There was an interesting post earlier today from the Official Microsoft Blog on some facts about Microsoft. Here were some of the interesting numbers that were posted:
7.1 million
Projected iPad sales for 2010. [source]58 million
Projected netbook sales in 2010. [source]355 million
Projected PC sales in 2010. [source]
Translation: Despite the iPad being an alleged “magical” device, it’s not going to supplant the other traditional PC form factors anytime soon. All of us living and breathing in the tech industry may belong in a class of people that can afford to pay $500 for a consumption device. However, we are different from the majority of the rest of the world.
8.8 million
Global iPhone sales in Q1 2010. [source]21.5 million
Nokia smartphone sales in Q1 2010. [source]55 million
Total smartphone sales globally in Q1 2010. [source]439 million
Projected global smartphone sales in 2014. [source]
Translation: Is Windows Phone 7 too little, too late? One can debate whether it’s too little or not, but it’s certainly not too late. There is still an awful lot of pie to be made in the near future, and if Microsoft executes Windows Phone 7 well, it may very well be positioned to grab a huge portion of it.
$5.7 Billion
Apple Net income for fiscal year ending Sep 2009. [source]$6.5 Billion
Google Net income for fiscal year ending Dec 2009. [source]$14.5 Billion
Microsoft Net Income for fiscal year ending June 2009. [source]
Translation: Yes, the second largest technology company in the world still makes two-and-a-half times more profit than the largest technology company in the world. Despite all the doom and gloom scenarios painted by pundits this week, as long as people still love Windows and enterprises still continue to choose Windows servers 7 times out of 10, Microsoft’s future prospects continue to remain bright.
While I was browsing Techmeme today, I came across Louis Gray’s opinion piece about the recent report in BusinessWeek that Apple and Microsoft are in discussions to make Bing the default search engine on the iPhone (and possibly even the Mac).
Louis writes:
Even with the increased competition, Google never flipped the switch that Microsoft once did, turning “evil”. Whether it’s assumed Apple and Google are best friends at this point is not as important as the two companies making the right choices for consumers.
Going back to the BusinessWeek article, the main focus is that Apple is looking to make Bing the default search engine on the iPhone, which would reduce, only mildly, some exposure to Google Search, and would help Microsoft more as their improving search engine is in the hands of iPhone fans everywhere. But this could be a humungous case of sour grapes, poised to no doubt leave a bad taste in our mouths. And we’ve seen it play out before.
<snip>
In 2010, moving to Bing would be perceived in the same light. While Bing has its fans, and I know some great people who work on the engine, the assumption from users is that Google is the gold standard in search. If Apple sells its customers short in what is perceived as a second class product, it erodes the customers’ trust, and perception of quality from what’s supposed to be a premium mobile experience. Even if Bing is twice as good as Google, no handful of on-stage demos from Steve Jobs and his team is going to make people think there’s more to the story than Apple playing favorites.
From my view, Google is as concerned with Facebook and Microsoft as it is with Apple. If Apple is going after Google with Bing as a revenge play, then we customers are pawns being forced to accept embedding of products we didn’t request. That very thing is what was at the heart of the DOJ’s case against Microsoft in the late 1990s, and has me feeling less inclined to trust Apple, not more so.
Apple has gained a loyal customer base through focusing on best of breed, even if it costs a little bit more. From Apple, I should be able to assume a higher quality product, and something that reflects real worth. Bing is good, the very best Microsoft has ever offered in search, but backroom shenanigans dealt out due to hurt feelings or assumed alliances is wrong, no matter what. I don’t think Apple and Google are going after each other’s throats right now, and if so, Google is thinking about Apple less than Apple is thinking of them, so making a move because of enemies’ rank is just ridiculous. It’s not 1997 any more, and I have alternatives.
I’ve been following Louis’ blog for a while already, and I generally agree with his spot-on takes on the ebb and flow within the social media industry.
However, I think he’s flat out wrong in this one.
Louis makes three assumptions, which I believe are incorrect:
Assumption #1 – Google is assumed to be the gold standard of search by the users.
I would ask how one is able to draw this conclusion. The reality is that the gold standard for search is different for everyone. You will always be able to find users who believe Bing returns better results for them and suits their needs better, just like you would be able to do the same for Google.
So how else would one assume that Google is the gold standard in search? By market share? That may sound fair, but does that mean that Louis, as a self-proclaimed Mac fan, believes that Windows is the gold standard of operating systems by the users?
