Which Use of Mobile Is Right For You?

I've finally had a chance to digest the DMA's 2010 Response Rate Report and I'd like to share some of my take aways with you.

The DMA report is based on a survey of 473 members of - you guessed - DMA members. While the sample size is large enough to make inferences of the general population, the bulk of the membership of the DMA is probably different from...say...the Mobile Marketing Association. Hence no surprise that direct mail and email are the two most frequently used communication channels with 60% and 53% of survey respondents respectively using these channels. Only 6% of the survey respondents said that they were using the mobile channel (which includes both mobile advertising and text messaging). This tells me that mobile marketing is still an experimental medium - for members of the DMA that is. If I compare my personal exposure to marketers' messaging across the different media, I would say that this low adoption rate is fairly consistent across the board.

But low adoption rate aside, it's interesting to note that consumer engagement over SMS is much higher than over email.


According to the report, emails sent to a house list produced on average a 6.64% click through rate and a 1.73% conversion rate. In contrast, SMS messages sent to a house list produced over 100% higher engagement with a 14.06% average click through rate and a whopping 8.22% conversion rate. The conversion-to-click rate is another metric that I use for measuring engagement. It a good way to measure how compelling was my offer in the context of my message about the offer. On average, one out of every four people who clicked through in an email converted - meaning they accomplished some aspect of the marketer's goal (e.g. bought something, registered for a class, downloaded a prospectus, etc.). Engagement in the SMS channel was even greater with one out of every two people who clicked through an SMS message converting. Yes, SMS messaging is way more expensive than email. But with almost a 60% conversion to click through rate, the ROI of SMS messaging is highly compelling.

I interpret the higher consumer engagement in the SMS channel to a combination of the type of consumer that signs up for text messaging programs and the technology itself.

Another interesting observation from the response rate report is who's doing mobile marketing and who's not.


As one would expect, Publishing, Media & Entertainment, and Retail are the two industries having the highest adoption rate with 15% and 14% of survey respondents respectively stating that they are using the mobile channel for their marketing messaging. Interesting to note also is that none of the survey respondents that are in either the Financial Services or the Health Care & Pharmaceutical industries are using the mobile channel. Is this non-existent adoption just an artifact of the DMA membership represented in these two industries, or is this representative of the industries as a whole? I'm thinking that it might be the latter since these two industries represented almost 20% of the total survey respondents - so it's probably not just a statistical anomaly.

So why the low adoption rate of mobile marketing in Financial Services? The report may give some insights as to the reason. A closer look at how respondents in the Financial Services industry use each channel, it appears that they use the online channels primarily to drive traffic to their web sites for further information.

Making a financial decision is a thoughtful process that requires focused attention and one that takes time. None of these qualities fit the mobile channel. Mobile is all about immediacy and instant gratification, and the mobile web experience doesn't necessarily lend itself well to content-laden sites. Unless there is a sense of immediacy in a call to action and/or there is content that can be quickly consumed, then perhaps mobile is not the appropriate channel at this point in time for the Financial Services industry's marketing messages. So be careful about jumping on the mobile bandwagon. Just because it seems that everyone else is doing mobile marketing doesn't necessarily mean its right for your industry, your brand or your clients.

While the mobile channel may not be appropriate for Financial Service marketing messages, it is absolutely the right one for Financial Service transactions. In fact, this industry was a pioneer in transactional SMS messaging with text-to-access to account information including mini-statements, account balance verification, recent transactions, canceling lost or stolen cards, and ordering checks not to mention text alerts for recent account activity or passing of preset balance thresholds, and bill payment reminders.

The market for mobile apps on the iPhone, Android and Blackberry platforms is booming. At last count, there are over 300 "favorite" apps in the Financial category on iTunes so "thousands of smartphone apps for Financial Services" would be a ballpark guesstimate across all smartphone platforms worldwide.

With regards to cutting edge mobile payment technologies for point-of-sale and peer-to-peer services, once again the Financial Services industry is leading the way. Retailers and public transportation firms are introducing pilot programs whereby consumers can make purchases by merely touching their payment-enabled mobile device to a similarly-enabled point of sale device. (Of course, businesses in Europe and Asia have been doing this for years already.)

