In her post, Apple’s Golden Goose , Laura Reis of the Origins of Brands Blog, famous branding guru who argues in favor of PR over marketing when trying to build brands, and whose father is also a famous brand guru, applies to the iPod touch what seems to be her over arching branding thesis, namely that Convergence products are nearly always BRANDING failures and Divergence products, like the brilliant, in her words, iPod, are the category defining, BRANDING monsters that fortunes are built on.

What does this have to do with iPods vs iPhones, well, here’s Laura in a previous post titled, iPhone, just good enough

[quote author=“Laura”]With the iPhone, Apple has definitely produced the best, most fantastic smartphone ever. It is a beautiful and elegant piece of hardware with simple well designed software. But it is still a smartphone, a multifunction convergence device.

The question is: Will smartphones or multiple devices be the future? Only time will tell.

Short term, Apple addicts will gobble up every last iPhone that goes on sale this Friday at 6 pm. But will the iPhone dominate the telecom market the way the iPod has dominated the music market?

I doubt it. Why?

Because I believe consumers prefer “better.” A convergence product like the iPhone can only offer up “good enough.”

RAZR is a “better” phone. BlackBerry is a “better” email device. Nintendo DS is a “better” game player. Garmin is a “better” mapping device. iPod is a “better” music device.

Some of these products even be could better if manufactures would stop trying to add more functions to the babies and just try to make them better, smaller and cooler. That is exactly the strategy that gave us the iPod.

It gets worse.  In an even earlier post, Convergence finally questioned , Laura claims that the iPhone, being, in her view, the ultimate convergence device will finally make it clear to all that convergence will never be as successful as divergence:

[quote author=“Laura”]The truth is: It is a lot cheaper, easier, better and more efficient to buy different devices for different functions.

Most people prefer and buy each of these devices separately: a cellphone, an iPod, a BlackBerry, a digital camera, a laptop, a desktop, a HD television, a TiVo, a satellite radio, a Nintendo Wii, a DVD player.

If convergence were the key to brand building and future business success than the coffee shop (the classic restaurant that sells everything) would be the most powerful brand in the world.

Yet today most people drink coffee at Starbucks, eat hamburgers at McDonalds, eat chicken at Kentucky Fried Chicken, eat pizza at Pizza Hut, order pizza to be delivered from Domino’s, eat pasta at Olive Garden, eat lobster at Red Lobster, eat Chinese at PF Chang’s, eat burritos at Chipotle, eat donuts at Dunkin Donuts, eat ice cream at Dairy Queen. The list goes on and on!

I don’t disagree with the prediction that initially Apple will sell quite a few iPhones. Steve Job’s brilliant job with the PR and the media’s love of convergence will make an iPhone a must have for some early adopters and elites.

But shortly after the launch the initial hype will wear off and Steve will move on to the next project at Apple. Then the iPhone will end up in the convergence scrap heap along with the ROKR, N-Gage, WebTv and many others.

Initially convergence products, like line extensions get attention and generate early sales. But long term they usually fail and always undermine the brand.

Now, before you think that Laura is just bashing Apple you should know that she Loves the iPod strategy and calls it a Monster Brand.  Here’s a post I read back in 2005 about the Nano .

So I read Laura’s blog back in 2005 because she was obviously smart enough to recognize the genius and power of the iPod strategy and execution.  I stopped reading her blog, so I had no idea she has been mercilessly criticizing the iPhone.  I only found it again yesterday, and now I’m trying to process her critique of the iPhone strategy.  The hard part is she is being consistent and using the same construct, Divergent vs Convergent, to praise the iPod and pan the iPhone.

So what do you think?  Any value in her ideas?

Sorry the post is so long and doesn’t present her ideas very clearly. No time to write a short post.

What does Laura say about the Mac?  Definitely a convergence device if there ever was one, which is responsible for one the greatest brands ever.

Other examples:  Land Rover (SUVs are convergent), Whole Foods (trusted for the best foods in any category), Optimum Cable (converged cable tv, internet & phone)

iPhone=Better mobile internet.

Back to the same question, why called iPhone an iPhone .

Re: Branding, iPods vs iPhone, Divergence vs Convergence

Alcatholic: Thanks for introducing me to Laura and Al Reis. Lots of thought provoking comments. I believe that the success of the iphone will be limited due to the reasons mentioned.

[quote author=“macglenn”]What does Laura say about the Mac?  Definitely a convergence device if there ever was one, which is responsible for one the greatest brands ever.

Other examples:  Land Rover (SUVs are convergent), Whole Foods (trusted for the best foods in any category), Optimum Cable (converged cable tv, internet & phone)

I’ll have to look up what she says about the Mac.  But two things come to mind. 

EDIT2:  I don’t know what I was smoking last night, it was late.  this statement is nonsense on my part: However powerful the Apple brand, the Mac is not a hugely successful product or brand. I think MacGlenn is mostly right about the Mac and Apple brands.

