An Apple a Day ... Don't Always Make You Smarter

So, if you're curious about the latest word on the street between Apple and Microsoft, it's pretty funny. Apparently Apple forgot to put a patent on the iPod's very distinctive face and framework. By the time they put the order in, Microsoft had already patented it - five months in advance.

For those of you who are Apple aficionados, you might want to pull out the violin for your company. Tech forums are chortling over the thought of Steve Jobs having to pay a royalty to Clever Billy for every iPod sold. Apple's in a controlled panic; the iPod accounts for a whopping 1/3 of sales revenue (The Examiner, August 17, 2005). And let's please not forget the charming statistical fact that one in ten people in the nation have got the telltale white earbuds leaking from their heads to their pockets.

Apple won't be going down without a fight, though. Insisting they've still got some cards to play, their lawyer posits that they can have the patent office put in an investigation for who invented the iPod bits first. That's well and good, but these types of races are lost by many a well-meaning - but slow to patent - inventor in everyday life. Sorry, Apple, but even if you wiggle out of this one (iPod's "legal" owner won't be clear until maybe 6 months from now), you've still got a low grade in the school of hard-knocks.

While Apple refused to comment on why it took them so bloody long to apply for a patent, Microsoft felt it necessary to cite that they have a perfectly liberal policy when it comes to licensing patents to other companies.

KO. Until things are clearer, anyway.

Ramping Up

Feedster.com makes a monthly list of the most relevant and widely-read blogs out there. Check it out and read stream-of-thought until your head explodes.

Marketingvox.com put out a synopsis on online ad impressions and how they've grown (making this a mere rehash of the rehash). Apparently MySpace.com comprised a whopping 10% of ad impressions in July alone. That's spectacular, but how many of those impressions actually lead to viable conversion? It's easy to slap ad galorious on the (anecdotally) most-frequented site of the ADD generation, but do the ADD gens notice the ads at all?

According to a couple of 16-year-olds I know, no, they don't. Well, here's to hoping they might, however subconsciously, if something truly fascinating were to accost the senses.

AdAge.com reports on Sears' decision to drop Ogilvy after 43 years, allowing Y&R - initially only half of the marketing budget - to fulfill their marketing bill entirely. A momentous break-up indeed. But note Y&R's multiple attempts to reposition the giant:

The most notable Y&R campaign was the "Softer Side of Sears," which ran from late 1993 until 2000. In 2001, Y&R also launched the short-lived "Sears, Where Else?" campaign. Since 2001, the campaign focus has been on "Good Life, Great Price."

Talk about confusing the customer with choices. Were Sears to return to its roots (the middle-American père in the red flannel shirt - and maybe some handyman muscle) it would perhaps flourish in ways it simply hasn't since losing any semblance of a consumer position with totally alienating campaigns like "the softer side."

You don't envision a fantasy spree at Sears when manifesting your prom dress or honeymoon trousseau. You just don't.

Well, let's see what happens now that Ogilvy's out for the count.