Well, two weeks in, I still can’t say enough about it and I still keep finding new features.  Is it as good as an iPhone?  I don’t know, I don’t care.  Does it make calls, keep my schedules in sync, organize all my emails, appointments and tasks?  Yes.

Is it easy to type on? Yes.

Are all the cool apps that the iPhone have on it?  Well, it depends on your definition of “cool,” I guess, but yes.  The Weather Channel app is exactly the same.  Many things the iPhone needs an “app” for are built-in functions, from what I’ve read.

Everyone has different needs.  This device exceeds all mine and I still find cool and new uses for it.

If you’re a user of Gmail, Google Docs and Google calendar, the Driod certainly integrates faster and easier. If you are tied to Exchange, it’s a toss-up, though the Droid sync’d up with my Exchange everything in less than 60 seconds.

The integrated search for apps, mail and the Web. And it’s nearly instantaneous. I can’t stop raving about Google Navigation.  I’ve seen Garmins, Tom-Toms and was a previous user of VZ Navigator. This beats them all, hands-down.  You can overlay searches along your route for any local businesses and you can overlay Google Latitude, Satellite view and you can use Street View too.

Will it kill the iPhone?  Doubful.  Will it be a major player? You bet.  I daresay the Android 2.0 platform will be the best-selling in the future. iPhone is one device, one interface.  The open-source platform should make Android the mobile OS of years to come.

So the iDon’t campaign wasn’t the best marketing idea. Its next round of Droid Does isn’t going to make the phones fly off the shelves either, but they are at least a step in the right direction to informing the masses of what this product is and does.  But until the “there’s an app for that” campaign started, majority of non-techie people did not know the iPhone was more than music, either.

The only thing the iPhone really has over this device is iTunes. Frankly, I own a Mac and I still don’t use iTunes.  I’m not missing much. I can still play many formats of music, including playlists and manage all those songs and lists with a free music organizer that works under Mac, Windows and Linux.  Really, what more could I really want?

My recommendation?  By a phone that suits your needs.  If you’re looking for a phone that checks email, logs into remote computers, plays games and music, syncs calendars, both products are damn fine.  But I truly believe if Apple groupies put personal bias aside, they’d find the Droid a bit more robust.  Time will tell when the new iPhone hits next summer.

Why Google Analytics?

Well, for starters, it’s free.  When your marketing mix and marketing tracking tools have ever-rising costs, a free tool for Web analytics is right up every CFO’s alley.  Somewhere in the back of my mind, I heard the murmurings of the old adage “you get what you pay for.” Granted, that was apropos when Google Analytics first launched, but they’ve gotten far better tools and reporting since then.  But should your company solely rely on it?

The Good

Google Analytics is a client-side solution.  This means that you rely on your site visitor (and its browser and security settings) to give you the information you desire.  You have to insert JavaScript code into every page of your site that you want to track.  This includes any customized redirect pages or error pages.  Upon hitting your site, the JavaScript is loaded into the visitor’s browser, makes additional network connections to Google, where the visitor’s actions are tracked.

The Bad

Simply put, if a visitor to your Web site has JavaScript disabled or only accepts certain cookies, you won’t get the analytical information you want. Keep in mind, there is a setting that says “only accept cookies from the originating domain,” which many people choose to use.  In essence, this means that Google’s thrid-party cookies set by their JavaScript code are never accepted.  An entire subset of security-conscious, naive or simply unknowing users of a high-security corporate network are never tracked. An incredibly large bias has now been introduced into your statistics.  How can they be trusted?

Is It That Cut-and-dry?

In a nutshell, yes.  While Google analytics are great, free tools, the data you collect are not entirely accurate.  Server-side analytics are generally more accurate and don’t rely on cookies or JavaScript.  Every time a visitor hits a Web page, they leave a footprint of date, time, page requested, any parameters attached to that page, browser, operating system, IP address, referring page and any status codes that indicate errors, redirects or caching checks.  This always happens.

