AT&T's 4G is Not Real 4G

Yesterday AT&T had an update “courtesy of Apple’s new iOS 5.1 software update”.  With this update comes a surprise for iPhone 4S users. Their phones will display their speed as 4G. However, according to “For Apple iPhone 4S Owners, 4G the Easy Way” by Andrew Dowell of WSJ.com, it’s not an upgrade in speed just a change in name. This “4G” is actually 3G under a new name.

According to article the update actually states that this is an “Updated AT&T network indicator”. The article also states this as legal: ”the International Telecommunications Union, a standards body, a standards body, said techologies like AT&T’s HSPA-plus could be labeled 4G.”

After AT&T’s consumer battle over reducing customer’s speed without reasonable notification, you would think AT&T would stray from more bad press. Apparently, they believe they’re invincible and can’t suffer from bad publicity. Regardless that it is legally allowed to state that their speed is 4G, AT&T is basically changing the name of a product to act as if they have benefited their customers. They are lying to current and prospective customers. Maybe when AT&T had the iPhone exclusively this would make sense. However, AT&T no longer has exclusivity over the iPhone or iPads and their recent actions with customers is going to be perceived as if they could care less to lose subscribers once contracts are up. How exactly is this a winning move against their competitors?

When I see a 4G indicator on my phone, I believe I have 4G (by the way, I am not an AT&T customer). My phone indicates it and so does my contract. AT&T has proven they don’t heed their contracts and now their phones are lying to you. Maybe someone in marketing/ public relations needs to sit down with executives of the company to teach common sense and plan for exodus when contracts are up.

Research In Motion co-CEOs Step Down

Last night, Research In Motion announced their co-CEOs, Mike Lazaridis and Jim Balsillie have stepped down from their positions. I found the news via @CNBC tweet. RIM has had a very rough 2011 and since the emergence of the iPhone, they have yet to reclaim their previous glory. This is not to say that the iPhone blew the BlackBerry out of the water – instead, RIM didn’t move at the faster pace of the market to produce better software and phones to compete. At the end of 2011, investors, news commentators/outlets, and the public were calling for major change in the company. Most felt that the change should come from the top. Thus, it is no surprise that Lazaridis and Balsillie have “decided” to step down.

According “RIM Has a New CEO, But Does It Have a New Game Plan?” by Jon Fortt of CNBC.com and “BlackBerry maker’s CEOs hand reins to insider” by Alastair Sharp of Reuters.com, Thorsten Heins is the new CEO. Sharp reports Heins is “a former Siemens AG executive who has risen steadily through RIM’s upper management ranks since joining the Canadian company in late 2007”.

The plan for RIM is not clear. Fortt (CNBC.com) reports that Heins doesn’t plan to change much. Fortt quotes Heins saying:

“I would tell investors that this change already has happened on the product side, and might not be what the public was demanding. But you cannot just fall for public opinion because sometimes the Street is right, sometimes the Street is wrong. We have to do what is right for the company”.

Sharp (Reuters.com) reports “Heins said he would push for more rigorous product development and place a greater emphasis on executing on the company’s marketing and development plans.” Also, Sharp reports Heins is searching for a new Chief Marketing Officer “to improve advertising and other communication with consumers.”

A new marketing strategy is a vital step for RIM to embrace a new image along with a new CEO. If Heins really did make the statement reported by Fortt, he just made his first PR mistake. This new CEO announcement is suppose to breath life into RIM, not make the audience think things will stay the same. Things should only stay the same if it’s working and whatever strategy RIM was on for the past year failed. The Reuters article gives me some hope that RIM is moving towards some change for the better.

Public Relations is Looking for a New Definition

The definition of public relations was last updated in 1982. We can all agree that since 1982 public relations has changed with the emergence of social media and mobile communications. With this in mind, the Public Relations Society of America is making an effort to redefine “public relations”. According to “Redefining Public Relations in the Age of Social Media” by Stuart Elliott of NYtimes.com the current definition is “Public relations helps an organization and its publics adapt mutually to each other”.

The problems with the definition are it’s vague; and today, PR is a conversation rather than adaption. The article explains that PR communication is “a process that for decades went one way – from the top down, usually as a monologue – now goes two ways…” Adaption implies being forced to accept a given image or message. Social media has allowed consumers to respond quickly and publicly en masse to a given PR situation. Consumers no longer have to adapt, they can respond in various forms throughout cyberspace, and in turn, companies can change to please the consumers. An example given in the article and that was very public: Netflix attempted to spin-off their DVD services. Their subscribers took to the internet to air their grievances about the attempt and to a previous price hike. Netflix responded by abandoning the spin-off and they lost 800,000 members as a consequence of the attempt.

 The definition campaign is dubbed Public Relations Defined and its goal is “A modern definition for the new era of public relations.” Public Relations Defined started on Sept 30 with a meeting of many representatives from professional PR organizations and will continue as an “open forum” as the website prdefinition.prsa.org will allow anyone to submit a definition (within a given template). With an outdated definition, the Public Relations Society of America could also look outdated. This new campaign should result in a new definition and updated image for the organization.