Is Bing’s market share really a reflection of its usefulness to users relative to Google, or is it because of market inertia and perhaps the fact that many people just haven’t felt the need to try Bing before? And if it’s the latter, why is “marketing” Bing to a wider audience such a bad thing? Especially since of that wider audience, a portion of them will decide that Bing is the better search engine for their own purposes.
Assumption #2 – Consumers are hurt because of Apple embedding products that they don’t want.
Louis forgot that the user always has the option to switch to another search provider (on both the iPhone and Mac versions of Safari) if they wanted. Choice is always good for the consumer, isn’t it?
Is Google hurting consumers by bundling Avast! Free Antivirus with Google Pack instead of Microsoft Security Essentials, whom AV Comparatives rates as the best-performing free antivirus program available?
Assumption #3 – “Backroom shenanigans” dealt out due to hurt feelings or assumed alliances is wrong.
Realistically, as pundits and outside observers, we don’t know at this point whether this deal is driven by revenge or sour grapes or is it really strictly a business move.
Frankly speaking, so what if this whole thing is about corporate gamesmanship? Didn’t Apple form an alliance with Google for many years and leverage on each other to compete against Microsoft and the rest of the world? Was that wrong?
And if working out partnerships and marketing agreements equates to “backroom shenanigans”, then basically every company in the world conducts shady business. Which of course it’s not, silly. Because all companies have the right to explore and pursue different partnerships to help grow their business. This is capitalism and the free market at work; there’s nothing to see here.
If Apple and Microsoft happen to strike a deal because it made business sense for them, I don’t think anyone can fault them for that – especially since the deal will bring more choice to consumers. (Can I use Bing from the iPhone web browser today?)
Lastly, it’s interesting that Louis made the observation that Google has not turned “evil” yet. Honestly, I don’t like labels like “evil” or “non-evil”, because no one can really define where one stops and the other starts. But perhaps Louis can find out more about HungryGoWhere’s Google encounter for an alternative viewpoint. (Hint: search for “survival and promotion”)
Note: This article was originally published on The Digital Movement. I have made some slight grammatical edits in this version.
Microsoft. Google. Apple.
Whenever someone starts a conversation about Silicon Valley, computers or even just technology in general, you won’t get very deep in the conversation until someone mentions one of these three companies.
That’s expected. Just like Exxon Mobil is the flag bearer for the energy industry (remember, I said energy, not clean energy) when one thinks about the poster child of the technology industry, most people will think no further than one of this triumvirate of companies.
(Perhaps a certain bookseller will join the three in the near future, but for now, it’s only these three.)
Collectively, Microsoft, Google and Apple made over USD 28.7 billion in revenues this past quarter (12.9, 5.9 and 9.9 billion respectively). More impressively though, all three companies managed to handily beat earnings expectations in a down economy, and managed to turn in a healthy 24% net profit margin on average between them (28%, 28% and 17%).
For the average consumer or business user, there is not a single day that goes by where one doesn’t use at least one product from any of these three companies. In fact, there are more and more people like me nowadays, who actually use and rely on multiple products from all three companies every single day without exception.
We’ve rarely seen this level of dependence on technology before. Even during the monopoly heydays of AT&T and Standard Oil, there would be days that go by where you didn’t need to make a phone call or use oil.
Fierce Competitors or Strange Bedfellows?
As a non-biased observer in the tech industry (okay, maybe a teeny bit biased), it is always amusing for me to see these three companies compete and clash with each other in virtually every segment of the tech industry. However – entertainment value aside – many observers will certainly question why these three companies try to do everything and compete with each other everywhere.
Does Microsoft really need to go into the portable music player or search business? Does Google really need to build mobile operating systems or be in the business of selling books? What the heck is Apple anyway? Is it a computer maker, a software company, a mobile platform or a music store?
To really understand the dynamics between these three companies and why they compete (or partner) with each other the way they do, one has to look a bit deeper and really try to understand their motivations and long-term strategies.
Here is just one person’s interpretation based on his own opinions and observations. Let’s start with Apple.
Just Apple Please; Drop the Computer
Apple doesn’t think of itself as a computer company anymore. Nothing illustrates this as well as the fact that Apple changed its name from “Apple Computer, Inc.” to “Apple Inc.” in 2007. Why should it be a computer company and compete with the other computer companies in the industry like Dell, HP and Lenovo? And does it make sense to compete as an OS company? Steve Jobs certainly didn’t think so, as he famously declared in 1996, “The PC wars are over. Done. Microsoft won a long time ago.”