Mobile technology is transforming the way that people interact with their world and as a result, it is transforming the way that brands engage with their customers. Businesses have realized that though the mobile channel may not be appropriate for marketing messaging, it is clearly a strong channel that enables consumers to interact with their brands in other equally important areas. So it's not a question if mobile as a whole is right for you; rather it's a question of which use of mobile is right for you.

How many different ways is your brand using the mobile channel? Leave me a comment!

Consumer Privacy Versus Consumer Relevance

The draft privacy bill sponsored by representatives Boucher and Stearns is creating quite a stir in both the privacy advocacy and the online marketing worlds. It's a classic battle that pits technology as either a friend or foe depending upon your personal bias.

There are already a lot of blog posts and articles regarding the implications of this draft. I list a few of them here:

• Representative Boucher Introduces Privacy Legislation (Kelley Drye & Warren LLP)
• What does the draft privacy legislation say about location data? (Mobile Marketer)
• Privacy Groups Blast Draft Privacy Bill (Tech Daily Dose)
• Draft privacy bill could shake data collection (DM News)

It is ironic to note that both privacy advocates and online marketers believe that they have the consumer's best interests in mind. Privacy advocates believe that consumers have a right to control the collection and the usage of their personal data albeit how obtuse it may be. Online marketers believe that consumers deserve to have the best online experience with highly relevent information.

Two points of this proposed privacy bill causing consternation among marketers include the following:

1. IP address and browser cookies would be considered "covered information" and their usage for marketing purposes would become highly restricted.
2. "Precise" geolocation information would be considered "sensitive information" and its usage would become even more restrictive than "covered information".

Web sites (especially e-commerce sites), ad networks, and even web analytics providers rely on information gleaned from IP addresses and browser cookies from anonymous site visitors. Almost all e-commerce sites ranging from Amazon to Zappos all use site visitors' browsing history to display the appropriate products on their web pages. Under the draft privacy bill, using a site visitor's browsing history to dynamically display page content would be allowed to continue provided that

1. the site provides easy access to the company's privacy policy,
2. it informs the consumer that he or she has the right to decline consent, and
   
3. the consumer either specifically opts in or at least doesn't opt out.

Amazon.com's web site has a nice feature that enables me to prevent the site from tracking my browsing history.
However, once such a person opts out, then the marketer is not allowed to use the information previously collected on the person's browsing and purchase history during the time that he was opt-ed in.

The idea is that while I may still want to receive email marketing newsletter from my favorite brand, I may not want my personal browsing and shopping history to be included in them.

Web analytic providers and email marketers should take note of this provision. Vendors including Omniture, WebTrends, and Coremetrics enable marketers to build profiles of their customers' web site interactions and then target those profiles for specific remarketing campaigns via email or other channels. If the draft becomes law as it is currently written, then any marketer that does not inactivate an opt-ed out customer's web analytics data from his web analytics profile database and his email marketing database would be in violation of the law subject to severe penalties.

Another provision of the draft bill that is causing concerns among all marketers is the requirement that all "covered information" must be deleted or rendered anonymous if it has been 18 months since the date that the information was initially collected. Email marketers should take note of this provision because according to this draft, a subscriber's email address is considered "covered information." This means that even if you are a retention marketer and send your emails only to those who have opted in to receive then, the only ones that you can send to are those whose email records are less than 18 months old. If you have a single email address in your customer data that is older than 18 months old, then you are a law breaker.

While some brands would be thankful to have active email addresses 18 months old, there are many major brands having loyal customers whose email address records go back many years. Just think of the ramifications this bill would have on your email marketing program. How many dollars would you waste on thinking up and sending "re-enlistment" campaigns just to get your subscribers to re-create their email address records that you already have in your database? How many of you have built consumer tenure into your RFM (recency/frequency/monetary value) and RFC (recency/frequency/click through) models? How effective would they be if your subscriber database has artificially skewed tenure data?

Finally, the inclusion of "precise" geolocation information as "sensitive information" is an eyebrow raiser especially when it comes to mobile marketing. Aside from memories of Bill Clinton's famous "it depends on what you mean by 'is'", just how "precise" is "precise"? Precise to a city? Precise to a neighborhood? Precise to a house? Precise to within 3 feet? Precise to within 10 inches?

