The New York Times today published an article about municipalities banning cellular phones and quotes government officials, lawyers and analysts. But what struck me was the article's lead, and how the cellular industry -- as I've been writing -- has been shooting itself in the foot.
Here's the lead: "'What grabbed my attention,' said Alderman Edward M. Burke, 'was that TV commercial when the guy is eating the pasta like a slob, and the girl sends a photo of him acting like a slob to the fiancée.'
"The commercial, for Sprint PCS, was meant to convey the spontaneity and reach afforded by the wireless world's latest craze, the camera phone. But what Mr. Burke saw was the peril.
"'If I'm in a locker room changing clothes,' he said, 'there shouldn't be some pervert taking photos of me that could wind up on the Internet.'"
Another commercial for the moron in you
I certainly understand why the cellular industry runs these commercials. They're trying to show the fun, crazy uses of camera phones. But these commercials also are showing the moronic uses of camera phones...and government officials are taking notice!
To be fair, who cares if someone takes a photo of a guy eating like a slob? It might be embarrassing, but this is not a national security issue! You can take the same photo with a regular digital camera, too, although you can't immediately send it.
I'm not going to suggest that the wireless industry shouldn't advertise the fun aspects of camera phones. But wouldn't you think that with all the money the handset vendors and cellular operators can spend on advertising and marketing, they would be able to come up with commercials that not only target the right demographics, but also wouldn't wave a red flag in front of people who want to ban phones?
Educate, educate
The article also highlights, once again, why I think it's so important for the cellular industry to promote the valuable uses of camera phones. Perhaps you wouldn't want TV advertisements promoting real estate agents, construction workers and "citizen journalists" using camera phones (then again, if you're going after business users, perhaps you might!), but the industry certainly should use other ways to get out the word.
The industry launches good products and then screws them up, often with onerous pricing or "walled gardens." With camera phones, the industry was surprised with the strong reactions by corporations and municipalities banning the device.
So instead of trying to highlight to value of camera phones, cellular operators are focusing on the lowest common denominator -- which isn't helping their cause with potential corporate users.
Catering to morons
What we're seeing now in some camera phones commercials is the moron factor. As a misanthrope who thinks the human race's collective I.Q. is barely above that of a slime mold, I understand that appealing to the "mass "market" sells products (as so-called reality shows, morning TV "news" shows and sports programming illustrate).
Indeed, as a wireless data consultant I help companies sell wireless products to the mass market! But the handset vendors and cellular operators have simply got to begin promoting the value of camera phones or they will face more criticism in the press and more government regulations.
The New York Times article notes that as early as December 17 the Chicago City Council might vote on Burke's proposal to ban camera phones in public bathrooms, locker rooms and showers.
Certainly there are places where you shouldn't be allowed to take photos; there are legitimate privacy and security concerns. But what we're seeing in some jurisdictions and hearing from some corporations and analysts, is a sledge hammer approach to banning phones.
Comments