It's very important for Americans to be "leading". You won't read a press release without this word. It's a hollow word but you sometimes have to back up why you are leading. That's simple: you define the rules. Examples:
- Gruber is bringing profit into marketshare discussions. Reason: Apple is falling behind Samsung on units. Revenue would be the next holdout, but profits are safer, since Apple is making a lot of that. Does it matter to the user? Not really. Both iOS and Android are safe bets.
- Behind Android and iOS, there is race for being third. You will find Microsoft/Nokia claiming they made it past BlackBerry. Watch out for the metrics. BlackBerry used to report subscribers. You don't have to be a subscriber with BB10 anymore so that metric becomes useless. Many analysts did not "get" that chance and will report declining subscriptions as BlackBerry shifts to BB10.
- CrackBerry boasts that Q10 outsells Galaxy S4. What? Oh, in a UK (far away) store, which has an exclusive of a hard to find device. Who would believe the Q10 outsells the GS4 in a meaningful way? People who need to be leading. Remember, this is the best keyboard smartphone bar none, but that would not show up in sales numbers.
- IBM claims they are leading in "social software". Again, you make the rules by hiring a leading (sic) analyst firm which helps you define a new category. Said analyst firm will henceforth use that category. Other leading (sic) analyst firms will not miss the boat and the hot new trend. There is your leadership.
For any meaningful analysis you need to look way beyond your normal scope. But that's not what "leading" is about.
On the subject of IBM leading in the enterprise social market. The page they link to states that IDC rate the market at a value of $1 billion. SharePoint, it was announced recently, is a $2 billion business. So you don't need to do any maths to work out that SharePoint hasn't been included in their analysis.
Exactly. You define the category so that you are leading it.
> It's very important for Americans to be "leading".
Good observation that applies to much more than just the tech industry.
It's not just America. My how I love over-generalization...
"Crackberry boasts" - that would be Canada. Or by "Americans" do you mean "North American" or North + South? Meaning this is a generalization of the entire Western Hemisphere which has not too much in common except for occupying one half of the globe?
Would you like some quick examples a little more close to home?
frankfurtstockexchange dot de "the leading independently owned source for information on companies listed on the Frankfurt Stock Exchange Entry Standard (Open Market) segment"
vodafone dot com "industry-leading roaming plans for Vodafone Red customers travelling in Europe"
bayer dot com "Bayer CropScience, the subgroup of Bayer AG responsible for the agricultural business, has annual sales of EUR 8,383 million (2012) and is one of the world’s leading innovative crop science companies in the areas of seeds, crop protection and non-agricultural pest control." also a "world market leader in our industry"
Chris, there is an Easter egg. Language. All of those communications are directed at people who need "leading". When you translate verbatim it becomes ridiculous. As are many press releases. The best example for that is Apple. They force their local agencies to use American language translated verbatim into the local language. Ultra fast, gorgeous, etc.
But Apple does not use "leading". And it's one of the companies who could claim it.
So do you or do you not agree with me that it's not just American companies and targeted press releases who are guilty of touting their "leading" roles?
Chris, I do not agree with you at all. Have you ever been outside your country for more than a month? Scott Hanson has been. Quite a few years.
I don't know that I would want to go many places outside of my country for more than a couple of weeks.
But I did provide you examples of German press releases from German companies targeted for European audiences citing their leadership yet you still must maintain that you're right in stating that ONLY American companies are guilty of doing this by saying you don't agree with my last statement at all that it's not just Americans who do this.
Chris, in what language are your examples written? They are directed at people who find it perfectly normal to say "leading". If you would say "Porsche, a leading car manufacturer" in German, you would be laughed out the door. In your language (and culture) it's perfectly OK. You need "leading".
You don't know much about the world around you. You have no idea what others find strange or funny. There are countries where you don't "declare war on ...", where you don't "God bless ...", and so many other things, that you find perfectly normal, because you have no other reference point.
By the way, I recall in the past that you do rather like to bring up with me whether I've been outside of my country in the expectation that you can somehow discredit people who are not world travelers when it really has nothing to do with your point. If we were discussing tourist attractions in Italy or restaurants in France without ever having been there, that would be one thing. But discussing the printing and marketing habits of companies from different geographies is not dependent on whether I've traveled there.
Let's say I'm going two states away here in America. I'm in the same country, but my destination is over 600km away. Were my route in Europe, I could say I've been in 5 different countries. We can drive for days on end and not leave our country. Needless to say, it's an argument of yours that is thin at best.
Chris, read the comment above.
Since vowe dragged me back into this... :-) I think he's making an observation, not a judgement. We Americans get team-sport-competitiveness drilled into us in school, and it tends to show up in everything we do. We tend to define everything as "winners" and "losers", so our PR (or PR written to appeal to us) tends to do that do.
Just don't get me going on Germans and arrogance. :-)
Oh, puleeeze. :-)
And after that we do a little "solving violence by adding guns" routine. :-)
Herbert Poul on Photos :: Google got the message at 22:58
patrick kwinten on IBM Verse UI challenges :: Icons at 19:20
Volker Weber on Photos :: Google got the message at 17:37
Jens Nullmeyer on Photos :: Google got the message at 16:07
Andre Hausberger on Photos :: Google got the message at 15:17
Daniel Haferkorn on Photos :: Google got the message at 11:30
Volker Weber on Photos :: Google got the message at 10:47
Samuel Orsenne on Photos :: Google got the message at 10:28
Frank Koehntopp (@koehntopp) on Photos :: Google got the message at 10:06
Ingo Harpel on Lesson of the day :: Knowledge is not understanding at 09:55
Michael Baum on Pebble Time :: Ceci n'est pas une critique at 08:47
Haiko Hebig on Lesson of the day :: Knowledge is not understanding at 00:12
Volker Weber on Lesson of the day :: Knowledge is not understanding at 22:05
Volker Weber on Pebble Time :: Ceci n'est pas une critique at 21:58
Wolf Fischer on Lesson of the day :: Knowledge is not understanding at 18:25
Wolf Fischer on Mary Meeker's Internet Trends 2015 at 18:17
Ralph Hammann on Pebble Time :: Ceci n'est pas une critique at 16:01
Joseph Federer on Pebble Time :: Ceci n'est pas une critique at 15:23
Michael Baum on Pebble Time :: Ceci n'est pas une critique at 15:03
Joachim Haydecker on Lesson of the day :: Knowledge is not understanding at 14:52
Lars Berntrop-Bos on Mary Meeker's Internet Trends 2015 at 14:09
Ralph Hammann on Pebble Time :: Ceci n'est pas une critique at 13:33
Kai Bode on Lesson of the day :: Knowledge is not understanding at 13:24
Hubert Stettner on Lesson of the day :: Knowledge is not understanding at 11:51
Stephan Perthes on Lesson of the day :: Knowledge is not understanding at 10:36