According to the draft bill, the collection and use of "sensitive information" requires prior consent. This means that the collection and usage of a consumer's geolocation collected either by your computer's IP address or your mobile device may not be done so for marketing purposes without that person first giving you permission to do so. If you are an e-commerce site operator, then think about how this will impact your site's user experience.

Amazon.com approximated my location by examining my IP address and determined that I live somewhere near Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota. This is the default behavior of their site.


If this draft bill becomes law, then unless Amazon changes the default behavior of their site, then their web site is engaging in "an unfair and deceptive act or practice in violation of a regulation under section 18(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Trade Commission Act. In addition to being liable to federal penalties, Amazon would also be subject to civil action by any of all 50 states depending upon how motivated their Attorney Generals are.

Fortunately, the mobile marketing eco-system has arisen in a post-SPAM world although much work is still ahead. Marketers may only send SMS messages to those who have specifically opted in to receive them.

But not all mobile apps include the option for app owners to opt-in and opt-out of location based services. For example, I have the ShopSavvy app on my iPhone which finds and compares prices local to me. Short of removing the app from my iPhone, there is no way to inactive the location-based feature.

So what can you do about it?

Keep track of the discussion through the DMA, the ESPC, and others. As Lois Greisman, of the FTC cautioned during a recent webinar, the draft is still just a draft. Reps Boucher and Stearns, and the FTC are soliciting feedback which to some degree will be incorporated in coming revisions of the bill before it is put to the House floor for a vote. In the meantime, I do recommend that you keep track of this bill from time to time just to be informed. Depending upon where it goes, marketers and web site operators may be in for a lot of work to bring their tactics in line with the new law.

So, which side of the debate do you espouse? Both sides do have their own merits. Leave me your thoughts.

Will Mobile Help Save a Dying Industry?

Last year in November, I posted my blog entry on how mobile is breathing new life into a dying industry: print. Back then, the word "iPad" had not yet been unleashed on the marketplace. Interesting to note that here we are a half a year later and my prognostication is proving to be correct. Once again, Apple proves that it has the uncanny ability to take existing product concepts, perfect the experience, and knock it out of the ballpark.

But first: a presentation of evidence to what you probably already knew. The U.S. newspaper industry continues it's 10-year tailspin. A simple search on Google using the keywords "declining newspaper industry" turns up almost 140,000 results, with about 4800 results for articles written in the past ten years. According to an April 27th article carried by The Sydney Morning Herald, the Audit Bureau of Circulations reported that the average daily U.S. newspaper circulation declined 8.74 percent during the six months ending on March 31 compared wiht the same period a year ago. Circulation dropped even more the previous period with a 10.62 percent drop.

Magazines aren't doing any better. According to the Veronis Suhler Stevenson Communications Industry Forecast 2009, consumer magazines will suffer a compound annual growth rate of -2.8% in the 2008-2013 period.

The plain and simple reason for the decline is that people's consumption of media has changed from print to digital. Unfortunately, the heavily-unionized print industry has been slow to adapt.

So while I was partly right back in November with my prediction, I was also partly wrong. Back then, I saw netbooks as the consumer devices that would help breathe new life into the dying print industry. Wrong. But six months ago I didn't know about the iPad. Knowing what I do now, I believe that the iPad will both breathe new life into the print industry while at the same time greatly crimp the growth of netbooks.

All major U.S. newspapers and magazines have either already launched iPad versions of their content, or are quickly on the way to doing so. Publishing giant Conde Nast has already introduced iPad versions of GQ, Vanity Fair, and Wired. Softbank Corporation of Japan announced last month that they will be offering more than 30 magazines and newspapers to their iPad subscribers.

But not everyone is under the spell of Jobs' Reality Distortion Field. Disgraced former equity research analyst turned blogger Henry Blodget in his March 25th entry states a strong case as to why the iPad won't save the print publications' asses. (His words, not mine.)

Nevertheless, there are progressive minds at work in the crusty halls of Old School media. Marketers are starting to combine print media with instant interaction via mobile devices.

Mobile Marketer reports that Macy's has teamed up with magazine digitizer and distributor Zinio to present their traditional print ads for presentation within Zinio's iPad application. A two-page advertisement has a link-away to Macy's Spring/Summer Journey catalog.

Since catalogs are expensive to produce, Macy's has to be highly selective as to who they send it to. But with the iPad, Macy's can distribute digital versions of their catalog and also get real-time feedback.