While most people know Apple as the bright and shining Silicon Valley star it is today, Apple actually had to weather some tough times. Things were so bleak in 1997, that Apple received a $150 million dollar investment… from Microsoft, of all companies. In 1997, Steve Jobs returned for a second go as Apple CEO, and led one of the most remarkable turnarounds that the tech industry has ever seen. I believe the reason why Apple is successful today is because they believed in a few important principles.
First of all, even though the PC wars may technically be over, Apple sensed that there are still new markets to be tapped. For the lack of a better term, I’m going to call it Luxury Computing. Just like in a commoditized automobile market there exists a highly profitable market for high-end luxury sports cars, Apple felt that it can create such a market out of the computing industry as well. Apple believed that if you can create something so cool and so out-of-this-world that it immediately differentiates you from your competitors while not sacrificing on any functionality, then people will buy it. That was how Apple started rolling out its tremendously successful line of aesthetically-pleasing Macs – starting with the first “iMac” in 1998. Even the new name had some flair in it.
Beautiful aesthetics, excellent industrial design and perfect execution certainly helps differentiate one computer from the rest, but to Apple, that is not sufficient. In order to completely ensure differentiation, Apple felt that they needed to control every aspect of the user experience and ecosystem. This is the biggest difference between the PC world and the Mac world – in Apple’s view, there is too much risk in letting the ecosystem have a say in how happy your users are with your product.
This is why Apple felt like it wasn’t sufficient for them to build their own hardware. They also needed to create their own operating system (OS X), web browser (Safari), media player (iTunes), portable music player (iPod), mobile phone (iPhone), video codecs (Quicktime), online store (iTunes Store), retail store (Apple Store), backup device (Time Capsule), TV set top box (Apple TV), lifestyle software (iLife) and productivity software (iWork). And that list goes on and on.
In fact, I believe Apple’s ultimate goal is for consumers to be perfectly content and productive using 100% Apple products for all their computing and entertainment needs. And if users are happy and feel that they are using a luxury product, they are willing to pay more and contribute to higher margins.
This is also why Apple is seemingly trying to reach out in so many different directions at once. It simply cannot afford to trust any aspect of the computing experience to other parties and must always look to build and innovate something from within. Even the ecosystems that Apple does allow to flourish – like the iTunes App Store – are frustratingly regulated and controlled.
This also explains why Apple competes with Google and Microsoft on so many different vectors – web browser, mobile phones, operating system, software, etc. In its never-ending quest to provide users with the best differentiation possible, it has no choice but to compete in all these areas with the “Apple experience”.
If you look at how Apple has successfully transformed itself from a computer company to an all-encompassing consumer experience company, it really shows how Apple has a knack of creating new and profitable markets where it didn’t exist before. In Steve Jobs own words in 1996, “If I were running Apple, I would milk the Macintosh for all it’s worth — and get busy on the next great thing.” With Jobs as the CEO, Apple is good at finding the next big thing. And finding the next big thing is important, because for every next big thing that you can find, you can further increase your profits and reduce your risk by diversifying your business.
Want to bet against the Apple Tablet? I certainly won’t.
To achieve the goal of consistently finding their next big thing, Apple is willing to be an early adopter in technology. The iPhone is the world’s first fully touch screen-enabled mobile phone. The new 27” iMacs are something that has never been seen before. Even if this results in Apple being more expensive, so be it. You execute it perfectly, people will buy it.
One last interesting observation about Apple: Sometime around the mid-2000s, Apple forged a deep, yet unofficial partnership with Google, in a bid to – in my opinion – compete with Microsoft. It made perfect sense at the time. Apple provides the hardware, and Google provides the cloud services that add value to the hardware – particularly for devices like the iPhone.
However, Apple subsequently realized that Google was more of a competitor than a friend, and that partnership rapidly dissolved earlier this year. We shall see why next.
Google Wants to Help You Use the Internet
Google – one of the most profitable and powerful tech companies in Silicon Valley today – has an extremely simple business model.
It boils down to this: The more you use the Internet, the more money Google makes.
