When Press Releases Achieve Nothing

When Press Releases Achieve Nothing

As soon as Google released Gmail, their free email service with 1000 MB, it was pretty clear that the battle for hearts and minds was now on. I personally waited anxiously for Yahoo and Microsoft's response. After so many years in which Yahoo! mail and Hotmail where the two primary choices for mail, Gmail through a real spanner in the works, especially as the offered 250 times more storage (Yahoo!, although initially offering 6 MB, eventually settled on the same figure as Hotmail: 4 MB).

On June 15, 2004, it happened. Yahoo! mad a press release title Yahoo! Announces "New and Improved" Yahoo! Mail, Introduces Major Increase in Storage Space, Makes 50 Million Additional E-Mail Addresses Available

I have several problems with this release, and they can best be summed up as:

The Focus

Whether they it is overt or not, the implications of the release are clear: the release is a direct response to Gmail.

The focus of this release is pretty clear, it the first one mentioned: the "Major Increase in Storage". That is what they are pushing, the thrust of the release. So what is the improvement? 1500 MB? 1000 MB at least, surely? Nope, it is an increase to 100 MB, an improvement to a mere 10% of their supposed major competitor.

Marketing a product and choosing to trumpet benefits that are far below what a competitor offers is ridiculous. Rather than doing Yahoo! any favours, focusing on storage simply handed Google's Gmail even more press.

Can you imagine Ford releasing a press release that essentially said: "Ford cars now 10% as fuel efficient as Toyota cars that are similarly priced"? I can't.

Later in the release, Yahoo mention four benefits:, a new design, Increased storage & message attachment size (Again), Faster search and More account names. Two of these points, More storage and better search, simply hand Props to Gmail, and is hardly a point of product differentiation. The 50 Million additional email addresses is also wasted. Of these 50 Million addresses, there may well be some choice addresses like tim@Yahoo.com, but chances are that the vast majority are throwaway or spam addresses like ahdfszx@Yahoo.com. This makes this portion of the announcement, at best, a value add, and not a key benefit.

Lastly, Yahoo trumpets a new streamlined design. This is not necessarily a good point, as to a seasoned Yahoo Mail user (like me) is simply annoying (a new interface AGAIN??), and with the lack of cross browser compatibility (read Opera), is worse than the last one.

Pushing Yahoo! Mail's USP

So what should Yahoo! have done? Simple: focus on some USP of Yahoo! mail.

The fact is, no matter how much more space one now gets with Yahoo mail, to compete with Gmail, 1000 MB was the minimum figure that was required. And even that wouldn't have been a USP for Yahoo!, it would have just been parity.

If Gmail was indeed the target of the release, Yahoo should have focussed on Yahoo mail's USP as it relates to Gmail. If they couldn't find one, they should have intentionally developed one, and made the release at that time. Given that Gmail was released April 1st (actually, March 31st), that gave Yahoo! 6 weeks to develop and launch a new service.

Gmail is suffering from several problems all of which would have allowed Yahoo! mail to differentiate itself. These include:
1. Privacy concerns over Gmail are rife. If Yahoo! had made this a major element of the release, they would have been far more success.
2. Lack of Browser compatibility - Specifically Opera and
3. Unproven Spam filtering and service - Who knows how long Gmail will last, or how well spam filters will work.

These are good places to start.

A Better Release

The primary focus of a great Yahoo! mail press release should have been Spam Filtering. it is an area in which Gmail is unproven, and a big ticket talking point throughout all sectors of the media, from consumer magazines to business and tech publications.

A release that tapped the traditionally Pro-Google Blogging crowd, by making the release tech heavy, or having links to details of Yahoo!'s implementation, be it Bayesian filters or some other tech buzzword, Yahoo! could have pushed the message further.

Even better, if Yahoo actually stopped letting spam emails through at all, and in combination with the freeing up of both space and email addresses, and improved defence against creating email addresses to use for spam, Yahoo could have linked this to the increased size, e.g. "Due to the improved efficiency of Yahoo! spam filters, and the low incidence of false positives, Yahoo! can now offer a 2500% increase in storage size from 4 MB to 100".

On top of this, prominently mentioning the new, iron clad, California Bill compliant privacy policy update, that specifically alleviates and addresses all the concerns about Gmail with comments on excellent Browser compatibility, and you have the makings of a pro-active, Brand building release.

All of these elements would combined have the makings of a pro-active, Brand building release, allowing Yahoo! to take the debate where Yahoo! wanted it to go, rather than ending up, as this blog post has, in yet more Gmail talk.