EDIT: iPod is much more powerful globally, and, I would argue, the ipod is the main reason Apple’s brand is so globally powerful today.

The other thing is that in one comment thread she has said that like smartphones, PCs are convergence devices and are not very successful, read profitable.  That’s a pretty counterintuitive statement, and it was just a comment response, so I wouldn’t take it too seriously.

I’ll try to find a post where she more EDIT: broadly argues her theory.

alcatholic:  Nice catch; my first reaction is similar to macglenn.  I shall give this a little thought and try to post more in a day or so.

lisatalowot: Welcome to AFB

[quote author=“capablanca”] ... lisatalowot: Welcome to AFB

He joined AFB earlier than you.  He understands Telecom industry very well.

Re: Branding, iPods vs iPhone, Divergence vs Convergence

[quote author=“lisatalowot”]Alcatholic: Thanks for introducing me to Laura and Al Reis. Lots of thought provoking comments. I believe that the success of the iphone will be limited due to the reasons mentioned.

I’ll second the welcome to AFB, and also point out that as you can imagine on AFB your take on the iPhones long term prospects is quite unique.  Please jump in with any insights or datapoints you think us iPhone believers may be overlooking.

Personally, I’m very curious about exploring critiques of Apple so as to gain better insight into the game it is playing.  It’s all a game, isn’t it?

[quote author=“Mace”]iPhone=Better mobile internet.

Back to the same question, why called iPhone an iPhone .

Good point, and i understand it better now than when you first made it.  Thinking about Apple’s past, I might argue that the iMac was launched as a divergent product:  home Internet computer.  All those PC types who ridiculed the first iMacs jet never understood the value in focusing it so sharply away from business use.

Anyway, my point is that your iphone=better mobile internet mirrors the iMacs original positioning: iMac=better home internet computer.

I wont get into whether the iMac is losing its branding focus, yet!

EDIT: post 777.  Cool. Marking this for good luck.

Laura makes some very good points and I agree to a point. The reason convergence may be better for the iPhone is the physical limitations of the term ‘‘portable’‘. 

On my desk I want the best map, the best phone, the best internet browser and the best music player and to be able to use them separately or in concert. However when I leave the office I would like to have these with me as well but do not want the physical inconvenience of carrying so many devices. So like a lot in life we have a tradeoff.

One other way that convergence would work well is the people who make and sell HD TV screens. Most of the adult population are completely thrown for a loop when they realize they are not buying a TV set a la ‘plug and play’. They have to become experts in buying components such as tuners, speakers etc. or find an expert to set up and explain how to use the 5 remotes that come with the product(s) Too bad one of these major players could not ship a completely converged HD experience, sans the cable box, to the end user. Here I think convergence would be welcomed by most but electronic experts.

According to her construct the whole cellphone category is due to fail because they are all becoming convergent devices.

So if you want to follow that logic, then we could be very successful in a doomed marketplace.  hmmmm   I don’t think cellphones are going to go backwards anytime soon, and I think consensus is the market is going to explode. 

I think she’s wrong, in the mobile space people do want convergence. 

How is she assessing the iPod Touch?

To Snipus’ point about convenience, the problem with convenience may be that convenience is not powerful enough to have iPod type brand power.  Just throwing it out there. 

She does concede that the iPhone is the best smartphone.  I think her point is that the smartphone category itself is not going to produce any winning brands. 

Another argument she seems to be making is that what you need is for a new product to diverge from the smartphone category into a niche that people want. And once you find that divergence optimize your product for it instead of remaining a jack of all trades (nonspecialized).

She loves it and recommends that Apple put all its muscle behind it instead of the iPhone.

Check out the Apple’s golden goose link above.  It’s about the ipod touch.

She loves it and recommends that Apple put all its muscle behind it instead of the iPhone.

Check out the Apple’s golden goose link above.  It’s about the ipod touch.

She just seems to make facts fit her argument.  Why is the iPhone convergent and the iTouch not?
If they add more features, like mail to the iTouch then does that tip it into iPhone communications device?

[quote author=“jimlongo”]She just seems to make facts fit her argument.  Why is the iPhone convergent and the iTouch not?
If they add more features, like mail to the iTouch then does that tip it into iPhone communications device?

It seems that she is talking not so much about functions as consumer categories, in this case phones and music players.  The touch is only one of those two.

Of course, I agree with you in that the touch is more than just a music player, it’s also a…well there isn’t really an existing category name for a “mobile internet device” although maybe now there will be.  And maybe that is the point.  The touch isn’t a convergence device because it isn’t trying to converge a music player with any existing category.

It is arguably diverging the music player into a mobile media acess device by adding wifi and nice software.

Not sure i buy my argument, or Laura’s, but maybe.

Sorry, I can’t be bothered to deconstruct her arguments because she goes so on and on in her article but she’s talking out of her rear end in my opinion and has completely missed the point.