Timing, they say, is everything. And so it goes with mobile handset vendors and their product announcements.
There’s a natural tension between the need to keep the market informed about one’s innovations and product pipeline and the downside of tipping off competitors or setting up expectations one cannot meet.
The variables that might affect one’s timing are many and even a well-considered internal strategy must be fine-tuned to a procession of external events that include, among other things, a hyper-competitive market, trade shows, quarterly results and the industry protocol of letting network operators have the first word on specific launches.
According to a pair of Tier One vendors, one’s schedule typically is driven by a strategy that takes into account-or, better yet, manages to leverage-those external elements that might affect one’s sense of timing. To the casual observer, most vendors appear to relish control over their product news and abhor the thought that they might be driven to “me too” announcements by the competition. (Example: Palm Inc.’s announcement earlier this month that it, too, would have a smart phone at a consumer-friendly price to compete with such offerings from Nokia Corp., Motorola Inc., Research In Motion Ltd. and HTC Corp.-sometime in the next six months.)
Conversations on the issue with vendors remained general for fear of tipping one’s hand.
Bill Plummer, Nokia’s North American vice president for external affairs, said that as the leading vendors have built broader portfolios and handset lifecycles have shortened, the timing issue becomes more complex.
“So today, if you announce a device nine months in advance, you may be announcing the replacement of a product that’s just beginning to penetrate the marketplace,” Plummer said.
“Industrywide, there are lot of factors that play into your announcement timing,” he said. “You want to take advantage of industry events such as trade shows to share news. Or create your own opportunities. For instance, Nokia has its own `Nokia World’ event at the end of November.”
Motorola declined to address the subject on short notice, but Moto executives have recently said that the vendor now seek to couple announcements more closely with launches to foil flattery through imitation. The unstated, widely discussed corollary, of course, is that Motorola has in the past announced products and launch windows it did not meet, opening itself to press speculation on its ability to execute. Recent events such as the tight management of the family of products that follow the Razr-the Krzr was announced in July, delivered in September-indicate that Motorola has moved to address the issue.
For Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications L.P.’s Cherie Gary, vice president for corporate communications, the cited variables create a hybrid approach that requires “a careful balance”-one wants to protect intellectual property rights and design innovation while taking advantage of opportunities to launch an attention-getting device. Generally, early product announcements allow vendors to play the role of innovator and subject matter expert, though announcements are tending to move closer to actual product launches for a variety of reasons, she said.
“In an industry known for `honking its own horn,’ if you will,” Gary said, “we want to make sure that the technology is real. Good press can’t save a substandard product.”
Gary emphasized that from the public-relations perspective, another consideration is the audience being addressed. In her view, news moves outward from partners to industry press to consumer media, each with its own tailored pitch and timetable.
The Federal Communications Commission, which must approve handsets destined for the United States (as well as phones that may roam here), has recognized the quickened pace of the industry and industry players’ desire to not have product details prematurely made public. In 2004, it expanded rules governing its process of regulatory approval and subsequent public disclosure of the approved product. Now, the FCC provides applicants with the option to have public disclosure of images and diagrams delayed to protect competitive details.
“This is a reflection that the world has changed,” Plummer said.
At one time, competitors could file a Freedom of Information Act request that involved lengthy paper trails and long delivery times, he said, in contrast to the instantly accessible world of public documents on the Web. In that vein, Current Analysis’ Avi Greengart said, Web bloggers also represent a potential source of news leakage. Somewhere in the supply chain-in design and development, manufacturing, testing and retailing-numerous opportunities arise for individuals to photograph a device and post it to the Web for anyone to see.
“Smart companies will either find a way to plug the leaks or to work them into the marketing plan,” Greengart said. “I’m not suggesting that companies leak things themselves, [but they can] manage the leak afterwards. Leaks tend to come near production, so they are less of a competitive threat than an opportunity to manage early-adopter expectations.”
