Jim Barry

Jim Barry, “The Digital Answer Man” is media spokesperson for the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA). He has appeared on countless radio and television programs and webcasts educating people about consumer electronics technology and products. He is the former editor of Video magazine and a 30-year veteran of consumer, trade and custom magazine publishing. During that time he has been an award-winning editor, writer and reporter, the president and CEO of a multi-million dollar corporate division, and the publisher of several consumer and business magazines.

Q: Having attended the recent 2011 Consumer Electronic Show (CES) as spokesperson for its producer, the Consumer Electronic Association’s (CEA), can you comment on whether there is optimism in the air or any anticipated increased consumer confidence in the overall economy?

A: Yes, there was tremendous optimism in the air at the 2011 International CES – a positive aura that had been missing in recent years, making it for me one of the best shows in my 30-plus years attending.

The optimism was reflected in the attendance — over 140,000 including more than 30,000 international visitors — but even more telling, I think, it was in the energy and buzz – the positive vibe emanating from exhibitors and attendees alike.

CES is all about Innovation, and 2010’s sales were led by innovative new product categories, including tablet computers, e-books, and smartphones. These and other electronic products led the way to an estimated six percent sales increase last year, a tremendous turnaround from 2009’s six percent drop.

To be sure there are still significant issues with the overall economy, but if CES is any barometer the innovation on display may well represent the leading edge of an overall economic recovery.

Q: Can you point to any one innovation in the next generation of consumer technology innovations seen at CES, maybe in their infancy, that you think will impact both the economy and consumer lifestyles?

A: As always there were some 20,000 new products introduced at this year’s CES – new technologies that will soon impact everyone’s life were everywhere, so it’s difficult to choose one. Nevertheless, one nascent technology that’s been germinating at the last few shows and started to bloom this year is what I call “no-touch screens.”  The success of the Microsoft Xbox Kinect’s motion, video and sound sensor is a precursor of more “gesture controllers” for TVs and other devices. Stay tuned.

Q: You spend much time talking to the media in order to educate on consumer electronic technologies.  What are the top tech news or trends that consumers should look for in 2011?

A: This year should be the year of the touch-screen tablet computer. After the spectacular debut of the iPad last year, as many as 80 competitors will be on the market in 2011 for consumers to choose from.

But will they embrace tablets other than iPad? That’s the big question. Touch-screen tablets have been around for a decade or so and went nowhere as a consumer product pre iPad. Now there are many choices at a variety of prices for the space between smartphones and netbooks. Gentlemen start your tablets!

Q: Can you comment on what is imminent in the 3D-TV market? Is rapid consumer adoption an issue?

A: By some measures 3D has a spectacular debut year in 2010 with over a million sets sold, but the hype at last year’s CES and inflated projections from some quarters led to the perception that 3D hadn’t done very well. But if you look at the decade-long adoption curves of other major video advances — including color TV and HDTV — you’ll see that 3D is off to a pretty good start. Nevertheless it has challenges those other technologies didn’t including the glasses which currently are expensive and non-compatible among brands. At this year’s CES we saw two solutions: inexpensive “passive” glasses and even some “glasses-less” 3D.  When the latter gets perfected, watch for 3D to take off.

Q:  The CEA 2010 Sustainability Report highlighted the tremendous progress the consumer electronic industry has made in its green initiatives.   Is there a star among these?

A: CES isn’t just the biggest trade show in North America; it’s the “greenest” having been voted that by Trade Show Executive Magazine in 2009. This award is a mirrors a consumer electronics industry that has embraced green technology and good environmental practices. Manufacturers, retailers and CEA alike are working to educate consumers (www.mygreenelectronics.org) and to make products more readily recyclable and dramatically more energy efficient across the board.

One terrific example is TV. The now ubiquitous flat-panel displays are much more energy efficient than the old CRTs, and the typical 42-inch set uses no more electricity in a year than two standard light bulbs.