Consumer electronics giant Best Buy is also starting to build mobile into its print campaigns. One of their circulars includes a QR code that enables readers to view a special trailer for a soon-to-be released video game. The print ad also includes call-to-action encouraging consumers to text the keyword BBYAPP to the short code 332211 to download the QR code reader application.


Slowly the print publication industry is recognizing that our collective preferences have shifted towards mobile devices. That is how we choose to consume our media and that's the way we been choosing it for the past ten years. We listen to music on mobile devices. We watch videos on mobile devices. We take pictures on mobile devices. We take movies on mobile devices. We get directions on mobile devices. We communicate with one another on mobile devices. We surf the web on mobile devices. We make purchases using mobile devices. We even read our email on mobile devices. Now, thanks to mobile devices like the Kindle, eReader, iPad, and others like them, we choose to consume our print media the same way. Let's hope the print publishers wake up in time to save themselves and realize that mobile is what will breathe new life into their dying industry.

So what are your thoughts? Do you think mobile will save the print industry? Will the iPad and similar products be the boost that they are looking for? Post your comments.

Accelerating Innovation with the Product Innovation Quadrant

One of the hardest things to do in today's uber-competitive environment is to innovate fast enough to stay ahead in the marketplace. Every business wants to succeed by having some type of advantage over the competition. But when it comes to competitive advantage, you need to be clear as to which one you want - there are actually two types. The first type is an advantage occurring with valuable resources in limited supply. The De Beers Family of companies is an excellent example of this type of competitive advantage. Though diamonds themselves are not necessarily a rare resource, the supply of them on the open market is tightly controlled by this corporate entity. The other type of competitive advantage is the one that most of us know about and it refers to an advantage that exists during the period of time between the introduction of an innovation and its subsequent imitation and commoditization. The key to successful business strategy is to have a culture and a process that accelerates product innovation.

There is never a shortage of innovative ideas. The separation between market leaders, followers, and stragglers is not always about who can come up with the best ideas. Rather, the separation is based upon who can execute the best both in terms of time to market and customer appeal. At one of the companies where I worked, I lead the creation of the Product Innovation Quadrant, a new product management framework for accelerating product innovation that was quite successful in helping us to get our arms around the literally hundreds of new product ideas and assign appropriate priorities to them. I'd like to share this framework with you.

When planning out your product roadmap, its good to look at each of your product enhancement candidates along three dimensions: (1) time to market, (2) revenue potential, and (3) customer appeal. This latter point is something that our company president liked to talk about in terms of "Steak vs. Sizzle". "Steak" refers to the roll-up-your-sleeves, in-the-weeds, non-glamorous capabilities that comprise the lifeblood of the product. Without the "steak", there is no product, or the product is so anemic that it doesn't help the buyer achieve any advantage using it. "Sizzle" is what gets our attention. It's the sound of the steak searing on the barbecue and the its aroma that gets us excited in the first place. Sometimes a product feature needs to be implemented purely for the purposes of sizzle - getting people's attention, capturing the imagination, and building excitement about it. Products lacking sizzle are perceived as boring in the marketplace - regardless of how capable the product is. A healthy product roadmap needs to include a balance between steak and sizzle.

So here's how the Product Innovation Quadrant works: as you plan out your product roadmap, create quadrants in two dimensions with time horizon and customer appeal as the two axis. Then, draw a circle for each of your innovative ideas, placing it in whichever quadrant best describes the interplay between the two measurements. Make the size of your circle based upon your estimated revenue potential. Just to keep things simple, I recommend three sizes: small, medium, and large. As you map out each of your enhancement candidates, you will begin to get a good idea how they all fall out. Then you can decide which enhancements to accept for your roadmap, which ones to defer, and which ones to reject.


If a product manager at a typical company were to plot its existing product roadmap on the Product Innovation Quadrant he might be surprised (or not surprised) to see that almost all of the roadmap is clustered in the upper right hand quadrant.


Companies - typically technology-driven companies - tend to focus their attention on swinging for the home run each and every time at bat. While this tends to be the most common approach, this practice is risky because it places all of the company's fortunes in long-term projects leaving themselves vulnerable to competitors who can innovate faster than they can - not to mention the risk of finding out too late after all the time and money that they've given birth to a total dud.

