The threat of self-destructing marketing techniques

Yesterday, September 12 (2012), Apple launched the Iphone 5. As usual, a true hype engulfed the online world. People were expecting the phone, which explains the drop in sales of the Iphone 4S during previous months. Apple fans had hoped for a phone that would, once again, revolutionize the way we communicate. High expectations are great... if they can be met that is. Although the Iphone 5 comes with some new features and runs on operating system iOS6, not one of these high-tech gadgets convinced me of the truly 'innovative' spirit of this device. Therefore, I predict that Apple will lose ground in the smartphone market. Hopes that the new phone will 'juice the U.S. market' (as some news sites claimed, cf. theweek.com) are - in my opinion - also idle. Samsung's Galaxy S3 easily stands the test of the new competitor. 

Iphone 5 (Front, Side, Rear)

Once upon a time, in a not too distant past, people wondered when a company would start making an 'Iphone killer'. Reading between the lines, one would easily deduct that the Iphone was considered the only 'smartphone' truly worthy of its name. Things have starting to change. These days, one may rightfully ask when somebody will make the 'Galaxy S3 killer'. To cut things short: as an Apple fan - which I am - the Iphone 5 is a disappointment. The only reason why I'm sticking to Iphone is because of its 'eco-system'. I have bought way too many apps and music to switch over to an Android phone. Secondly, I still believe Apple is a beautiful innovating company focused on the future. They must not however forget that it takes both time and ingenuity to present something that may truly be called innovative. 

Investment made by Forrest Gump

I therefore think Apple is becoming the victim of its own success. People expect a ground-breaking (r)evolution every time they predict the company to launch a new product. Maybe customer's expectations are too high, but the hype seems to have created illusory hopes that tech-revolutions are only a 'normal' and 'foreseeable' next step in the future of our beloved 'fruit company' (quote: Forrest Gump).

If the Iphone looks like this Apple may be screwed

Much to my dismay I would recommend people to wait for the next truly innovative phone. The Iphone 5 just does not qualify this time. If you already have invested in Apple products (Apps, Music, Films) I would advise buying/keeping the Iphone 4S. For technology freaks looking for a real innovation I would at least consider the HTC One X or the Samsung Galaxy S3. To Apple I would advise - although this sounds rather arrogant, I'm aware of that - to take enough time to develop something truly original. Because in the end, being innovation centered is what got the company on top to start with. Besides, it's not a nice feeling to admit that Henry Blodget, journalist at Business Insider was right months ago: http://www.businessinsider.com/if-the-iphone-5-really-looks-like-this-apple-may-be-screwed-2012-7

How the Iphone 5 looks like

 To be honest, I have seen Iphone 5 concepts that looked more promising than what the "most valuable company ever" eventually delivered. Whether the Iphone 5 will turn out to be a success commercially remains to be seen. We do however need to keep in mind that many people have postponed their intention of buying a new Iphone. So in any case, I do not expect sales to drop immediately. But in the long run, Apple will almost certainly continue to lose ground.

Pan-European forum on media pluralism and new media

European Parliament Hemicycle (Brussels)

The European Parliament Hemicycle in Brussels is not only the beating heart of democracy at European level, for one day it was also a place of Civil Society discussion. The organizers of the Pan-European Forum on Media Pluralism and New Media have succeeded in creating a debate on new trends in media between media professionals, politicians, and European citizens. 

Ingrid Lieten

Neelie Kroes

The line-up of speakers was impressive. Of all the topnotch participants that took part in the event, three left the most memorable impression. Both the Flemish Minister of Media Ingrid Lieten and the Vice-President of the Commission Neelie Kroes stressed that government regulation of the media sector should only be used as a last resort in guaranteeing media pluralism. The government should however take an active role when it comes to monitoring the media landscape. Media pluralism also emerged as a key theme in the speech of Hugh Grant. According to Mr. Grant, avoiding media concentration is key in guaranteeing an informed citizenship. Therefore, it should not come as a surprise that a heated discussion broke out between Mr. Grant and a board member of the Italian company 'Mediaset'. It was striking that media industry representatives in general believed that a certain degree of concentration actually safeguards media pluralism. 

Hugh Grant

 Another point of discussion during the debate was related to the question of whether New Media are able to contribute to the empowerment of the citizenry. The European Union itself is said to be dealing with a democratic deficit. Proof of an empowered citizenry could therefore contribute to the legitimacy of European politics with regard to media. Neelie Kroes argued that Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) will soon be legislating in the field of the Internet. Whether this prediction will become reality can be met with skepticism. MEPs are only able to legislate when the ordinary legislative procedure (called co-decision pre-Lisbon) is applied. This is not yet the case in the field of media and it seems unlikely that it ever will, which is due to the subsidiarity principle. Furthermore (and I quote from the European Parliament website), "the EP has emphasized that the EU should stimulate the growth and competitiveness of the audiovisual sector whilst at the same time recognizing its wider significance in safeguarding cultural diversity." (Nogueira, 2011, p. 4) This underlines that media products still occupy a somewhat peculiar position in the European Single Market. 

