Zeno Group Blog

The mainstream media has finally surfaced a pet peeve of mine — people sitting in meetings thumbing their mobile devices. The New York Times piece today chronicles the debate between traditionalists who find it both rude and disrespectful, and “techno-evangelists” who “insist that to ignore real-time messages in a need it yesterday world is to invite peril.”

Count me in the first camp. I’m as tethered to my Blackberry as the next guy, and appreciate its utility as the indispensible mobile tool for business. That said, I also know when to leave it on the desk or in the briefcase, like during meetings where I’m supposed to be a paying attention and engaging in the discussion.

I’ve heard all the usual rationalizations (“I’m expecting an important e-mail and must be ready to respond immediately”) but I don’t buy it. 99 times out of 100 a few minutes here or there can’t mean the difference between life and death, victory or defeat, saving or losing a client. If you are expecting something so urgent or important it can’t wait until the meeting concludes, either excuse yourself or remain at your desk and watch your e-mail in anticipation.

To be sure, not all meetings require our full attention all the time, and sneaking an occasional peek when stuck in long, tedious meetings is forgivable, so long as it is discreet. As the Times reports, “There is safety in numbers…the acceptability of checking devices is proportional to the number of people attending the meeting. The more people there are, the less noticeable your typing will be.”

But in small settings with colleagues or, heaven forbid, clients, good sense and common courtesy should prevail. If you can’t bear to leave the Blackberry behind, go ahead and mail it in, out of respect for your co-attendees, if nothing else.

Maybe I’m just an old fashioned crank on this subject, but I don’t think I’m alone. And don’t get me started on people who check their e-mail while driving.

As Congress was raking AIG’s executive team over the coals in an “oversight” hearing yesterday, it came to light that right after the federal government provided an $85 billion loan to bail out the company, AIG went ahead with an “incentive” trip for top sales guys. The cost (to shareholders, which now includes taxpayers) was $440,000 and included first class accommodations, spa treatments, and other excessively extravagant behavior.

You wonder if AIG management has intentionally decided to ignore the fact that executive benefits – from big bonuses to lavish perquisites to massive golden parachutes – have become the most obvious symbol of what is wrong with Wall Street firms. While defenders of these firms correctly argue that executive pay is hardly a significant cause of the current crisis, it’s an obvious and easy target for politicians and pundits.

Yet, as the market drop sucks $2 trillion out of American’s retirement savings, AIG has given their myriad critics – which include shareholders, advocacy groups, the White House, and especially the news media – a sharp stick with which to flog them even more. Perhaps they figure their reputation is so damaged it can’t get any worse.

That attitude won’t encourage AIG shareholders, policy holders and the taxpayers, and it certainly doesn’t play well with Washington regulators. Let’s hope this is just an extraordinary lack of political and public relations judgment by senior management in a time of crisis, and not a thumbing of their noses to the very people who must bear the burden of their poor corporate stewardship.

Microsoft launched its new “I’m a PC” ad campaign this week, a long awaited counter attack to Apple’s brilliant campaign featuring a classic PC using nerd who can’t compete with the hyper hipness of the Mac guy.  That ubiquitous Apple campaign has been running for a couple of years now, and it does a great job promoting all the positive aspects of Apple’s lifestyle appeal while affirming the differentiating features of the Mac platform versus the PC.

Now Microsoft is firing back with a mimicking approach that strikes at Mac where it is perhaps most vulnerable – its own smugness.  The campaign was teased over the last few weeks with a puzzling spot featuring Bill Gates and Jerry Seinfeld buying shoes.  If the teaser strategy was to get people scratching their heads and talking, it worked (at least around our office water cooler).

The new spots depict real people around the world stating “I’m a PC” and reflecting on who they are and what they do – reinforcing the fact that 90% of the world is using the Windows platform and doing some pretty important (and pretty cool) things with it.  They may or may not be as cool and hip as the Mac spokesman, but really, who is? 

As a dual Mac user (at home) and a PC user (at the office) I can recite the pros and cons of both, and I endure daily the challenges of working cross platform.  But based on the images projected by these two campaigns I guess I fall more in the PC camp.  It will be fun to watch if people self-identify with the PC users in the new campaign, and if the campaign actually moves the reputation and sales needle for Microsoft.

Opining on politics is big business on cable television, and most cable pundits have a point of view that is rather obvious. Projecting that opinion to viewers is big part of their shtick, and a big part of their appeal. From Bill Maher to Bill O’Reilly, there is something for everyone no matter what your political preferences.

But when the accepted cable prosthletyzing is put front and center on the national networks (who own those cable properties) the reputation of the mother ship can suffer. That’s why NBC was right in moving Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann out of the lead chairs in the anchor booth back to their own platforms on cable, or in a limited role as “color” commentators.

The lines are pretty blurred between the content delivered through over-the-air broadcast, cable, online, satellite and mobile channels. But the national networks run a big reputational risk if they are viewed – by consumers and advertisers – as having lost their political objectivity. The stakes are too high, and American television viewers have too many other choices for getting their news and opinion.

Running a network is a business, after all, and the news departments are a big driver of network reputations. Moving Matthews and Olbermann back into commentary and out of play-by-play was both good business, and good PR.