It’s taken a long time for consumer brands to come on board with this tactic. In the past, the new frontier for consumer brands was branded (or unbranded) entertainment. After many years, we’re finally starting to see a shift.

One stellar example that I came across recently was for American Express’ OPEN for small businesses. Technically this is business to business, but it’s marketed more like a consumer product.

For years I’ve seen the on-air commercials and also recall their sponsorship of the reality TV show The Restaurant, but it wasn’t until I stumbled upon their OPEN Forum that I really paid attention. Until then I perceived OPEN as just another Amex card tweaked a little for the small business owner. You could argue that I’m not their target audience. But I can tell you that, if I was looking to open my own business, I wouldn’t be looking to a credit card company as a serious partner.

I found myself at OPEN Forum after clicking a link from a Twitter buddy for an article on mistakes that businesses make trying to go green. It was immediately apparent to me that there was a wealth of valuable content available on this site — articles written by small business owners, consultants, and the like. It wasn’t until that moment that I perceived the OPEN brand as an authentic small business expert — suddenly they were more than a credit card.

The site experience certainly can use a lot of work, but the depth of content and credibility are immediate. Many years and millions of ad dollars later it was a single article that turned me into a believer.

Up until recently, you'd be hard-pressed to find the words "user experience" and "book" in the same sentence. With the Kindle, Amazon was arguably the first company to begin that discussion. Prior to January 27, there was much speculation and anticipation that Apple would open that discussion up more with the introduction of their tablet device, the iPad. Unfortunately, what Apple presented during its much-hyped keynote was more of an incremental step forward in the e-book experience. Why? – The iPad uses the ePub format for books, which doesn't allow for rich media and is more of a one-size-fits-all platform.

Rather than sit idle, publishers are working hard to create custom apps to bring readers the future of the book. Well, that's at least what we were all hoping. This week Penguin Books showcased the first next-gen efforts of the book publishing industry, and all I can say is, "Wow!"

That's not true, I can say more.

Many are pegging the tablet category as being a high-end "luxury" web appliance. A peer and I have had some fun debating this.

The above video demonstrates the beginnings of the potential of how tablets can become a legitimate category by creating compelling "content" that people will pay for.

Looking beyond the cool factor, this video demonstrates two examples that I find personally very relevant.

The first is children's books. I have a two-year-old who is addicted to books and to my iPhone. I was blown away last November when I came across this iPhone/children's book hybrid prototype. Penguin takes this to the next level.

Second is the travel book. There are a lot of great arguments about the Kindle's superiority as an e-book reader — weight is one of them. But when I think about the bag of books that breaks my back when I travel abroad, I think the iPad wins out in the weight department. Plus, no more scrambling around looking for that restaurant with dog-earing, highlighting and extra loose sheets of paper.

By today's standards you can still argue that these are luxury experiences. But if people bite and start paying, content production costs will go down, as will the costs of tablet devices.

I applaud Penguin's efforts at innovation here. This week CEO John Makinson told an audience at the Financial Times Digital Media & Broadcasting Conference, “We don’t know whether a video introduction will be valuable to a consumer. We will only find answers to these questions by trial and error.”

Brand differentiation for book publishers and authors has taken on a new dimension and will never be the same.

via paidContent

• Focus on the Consumer: The interface builds off of the consumer-friendly UI of the Zune rather than approaching it as a re-imagining of a Windows 7 experience.

• Clear Differentiation: Knowing that comparison to the iPhone is inevitable, Microsoft created a UI that is thoroughly differentiated and totally ownable.

• Experience Consistency: Microsoft created minimum hardware specifications for manufacturers in their first attempt at taking some real ownership of the product experience.

There are a few areas, however, that could use some help:

• The Name: Here Microsoft should have taken their cues from their other consumer devices and disassociated it from Windows. People will no doubt be calling this thing “The Windows Phone,” which, beyond sounding crappy, is not what it is. And tying the product naming architecture to its Windows counterpart will break down the minute Microsoft renames the next version of Windows.

• Office/Sharepoint Integration: OK, I’ll say it: Who cares? Not only is there no real product differentiation here with a consumer audience, it also muddies the consumer pitch.

• Windows-only: Most of Window Phone 7’s content and data is synced through the cloud. But if you want to sync your media (music, movies, etc.), you need to have a Window’s client. This could slow product adoption with a younger, Mac-toting demographic.

And here are some critical components that could make or break this device:

• A Cohesive, Intuitive Marketplace: If consumers don't have an easy way to buy music, movies and apps, this device will fail. Microsoft has a long history of feuding, disconnected divisions. They really need to pull it together here.

