Out With the New?

"Technology makes it possible for people to gain control over everything, except over technology”

-John Tudor

Our favorite ill-health stricken CEO made a surprise appearance yesterday in San Francisco to unveil the latest American technological toy. The iPad 2, it's competitors, smart phones, internet, and all sorts of other technology and media are competing for our attention. Many grab onto these ever changing innovations; however, some are suggesting that maybe it's not all that important to progress.

So what are the arguments and what makes them so compelling? Those that make a stand for continual adaptation to the latest trends and technologies do so in the name of advancement and progress. We could call these people the early adopters or the early majority. The ones who don't believe as strongly in adapting to every twist and turn made in the realm of technological or social trends say that some things are better of the way they were originally intended to be used. These might be considered as the late adopters or even the laggards.

Lets take a quick look at each side:

The Early Majority

Lumped into this group are the innovators and the early adopters. They enjoy the prospects of the latest and greatest trends, toys, and gadgets. They feel that it lends a huge hand in the progress of their companies if they adopt these tools and implement them in their corporate strategy. This could give them a large advantage in the already difficult game of grabbing their target's attention. Being on the cutting edge can draw the attention of consumers, media, and other forms of publicity that could increase their overall effectiveness.

The Laggards

Within this cluster lie those who initially resist change from tradition and also those who flat out choose to deny the existence of newer technologies. They contest that if it worked then, it'll work now. A part of the strategy in this is that if you are constantly adapting your company to comply with the latest technology fad you will never truly be the master of a particular trade. Also, another part of the strategy is the understand that some companies hold that state that many in their target market hold to the principle that there is value in doing things "by hand," so to speak. 

There is enough evidence to support both side, but how can we know which side is right? Is there a way to know? These questions may be difficult to answer completely right now.

Here are a few more comics that I just couldn't leave out of this:

Clients Dictate Evolution in PR Strategy

"Coming to terms with the fear of death is conducive to conscious evolution."
-Stanislav Grof

Whether directly or indirectly, the client’s needs have an impact on business regardless of the industry. In this age of fluid and innovative media, how will the changing needs of the consumer affect public relations professionals and agencies?

PR professionals will continue to uphold their roles as trend analysts and organizational leaders. However, opportunities to become experts of the new complexities of the craft are quickly becoming the norm. This means that agencies will need to become trusted aides for their clients.

Keeping the patron’s knowledge razor sharp is one of the major undertakings. The client will be more able to make intelligent tactical decisions such as the right mix of strategies, channels, and tools.

Direct competition to PR professionals will force them to step up to the plate and deliver meaningful results. By-products of this high level contest should turn strategists to look at ways in which they can gain deeper engagement with clients in more project-based commitments. If the agency can’t prove the business impact of a project, the will lose the business.

So what will come of this aggressive push? The stakes are higher, meaning a bigger payout for those that figure out the "how-to" and a washout for those that fall flat. Also, a great benefit for the industry is that everyone must “raise [their] game.”