During the Conference, two key elements were identified as future potential threats to the European Media Industry. First, wide consensus emerged among the panelists that nation states have to be cautious not to be lured into the temptation of wanting to control the media. This threat seems to become reality in Hungary, where policy makers adapted legislation that is in violation with Art. 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Possibly even more worrisome is a state controlled by the Media, as is to a large extent the case in Italy where the tentacles of the Berlusconi media empire reach (if not control) the upper layers of the political system. A second threat that should be countered is the dominance of foreign (mostly U.S.) companies in the Internet sphere. European industry has been able to secure a strong position in a fair amount of media domains, but seems to be losing the Internet race against mega-corporations like Facebook and Google. 

To conclude, the Pan-European forum on media pluralism and new media can rightfully be called a success. The debate it has set in motion is possibly only the start of a broader movement towards closer cooperation across borders in the field of media and communication technology. The forum also proved that Civil Society can be mobilized where vital societal interests are concerned. The future of European media industries is closely intertwined with the survival of the European project as a whole. Both seem to be clearly building on a key strength of Europeans, to be 'United in Diversity'. 

A cat at the crossroads

Europe stands at the crossroads. Political guidance is needed to prevent the Eurozone from collapsing. The occasional high society chit chat during G8 meetings just won't cut it. What we have seen up till now is a European 'Union' moving at different speeds in multiple directions. The 'Merkozy Austerity Diktat' seems to have come to an end. France is rapidly changing course, much to the dismay of Berlin. 

Can we say that Mr. Hollande is resolutely choosing Europe? His statements about the idea of issuing Eurobonds surely seem to support that thesis. Does this mean that Europe's future will depend (once more) on the outcome of a clash between Germany and France? Answering this question with a simple 'yes' would be a too optimistic interpretation of Europe's current situation. The still largely intergovernmental nature of the Union implies that any country holds the power to block Union initiatives in policy areas that are crucial when dealing with economical downturns (in this case a severe asymmetric shock dividing Europe in a wealthier 'Northern' group and a struggling 'Southern' part). Europe, as it is, is stuck. It cannot move forward under current conditions. 

The financial crisis of 2008, that meanwhile has become a full-blown economic depression, hit the Union in its Achilles heel. The structure has slowly started to unravel. It seems as if it is every country for itself again. This attitude has consequences. Lack of political courage and a total absence of unity lead towards what was once thought impossible: the end of Europe as we know it. The Greek classical drama has been embodied by the elections of Sunday June 17th 2012. The polls learned us two important lessons:

1. The outcome of one election session in one (small) European country can determine the future of an entire Union of 27 Member States, a project that took more than 50 years to build. 
2. Nea Dimokratia's modest victory was mostly due to the support of older segments of Greek Civil Society 

This being said it seems clear that Europe's survival as a Union much depends on the degree to which national leaders relate to 'Project Europe'. The support of Germany, once a fierce defender of this project, has become increasingly important. Whether this furthers the integration cause can be doubted. Germany, the economic motor of the Union, is increasingly turning to itself. Both Angela Merkel and Wolfgang Schäuble are ever more negative about lending money to battered European economies. Hesitation - not curiosity in this case - could kill the cat.

And I present to you:

Welcome to my blog,
Let me introduce myself: I am Mark Verheyden, PhD Student/Teaching assistant at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel and affiliated researcher at SMIT (Studies on Media, Information and Telecommunication). Furthermore, I am a student at the Institute for European Studies (Brussels) where I started a two-year master-program on European integration and development. This background explains a good deal of why I chose to begin a blog on ICT and European affairs. Both are more connected than one might think. The Europe 2020 program (and its predecessor, the Lisbon Strategy as formulated in 2000) proclaimed that Europe aimed to be "the most competitive knowledge-economy in the world". These targets would be met by investing heavily in (communication) technology. 

New media have become strongly ingrained in our society. As researchers, we often speak of a future where all things will be connected into one giant (social) online network. The Internet has turned our world into a 'global village' (McLuhan). Connected is the key word here, since 'connected' does not automatically imply 'united'. What we witness in Europe these days is a turning point in (European) history. It seems as if the few decide for the many. Civil society nags and moans about politics and how things are decided without having a say in it. Well, new media are a way to be (or at least 'feel') empowered. The social side of the Internet offers us the chance to speak out. That is exactly what I will try to do. This blog will be a fusion of both science, morals and politics. The days that these societal domains could be kept separated are long gone. Embrace uncertainty but keep believing. We are on our way to a certain (better?) future: let us analyze and report about the things we love, because we are all experts in our own fields of interest. 

Enjoy!

Mark