How do they make that money? Well, the more you use the Internet, the more likely that you will use their market-dominant Google Search. And the more you use Google Search, the more likely that you will have AdWords-driven advertisements thrown your way, which makes money for Google. Also, the more you use the Internet (particularly Google’s free services like Gmail), the more comfortable you will be in trusting your data and transacting in the cloud. And the more comfortable you are with the cloud, the more likely you are willing to pay to put your data in the cloud (Google Apps) or buy stuff from Google on the cloud (Google Bookstore), which also makes money for Google.
In fact, someone told me before that if you look at Google’s revenue over the years and plot that against global Internet usage over the years, it is almost a linear relationship. Simple, right?
This principle alone explains virtually every single product or service that Google comes up with. They either promote Internet use, or they act as a hedge to prevent other companies from disrupting the use of the Google-controlled Internet. And this is also why Google gives away virtually everything for free. They never intend to make money from these products and services – they will make back their investments from the increased revenue from increased Internet usage.
- Gears? It makes web applications more powerful, which will entice users to use the Internet more.
- App Engine? It promotes the rapid development of new Web 2.0-ish services, which will entice users to use the Internet more.
- OpenSocial? It promotes the rapid development of social networking-enabled services, which will entice users to use the Internet more.
- Chrome? What if one day Internet Explorer comes with a built-in ad-blocker? Chrome is a hedge against that.
- Android? What is one day the iPhone or Opera Mobile comes with a built-in ad-blocker? What if Microsoft forces all the mobile device makers who use Windows Mobile to default their search provider to Bing? Android is a hedge against that. (Others think so too.)
- Chrome OS? What if one day Windows comes with a built-in ad-blocker? Chrome OS is a hedge against that.
- Vehement support for HTML 5? What if the de-facto standard for Internet video and rich Internet applications continues to be plug-in based technologies like Flash and Silverlight? Google can’t possibly have the keys of their kingdom under the control of a couple of gatekeepers like Adobe and Microsoft! HTML 5 is a hedge against that.
This explains why Google competes with Apple and Microsoft on so many different vectors – web browser, online services, mobile phones, operating system, etc. In its never-ending quest to ensure that global Internet usage grows unfettered at a steady rate, it has no choice but to compete in all these areas.
This gets pretty annoying and disruptive for Google’s competitors, since Google loves to give stuff away for free when their competitors are charging for it.
Google also tried to invade Apple’s turf earlier this year with the whole Google Voice incident, which explains why their partnership fizzled shortly after the incident came to light.
To Google’s credit, it does recognize that it’s risky to only look at consumer Internet use as your primary revenue source, and has been diligently trying to diversify into the enterprise space with Google Apps. However, although Google is not established in the enterprise space yet, this is a shot across the bow to Microsoft, which lives and dies by the enterprise.
Speaking of Microsoft…
You Mess with Microsoft, They Mess You Back
When most people think about Microsoft, they think of a two-trick pony that survives only on its dominant Windows and Office franchises. The reality though, is that the Microsoft of today is an incredibly diverse company; in fact, based on Microsoft’s latest financial results, Windows and Office only contribute about 54% of Microsoft’s total revenues. Segments like the Xbox business and enterprise server business surprisingly contribute to a large part of Microsoft’s revenues nowadays.
However, having said all of that, Windows is still Microsoft’s bread and butter. If Microsoft loses the operating system, it’s game over for the Redmond giant. And if competitors are making it difficult for you to do your business, make sure you make things difficult for them to do theirs also.
This alone explains why Microsoft feels the need to diversify and compete in certain areas that may not be perceived as traditional Microsoft competencies.
None of this is as evident as Microsoft’s investment in the online business – particularly in search – despite losing money quarter after quarter.
Microsoft sees Google as a disruptive competitor, with free or cheap offerings looking to displace Microsoft offerings in both the consumer and enterprise space. Chrome OS is free, Windows is not. Android is free, Windows Mobile is not. Google Apps are cheap, Office is… well, perceived as more expensive than Google Apps.
Google can afford to be disruptive, because it has a massive cash cow called AdWords that can fund virtually everything they do. So if you are Microsoft, you have to force them to play defense as well, and you attack Google’s Internet empire with an Internet empire of your own. Thus is why despite hemorrhaging billions of dollars every year, Microsoft needed to put in the investment to commit to the success of Bing, Windows Live, MSN and the rest of Microsoft’s online properties.
It’s still early days – especially for Bing – but Microsoft needs to strategically be in the online game for the long haul. And if past history is any indication, Microsoft prevails more often than not whenever it consciously picks a battle it wants to win and commits serious resources to it.
