REICH COMMUNICATIONS

Changes

 

It's hardly news that technology...especially the internet...is changing how we live and work.  This is underscored by a few items in the news today.

eMarketer reports  on a survey showing changes in how we interact via email.  More than half...55%... of emails are opened on a mobile device, nearly double the amount on webmail servers like Outlook and far outstripping the 16% now opened on desktops.

When the survey was last done in 2012, only 29% of emails were opened on mobile devices.

eMarketer estimates there are currently about 248 million email users in the U.S. That's about 76% of the total U.S. population.

Marketers continue to use email heavily to reach out to customers and prospects.  About 88% of marketers in key industries rely on email, with the highest percentage of email users in the healthcare/pharma fields and travel/hospitality.  Retailers are slightly below average in terms of email outreach.

But outreach or not, more of us are shopping online.  Deloitte, in its annual forecast of holiday spending, predicts that 51% of holiday purchases will be made online this season, marking the first time online spending will be greater than in-store buying.

That might explain the third item of interest.  Lord & Taylor announced it is selling its 11-floor flagship store on Fifth Avenue to WeWork, which will convert most of the space into shared workspace.  The pricetag is $850 million.  (How many Gucci bags would they need to sell to make $850 million?)

The change won’t happen until after the 2018 holidays.  The retailer plans to keep some space in the building, so it will still have a presence on Fifth Avenue.  Hopefully, they’ll still have their holiday windows every year, which continue to draw crowds at Christmastime.

Dots and Dashes

 

How far we've come in communicating and sharing information.

On this date in 1838, 179 years ago, Samuel Morse demonstrated the first telegraph, sending messages using a series of electrical dots and dashes -- short and longer electrical pulses -- representing the numbers and letters that became known as the Morse Code.  Six years later, in 1844, the first commercial telegram was sent and over the next several years wires were strung throughout the U.S. to enable fast communication from city to city and eventually around the world.

When I was in Boy Scouts, I learned the Morse Code for a merit badge.  And then, in my early teens as a ham radio operator, I used it to talk with other hams around the nation and worldwide.  I'm a bit rusty, but I still remember the Morse Code. 

To get my ham license, I had to be able to send and receive messages in Morse Code at 20 words per minute.  Really good code operators could go at 30 - 40 words per minute, but even at that speed, it could take several minutes for a telegraph operator to transmit a message. 

Today we get impatient if our emails and texts don't come through instantaneously.

 

 

 

 

E-mail: Strong as Ever

 

It's hard to believe that email has been widely used for only about 20 years.  It is now the dominant form of business communication, far outstripping snail mail and faxes.  

We got rid of our fax machine about a year ago, after the only things we got via fax were paper-and-ink-consuming promos selling everything from discount travel to health plans to discount fax toner.  And there are many days that go by where the only thing the mailman delivers to the office are ad flyers, unwanted and very fat office and cleaning products catalogues and the occasional bill.  Some days, there is actually nothing in the regular mail.

What's happened?  It's all in email these days -- virtually instantaneous and free.  On a typical business day, I get upwards of 200 emails.

A survey just out, reported in Research Brief (via email), shows most of us check our email at least once a day.  Forty-four percent of us check email at least a few times a day.  Most of us (67%) check our email mostly via our smartphones, with the rest about evenly split between laptops, desktops and tablets. 

Before writing this, I did some checking to learn when email began.  For me, I was reluctantly pushed into using email by a client back in the early 1990s.  The client, out in Palo Alto, Calif. would have me draft a news release and then send it to them by fax. They would fax back their edits and have me fax back the final for them to review and give a final go-ahead.  Back then, I still didn't have a regular computer.  I was using a word processor.  I'd make the changes and then do a mass mailing to targeted media, making hundreds of copies, labeling envelopes and running them all through a postage meter.  The postage alone often cost $90 - $100 or more.

At one point, the client said either get a computer, use email or we'll have to take the business elsewhere.  So I bought a Compaq Presario all-in-one unit, only because the guy next door had the same unit and I felt if I needed help, I could just run to him.

Now, I can't imagine working without email.  (Thanks for the push, Rocco.)

