too much too much? Every new tech is competing for our attention. And only a small handful can win.

There seem to be two distinct types of user technologies in the marketplace right now: Uberized platforms and Beaconized platforms. Uberized platforms are proactive — where the user is enabled to communicate a desired request and get immediate satisfaction. These apps rely on an existing network and infrastructure that is essentially dormant to the user until they have that specific need (a taxi, a pizza, an apartment cleaning, etc.), at which point that network is activated to provide the requested service. These platforms are non-intrusive, silent, stealth, low-impact and inherently “need” based. Beaconized platforms are essentially the opposite — and are reactive. The network and infrastructure is intrusive and immersive, and nudges the user to take actions or take notice or become more aware.

Beaconized platforms have far greater potential, but are harder to build, as the user’s participation, receptivity and “open door” is a requirement. Uber only knows stuff about me when I need it. Beacons know more about me than I do, within the context of my location and circumstance. The barriers with Beaconization are higher — and in the end, people can simply choose to shut out the noise if it gets too loud. The tipping point is upon us. Who will win the war for our minds? 

Originally published in Media Post’s Mobile Marketing Daily on September 9, 2014


Mobilized Health is coming to an iPhone near you. Is this the year of mHealth?

All sources indicate that Apple’s next frontier is the Health sector.

Tech prognosticators rely on endless public data, corporate espionage and outright rumormongering to predict Apple’s next innovations. Given that the impact of even a simple release of stomach gas from Tim Cook’s lips can wreak havoc on the stock market, its become an industry to guess what the Wizards of Cupertino are going to offer up next. It seems almost daily that prolific bloggers, tech tastemakers, financial sites, news organizations and mac addicts serve up daily doses of insight on Apple’s plans for domination. Because Apple’s new offerings impact so many different groups of people, its not surprising to find this level of obsessive focus. Despite Android’s vastly larger user base, and Samsung’s seemingly Big Brother-like presence over the last few years, Apple is still looked at as the driver of the mobilized marketplace. Consumers tend to adopt (or at least try) Apple’s innovations, and Apple’s connected ecosystem offers integration on all fronts: retail, home, workplace. A number of recent moves by Apple make it clear they are making a huge investment in health-related products and features in its next round of devices and software.


For many readers, this is old news. But for the average Apple /iOS/iPhone consumer, the details and implications of this will be far-reaching and can potentially coalesce a score of past efforts and techs that have been hammering on the mobile health door for the last 10 years. If adopted, Apple’s health, wellness and fitness innovations could open up a massive, long hoped for opportunity for consumers, doctors, health professionals, hospitals, insurance companies and the general “wellness” industry. This is no shock. Health Care on the whole represents a staggering 1.6 Trillion dollar industry. Despite their stated and likely genuine altruistic intentions, its not surprising that Apple wants to get a slice of that pie. These ambitions are clearly evident by a number of recent developments:


  • One recent move uncovered by Apple Insider, is an Apple Patent filing entitled “Wrist Pedometer Step Detection”.  This patent filing details a program where sensors placed inside of a fitness-tracking device (likely a watch or band – more on that later) would interpret motion and accurately record and represent the users activity. Device patents and info-leaks speak of Apple’s imminent “iWatch” (or whatever they plan to call it), which points to usage for medical, health and fitness related integrations (not to mention the usual fawning and drooling that comes with the prospect of Apple building ANY new gadget). Pundits report a planned wireless tether between the iPhone and the iWatch that will allow a host of intriguing possibilities for tracking, data gathering and interpretation.
  • Recently, Apple showed its hand by revealing Healthbook, a new app that will be part of the standard OS apps in the new operating system, OS 8, which will be a dedicated Health application. The details of this new app show an incredible level of sophistication and scope – allowing users to measure not only weight loss, sleep and fitness tracking, but blood pressure, blood sugar, heart rate, respiratory and oxygen saturation. Apple is clearly looking to provide consumers with a virtual/mobilized health center – and the implications of this are unlimited from a physician/patient data sharing and hospital visit perspective – not to mention health insurance data.
  • Another more auspicious development, the story broken by ManagagedMarketAccess, was a meeting in December by a group of Senior Apple executives and the United States Food and Drug Administration, apparently to discuss the development of mobile medical applications.  At the meeting from Apple’s side were top software development executives, operational executives and a member from their Government Affairs group. The F.D.A. folks included members from their Center for Devices and Radiological Health, and Bakul Patel, who authored F.D.A.’s mobile medical app guidance. Clearly, this meeting is indicative of serious developments inside Apple to work out the regulatory minefield that will no doubt have to be navigated as these plans come to fruition. That meeting indicates some challenges that Apple is already experiencing as they work out the deployment details of their mHealth ambitions. They are clearly covering their bases on the hardware, software and regulatory fronts.