Google’s JavaScript code can’t catch all of that. To track a user back and forth, Google needs to rely on pre-existing data and cookies that the visitor may or may not use. In this day and age of Web-based scripts and security, many Web programmers have begun to use technology called server-side redirects to masquerade how certain parameters are used so hackers can’t take down their site.  These server-side redirects are not pages, which means you can’t put Javascript onto them, which further means more skewing of data, even if people have all their cookies enabled.

So doesn’t it make sense to use analytics tools that read data you already are collecting? When you rely on Google for analytics, you’ve just increased the bandwidth used by your visitor. (Ask Time Warner, this will be an issue in the future.) You’ve also increased the time it takes to display that page, because you have to wait for the connections to Google to be made, processed and returned to the visitor.

So Why Does It Matter?

For your personal blog, or your start-up, brick-and-mortar small business, Google Analytics is a fine tool. For the most part it  gets the job done. But when you heavily rely on accurate visitor traffic, you need something that analyzes ALL your data.  If your average target demographic is not a dumb novice computer user, you’re probably missing data on many of them.

I recently sat through a presentation where the primary marketing officer talked about multi-variable testing on creative and landing pages and the usual lather, rinse, repeat that every good marketer should be able to preach. They talked of diverse audiences and of key words, SEM, SEO, SMM, ad spends, tracking and analytics and pretty much every marketing buzzword you could think of.  Lastly, they lauded their clients’ organic placement. Yet, I ran simple searches for their key phrases and only came up with one of their clients in the top-ten.  This made me suspect.

Post-meeting, I approached one and asked about A-B testing of creative to landing pages and of methods of tracking used.  On cue, I was told they test multiple creative ads and ”of course” they test multiple landing pages with each of the many creative ads.

Yet, I was shocked that a multi-national company that effectively flaunted their reputation in this presentation so matter-of-factly stated they relied solely on Google Analytics. This company has dozens of large organizations as clients.  Each of these clients should have far outgrown a solution that consists only of Google Analytics.  However, this entire marketing department that juggles dozens of client sites uses the free, unrobust tool.

To Use or Not To Use?

Please don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying don’t use Google Analytics. I’m saying it shouldn’t be the primary means on which you base your marketing decisions. Worse yet, it should not be the basis of marketing decisions you make for others.

Using publicly accessible financial statements filed with the SEC and readily available on Google Finance, Time Warner’s total revenue has nearly doubled from $8.8 Billion at end-of-year 2005 to a whopping $17.2 Billion at end-of-year 2008.  Gross profit has mirrored those numbers, growing from $4.9 Billion in 2005 to over $9 Billion in 2008. The percentage  increases are as close as you’ll see to a 1:1 revenue-to-profit ratio.The argument that expenses have increased are grossly understated as well.  In 2005, General and Administrative expenses were $1.5 Billion.  In 2008, $2.8 Billion.  Again, the same ratio as revenue and gross profit.

The Line item for “Unusual Expense” is more interesting:  $42 Million in 2005, up slightly in 2006 and down to $23 Million in 2007.  Mysteriously, there is a $14.9 Billion figure in 2008. Presumably that would be the big set-up before this fall out.  But, through 2007, revenue and profits went up, operating costs went up proportionately and “unusual” costs went down.

Let’s give them the benefit up the doubt and call 2008’s massive $14.9 Billion expenditure a system upgrade. It’s not a “usual” expense.  It would be a capital improvement expense for  more fiber, better equipment (although my service hasn’t changed and I’m still using an out-dated cable modem and waiting on DOCSIS 3.0).   Looking at the financial trends,  that all the experts like to look at, tell me how that won’t be recouped in about two years?

Time Warner – who are you trying to play at here?

You realize your customers have been using your Internet service to be able to access this kind of public, readily-available information.  As a result, we are now a world of more intelligent consumers.  It’s marketing 101: build a relationship with your customers.