Email officially began in 1978, my research shows, when an Indian immigrant working a summer job at a New Jersey medical school created a way for the office staff to share their memos electronically.  Siva Ayyadurai, then 14, gets the credit for the first email, despite some claims by others including a Ray Tomlinson, that they created email as early as 1971.  Those claims, it seems, have not been substantiated.

Even as late as 1982, there were only about 1,000 email accounts worldwide.  The explosion began in 1983, when it grew tenfold to 100,000, growing again by 2-1/2 times by 1985 and then doubling every two years till it reached a million in 1989.

The growth continued to skyrocket, hitting 5 million in 1992, 10 million in 1995, 25 million in 1996 and 400 million by 1999.  It crossed the billion mark in 2007 and 4 billion in 2013.

Could you imagine not having email today? 

   

 

 

 

How we watch TV

 

 

A new report from Nielsen, the TV ratings people, shows not only what we're watching, but how we're watching it.

It used to be very simple.  A program was on at a certain time and either you watched it when it aired or you didn't see it at all.  No DVRs or video on demand.  Not even home recording on VHS or Beta.

But today, viewers have so many choices -- not only what to watch from among hundreds of channels and tens of thousands of shows and movies on demand and Netflix and Hulu. The choice now is also about how to watch -- live or delayed on your giant flat screen or on a variety of other smaller screens from computers to laptops to tablets and phones.

The report says Americans watched "traditional" TV 141 hours a month in the 3rd quarter of 2014.  But live viewing dropped a little more than 4 percent, or 12 minutes a day, to 4 hours and 32 minutes on average. Instead, we spent an hour more per month watching time-shifted programs via the internet, which includes streaming services like Netflix.

For advertisers, the obvious challenge is getting their ads seen despite fast-forwarding.  Many on-demand outlets now disable the fast-forward function so we can't zip through the ads.  So instead, it may end up working the way it did in the "old days," when commercials breaks meant a run to the bathroom, refrigerator or a fast click around the dial to see what else is on.  Or with today's technology, we might be checking texts and emails.

 

 

 

 

Time-shifting

 

Less than half of us now watch TV programs as they air live, Media Daily News reports.

Only 41 percent of us watch the live broadcast, as time-shifting grows in popularity.  Watching via DVR is what 43 percent of us now do, as 19 percent use video on demand.

The move to viewing TV on so-called second screens -- mobile devices, PC, laptops and tablets -- isn't happeniong quite as quickly as pundits had been predicting.  The vast majority -- 91 percent -- still watch TV on a TV.  Laptops account for 12 percent of viewing, tablets 5 percent and somehow 3 percent manage to watch programs on their smartphones.  It adds to more than 100 percent due to duplication -- watching on a regular screen and also on a second screen.

Programs like sports and major news events understandably score a higher amount of live viewing.

A Deadly Wandering -- A Warning about Distracted Driving

 

At a national conference on traffic safety a few weeks ago, I briefly met Matt Richtel, whose Pulitzer Prize-winning series on distracted driving in The New York Times helped bring this important issue to public attention.  I'm just finishing reading an advance copy of his new book - A Deadly Wandering: A Tale of Tragedy and Redemption in the Age of Attention. (The book from William Morrow/Harper Collins Publishers, goes on sale later this week.)

I think the book should be required reading for anyone applying for a driver's license, as well as for those of us who already drive.  It's easy reading.  The book, although non-fiction, reads like a fast-paced novel and the reader gets to really know and understand the various characters in the story.  It tells of Reggie Shaw, in every way a model teenager who, like so many of his peers, used his cellphone to text while he was driving.  Distracted, he crossed the yellow line and sideswiped an oncoming car, which caused a crash that killed two rocket scientists.  The book chronicles the story of the driver, the victims, their families and the lawyers and prosecutors involved in the legal case that ensued.

What's important about this book is that it explains the science behind our addiction to texting and other mobile device functions. Yes, there is scientific proof, which the book explains, that texting or even just talking on a phone while driving is extremely dangerous.  It takes us through, in easy to understand terms, the reasons we cannot multitask, despite assertions from so many -- especially young people who've grown up with texting -- that we can drive while doing other tasks.

Working on the PR side of traffic safety for some 20 years now, I've met with and heard from so many people who've had their lives dramatically changed by bad decisions behind the wheel.  For many years, the culprit was alcohol, which still remains a real problem. Drowsiness is a significant factor as well, although driving drowsy is usually not a conscious decision we make.