mHealth is already a crowded space. According the BI Intelligence, there are already roughly 100,000 health applications available in major app stores, and the top 10 mobile health applications generate up to 4 million free and 300,000 paid daily downloads. These are pretty significant numbers. The lion’s share of these apps is not used very much (downloads are not indicative of long term adoption), have limited functionality, are highly specialized for the management of specific health conditions, or are fitness /wellness related apps (these are the most popular). Forty-two percent of apps rely on a paid business model, according to an in-depth study by research2guidance. Only 15% of apps target health care professionals, and the balance are aimed at consumers.

A terrific 2013 report by IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics reported some solid info on the use of health apps in the iTunes store.  Every single app categorized as “Health and Wellness” or “Medical” was reviewed. The report itself is over 50 pages long and offers one of the more comprehensive reviews of the mobile health app space.

Here are some highlights:

  • Of the 43,000+ apps evaluated, only 23,682 were designated as having a legitimate health function
  • The Apps were further categorized by 7 capabilities:

–      Inform (10,840 apps)

–      Instruct (5,823 apps)

–      Record/Capture data (5,095 apps)

–      Display User entered data

–      Guide

–      Remind/Alert (1,357 apps)

–      Communicate

–      None of the 7 capabilities (1,622 apps)

  • 5 apps accounted for 15% of all downloads
  • 16,275 were called out as “patient facing”
  • 7,407 were deemed “provider facing”
  • Smartphone use for health apps is lowest (18%) in the 65+ demographic

The mHealth marketplace “seems” crowded- but still only has traction with a few niche consumer groups: Fitness enthusiasts who run, exercise or ride bikes as a main part of their lifestyle, Wellness-types who care a great deal about their food, calorie, sugar intake, weight loss consumers who use apps to track their progress, diet, calorie burning and weigh goals and a segment of patients who have adopted mobile health apps to support their ongoing disease management regimen – like Diabetes sufferers or Heart patients.  The average everyday consumer still does not show a strong desire for mHealth offerings – and until mainstream adoption occurs they likely wont participate or maintain a long-term usage of these tools.  Apps of this type require a great deal more than just a cool interface and gimmicky gadget pairing. Apps of this type are high-engagement apps, which demand commitment, dedication and time on the part of the consumer in order to gain optimal value.  Apple understands this. And it looks like its development group is going to try to bake in some of the tracking and measurement features so that they work in stealth mode, in the background, like dormant record keepers –and provide users with valuable insights and data that the average, busy consumer would not likely take the time to input.


Which is really what is so daunting:  The hope is that when Apple releases new features and software – pre-baked into their OS and accompanied by their sexy, shiny new line of gadgets and simple-to-use interfaces – consumers will adopt them, and push competitors out of the market.  The potential good news will be in the increased adoption of Health related behaviors by the consumer.  Or so Apple hopes. But lets be honest: Apple is not always successful at capturing adoption for their innovations: Apple’s Map platform was a mitigated disaster (and still is – it tried to send me to Cleveland from the NJ turnpike last week); Passbook is not revolutionizing the ticket industry (I use it – but still don’t really see the value) and Apple’s native apps like Calendar and even Safari have been trumped by better versions from third party developers. However, iMessage is now default (I hate when someone’s’ texts turn green), iTunes platform integration is pretty seamless, Siri is not perfect, but I use it daily as a dictation tool and scheduling program, and the iPhone is the most used camera on the market. Overall, iPhone users statistically do more with their phones than Android users do. Apple simply makes it easier for users to get into their offerings, use them and stay there.


So the question remains:  Will these factors result in a successful mHealth ecosystem? Will consumers adopt Apple’s mHealth innovations and devices?  Will Apple’s attempts to gain regulatory and industry acceptance drive the mobile health industry? We should have a good sense of things by Q1 of 2015. It will be interesting to watch how this plays out.





