Apple’s iPhone 4, which has dazzled critics and consumers, is being eclipsed by what has to be the world’s most famous antenna — the wraparound signal receiver that is creating an uproar because some users say it causes dropped calls when the device is held a certain way.


The alleged defect has triggered a national discussion about antenna technology and jokes on network television at Apple’s expense and has raised concerns among analysts that the fallout is denting the Cupertino company’s gold standard brand.


Apple plans a news conference at 10 a.m. Friday to talk about the iPhone, although bloggers who received calls inviting them to the event said Apple wouldn’t specify what would be discussed.


The company, which did not respond to requests for comment Wednesday, is also rumored to be quietly making a hardware fix to the latest iPhone — the biggest product launch in the company’s history, with 1.7 million devices sold in three days last month — by applying a new nonconductive coating on the stainless steel smartphone to reduce the reception problems.


Apple’s position as the king of consumer tech innovation has elevated concerns over the antenna.


“Apple is the most interesting company to talk about,” said Ben Bajarin, analyst with Creative Strategies. “So there is a giant magnifying glass on everything it does.”


While it would appear the controversy has not slowed sales yet — there is a three-week wait for the sold-out device — analysts say it eventually could hurt sales.


Analyst Mike Abramsky, with RBC Capital Markets, said Wednesday that Apple also could face a massive repair campaign, or even a full recall, which could cost the company as much as $900 million. And each additional week Apple takes to resolve the issue could add $200 million to the bill, he wrote in a note to investors.


Numerous new iPhone 4 owners say they cannot make or receive calls if their hand covers the lower-left corner of the device’s wraparound stainless-steel antenna — a hold facetiously known as the “death grip.” However, many users say they have no reception problems when their phone is in a case, and some analysts think Apple may eventually give cases away.


Some analysts believe the antenna is a significant problem even as others say it’s not.


Bajarin said he has 50 percent to 60 percent fewer dropped calls on his iPhone 4 than he did with the previous model. “There were a number of places — Palo Alto, Campbell, San Jose — I was guaranteed to get a dropped call” in the past, he said. “I can now hold conference calls in all those locations without dropping a call.”


independent wireless analyst Chetan Sharma: “There is no doubt there is a problem with the antenna. It is creating an embarrassment for the company.”



All mobile devices experience reception difficulties. But experts say devices with an external antenna are more prone to reception problems because users touch the antenna, which can interfere with calls.


The new iPhone’s antenna has become something of a national obsession. Tuesday night, late-night comedian David Letterman made fun of the issue with a top 10 list of “signs you’ve purchased a bad iPhone.” No. 10 on the list: “To make a call, you have to insert a quarter.”


Initially, Apple CEO Steve Jobs was dismissive. He told a customer who e-mailed him to complain about the loss of phone reception when he held the iPhone a certain way, “Just avoid holding it in that way.” Then the company said the problem was that the phone mistakenly displays two more bars than it should for signal strength, giving a false indication of reception strength.


Consumer Reports, which otherwise raved about the iPhone 4, said this week that it confirmed a reception problem and could not recommend the new model. On Tuesday, comments about the review posted on Apple’s tech support forum were reportedly deleted.


“Their response to this whole issue has not been encouraging,” said Mike Gikas, senior electronics editor at Consumer Reports.


Apple, which has long enjoyed a love affair with consumers and is known for excellent customer care, should be able to weather the storm, said Steven Addis, chief executive of Addis Creson, a brand strategy and design firm in Berkeley.


However, Apple’s reputation has taken a hit, he added. “I’ve been really disappointed by the way the company has handled this. You don’t want to put out a product in which you have to have workarounds, like holding it differently. That’s absurd.”


The antenna problem is upsetting iPhone 4 owners like Ceci, a 40-year-old nurse from San Jose who would give only her first name when approached at the Apple Store at Valley Fair mall. She said she has had reception problems with her new iPhone and that if she weren’t already locked into a contract with AT&T, she would buy some other smartphone.