Wal-Mart played it smart recently, when it keyed into the First Lady’s passion about fighting childhood obesity with its commitment to improve the affordability and health qualities of the food it sells.  According to The Washington Post, Michelle Obama, who participated in the company’s press conference, said that Wal-Mart‘s effort is “a huge victory for folks all across this country” and said it has the “potential to transform the marketplace.”

According to reports, Wal-Mart’s commitment includes working with food suppliers to reduce sodium, sugars, and trans fat in certain products by 2015; developing its own seal to help consumers identify healthier products; and addressing hunger by opening Wal-Mart stores in the nation’s “food deserts,” defined as building stores in underserved areas — and increase its charitable donations to nutrition programs.

No one can argue with that.  Wal-Mart played it smart because it now has a glowing endorsement from the White House and smart, because this will clearly help the company’s aspiration to gain in stature as a forward-thinking company that is taking the lead in offering healthy affordable foods.  If that does not ring true to its reputation to date, you cannot blame it for taking valiant steps at a turnaround and employ its vast economies of scale to a host of hot-button social issues, such as environmental and sustainability — and now food.

If, in the process, the company got a PR bonanza through the wide mainstream media coverage that followed its announcement, then that’s smart, too.

But questions remain.

In writing for CivilEats.org Anna Lappé questions Wal-Mart’s promises and reminds that corporate driven, non-binding promises like these are endemic in the food industry PR playbook. Michele Simon author of Appetite for Profit, reminds that other food companies have made similar promises (Pepsi, Kraft) and received their own PR bonanza with good press, but have done very little to actually improve the health qualities of their products and that, historically, there is little accountability over time when the changes are supposed to be made.

Their cynicism is not unfounded.  The timing of Wal-Mart’s promise to develop its own front-of-package seal apparently preempts the work already underway at the Institutes of Medicine and FDA to “establish research-based criteria for such packaging and create regulations for the entire industry, with real oversight.”  Also, the so-called food deserts where Wal-Mart plans to build more stores because the is “a dearth of grocery stores selling fresh produce in rural and underserved urban areas,” surely fits into their expansion strategy.

Still, if Wal-Mart’s promise is based on a self-serving corporate agenda, yet promises to reduce and bring to the forefront the troubling social cause of obesity, what could be wrong with that?

Don Spetner

Don Spetner is Executive Vice President, Corporate Affairs, for Korn/Ferry International (NYSE: KFY).  He oversees strategic corporate initiatives including the formation of new products and solutions, the monetization of Korn/Ferry’s intellectual property and the integration of additional investments.  Mr. Spetner also serves as a search consultant in Korn/Ferry’s Corporate Affairs practice.  He joined Korn/Ferry in 2000 as SVP, Chief Marketing Officer.

Q: The proverbial “PR seat at the table” has remained aspirational for the most part to date.  What progress do you see in 2011 for that to move toward a norm?

A: There has never been a better time in history than right now for PR to gain a seat in the boardroom.  As the power of advertising and traditional marketing recedes, there is a growing demand for the ability to distill, package and distribute information – and these are all core skills of the public relations profession.

The dramatic change in the way information is distributed and accessed plays right in to the sweet spot of communications professionals.  Smart PR people are leading this charge in major organizations, and that trend should continue.

Q: You have been recently chosen by PRSA-LA as the “PR Professional of the Year.”  Considering that you have been on both, the corporate side of public relations and the agency side, are there any major differences that your dual experiences have given you that impact considerations for selecting executive leaders for each category?  Any particular character traits that play a role?

A: We love candidates that have experience on both the agency and corporate side.  My own personal bias is toward candidates that grow up on the agency side for a number of reasons.  First, they learn to work quickly and under tight deadline pressure.  Second, they must learn a variety of tools, approaches and even different industries – this teaches versatility, flexibility and breadth of knowledge.  The best candidates then translate that training in to a corporate job where they master the dynamics of getting things done in a large, corporate organization.  This requires patience, strategy and superb people skills.