Texting while driving is a conscious decision.  And now that it's become clear that it does impact our ability to drive safely, there is absolutely no reason to do it.  Legislators in 44 states have recognized that by making it illegal to text while driving.  So if for no other reasion than risking a ticket and points on your license, all of us should refrain from this dangerous behavior.

But as Matt Richtel points out in his book, so many of us, knowing the physical dangers and the risk of a ticket and points, continue to text and talk on cellphones while we drive.  There are now devices that can prevent people from texting or talking while driving, like an app made by one of my clients, LifeSaver.  It's very inexpensive and simple to use, but it still requires a voluntary step by a parent or spouse.

Richtel reported last week about plans by the cellular industry to have a device that comes with new cars that will prevent any cellphone usage while the car is in motion.  But, if it ever actually happens, it's still at least a few years away.

What I think is needed to stop what former Sec. of Transportation Ray LaHood called "a national epidemic" that kills several thousand people every year is tougher laws with much higher fines and license suspension for a month after the first offense and license revocation after a second infraction.  No excuses, no exclusions.

It's that serious.  Read A Deadly Wandering and you'll understand and I'm sure you'll agree.

 

 

 

 

Weekend Thoughts: Connectivity -- Both Good and Bad

 

July was a busy travel month for me.  I was out of the office more than I was in, with client trips to Austin, DC, San Antonio and Wichita.  It was topped off by a great week in rural Maine for family vacation.

Through it all, I was able to conduct business seamlessly thanks to a few technologies that weren't around when I had travel for business or pleasure 25 years ago.

Thank goodness for cell phones with email and internet capabilities.  Before cell phones, I'd always have dimes and quarters on me so I could access pay phones, which were on every corner in the city and readily available pretty much anywhere you went.  I eventually got an AT&T calling card so I didn't have to carry change and keep adding coins as minutes would go by.

And then there's email.  It's just about the first thing I look at (on my cell phone) when I get up, often before I brush my teeth.  Since I get email on my phone, I find myself checking email while I'm walking in the city, while waiting for a light so I can cross the street... even in the elevator.  (It's amazing how many emails you can read as you go up or down 11 floors.)

The phone's come in handy in places where I didn't have internet access, like on a recent Amtrak ride from NY to DC.  I activated the phone's WiFi hotspot and, bingo, I had full internet access so I could work on my laptop during the ride.

All this is great, especially for smaller businesses that don't have legions of people back at the home office to cover us while we travel. Younger people may wonder what it must have been like in "the old days" before constant connectivity, and I often find myself talking with friends my age who recall the days of pay phones, costly long-distance calls, fax machines (originally called telecopiers).  Somehow we managed, because everyone else had to function with the same limitations.

Constant connectivity means the days of 9 to 5 (or 8:30 - 6:30 for us agency folks) no longer exist.  The office may shut its doors at 5:30, but business doesn't stop.  How often do you see emails sent to you at crazy hours of the night, early morning or weekends?  Many of us now work when we want to, or when a thought strikes us.  If we get an email from someone at 10 at night and we hear the ping, we often check the message and respond on the spot.  So much for 9 to 5.

During the vacation week in Maine, I handled my emails in the morning before we got started for the day.  I'd check in to the office voicemail early and late in the day, and sometimes mid-day just to be sure there was nothing urgent.  My clients have my cell number, and I had one client call during the week, which I was able to handle easily.  And when the client realized I was on vacation, she said it could wait till I was back in New York.

So I'd say connectivity is both good and bad when you're in business.  I realize we need to set our own limits on how connected and how accessible we want to be on our personal time.  A few times, I made the decision to let a call or email wait, and I felt good about it.

I love work.  But I also treasure my personal time, especially moments with my family.  Those moments, as the ad says, are priceless and I try to keep that balance in mind.

 

 

 

 

News Drones -- Not Ready for Primetime

 

I'm usually right there siding with the media for First Ammendment rights, since I think a free press is vital to having an open and democratic society. 

But I'm afraid I'm at odds with the more than a dozen news organizations who are challending the FAA ban on use of drones by journalists.  I can see all sorts of problems resulting from unfettered use of news drones, ranging from safety issues to personal privacy.