Others are undeterred by the apparent glitch.


“I’m left-handed. I knew about the problems but I still bought it,” said James Bao, sitting in a San Jose cafe Tuesday. “I just couldn’t resist.”


Experts say designing and testing antennas for mobile devices is tricky. As companies pack smartphones with more goodies — large color displays, more processing power, HD cameras — the technology devoted to radio frequency, including the antenna, gets squeezed, said Jeff Hilbert, founder of WiSpry, a Southern California company whose technology aims to improve mobile-phone reception.


Mobile-phone reception can vary widely depending on how the gadgets are held, whether Bluetooth devices are being used with them and even if a person’s head is between the device and a cell phone tower — factors that must be taken into consideration when designing the device, Hilbert added.


Mobile-phone makers create a profile of their users, everything from body size to whether they are more likely to use the devices standing up or lying down, which also affect the quality of calls, said Marlin Mickle, a professor of electrical engineering at the University of Pittsburgh who tests mobile devices for major tech companies.


“You probably are not going to satisfy everyone,” he said.

The original article can be read here.

But that explains only part of the challenge.

Underlying the selection of a name are personal biases and fears. Like weeds in the brand garden, these anxieties work to overtake the landscape, eventually overwhelming the very potential a company hopes to reap from its name. The trick is to uproot the anxiety weeds on the spot and examine them to prevent them from spreading—which they will do, if left unchecked.

Here are some of the most common varieties of weeds we’ve encountered in our many combined years of naming.

Variety 1: It has to explain what we do.

There’s comfort in the literal. Said another way, no one likes guesswork. It’s human nature. One of the first impulses in naming is to isolate only the names that offer an uninspired explanation of what a company does. Consider this: If we took this approach to naming children, we’d be left with an undifferentiated population of “Boy 1,” “Girl 2,” and so on.

Absurd, yes. But you quickly see the point. All names—including brand names—have contexts. Stated another way, names reveal themselves within a context. They don’t create the context.

When you limit your names to the most self-explanatory options, you’re missing the boat that carries brand names like Apple, Jaguar, Virgin, Sony, and the like. Each of these brand names has been invested with a positive market perception. The names alone did not generate the perception. But they stood out from the crowd, ensuring they were remembered.

Variety 2: We don’t want to alienate anyone.

Read the statement above. Give it some thought.

Now ask yourself, “Is it realistic to think a single name can make everyone happy?” And by everyone, we mean consumers, clients, employees, vendors, investors, partners, and board members—just to start.

The process of reviewing potential names invites subjective responses. When presented with an unfamiliar name—or a name that could be construed in many ways—these responses spring up like weeds, often trying to present themselves as objective flowers. In most cases, they’re just projections of our own subjective experience of the world.

Take these examples:

Virgin
“Consumers will find that inappropriate.” (translation: “I find that inappropriate.”)

Apple
“That has nothing to do with computers.” (translation: “I can’t make the connection.”)

Sony
“No one will know what that means.” (translation: “I don’t know what that means.”)

We take for granted that the names above have always meant what they mean to us now. But each in its turn was new, untested, and a potential risk. And by actively alienating anyone outside their designated target, they found a loyal consumer base. The names were invested with meaning according to how they were used and the contexts in which they appeared.

Variety 3: It will be too expensive to justify.

At first glance, this weed looks like a supremely rational flower. It contends that if a conceptual name is too ambiguous, it will require a significant investment in advertising and marketing to explain.

Let’s take the example of Sony Reader and Amazon Kindle. Both are handheld digital devices that display text from books and magazines. You probably could have inferred that from Sony’s product name. It sells itself, right? Kindle, on the other hand, needs to be explained—and that means spending money on media. In reality, if the name and surrounding brand elements tell an engaging story, the company can actually save on advertising dollars. Besides causing a momentary double-take, the name “Kindle” begins to tell the story of how the imagination is sparked through the experience of the product, which is a conduit to the world of literature. It’s brand names that don’t tell a story that have to work hard to find meaning beyond the dictionary definition.