Alas, instead of published a press release like this, Yahoo! has simply reinforced that their Brand is merely, in my eyes at least, Google-Lite: reacting to the true innovator with inferior products that are less impressive and quite simply less useful. Not the brand image that Yahoo wants, I am sure.

Conspiracy Theory Time

As one last comment, I wonder if Yahoo! had two goals in mind when making this release. As a 10% shareholder in Google, the negative press Gmail has received may have be affecting the value the IPO is likely to generate. By Yahoo! making a release that is guaranteed to publicise Gmail's advantages, perhaps Yahoo! is attempting to stem this wave of negative publicity, and increase the value of what is potentially a vast asset.

Food for thought anyway...

Playshool Shows Two Mothers - What's the F-ing Big Deal?

Two Mothers - What's the F-ing Big Deal?

Background: For those who don't know, on the Australian National Broadcaster (ABC), a state run TV station, there is a show called Playschool. Essentially for pre-school age kids. recently, Playschool ran an episode in which two mothers took their child to a park. With an election looming, no divisive issue to rally the masses, and an unpopular War in Iraq losing the incumbent's the Heartland's vote, a law on Gay marriages is seen as the Christian right's saviour. this event was exactly what the Christian right needed to divide and conquer, and they have expressed outrage. This is my response.

OK, so what's the big deal here? I have so many issues with this that it is hard for me to focus on which one pisses me off the most. As such, I'll just start spraying and let the spray fall where it may.

Firstly, the logic of this "outrage" is ridiculous. Two "mother's" take there kid out. Now, how many children in out society have two mum's? None, therefore they must be Lesbians. Lets be very clear here: this is the logical pattern of thinking that leads to this statement by Communications Minister Daryl Williams:

"In particular, Australian parents should be able to choose when to explain concepts such as same-sex couples to their young children.

Um, OK. What about children of divorced parents? If both mum and dad remarry, that is, by my humble count, two dads, two mums, none of which are Lesbians (unless... but that's a whole nuther Blog entry...).

The raw figures are hard to find, but in this SMH article it is stated:

As for the often-quoted 50 per cent failure rate, de Vaus, who is also professor of sociology at La Trobe University, says the real figure is one-third of present marriages. "That 50 per cent figure is for the US."

So, that makes it possible that one in every three people in Australia will have two "mothers" (Assuming that all divorced people remarry). And still not a Lesbian in view.

OK, so the "two mums therefore Lesbians" is not absolute, so really, why are parents them forced to explain same sex anything?

Next rant.

Who cares if gays marry? As long as they aren't doing anything to me, what do i care what two consenting, mature adults do? Do I get upset that John Howard has disgusting eyebrows and a worse comb over? It offends me no end to look at his constant fashion faux paus. Can I legislate against that? Hell no!!

This is stupid party politicking, and the sort of vile crap that got pulled with the children overboard controversy. That the majority of Australians, in an era of wars, reducing freedoms and Free Trade agreements can worry about what two other people consent to is out of whack.

Next rant.

So, lets assume that the two women HAVE TO BE Lesbians: So what? Is the ABC now only allowed to show white, protestant heterosexual couples? Where is the boundary between what is, could be, and isn't? Who decides? I hope it isn't the multitude of malcontents and Moral right that litter the Liberal party.

Next rant.

Quote:

The segment was condemned by Children's Minister Larry Anthony and Health Minister Tony Abbott who called the episode "shocking".

Oh my, goody goody. The excitement of attacking this (calm down, take a deep breath)... Shocking in what way? By what standard? To Whom?

Some facts:
By age 18, a U.S. youth will have seen 16,000 simulated murders and 200,000 acts of violence. ( American Psychiatric Association: Here)
Huston and colleagues have estimated that the average 18-year-old will have viewed 200,000 acts of violence on television (Huston, A.C., Donnerstein, E., Fairchild, H. et al. Big World, Small Screen: The Role of Television in American Society. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 1992. here)

So, kids see 16,00 deaths, 200,000 acts of violence, innumerable wars and horrors, starving children their own age and untold evil, but two mums is "shocking"?

Seriously Mr Abbot, grow the heck up!!!

Rant over.

I feel better now, and I think my rant cleared up a few things. Now maybe we can all start living by those words Martin Luther King uttered all those years ago:

I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character.

The content of their character. If only everyone was judged by such a practical criteria.