As for competing with Apple… Well, there isn’t as much to say here.
As far as PCs are concerned, both sides seem to have carved out their respective niches, and it looks to be status quo for a while. Despite Microsoft’s gift to Apple called “Windows Vista”, Apple made no attempt to enter the enterprise space. Microsoft followed Apple’s lead and realized that people not only liked functional PCs, but also aesthetically-pleasing PCs. Thus Microsoft worked very hard with its ecosystem of partners to make sure Windows 7 (as well as the plethora of new PC hardware hitting the market now) are both functional and aesthetically-pleasing.
Microsoft also realized that Apple’s practice of offering an end-to-end consumer experience for the user is what users wanted, which is why Microsoft diversified into consumer electronics like the Xbox and the Zune. The future Microsoft will likely be an all-encompassing consumer-oriented company that brings a consistent computing experience across all of the devices that consumer will use during a day. Steve Ballmer alluded to it many times before, in terms of Microsoft’s “three screens and the cloud” strategy.
Now if only Microsoft can fix Windows Mobile…
A Classroom Analogy
So 2500 words later, what can we conclude or predict about the future?
Frankly speaking, in this volatile tech industry where a content management system for 140-character messages can get a USD 1 billion valuation, we really can’t conclude or predict anything.
However, if I was a betting man, I would bet that all three tech giants will be around for a long while to come. I believe there may be a redistribution of market share for certain products and services, but all three companies will stake out their sweet spots and remain incredibly profitable while keeping each other in check. And ultimately, the big winners in that scenario are us, the consumers.
Try this analogy: If you were in a classroom and there were three girls you liked in your class, who would you rather date?
- Would you date the girl who is always gorgeous with her expensive designer clothing and perfectly-manicured nails who desires to bring you all over town to all of her favorite nightspots to make sure you always have a good time? (Apple)
- Or would you date the cute and confident girl who always volunteers to help you with all your home work and keeps you company whenever you need it because she thinks that it’s mutually beneficial for the both of you to be hanging out together all the time? (Google)
- Or perhaps you prefer the pretty and tough girl who despite her previous, colorful life experiences making her more mature and worldly than the rest, she doesn’t like to brag about herself and whenever you need anything, you know you can always depend on her? (Microsoft)
IMO, the only acceptable solution (for this make-believe world at least, but perhaps not for the real world) would be to accept polyamory and to date all three at the same time.
I read with amusement today this BusinessWeek article titled, “Can Apple Spoil Microsoft’s Day.”
According to BusinessWeek, Apple is banking on the Windows 7 launch as its “best chance in years to win over longtime PC users.”
BusinessWeek describes the Apple strategy here:
In the coming weeks, Apple is expected to hit those computer buyers with advertising aimed at luring them to its Macs. It will likely make the case that Macs are less susceptible to viruses and are best suited to its popular iPods and iPhones. And look for it to poke fun at Microsoft for making XP owners go through an arduous process to upgrade to Windows 7—one that includes backing up all their files to an external drive, reformatting their PC, and then reinstalling all of their old programs, assuming they still have the CDs. “Any user that reads all those steps is probably going to freak out. If you have to go through all that, why not just buy a Mac?” says Schiller.
Now, perhaps I am not the sharpest tool in the shed, but I really don’t follow Apple’s thinking here.
I’m not even talking about the fact that Apple is dusting off the decade-old “Macs are more secure than Windows” message which has already been debunked multiple times since the Vista days.
Nor am I talking about how as an iPod and iPhone user running Windows 7 on my home PC, I don’t think I’m missing anything that my esteemed Mac colleagues are enjoying.
What I really don’t get is this: Because it’s difficult to upgrade to Windows 7 from Windows XP, you should buy a Mac instead.
Let’s see:
- To upgrade from XP to Windows 7, one needs to pay a few hundred dollars for the OS, back up all their documents (using Windows Easy Transfer I would presume), do a clean install of the operating system (which includes formatting their drive for them), install applications, and copy their data back.
- To switch from a PC running XP to a Mac, one needs to pay a few thousand dollars for the Mac, back up all their documents, acquire applications for the Mac (since their Windows apps won’t work), install applications, copy their data back, and finally learn how to use a Mac.
Is switching to a Mac that much easier than upgrading from XP to Windows 7? It sure is a heck of a lot costly though!
But that may be a subjective argument. Fine. However, the more fundamental head-scratcher is this:
Why would these (presumably) mainstream XP users switch to a Mac now?
