Yesterday Microsoft announced the launch of its shiny new toys including the Surface Pro 4 and the Surface book. I have eagerly been awaiting this announcement as I need to buy myself a new “laptop”. As luck would have it I heard about this announcement (thank you Twitter) as otherwise I would have already gone ahead and bought myself a new laptop or tablet hybrid like the Surface Pro 3. I was dawdling though as none of the tablet hybrids quite fitted all my expectations (the Surface Pro 3 for example apparently has a bad battery life). Whilst I actually could do with a new shiny toy like this sooner rather than later as always I would rather buy the latest.
This has in fact been my issue in the past – I want the latest and the best when it comes to technology (well within my price range of course). Way back in the day I was a mini-disc user (and huge fan – loved that technology). My mini-disc sadly faded into obsolescence. For my MBA I bought a top end Toshiba laptop which I loved (and still have gathering dust at my parents house). When it became time to buy a new laptop I did my research. I did not want an Apple (I am not, nor will I ever be an Apple fan). I wanted a high end, high speed, high capacity laptop with an mindblowingly awesome screen for working but also watching films. My research led me to the desktop replacement Acer Aspire, with a whopping 18inch screen and for the time awesome capacity and speed. My friends wowed when I told them I had over 300 films sitting on my hard-drive (legally obtained in Switzerland I might add). No one else’s laptop at the time came close to my big shiny boy. It even survived a full onslaught from a delinquent large glass of wine. I still use this laptop to this day and I still love it. It is now over 6 years old and going strong. It does however need an MOT and it is not really the most portable of laptops.
When it came to choosing a tablet (all the kids where buying them) I went through a similar process of doing my research and finding something that met my exact needs. I wanted a non-Apple tablet that had an attachable keyboard, was great for film watching and had a good battery life. I found the Asus Transformer which was at the time rated as the best tablet out there (some rated it higher than the iPad). It truly is a shiny toy – again everyone who sees it is impressed. It is a great tablet but it is the keyboard that makes it so special. It is a solid attachable “normal” keyboard with a trackpad but that acts as an extra battery source giving the tablet up to 10 hours of battery life. When on it looks like a very small neat laptop that is easy and light to carry with one hand. I love my tablet and have watched many hours of video and written many a blog post on it. It runs on Android which is great – bar the fact that it makes it fairly useless for working on with Office. While I had a company laptop this was not really an issue but now that I am independent again and traveling to client sites it presents an issue.
My issue now then is that I have two awesome top of the range in their day devices, that still rock, but which no longer quite meet my needs. I found myself having to travel to the client site with my big laptop to work on there and my table to entertain myself and read documents on for the 4 1/2 hour train journey. This was not optimal given the weight and size of my laptop. So it was that I started considering buying a new shiny toy. The thing was did not really want an “old fashioned” laptop but I also didn’t want a hard core tablet either.
And so it was that I have been eagerly awaiting the announcement from Microsoft on their new & improved Surface Pro 4. I was then doubly happy to hear about the Surface Book which sounds very much like my tablet but way better as it is a true laptop- tablet hybrid (the keyboard like the Asus acts as an extra batter). Now I face the dilemma – Pro 4 or Book? However seeing as neither device is on the market just yet so I have to wait a few weeks before purchasing them giving me a little more time to think. Right now I am leaning towards the Surface Book – but I welcome any feedback or thoughts! In the meantime I will continue to use and enjoy my old shiny toys.
Today I went for my regular swim with my Poolmate watch and found myself very frustrated when yet again I found that it was not counting my laps correctly. I presume I am probably like quite a few wearable owners in that I do not really use all the functions of my wearable device but I do expect it to get the basics right. In this case the basic function is counting my laps. Learning how efficient my strokes are is great but not much help if the device is not counting the laps correctly. I have written previously about my frustration with wearables when they don’t work and again I find myself in the same position. Not that long ago life existed without wearables and we seemed to do fine. Given my personal “fail” rate with my devices I wonder if they really are worth all the hype … or where things better before they came along?