• Great App Guidelines: Apple provides developers with a wealth of beautiful UI components and great guidelines for application development. This encourages a certain level of visual and experiential consistency. We’re currently in the dark as to where Microsoft is here as of yet.

With all the media buzz that they're getting right now, you get the sense that people want this device to succeed. With the launch of Windows 7, Microsoft’s brand perception seems to be turning the corner in a good way. Windows Phone 7 could be their tipping point.

Of all the magazines that we subscribe to here at Sequel, I.D. was the one that I most often found hijacked from my desk. I.D. played a significant role in exposing designers to the broader world of design—which is an acknowledgment, that as design disciplines are becoming more specialized they are, paradoxically, converging as well. Product designers are driving brand identity, digital interfaces are integral to more and more products, and, like the design of physical spaces, all disciplines of design are now about creating experiences.

As the world of interactive design was exploding in the late ‘90s, I.D.’s Interactive Design Annual was required reading. And, by way of walking the walk, the annual had a companion CD-ROM whose design exceeded some of the work contained within. As an early precursor to the open-source movement, the disc even contained a copy of the uncompiled source code.

So, what happened? The obvious culprit is the economy and failing ad sales. This past Wednesday BusinessWeek Innovation columnist Bruce Nussbaum posted this on his blog:

The fact the ID couldn’t find enough advertising to keep it going reflects the ongoing failure of American business culture to understand, value and support creativity and innovation. Yet you can pick up a dozen design-based magazines in Shanghai or Seoul or Singapore, fat with advertising. What is wrong with the US?

With cities like Shanghai being emblematic of the rapid growth that China is experiencing, one could argue that at least two of the three Nussbaum referred to are playing catch up to the U.S.. And the question here is, why didn't I.D. push harder to expand into these cities? No, let's blame the ignorant American business culture.

But there's more to the story here however than ad sales. As we've discussed in several past posts here on our blog, I.D. has joined the ranks of other publications that have failed to adapt and evolve to how we now consume our media - online. The economy only accelerated the inevitable.

For designers, our days of sitting down with a cup of coffee and a stack of monthly design magazines have been replaced with mornings with our daily news feeds, Twitter feeds, and podcasts published by enthusiasts, agencies, industry luminaries, and digital-only publishers. It's free, it's immediate, and it includes further color with user dialog. In most cases the writing and insights aren't of the quality of I.D., but across all areas of online content consumers are settling for good enough.

I often wondered why I.D.—as a magazine that championed innovation—seemed the only one among its peers not even trying to experiment with extending its brand online. And while most of the other publications have integrated daily content into their publishing process, the fact is that they're still limiting themselves to a publishing mentality - rather than a service mentality. Communication Arts, one of the magazines that actually “got it” early on with their Creative Hotlist service, dropped the ball while many younger companies (or individuals) more at home online created newer, better services. It's depressing that I barely see any of the magazines that years ago were at the center of the dialog around design mentioned in the blogs and Twitter feeds I follow. It's a sad irony that the publications that are about how design enables communication, relationships, and experiences aren't leading by example.

We join the legions of agencies and individuals that mourn the loss of this once-essential beacon of design. Unfortunately we're all now left to wonder, who’s next?

Interesting video here with Verizon's CMO on their marketing strategy. 

While the other networks drove their business by (mostly) promoting their new sexy handsets, Verizon's message was always about the network. Everyone on the other networks find themseves constantly thinking about Verizon (or more specifically about that chap with glasses) when they plead into their phone with frustration "can you hear me now?" Genius.

Verizon's strategy? The network is an extension of the phone. Period. They make the handset manufacturers jump through hoops with their stringent standards. Reading between the lines here, one could almost see them turning down the iPhone a few years ago for not meeting their rigorous requirements. After all, smartphone penetration at the time was only 10%.

However, almost overnight, the iPhone changed the game. For the first time, the handset manufacturer was marketing the phone. Furthermore, Apple was the first company to market a smartphone to a consumer audience in a relevant and meaningful way. The masses wanted the phone, the network didn't matter. Smartphone penetration shot up 40%.

In the shadow of the sexiness of the iPhone, Verizon's network campaigns just didn't seem so cute, charming, and compelling anymore.

Rather than waver from their singular focus (which they considered doing), Verizon stayed true to their course.