Brands without a Strategy – Google’s Mobile Wasteland

Google is doing all it can to force brands over the mobile cliff.  It’s not working apparently. Nor is the obvious fact (glaringly obvious at this point) that the entire realm of online consumer media consumption is moving to mobile.  The charts included in this post are from a recent Business Insider article that speaks to how Top US brands still are not mobile-ready. In my experience from being on the other side of this syndrome,  the issue resides at the top of the food chain at the C level.  Most, if not all,  rank and file brand people are fully aware of this glaring omission.  Speaking to them and their exasperation is profound:   “I know. We are aware of this and we are on top of it.  Stay tuned” or “I know, I know. It’s a big missing right now, and from what I hear, Exec Mgmt. is working on a global mobile portfolio strategy” or some gobbled-y-gook like that.  More likely, the bureaucrats are still trying to figure it out, or are hiding under their desks waiting for IT to make sense of it or for some agency partner to tell them what to do.  The bottom line is that it’s not getting done.

For those who view the absence of mobile-specific web content as an indicator of no mobile strategy, many large top brands, like Snuggle, for instance, still have no mobile strategy.  Now in all fairness to Snuggle, they may be in the process of building mobile content while I write this post, but putting up a simple mobile-friendly landing page should take a week at most.  And at this stage, it’s a week too late.  You know that I have been beating the drum about this issue a lot on these pages, but it defies understanding when billion dollar brands can’t get out of their way fast enough to move in step with the times. This is the reason that smaller start-up brands are able to appear more innovative and gain more traction from mobile users.  Fewer executive layers, less committee, less pontificating, leaner IT cycles.  It’s not that smaller brands are any smarter, or better marketers even.  They are not.  P&G and their ilk are brilliant folks – they just have created monstrous battle ships that are hard (or impossible) to turn around.  And making a billion dollars a year globally makes it easier to rest back on their laurels and “work on a cohesive strategy that takes into account all of our key stakeholders while maintaining our commitment to excellence for our loyal consumers” blah blah.

The Business Insider study conducted by Pure Oxygen Labs, indicates that 44% of Fortune 100 brands have no mobile content strategy – and only 56% are currently serving mobile-optimized content.  Only 45% have built dedicated mobile sites, while only 11% deployed responsive websites.

Google’s new requirements support a Responsive Design strategy – and this makes sense – as the development of a true Responsive Strategy would require a great deal more thinking and organizational alignment than just creating a simple mobile-friendly approach.  Responsive Design is not a development plan. It’s a Strategic approach that impacts all online and off-line digital content.  Developing a Responsive strategy would in fact FORCE all executive marketing layers to align and orchestrate across the entire communications and IT spectrum.  And that’s what all of todays brands need to do.  Re-arrange the entire structure of their development, deployment, targeting, content management and analytical disciplines.  And this is what will happen.  Eventually. Just not today when it offers brands the most obvious opportunity for competitive advantage.  CMOs should be drooling over this ripe time in history when 1 month head start will gain them a 6 month lead in the race.


Read more:

Don’t wait for the money

It’s clear that the old school approach to media buying is behind the lack of commitment to mobile spending.  I am not a true believer in the idea that traditional media strategies (banners and rich media units) will ultimately work in mobile, but before the riddle is solved one thing is certain:  we need more data in the channel to figure it out.  Since no brands are offering free placements, there needs to be a much greater level of spending to definitively see what works and what doesn’t.  Until then, these drips and drabs of trickle-funds will not yield anything compelling enough to open the floodgates.   We are at a strange inflection point in mobile marketing, where virtually all brand marketers finally agree that mobile is real – hell, critical – but no one really knows the “formula” to unleash its power from a ROI perspective.  So, brands wait for the money to return and keep one toe in the water until it arrives.  What’s needed is something that won’t likely happen:  an industry consortium of brands across verticals who collectively agree to spend another 10-20% of their media and marketing dollars to mobile in 13 Q4 and 14Q2/2 to flood the channel with campaigns (as well planned and strategically sound as is possible of course) to generate some real data that can be evaluated by mid-year 2014.  Someone will make it through the glass ceiling.  This will never happen.  Brands will continue their Hamlet-like approach to mobile – pontificating, philosophizing, ruminating, doubting and waiting for their money to return.