The answer IMHO is yes and no. I think wearable technology is getting over-hyped but at the same time I think the opportunities that these devices offer are worth some hype nonetheless. Whilst my fails where frustrating they did not have a huge negative impact on my life (bar having to go back to counting laps in my head). In fact for many people a wearable is just a helpful addition to their fitness routine, which may indeed have a positive outcome on their health, for example the average fitbit user actually takes 43% more steps per day. If the device fails the worst case scenario is that for a while we may do less exercise – or just go back to how we always did it in the past.
However in other situations wearables could have a significant impact on people’s lives and in these cases the last thing you want is a device that does not work (especially if the fail is not spotted quickly). There are devices for example which patients could be using as a real support, for example in diseases like Alzheimer’s, or which have a large impact on their healthcare. Budgets could also be impacted, for example a recent study found that hospital costs dropped 6% for those who were inactive and became active. Failing devices which patients have become dependent on could lead to higher re-admissions and subsequent costs, or worse.
Linking the potentially very important impact from these wearable devices for some patients to a questionable device reliability does quite rightly result in a red warning flag. Currently many of the devices are being built for consumer fitness and a fail rate just results in disgruntled, perhaps slightly less fit, consumers. Moving these devices then into a more critical health environment without taking into account the greater impact could be a serious concern. Are these wearable technology companies doing enough to test their devices for duration and reliability in a more critical environment? Or are they just adapting consumer devices to seize a growing opportunity in the healthcare market? Are regulations adequate for these wearables – or indeed are regulations hindering innovation?
These are just some of the questions that accompany the hype of wearable devices. Despite my frustration today with my device I am still a big advocate for wearable technology simply because I do believe with time we will see some very positive impact coming from them for patients. In the meantime though perhaps we had best be careful of the over-hype and set our expectations around wearables more realistically. I for one am looking forward to getting my new Swimmo watch but I am also taking into account that it may not be all it is cracked up to be – or all that I hope – but if it can count my laps correctly for the next few years I will be happy.
And if I get to talk about all of this at #SXSW next year I will be doubly happy! If you have not done so already please vote for me: http://panelpicker.sxsw.com/vote/48954
I recently submitted my proposal to speak at SXSW next year on “Wearables: saving lives and improving outcomes” and the public voting on proposals starts today. It would be a dream to speak there but I know the competition is stiff so I have all my fingers and toes crossed and will be asking everyone to vote for me!
If you follow my blog you may have read my posts from earlier this year. That was my first time at SXSW and I have to admit it was a life changing event resulting in me leaving my job to go back to focus on my true love – digital strategy and innovation in healthcare. The event was incredibly inspiring, not only seeing such amazing innovation but also seeing how it could be applied to improve the lives of patients with chronic diseases like myself. As I listened to some of these amazing talks I thought how great it would be if I could also share some of my knowledge, passion and inspiration in this area, and so when my friend Jackie Cuyvers suggested I submit a proposal I went for it! I was actually interviewed for national TV about the impact of wearables so I thought why not speak about this topic!
I wanted to share want inspires me the most – how technology is having such a huge impact on patient’s lives and the revolutionary changes that are happening in healthcare as result, not just in terms of technology but also in the culture and mindset change. As an autoimmune patient myself I have a huge amount to thank for the internet, thanks to the information I found that led to my diagnosis, and the improved quality of life, but also in the inspiration from other patients that drove me to be an empowered patient and demand better health from my physicians. Back then I had got to the point were I could hardly get out of bed any more and had such extreme brainfog I was struggling to complete sentences; I now lead a normal, active life – thanks to the information and support I received online.
It is this that drives my passion at looking how innovation and new technology can do more for patients and help turn other people’s lives around, or indeed save them. In January I spoke about how social media is saving lives and now I want to speak about how wearables also have this capability. Wearables is of course the big thing this year, with a huge swathe of new devices of all shapes, sizes and uses being launched. The big ones are off course in the “health & fitness” arena like fitbit or new smartwatches such as the Apple watch. Everyone is talking about them and I have quite a few friends who have purchased new smartwatches to track their sports activities (I myself have invested in the new Swimmo watch). These devices are fantastic to help the reasonably healthy get even more healthy. But what about those that are not well or fit enough to run marathons or swim kilometres?