In the example below, feature candidates A and B should absolutely be accepted for the product roadmap. Feature candidate C should also be accepted for the product roadmap because without it, the company does not have any long-term development projects and may be at risk of mortgaging the future for the sake of the present. I would also recommend that feature candidate A be prioritized ahead of feature candidate C even though it represents a lesser revenue potential. Why? Because it represents an earlier recognition of revenue. Feature candidate D should not be accepted to the product roadmap because its small revenue potential does not justify the long-term commitment of resources to implement a feature that is just there for sizzle and doesn't make that much of a difference in terms of the overall product's capabilities.


Now if you're working at a software company that implements the Agile software development methodology, then you have a distinct advantage over those that don't. You have the unique ability to accelerate the introduction of long-term product features by slicing it up into smaller iterations that Agile facilitates.

In the diagram above, we have feature candidate C that is accepted for our product roadmap because it represents a good revenue potential and it's a good balance of long-term and "steak" for our product mix. We then break up the implementation of this feature into a series of three iterations as shown below.
The first iteration is purely a short-term, sizzle implementation of the feature. The purpose is to minimize our risk by getting the product into the marketplace as quick as possible. Real market feedback trumps focus groups, market research, and "gut feelings" every time. You then have a second iteration scheduled which works on more of the "steak" features and incorporates the market feedback you've gotten from that first iteration. The third iteration is intended to be The Full Monty. This is the one where the fullness of the product is realized. In real life, it could actually be more than three. I've introduced product features to the marketplace that took ten iterations.

Remember: we're dealing with product innovation here. So this means that you have a little bit of a head start over your competitors when you introduce your first iteration. They key is that you have already scheduled the subsequent iterations so that you maintain your lead over your competitors.

The Product Innovation Quadrant I've introduced here is a suggested framework for evaluating all candidates for product enhancements. It's value is that it doesn't take weeks of analysis. It's a quick tool to get a sense of how things stack up. I hope it helps you as it has helped me. Do you have other frameworks that you've successfully followed? I'd like to hear from you.

Genachowski Dreams Big for 21st Century Mobile Broadband

I still like Julius Genachowski. There I said it. From everything that he's said since becoming chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, it appears to me that He Gets It and his policies are good for the long term growth of the mobile marketing industry. His most recent speech at the New America Foundation in Washington continues to illustrate his grasp of what needs to be done to move an infrastructure so mired in the days of vacuum tube radios and black and white TVs into the new century of mobile smartphones, video on demand, and location-based services.

You can read the entire text of his speech here in Giselle Tsirulnik's column of the Mobile Marketer, and you can quickly browse some of the points that I especially like below.

I like how he starts out his speech with a simple sound bite to serve as the rallying cry, "we are lagging behind when it comes to broadband." When I was in business school, I learned that the key to initiating organizational change - especially in times of laissez-faire status quo - is to clearly articulate a crisis that everyone can relate to. In this case, Genachowski's opening remarks appeals to the competitive nature and the drive to succeed that historically compels our national psyche.

All eyes will be on the FCC next month whey they are scheduled to announce their National Broadband Plan to Congress. Genachowski gives a five-point summary of this plan:

1. Accelerate mobile broadband deployment by recovering and reallocating spectrum
2. Revise outdated policies to reflect 21st century technologies and opportunities
3. Remove barriers to broadband buildout
4. Lower the cost of deployment
5. Promote competition

While each of these points have merit in themselves, the devil, they say, is in the details. I clearly see government's role in helping to recover and reallocate unused spectrum, and to revise outdated policies. But call me a cynic: putting government in the same sentence with removing barriers, lowering costs and promoting competition strikes me as an oxymoron.

The answer to growth for the mobile ecosystem is "more bandwidth". We can all agree to that. But the problem is, unlike vegetables, you can't grow spectrum. The spectrum is what it is - it is a finite resource, and the problem is that somebody somewhere already owns the spectrum that mobile broadband needs to grow.

Says Genachowski,

"One of the best ways for us to achieve the right balance in the supply and demand of spectrum is to establish market-based mechanisms that enable spectrum intended for the commercial marketplace to flow to the uses the market values most.