Then there’s the Helio pitfall. A joint venture between Earthlink and SK Telecom, Helio is a mobile phone service provider. The name, which evokes Helios (the sun god in ancient Greece) and has “hello” embedded in it, is loaded with potential and positive connotation. And it’s certainly memorable. But the company chose to pair the name with the advertising slogan, “It’s not a phone company,” which effectively took a conceptual name and made it cryptic—and easy to ignore. If it’s not a phone company, what is it? Given the average consumer attention span, it’s not likely to be solved by anyone on the spot. Conceptual names require a communications balancing act. The less literal the name, the more direct the surrounding communications should be (take for example “Virgin Atlantic Airways” and “Virgin Radio” and “Virgin Mobile”).

Variety 4: It has to tell the whole story.

This weed is a close relative to Variety 1 (“It has to explain what we do”) but is far more difficult to suppress. It’s rooted in the need for a name to be self-explanatory, but its demands threaten to overtake the entire brand garden—and leave nothing behind.

A client recently asked us to name a family of products. Their criteria were: (1) the name has to be short, about 6 characters or less, (2) it has to “speak to” its target audience, (3) it has to convey both emotional and functional benefits, (4) it has to work for additional products, as yet undeveloped, and (5) it has to make sense and/or be translated for markets in Europe and Asia. And, of course, it has to be memorable.

The nature of the request was not unusual. But satisfying all five criteria equally was never going to be possible. We understood the rational side of the client’s expectations, but we saw the irrational side as well: No word, real or invented, in human language could possibly do what was being demanded of this name. Nor should it.

Therein lies the power of this pernicious weed. It demands extraordinary attention as the brand potential around it withers and dies. In the quest for a perfect name, all other viable candidates—which can deliver beautifully on one or two brand attributes—are likely to be discarded. A more realistic approach is to prioritize criteria for the name, then develop options for which a context can be created.

In branding, knowing how to identify and uproot anxiety weeds before they take hold is the surest way to create a highly productive naming process. Use behavioral insights as your industrial-strength weed killer. And when you embark on your next naming effort, remember that the garden that surrounds the flower—or the context you give your name is as important as the flower itself.

“Sustainable Brands ‘10 improved once again on every metric, reflecting the growing recognition that our community is leading the way when it comes to redesigning the 21st century connection between brand innovation/commerce and culture,” said Founder and CEO of Sustainable Life Media, KoAnn Skrzyniarz. “We continue to see new ideas from both entrepreneurs and global brands that respond to the changing environmental context in which brands and businesses operate.”



This year, 11 finalists competed at the 2nd annual Sustainable Brands Innovation Open, an early stage business competition focused on connecting socially responsible investor communities with the most innovative social and eco-entrepreneurs. Grand Prize winner, BioLite, received a $10,000 prize (donated by Nike) towards fostering their business, access to the esteemed panel of judges for business advice, and a brainstorming session with IDEO.

As part of the conference program, an ongoing discussion of the role brands play in helping shape and support the American Dream was re-introduced by visionary brand leaders such as Eric Park, Creative Director at Ziba Design; Marc Mathieu, Founder of BeDo; and John Creson, Executive Creative Director of Addis Creson. From the many conversation and dialog sessions at the conference, an exciting new framework began to emerge that begins to provide a clearer vision of how brands can help restore the American Dream and recapture the motivational power of the original idea.

“It’s time to reestablish the connection between sustainability and the traditional American pursuit of freedom and opportunity,” said Skrzyniarz. “Based on the enthusiastic feedback from conference attendees, we are planning future ways to progress this discussion within and beyond our Sustainable Brands community. Stay tuned!”

For a recap of the discussion to date, go to www.americandreamjournal.org.

Sustainable Life Media announced plans for the Sustainable Brands 2011 conference, June 6-9, 2011 again at the Monterey Conference Center. More info at www.sustainablelifemedia.com/events.