I mean, if billions of advertising dollars and three years worth of “Get a Mac” commercials didn’t convince them then, why would it now? Just because Microsoft releases it’s strongest operating system in years that Gartner proclaims is “all but inevitable“, this represents Apple’s best conversion chance in years? Really? Even better than the dog days of Windows Vista?
Am I missing something here or is there too much hyperbole flying around Cupertino lately?
I had the opportunity to attend the press conference for Anime Festival Asia 2009 a couple weeks ago (photos here).
Now, I’m not normally the type of blogger that attends (or gets invited to) media briefings for consumer events like AFA, but I was pretty stokked to attend this one since I am a huge anime fan. The press conference was more or less as I expected, and frankly, I’m pretty excited about AFA this year.
But I’m not here today to write about how AFA09 will have double the number of musical artistes compared to last year, with Yoshiki Fukuyama and Shoko Nakagawa joining AFA incumbents May’n and Ichirou Mizuki in concert.
Nor am I interested in writing about how the AFA09 venue will include a maid cafe featuring a group of seven “maids” that were handpicked through a closed-door audition process and which seems to be marketed more as an all-Japanese idol group but in reality the group consists of all Singaporean girls.
Lastly, I’m also not going to write about the pleasant yet not-so-surprising development that the powers that be are positioning Singapore as the next anime marketing and creativity hub – and as a first step in the right direction – are holding a one-day business conference (Animation Asia Conference 2009) together with AFA09.
Instead, and three run-on sentences later, I would like to highlight something I realized recently:
Nowadays you will hardly find any announcements or build-up for big events without some kind of social media component to it.
This is actually a good thing, particularly if the social media piece is executed well. And executing it well does not mean only coming up with an event #hashtag or liberally creating multiple Twitter accounts.
In AFA’s case, I believe that they integrated the social media aspect into their event build-up very nicely, and one way to understand it is to compare AFA09 with AFA08.
AFA08 was held on Nov 22/23 of 2008. According to DarkMirage’s blog post, the press conference was held on Sep 3, 2008, or two months before the event. Before then, not many people (if any at all) knew about the event – especially not casual anime fans like myself who were not tuned into the local online anime community. In fact, I didn’t even know about AFA08 until someone told me near the end of October, or only one month prior to the event. And many of my colleagues and friends didn’t know about AFA until I told them basically the week before.
Information flow for AFA08 was also pretty one-directional. Besides an email address listed on the AFA08 website for general inquiries and the option for users to befriend the AFA mascot (AFA-kun) on Facebook, I believe there really wasn’t much interaction between the fans and the event organizers.
AFA09 will also be held on Nov 22/23 of this year. This time around, the Facebook page and Twitter account for AFA09 was created as early as May 29, or a good six months before the event when the event build-up started (1st thing I like). Furthermore, if you scan through the Facebook and Twitter content streams, you will realize that it’s not a one-directional flow of information, but actual conversations are going on between the event organizers and the fans (2nd thing I like).
And what’s more – oftentimes the original content that is being posted has nothing to do with the event itself, but are anime-related news or tidbits that fans will enjoy (3rd thing I like). That helps position AFA’s social media channels to be not only a temporary thing just for this year, but actually an useful resource with a community that will come back and survive post-event. And of course, that could be very useful when you want to talk about AFA10, or market other products and services to the community.
(Interestingly, the AFA09 Facebook page has close to 10x more Fans than the AFA09 Twitter account has followers. Yet another validation that teens don’t really use Twitter?)
The thing is – as the handful of people reading this would probably know – nothing I described above is rocket science. However, as easy as it is to create a Facebook page, start a WordPress blog or register for a new Twitter account, sustaining and running these social media channels well is an entirely different ballgame.
I think some social media blogger once said (it could be Ben; I don’t remember) – that it’s his hope that one day there will be no need for social media specialists anymore, but instead social media becomes an invaluable tool that all PR, marketing, and event professionals will know how to leverage.
And companies agree with this view as well. Based on this IPR report (PDF), close to 80% of companies today think that social media skill sets are important for new PR and marketing hires.
Anyway, successful social media case studies like AFA and Resorts World make me hopeful that the day that we don’t need a separate social media specialist anymore may actually come a lot sooner than we think.
View my LinkedIn profile
View my Facebook profile
Follow me on Twitter
Check out my tumblelog on Posterous