The Broadband Plan will recommend one such mechanism. It will propose a "Mobile Future Auction" -- an auction permitting existing spectrum licensees, such as television broadcasters in spectrum-starved markets, to voluntarily relinquish spectrum in exchange for a share of auction proceeds, and allow spectrum sharing and other spectrum efficiency measures.

Now, I’ve mentioned broadcast spectrum – so let me be clear: the recommendation is for a voluntary program."

Yeah right...

I can just see all the television network executives choking with laughter when they heard that idealistic statement of hubris and wishful thinking.



If you owned vast tracks of open undeveloped land and you learned that within ten years an entire city will be built on your land - the land that you solely own - would you voluntarily give it up in exchange for a share of the auction proceeds?

Uh huh...

The reality is that TV networks are on a downward trajectory as viewing audiences are moving to other forms of video entertainment. The fact that bland reality-based shows have replaced high-production quality dramas underscores the cost-cutting wave that is sweeping an industry disparately grasping for new ideas to grow.

Spectrum - unused as it may be - is one of the last golden egg assets that these networks own. The day that the FCC can convince even one of the networks to voluntarily give up its spectrum license, is the day that I'm looking out for flying bacon.

But don't get me wrong. I truly agree with Genachowski. In order to grow, the mobile ecosystem absolutely needs more spectrum - spectrum that unfortunately is firmly held in the grasps of the TV networks. It may just boil down to an Obama-esque "stimulus program" courtesy of your taxes and mine to get them to give it up.

Blockbusters Versus Bombs: Storyboards and The Pilot

(I continue my temporary digression from my usual posting about the mobile industry to blog about a topic near and dear to my heart: Product Management.)

Product Managers at technology-driven companies are challenged to evangelize their exciting new product ideas. Effective product managers need to paint the big picture first and foremost - whether to management or to their peers. To this point, there are some amazing parallels between the making of a blockbuster movie and the making of a blockbuster product. I'd like to draw your attention to three of these points: (1) The Pitch, (2) The Storyboard, and (3) The Pilot.

My previous blog post was about The Pitch. This blog post finishes with a discussion on the final two items: The Storyboard, and the Pilot.

All movies - be they animated or be they live action - all start with a storyboard. It's during storyboarding that writers and directors work out the plot, the flow, and the structure of the movie. The structure of the movie includes things like lighting, and camera angels.

In the world of software application development, storyboarding is akin to requirements gathering and feature definition. The concept of storyboarding fits nicely with the Agile software development methodology in which requirements are defined in terms of "user stories." If you're not familiar with the Agile methodology (or others like it), user stories are small and atomic feature implementations that when strung together, make up the full product, or product feature functionality. If you've ever seen Agile development at work, you'll see a remarkable similarity between the user story cards pasted on a wall and the individual scene drawings of a movie story board. Just as scenes of the story board cards are quick hand-drawn sketches, user stories are quick definitions of a specific feature capability.

In my opinion, all software development processes should include storyboarding. This enables all stakeholders including Product Management, Developers, Executive Sponsors, Sales and Marketing, and Technical Support, to map out the framework of a product or product feature long before a single line of code is written. Unlike traditional full blown requirements documents that can take weeks or even months to write up, storyboards are fluid, dynamic, and easily modified.

Television series for both comedies and dramas always have a pilot. No television executive would dream of providing full financial backing without the pilot. The purpose of the pilot is to test the concept of the series in real life. Feedback from the pilot is crucial. Projects many times never make it past the pilot. Other times, modifications are made to the cast of characters, to the story concept, and even to the title. (Quick Quiz: for those of you alive during the '90s, what was the original title of the "Seinfeld" comedy series? Who were the original characters and actors?)

Once again, the Agile software methodology fits well with the concept of The Pilot. Basic functionality is quickly introduced to the marketplace. Though not the full-blown product, the initial releases are used to gain valuable market feedback. Is the market need for the product still viable, or has it changed to something different? Better to know quickly before sinking time and money down a black hole.

The art and science of developing toward the first product release is so much like the television serial pilot. The pilot does not go into any depth and detail of character development, or of where the series will be going. It's only purpose is to see if the audience (a.k.a. the marketplace) will accept the concept. In like manner, the first iterations of a product should not be the full solution - but yet they should be complete enough to effectively tell the story of the product roadmap to the marketplace.