About Sustainable Life Media

Sustainable Life Media (SLM) is the leading producer of sustainable business conferences and educational events, with products and services designed for the sustainable business community including membership, e-newsletters, online learning, community, and the flagship Sustainable Brands conference.

During the conference, the speakers led attendees through a combination of presentations and “unconference” work sessions to develop an early framework that can link brands to the new American Dream.


As part of the conference, the American Dream Journal provided a place to share and discuss the most compelling new stories and innovations contributed by conference attendees, their friends and collaborators.

Oh, GM. Or should I say “General Motors”?

The switch to the more formal moniker brings to mind an analogous experience in my own career. In the days leading up to the dotcom bust, I was working for a very large Web consultancy that began encouraging employees to adopt more formal attire. “In these more sober economic times…” was how the memo read, referring to the fact that the company was bleeding money at an astronomical rate. Employees were told that collarless shirts were no longer acceptable, and jeans should be worn with discretion. Rather than instilling professionalism and pride in employees, the wardrobe recommendations made us feel even more disconnected from a brand we knew was struggling.

I imagine this is the case with Chevrolet’s employees.

The soul of a brand has little to do with dress codes or names. It resides with the employees who are the brand’s daily caretakers. Legislating formality does not elevate brand perception in the eyes of employees or the public. In fact, it can underscore management’s disconnection from their own brand reality. It also runs the risk of casting the brand as inauthentic. And no brand wants to be inauthentic.

I doubt the American public will ever abandon the name Chevy. My parents drove a Chevy Impala convertible in the early ’70s. That car will always be a Chevy Impala convertible. If Chevrolet wants to revitalize its brand, taking its popular nickname away from the American people is probably not the best approach.

Read the full New York Times article.

What does this have to do with branding? Flash forward to adulthood, and “Jim” and “Karen” and “Mark” and “Hildegard” are not just random syllables. They’re signifiers of personhood and personality. Or as we say in branding, identity.

And that brings us to the brand naming conundrum: Does the name create the identity, or does the identity give meaning to the name? The answer: yes.

A name is a relatively small verbal unit. It can only convey so much. And contrary to the most earnest client aspirations, it can never tell the full story about a brand or product or service. It can suggest that story, but the experience of the brand (or product or service) is what invests the name with meaning.

On the flipside, a brand name is like shorthand. It’s a verbal label, an emblem. It stands for everything the brand represents, just like your name represents everything that makes you “you.”

Let’s go back to people names. If I described my friend “Fred” to you in detail, some of that explanation might stick. But chances are you would need to meet Fred in person to form an opinion of him, which you would then retroactively associate with his name. Your experience of my friend Fred is what gives unique meaning to his name. You might even know other Freds. But your specific knowledge of my friend gives the name Fred specific meaning in his case. It’s a contextual thing.

To take it a step further, think of an expression like “That’s so Fred.” That’s a person’s name acting as a brand in everyday speech. We’re able to take the attributes that make Fred “Fred” and apply them to someone or something else, just by using his name. This is something celebrities are fully aware of—and why they often legally protect their names.

That naming conundrum I mentioned? It’s not easily solved. And maybe it’s not supposed to be. But here’s what I know: People tend to learn more easily through experience than being told. Which is why the better you get to know someone, the more likely you are to remember his or her name.

Does this mean all names are just blank slates? No. Even coined names, which have no dictionary definition, cause our synapses to fire. The challenge is to make sure you’re activating synapses—as opposed to not activating them—with a brand name. Ultimately, how people perceive your brand is how they will understand its name. And somewhere in there, the name will come to represent the brand.

See this post on Ads of the World.

Amazon holds the cards for now, say experts, and is willing to pull the plug on an “affiliates” marketing program that drives online traffic to its site and is the basis for recurring state claims that the retailer should collect tax from its shoppers.