Time Warner COO, Landel Hobbs as quoted in E-Week:

“We realize our communication to customers about these trials has been inadequate, and we apologize for any frustration we caused…”

“We’ve heard the passionate feedback, and we’ve taken action to address our customers’ concerns.”

No, sir you haven’t.  Please explain to us how increased bandwidth usage increases your costs. At the top-tiers of Internet backbones, companies are charged for the capacity of their connections, not for the amount of data passing through them.

Mr Hobbs:  your public-record financial numbers do not match the costs you are claiming.  You cannot justify a more-than-tripled price point for a service without justification.

But it would seem that Mr. Hobbs is making quite a few really interesting statements recently.  Ars Technica is reporting Hobbs has some choice words about FCC about getting bailout money and why this is “not the time, nor…the appropriate proceeding to engage in a debate about the need for net neutrality.”

From Matthew Lasar in that same article:

Golly gosh, an observer might wonder, when exactly would be the right time to have a discussion over at the FCC about bandwidth cap plans that potentially ding consumers for accessing non-cable provider video content?

Mr Hobbs:  You cannot pretend that limiting Internet service and restricting free Internet consumption does not infringe upon the fundamental concepts of Net Neutrality.

Time Warner is truly trying to pull a fast one on their customers in an apparent greed that is scarily similar to the financial sector’s greed.  Perhaps this is why they’re rolling this service out in select markets where you have no other threat of competition?  I see you’ve done your SWOT analysis.  Now try some customer relationship building before it’s too late.

If Yahoo! CEO Jerry Yang finally caves in and accepts a buyout offer, it would still make Micro-hoo! number two behind Google. But Jerry Yang has always thought that he would be the one to lead Yahoo! out of its current slide.

According to All Things Digital, Microsoft purportedly placed their offer quietly, and tried to bully Yahoo! into a response or Microsoft would go public with the information. I guess Yahoo! couldn’t find a result fast enough.

Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer’s letter to Yahoo!’s board of directors has been acquired by Silicon Alley Insider. In their own words,Microsoft claims to “have great respect for Yahoo!” and thinks this deal will make them “better positioned to compete in the online services market.” The Press Conference Call and details from Microsoft is available to read online and includes a Webcast and related PowerPoint presentation.

Clearly, Microsoft is trying to flex their muscles and show that they’re still a contender in the Search game. But really, throughout 2007, Google maintained a 64% share in all U. S. searches. Microsoft’s Live search never saw better than 12.9% in 2007, depending on which numbers you look at. comScore tallied Google as only 56% share of searches. Together, Yahoo! and MSN/Live searches still couldn’t equal the share percentage Google held all year.

But search isn’t the reason for this huge gamble of an offer. This is about really ad revenue. Yahoo’s properties are currently the #1 trafficked Web sites, Microsoft’s are #5. Google, public enemy number one, hits the most trafficked properties lists at #2.

But does more online traffic really equate to more online advertising revenue? Clearly Microsoft thinks so. Their offer letter to Yahoo discusses the use of economies of scale in online advertising platforms. Oh wait – do I have this right? Someone built a better mousetrap and Microsoft wants to buy it and brand it as its own. Haven’t we’ve seen this before?

Groundhog day is tomorrow. It’s that festive day that inspired a movie about a ever-recurring situation. Perhaps Microsoft released their offer a day early? No, that can’t be. Microsoft never beats their deadlines … unless, of course, what they release is seriously flawed and broken. Hmm…..

Lego Star Wars: The Video Game hit the scene in April 2005. It rode hot off the heels of the popularity of LucasArt’s movie release of Star Wars Episode III. LucasArts and company followed the game up with Lego Star Wars II: The Original Trilogy, based on – you guessed it – the original Star Wars movies (Episodes IV, V, and VI). Both games were a hit through their creative use of animated Lego characters and some really humorously quirky expressions.
Three months ago, LucasArts and TT Games teamed up again for Lego Star Wars: The Complete Saga. With only subtle changes, the publisher managed to capture the Wii and Playstation 3 audiences, which missed out on the original two games.