Q: There seems to have been a significant decline in confidence in corporate leaders, particularly at the CEO & Board of Directors level.  Can the economy be faulted for it, or are there other factors or examples in particular that can be attributed to this decline?

A: I think the core reason behind the loss of confidence in our leaders is the length and depth of the recent recession juxtaposed against the dramatic rise in CEO compensation.  When unemployment is  hovering near 10% and underemployment is rampant, it is difficult and disillusioning to contend with CEO pay packages in the tens of millions of dollars.

Q: Recently, we have seen the emergence of a new title in the corporate structure, that of Chief Technology Marketing Officer.  Can you comment on this?

A: It’s kind of ironic, but the phrase that best explains this phenomenon was coined in 1964 by Marshall McLuhan when he said “The medium is the message.”  The point is that technology has completely reshaped the media business and created strange and powerful new channels for communicating.  This has disrupted the traditional marketing process, and thus it makes sense for technology and marketing to be closely aligned in a job function today.

Q: What are the traits that you find necessary to become an influential thought leader?  Are leaders formed by nature or nurture?

A: Good thought leadership is all about vision and strategy, coupled with the ability to communicate clearly and concisely.  There are reams of data supporting both sides of the nature or nurture argument, but my own belief is that leaders are born and that it’s very difficult to coach or develop the innate skills that are required to step up into a leadership role.

In today’s world of crowdsourcing and outspoken self-proclaimed critics, the answer may very well be that it is simply another chicken and egg story.  Some will say the company, while others will point out that the customer is always “king.”

Take the Gap saga, as an example.  In my blog of October 12, 2010, I posed the same question when the company acquiesced to a consumer outcry against its new logo roll out – an outcry that flooded the Internet with derisions, mockeries, parodies, causing the company to retract their new logo. Never mind that the new logo was designed based on two years of market research with costly development costs.  A knee-jerk reaction at best…

Now it’s Starbucks’ turn to roll out a new logo on its 40^th anniversary and, to the chagrin of its loyal customers, the new green logo is essentially Starbucks’ representation of its old logo’s female siren, but without the company name or ‘coffee’.  Actually, it is kudos to Starbucks that they have evolved to the level of recognition where a name is unnecessary such as several well-known companies, including Apple, Inc. (AAPL.O) and Nike, Inc (NKE.N), which have long used only symbols to represent their brands.

Much like the Gap roll out, self-described Starbucks fanatics were not impressed and, among hundreds of comments on Starbucks’ website, called for the company’s name to be put back into the logo.  There is an OMG reaction to the change and the resulting negative buzz, although not as frenzied as with Gap to date, is building in fury.  As an example, from infuriated customers we hear comments such as, “I think it’s nuts,’ and “What’s it going to be — the coffee formerly known as Starbucks?” or “At the rate the logo is evolving, it will soon be nothing but an extreme close-up of the mermaid’s nose,” or  “Who’s the bonehead in your marketing department that removed the world-famous name of Starbucks Coffee from your new logo?”

What I don’t get is why customers bother, when their worries, if any, should be about taste or price changes. The on and offline media have certainly fueled the new uproar by headlining Starbucks’ new logo in major publications. The last two days must have been slow news days…

But what is more worrisome is the changing relationship between brand and customer. There is a growing sense that customers, regardless whether Gap, Starbucks, or other, feel they own the company to which they have given their loyalty – that it is theirs, because without them there is no company and, as such, corporate headquarters owe them the courtesy to consult them before changes occur.  The worry is that with the explosion of social media and real-time feedback, has given customers a platform from which to hold brands hostage to their whims of likes or dislikes.

The reality is that companies spend years on market research and money to fund it, research that nets new opportunities or roads to take.  Customers would do well to trust the companies that gave them the products that they adopted as theirs — and leave the driving of company growth – to the companies.

Unlike the Gap, Starbucks hasn’t budged. The logo stays so far…