The issue is a rallying point for criticism that online retailers have an advantage over their brick-and-mortar rivals in that their customers don’t pay tax. Consumers are supposed to report estimated sales tax from online sales on their state tax returns, but this is frequently ignored.

“Amazon is at the forefront as one of the largest pools of potential tax revenue the states can go after,” said BGC Partners analyst Colin Gillis, who said it could face some political backlash from disgruntled states, but little else.


But even as states vie for their fair share of tax, Amazon may score points with consumers as its plays up its low price image and publicly fights meddling by state authorities.

Most recently, the company sued North Carolina’s department of revenue, claiming its demand for Amazon to turn over names and buying records of customers violated privacy laws.

Amazon has cast itself as the white knight in a Big Brother probe, asserting its legal right to supply “popular and unpopular expressive materials” that are protected from “unnecessary government scrutiny.”

North Carolina has since backed off and offered a more tempered compromise.


Such posturing by Amazon, together with its carefully cultivated image as a low-price leader, will likely keep at bay consumer criticism that Amazon is unfairly benefiting at the expense of state coffers.


“There will not be much backlash,” said Steven Addis of Berkeley-based branding firm Addis Creson. “They’re championing a populist cause, which is lower taxes.”

FIRING AFFILIATES


Currently, a handful of states — including California for the second time — are considering legislation that would require online retailers to collect sales tax.

Such laws are on the books in New York, Rhode Island and North Carolina, after similar efforts in a slew of states last year failed. A decision over Amazon’s appeal of the New York law is expected soon from a New York appeals court.

Lawmakers have argued Amazon has a duty to collect tax because its “affiliates” — independent Web operators which are paid a fee when they drive traffic to Amazon that results in a sale — operate in the state.

Seattle-based Amazon argues it has no standing in those states and its affiliates are mere advertisers. It has pulled the plug on that program in most states where sales tax has been threatened or put into law, rendering moot the issue of its standing.

One advocacy group recently called a boycott against Amazon after the company shuttered its affiliates program, protesting the lost jobs and what it dubbed “corporate greed.”

But those threats, which have gained little traction, aren’t seen as worrisome to the giant online company’s image.

“The world will pretty much give them a pass on this and the affiliates are the collateral damage,” said Addis. “The buyers, all of us, are actually benefiting from this fight, so there is going to be absolutely no backlash.”

Rebecca Madigan, executive director of the Performance Marketing Association, the affiliate marketers’ trade group, said the issue for Amazon comes down to a return on investment.

“They (Amazon) could just basically say, ‘You know what? This is too much trouble; I’m going to give up on affiliate marketing all together.’ That’s our big risk,” Madigan said.

Less than 10 percent of an online retailer’s sales comes from affiliate marketing traffic, analysts say, and only about eight or nine big online retailers use the estimated 200,000 affiliate marketers in the United States, according to Madigan.


For Overstock.com Inc, which similarly sued in New York over the online sales tax and terminated affiliates around the country, the negative effect on its business has been “immaterial,” said President Jonathan Johnson.

He predicted online retailers would continue to shift their affiliate marketing units to states with no online sales tax.

EVENTUAL TAX

Retail experts predict that eventually all online retailers will be forced to collect sales tax, as Amazon currently does in Europe and in New York and a handful of other states.

So if all states eventually passed such laws — and Amazon ran out of states to which to move its affiliates program — the bigger question is whether shoppers would continue to frequent Amazon or any other online store, knowing they’d have to pay tax.

“Buying online is much more about convenience than it is about avoiding tax,” BGC’s Gillis said, adding that any downside would be shared by all online retailers, not just Amazon.

Attempts at the federal level to institute a universal, more streamlined sales tax are mired in political controversy and have thus far fizzled — meaning that the threat of online sales tax appears many years away.

“We know we can grow the brand around the world,” says Annie Young-Scrivner, global chief marketing officer. The best way to do that, she says, is to figure the best product categories into which it can extend the Frappuccino name.