This past month alone Verizon has made two huge strides. First was their controversial "Maps" campaign, where they've keyed into the highly publicized frustrations that iPhone users are having with AT&T's 3G network. Contrasting the two maps side by side, the narrator mocks the iPhone ads saying, "there's a map for that." AT&T's legal actions against Verizon for this campaign have only created a perception that they have something to hide.

Second was the release of The Droid—which many are calling Verizon's first sexy device. The Droid runs version 2.0 of the Android operating system. Android is developed by the Open Handset Alliance (a consortium of 47 companies) and most notably has Google's muscle behind it. While not exactly an "iPhone killer", the phone has received rave reviews from the press and from consumers. We've been demoing one in the office and I have to say that it's quite impressive—most notably the phone's integration with Google's services. I'm actually thinking of springing for one myself—look for a review later.

With rumors of a third-quarter deal with Apple for the iPhone, Verizon might not only find themselves back on top, but far in the lead.

Carr presents the domain of the once-ruling class most compellingly as “an island of misfit toys, trains whose cabooses have square wheels and bird fish who are trying to swim in thin air.” But don’t tell the Conde Nast/Time Inc/Hearst/Merediths of the world. They’ve got it all figured out with the soon-to-be-debuted online newsstand. That’s right, it’s the itunes for print that we’ve all been waiting for.

But sarcasm aside, of course these organizations should be throwing everything they’ve got at finding the silver bullet (or the quiver or arrows) for keeping themselves relevant: e-readers, better dotcoms, Adobe AIR, iPhone apps, Facebook, Google Fast Flip, Zinio. One of these may well prove to be the savior, though, as has been discussed here before, it’s likely going to be one thing for publishing brand A, another for brand B and a combination for brand C. Consumption habits increasingly vary across demographics, and publishers need to meet their audience where and when they are.

There is, however, a less-reported development that belies a critical misconception: Conde Nast is apparently targeting its e-reader pitch not to consumers, but to the Audit Bureau of Circulations, making the case that e-reader edition sales are tantamount to hardcopies. Sure, the prospect of pulling down print CPM on digital distribution alluring. But not only is it unrealistic, the idea of establishing the advertiser relationships before the readership ignores the fact that this is but one degree in a spectrum of things that might work. Remember, this is the YouTube/Facebook/Twitter economy that builds audience before business model. The fact that traditional media can’t afford this paradigm doesn’t mean they’re going to successfully subvert it.

Clearly the world is changing. Big media is well positioned to leverage and extend its relationships with audience and advertisers, but it’s ill prepared to assume it knows best how to do this. As Carr writes, “certain stalwart brands will survive and even thrive because of a new scarcity of quality content for niche audiences that demand more than generic information.” He’s probably right, but that means that all comers are best advised to stick to those things they do better than their competition.

It's hard to argue with brutal reality. Nevertheless let me try.

There is another argument, equally based in reality: When times are tough communication is even more important. It's when you need to tell stakeholders that, despite everything, the company remains strong-that it is viable and still investing in growth, and that it will come out of the recession primed to compete.

The truth is, reaching out to stakeholders in good times is easy. (What's simpler than describing how smart you've been, and how new ideas will yield even greater results.) While it's infinitely harder, it's also more important to reach out to constituents when they're concerned - even worried - and when the results are nowhere near what you, or they, would prefer to see. One lesson learned in the economic turmoil of the past year is that, among stakeholders, honesty and transparency clearly win the day. Telling the truth, it seems, earns the loyalty of customers, employees and investors. In the end, this can be key to saving not just one job but many.

As with all businesses, this past year has been challenging for us. We've seen major clients slash brand-building budgets and precious few prospects step into the breech. However, as we noted last summer, some leading companies took a different tack. They made the seemingly counterintuitive decision to raise, rather than cut, communication spend. In the words of my colleague Brett Gerstenblatt, they "took advantage of economic disruption," increasing investment despite the recession, whether to gain share, enter new markets or strengthen relationships.

As we noted back then, not all companies had the deep pockets to do this. But with the economy reaching equilibrium now, more clients are making the move. I believe our company is a pretty accurate microcosm of the larger economy. When clients are feeling more secure our phones start ringing off the hook. In the past few months, we've experienced a considerable upturn in our business. We've also received a number of RFPs, from both new prospects with new ideas and old clients seeking to reconnect with stakeholders. Apparently, companies are starting to believe that its time to invest in the conversation again.

In the meantime, it will be interesting to follow companies that invested at the depth of the recession. Will their brands have an advantage in the upturn? I believe they will.

Are your recession investments paying dividends? Or are you glad you saved your money?