Almost as a hint of foreshadowing, they included a hidden playable character – Indiana Jones. Setting fans wondering. Well, now it’s official. Lego Indiana Jones: The Video Game has been announced. It’s scheduled for release “Summer 2008,” which will conveniently coincide with the new Indiana Jones movie, scheduled release on May 22.

Right on it’s heels, scheduled for “Fall 2008,” is Lego Batman: The Video Game. To which I have to commend Lego. As a marketer, you’re always asking – how can I get more people to buy more of my product? For tobacco companies, the answer is target younger audiences with demo-approved messages. Lego seems to be answering this call by targeting not only younger crowds with Lego toys based on popular movies, but also by realizing that the average gamer is 33 years old, who incessantly quoted these movies and now have kids of their own. Twice the angle, yet just as topical.  They get the same people (as adults now) to buy more, while at the same time acquiring new demand from the younger audience, all without the risk of trying to enter a new market.

What a strategic partnership they have made with LucasArts, who never ceases to amaze the movie industry, no matter how many times they reuse a plot or drag out a saga.  Granted, there’s a risk in making the investment into new products based on old movies, but they really were able to leverage several timeless branded franchises in Star Wars, Indiana Jones and Batman.  Lego’s risk was minimal – since they were able re-purpose many “tried and true” molds for certain size bricks that already existed.

So … anyone expect Lego Jaws anytime soon?

Addendum – added 28-Jan-2008 :

So, I open my browser to my Google portal page today and what do I see but a nifty Google Doogle praising Lego’s 50th Anniversary.  Congratulations Lego, 50 years and counting while continuing to improve

Granted, I’m a little late to post this and the response from Microsoft and subsequent fix was released and distributed in December. But the bigger story here is the ad the popped up inline with the article promoting – what else – a competing product to Excel and the rest of the Microsoft Office suite, Google Apps (formerly Google Documents and Spreadsheets).

The picture is worth 1,000 words and whatever the amount that Google paid for it.

In a new digital age where Web-based apps are hurting Microsoft’s desktop stranglehold, give props to Google for pulling off a marketing double-play: a great ad promoting a solid, competing product, and taking advantage of reverse free PR, piggy-backing on their competitor’s widely-publicized misfortune.

Can anyone really stop Google?

So why is it then that on a late-night run to Wegmans for only milk and cat food, am I so tempted into buying the latest new fad flavor from Pepsi?

Yes, folks, they did it again. Pepsi is trying yet another set of fad flavors, this time going after the diet drinkers. Pepsi Jazz, boasting Cherry-Vanilla cola (sounds like Dr. Pepper and Coke – how original) and Strawberries & Cream. (What, Blue wasn’t bad enough?) But I digress.

Why are we, as comsumers, prepared to shell out $1.25 per 20 oz. bottle? Keep in mind that this display was on the end-cap immediately at the end of the soda (pop) aisle. With only 4 additional steps, I can easily grab a 2-liter bottle of W-Pop for only 89 cents. Well, then there’s that the coupon for 50 cents off when I try this new flavor. Ok, now that becomes 75 cents for Pepsi’s 20 oz flavor fad. Oh wait, 50 cents off when you buy TWO. There goes that justification. No, it’s simply better to buy the 2-liter (around 67 oz) than pay 3x as much for a 20 oz bottle, right? And why would any marketing guru in a striped Pepsi distributor shirt think I’d pay that much?

It comes down to basic human nature. Large display that grabs your attention and makes you stop to at least look at it because it’s so cool and attention-grabbing. Of course, that magical marketing word, “New” always helps. Next is the large, portable refrigerated display case that has a selection of both flavors – ice cold – ready and waiting. Of course the 80-degree, 80% humidity at 11pm Rochester summer night doesn’t hurt either, and they played off that nicely. And what a nice touch to leave the shelves half-emptied as if I’m going to believe that there’s not enough left in-stock and I should hurry up and buy them. Really, we consumers are better than that, aren’t we?

Of course I bought one of each. I was thirsty, darnit!