So it reached out to its Starbucks Passion Panel — its best customers who respond to online questions in exchange for perks — and used their responses to give the Frappuccino line a jolt.

Frappuccino was not entirely a Starbucks creation — but a re-creation. When Starbucks purchased The Coffee Connection in 1994, the small Boston chain served a cold, slushy drink dubbed Frappuccino — part frappé and part cappuccino. Starbucks kept the name but junked the recipe.

About this same time, in a bid to boost summer business, the manager of a Starbucks store in Santa Monica, Calif., brought in a blender from home to make cooler drinks. These became today’s Frappuccinos and were rolled out nationally within a year.

The biggest of the Frappuccino changes is next week’s customization program, dubbed “However-you-want-it-Frappuccino,” which, when it rolls out nationally on May 4, will increase Frappuccino options in the store from the current seven to “thousands,” says Young-Scrivner.

Among the new options: non-fat milk and sugar-free toppings. Customized Frappuccinos will cost a bit more for those who want soy milk or an extra shot of espresso. (Soy is free for Starbucks Rewards card members.)

Brand consultant Steven Addis likes the planned brand extensions — particularly the customization, which he says gives consumers “ownership” of the product. But, he warns, “If I ever see Frappuccino cereal balls sitting in a bowl of milk, I’ll know they’ve gone too far.”

Customization is so important to a brand, says Brand Keys’ Robert Passikoff, that just offering it can increase consumer purchases by 20%.

Starbucks knows this. Its target for the Frappuccino is a woman 18 to 24 “who is used to customizing every aspect of her life,” says Young-Scrivner.

It will also allow Starbucks to sell lower-calorie Frappuccinos made with non-fat milk, light syrup and no whipped cream. Currently a grande Caramel Frappuccino — the most popular flavor in stores — has 380 calories. The light version has 160.

To avoid longer lines — a problem that Starbucks dealt with during a particularly hot summer spell in 2006 — it has tested a new system in Texas and has since retrained all of its baristas. “We expect their speed to improve,” says Young-Scrivner.

Other Frappuccino extensions:

•Ice cream. Today, grocery stores nationally will roll out two Frappuccino-flavored ice creams: Starbucks Vanilla Bean Frappuccino and Starbucks Strawberries and Crème Frappuccino. The ice creams, made by Unilever (maker of Breyers ice cream), are the first extension of the Frappuccino line beyond coffee flavors.

“It won’t taste exactly like a Frappuccino,” Young-Scrivner says. Rather, she says, the taste is “inspired” by Frappuccino.

Pints sell for $3.89 to $4.39; single-serve cups fetch $1.29 to $1.39. It will not be sold at Starbucks stores.

•Bottled. In a nod to calorie-conscious customers, Starbucks created a Vanilla Frappuccino Light. The beverage, bottled in a joint venture with PepsiCo, is mostly sold at grocery stores.

•New blends. Starbucks in many Asia markets now sell Red Bean Frappuccino. Black Sesame Frappuccino is being introduced in China this summer.

Meanwhile, executives are researching other extensions for the Frappuccino line. Consumers tend to link Frappuccino with its “sweet” taste profile, so that’s a direction the chain will look, says Young-Scrivner. Candy has been ruled out, she says. Brand consultant Addis suggests desserts would be logical.

“If they try to sell Frappuccino carbonated sodas,” warns Addis, “that would be a real stretch.”


Original USA TODAY article can be found here.

Erase false limitations, your power is exponential.

Reexamine everything around you, and unleash locked potential.

Repurpose old things to see where they might lead.
Whittle down excess, and make time for good deeds.

Draw new conclusions about what really matters.

It’s time for old, outdated thinking to finally shatter.

Caring for our Earth is as important as caring for yourself.
It’s in each one of us to ensure environmental wealth.

Now dust off your imagination and activate change.

Reimagine simple things like pencil shavings (even if that seems strange).

Write Earth Day into your every day, and empty out doubt.

Make a point to do so, and great changes will sprout!