First of all, there's the safety issue.  Although hobbyists have been able to fly unmanned model planes for decades -- as a teen, in fact, I built and flew one with a friend -- there are strict rules regarding how high they can fly and banning them from areas near airports.  And the technology many years ago limited the height and range of those model aircraft.  But as drones now have the ability to fly at high altitudes and miles from the controller, they can pose serious risks to commercial and private aviation, putting those in the air and those on the ground at risk.

I also am concerned about personal privacy issues involving news drones.  It's bad enough that some big celebrity weddings get stalked by news helicopters or small aircraft hired by paparazzi hoping to get that $100,000 shot.  But drones, which are far less costly, can also be used to stalk everyday people who some news organization may suspect of wrongdoing.  Or I can see some local stations who have "Help me Howard"-type news features using drones to stalk someone who a viewer feels has wronged him somehow.

Over-zealous news drone operators can also interfere with legitimate police and emergency operttions.  It's happened with news helicopters, where they get in the way of police aircraft surveying a crime or emergency scene.  Just imagine police trying to do their work while dodging dozens of small, hard-to-spot news drones buzzing around the scene.  It's a disaster waiting to happen.

I can envision so many abuses of privacy and safety if news organizations have the right to put dozens of drones up in the air.  Just imagine "news organizations" like TMZ having free access to drones.

One possible solution might be to grant a very limited number of licenses to legitimate news organizations to use drones for newsgathering purposes, but with very specific and clear limitations that protect privacy and safety.  And solid fines should be imposed, to set an example when news drones step beyond set limits.

I know I'm going against the thinking of news organizations I admire and respect, like The New York Times, Washington Post, Gannett, Advance, Hearst and others.  But until very strict rules are set, I think we should hold off on unleashing news drones into the air.

 

 

Are we smart with our smartphones?

 

Fifty-six percent of us now have smartphones. That number keeps growing every year.

MediaLife recently reported on a survey taken earlier this year on how we use our smartphones.  The study looked at how much time we spend doing various tasks on our phones.                                               Photo: New York Times

On average, we spend 2 hours and 42 minutes using our smartphones every day.  That number seems to have plateaued, rising by only four minutes after much bigger gains over the previous five years.  

The biggest percentage of time on smartphones is used on Facebook -- 17 percent.  All other social media sites, combined, account for 9.5 percent of smartphone time. 

YouTube takes up 4 percent, and Twitter is at 1.5 percent.

Gaming takes up 32 percent, via downloaded games and apps. 

The study didn't measure how much time we spend emailing, texting, taking pictures and videos on our phones.  Oh, and also, making and taking calls on the phone.

 

 

 

Where we use our smartphones ... Not only in the car

 

One of the areas of specialization in my Public Relations practice is traffic safety.  I've been working in this segment of PR for more than 20 years, since I organized and publicized the first World Traffic Safety Symposium for the New York Auto Show.

The Auto Show work led to a contract for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and then the National Road Safety Foundation, a non-profit that produces safe driving educational programs and distributes them free to schools, police and individuals.  I've also done work for companies that market traffic safety-related products including one I recently started with -- a just-launched cellphone app called LifeSaver that prevents the user from texting and driving.

I know how big and important an issue texting and distraction is.  It's up there as one of the top causes of traffic crashes... just behind impairment. 

A recent Forrester Research study shows that 68 percent of us access the internet from our cars.  Hopefully, not all are driving when they do that, but it's easy to see what a big danger cellphones have become for those of us on the road.

The survey also shows that 64 percent go online via mobile devices in our living rooms; 63 percent in restaurants; 61 percent in the bedroom; 51 percent in the kitchen; 50 percent in the bathroom; 45 percent on public transit.

The restaurant figure shows how addicted we've become to being connected.  We've all been in restaurants where you'll see a group of people at a table -- all looking down at their phones instead of engaging in conversation with their tablemates.  As for the bathroom statistic -- well, I guess going online is yet another way to be productive in the bathroom.  Talk about multi-tasking!

George Simpson, who writes for Media Daily News, has a good column on the subject.  It'll give you a chuckle as you scratch your head and wonder... "What are we becoming?"  Or as Simpson headlines his column:  "Sure signs that society is starting to crumble."