Here's also where people used to traditional software development are uncomfortable with the Agile process. They are more comfortable selling a complete solution; they are more comfortable supporting a fully end-to-end developed solution. Frankly put, these people need to "get with the times." Waiting around for a full solution before unveiling it is very risky. Market needs move at light speed because competition is fierce. If you take too long to move, someone else will. Believe it.

So, in conclusion, how do you increase the likelihood of a Product Blockbuster versus a Product Bomb? Take a lesson from Hollywood. Adopt the concepts of The Pitch, Storyboarding, and The Pilot into your product management process.

Blockbusters Versus Bombs: Perfecting the Product Pitch

(I temporarily digress from my usual posting about the mobile industry to blog about a topic near and dear to my heart: Product Management.)

Product Managers at technology-driven companies are challenged to evangelize their exciting new product ideas. Effective product managers need to paint the big picture first and foremost - whether to management or to their peers. To this point, there are some amazing parallels between the making of a blockbuster movie and the making of a blockbuster product. I'd like to draw your attention to three of these points: (1) The Pitch, (2) The Storyboard, and (3) The Pilot.

This blog post is all about The Pitch. Future posts will expound upon the other two.

Technology products are ... well ... technical. Technical products require technical explanations. Or maybe not. Psychologists tell us that the human mind needs context before it can grasp detail. To be an effective product manager, you must be a Master Storyteller.

Imagine that you're sitting in the Brown Derby making your pitch to a movie studio exec. You only have ten minutes - fifteen at the most - to get him interested enough in your idea to give the go ahead and proceed to the next step. Are you going to start talking about camera angles and special effects details and who is going to play what part? Of course not. What are you going to do? You're going to tell the big picture story, a summary, an overview. But not just any overview. You're need to present a summary that is so compelling that in fifteen minutes or less, the exec is willing to commit millions of dollars to making it happen. Can't be done? Dude. It's Hollywood. It happens all the time.

How do you tell your story? Movie plots always have three elements: (1) the hero, (2) the villian, (3) the resolution. Here's an example of a movie plot overview. See if you can spot the hero, the villian, and the resolution:

A Mumbai teen who grew up in the slums, becomes a contestant on the Indian version of "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?" He is arrested under suspicion of cheating, and while being interrogated, events from his life history are shown which explain why he knows the answers.

Recognize the story line? It's Slumdog Millionaire, this year's Academy Awards Best Picture winner.

As a Product Manager, you are the evangelist for new product ideas. Work the three elements of the story plot into your pitch. Naturally, your idea is the hero. What's the villian? Is it an unserved need? Is it a rival company? What's the resolution? What's so gosh-darned exciting about your idea that makes it the perfect solution? It is absolutely essential that you perfect your story in three sentences or less. If people don't get it, or they aren't as excited as you are, then keep working at it.

Can't be done you say? Your products are too technical to get people excited in three sentences or less? Au contraire. Which of these two product descriptions gets you the more excited:

A new portable MP3 player combining a small 5GB hard drive, a FireWire port, and a standard 3.5-mm headphone jack in an ultrasleek white and stainless steel case with a 2-inch white backlit LCD display and an estimated 10 hour battery life.

or,

A thousand songs in your pocket.

Anyone who attended Macworld when Steve Jobs unveiled the iPod will recall that single memorable sentense that brought the house down.

The Pitch is absolutely essential in order to establish crystal clear product vision within your company. Above all, the perfect pitch minimizes scope creep and scope dilution. It helps keeps everyone focused with a clear understanding of WHAT they are all working towards, and WHY they are doing it. There's an old saying, "Without vision, the people wander aimlessly". Likewise, without The Pitch establishing the clear product vision, the product wanders aimlessly in development, in marketing, in sales, and in the marketplace.

Finally, every good product just like any good movie needs a memorable tagline.

"A long, long time ago in a galaxy far, far away." - Star Wars

"Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water..." - Jaws 2

"The Last Man On Earth Is Not Alone" - I Am Legend

"A Thousand Songs in Your Pocket" - iPod

"The World's Thinnest Notebook" - MacBook Air

"Can You Hear Me Now?" - Verizon

What's the tagline to your product? What is the one sentence that sticks in peoples minds and brings instant connection with your idea? Be creative. Be imaginative. Make it memorable.