The real impact of wearables will come in how they are developed and adapted for those people who face real health challenges, whether it be Alzheimer’s or severe Asthma. Being able to wear a device which provides live support and information or that conatcts HCPs or family in the case of a medical emergency can have a huge impact in improving a patient’s life. Some options in this area already exist but few wearables on the market have been specifically designed for this purpose. Right now much wearable tech is focusing on the lucrative “fitness” and consumer markets but once we start to see more wearables being specifically designed for certain diseases then we still start to see some incredibly inspirational outcomes thanks to this technology.
It is on this topic that I hope to head to and speak at SXSW in March next year, with my friend Jackie (who will be speaking about social media listening and the implications of culture and language – think about the British and American understanding of the word “pants”). I would ask that you please help me achieve this goal by voting for me here by searching for “Fulford”, and don’t let me go alone – please also vote for Jackie too!
For full details of how to vote have a look at this document with instructions that I put together. The final thing I would like to say is that for every vote I get I will make a donation to my charity Hope for Romanian Strays which works tirelessly to rescue stray and injured dogs in Romania – so vote for me and help stray dogs!
The other week I shared a very interesting article about a study looking to use wearables in Alzheimer’s disease. This is a disease that takes a huge toll not only out of the patients but also on family and carers (often the same thing). As a person deteriorates the memory loss and confusion associated with the disease can get very dangerous, for example as patients start leaving the cooker on or getting lost outside, like this old lady. The result is that patients often end up having to go into care homes sooner than they would like because it becomes too hard to watch over them 24/7, and because they could end up injuring themselves. Placing patients into care homes sooner helps carers but also places a huge financial burden on those paying for the care home (which may also be the carers).
So it is great to see people looking to use wearables to help support Alzheimer’s patients, and their carers, and to try to delay the inevitable move into a care home. I fully support this and was very excited to read about this new study … but I am also sad. About five years ago, before wearables become the next hot thing, I had already put together a suggestion around using technology, including a wearable device, to support Alzheimer’s patients and their carers. I had tried to have a few conversations with pharma companies and the agency I was with but this idea was just too innovative at the time for anyone to pay attention to. Shame. Firstly how many patient’s and their carers lives would have been improved as a result during those five years? Secondly what a huge benefit a pharma company would have seen by being that innovative and reaping five years worth of experience and closer understanding and relationships with their Alzheimer’s stakeholders?
Back then I had suggested a pharma company partner with a technology company like LG, who at the time was developing an early stage “smart” watch using their mobile tech capabilities. This would have been a very innovative move for pharma – partnering with tech companies was not happening then and it would be a few more years before Novartis partnered with Google to develop the glucose monitoring contact lenses. The idea of the partnership would have been to combine the tech partners capabilities around building a mobile monitoring device (aka wearable tech) and the pharma company’s understanding of the health issues and obstacles faced by Alzheimer’s patients and their carers.
In my mind the end product would have been a watch (or some form of what is now called a wearable) worn by the patient. This would have had a number of functionalities based on what stage the patient was at. For early stage patient’s the device would have acted more like a reminder and would be more for patient only use. It would have used location tracking to provide the patient with information on where they were and, based on what was pre-programmed into the device for that day, what they were there for. The idea here to help patients stay self sufficient for longer, and reduce the distress of memory loss.
As the disease developed, and family and carers got more involved, the tracking functionality could also be used to locate the patient. I remember having discussions with a few friends around this and them questioning personal privacy but I pointed out at this stage the alternative could be restricted movement for the patient. This device would mean they would still have freedom to live at home but if they went missing or were out somewhere for a certain amount of time (again based on what was pre-programmed in) an alert could be sent to a designated person. The example I linked to earlier about the old lady who got lost in a park in the snow is a point in case – the tracker could have alerted someone as to her position.
All of the above is now very feasible using existing technology and in fact there is so much more that could be done using the latest technology to help Alzheimer’s patients and their carers. Besides tracking, reminders and alerts today’s wearables could also track various elements such as heart rate, glucose levels etc which would be particularly relevant for patients with diseases such as diabetes or pre-existing heart conditions for example. A whole ecosphere could be built for patients and carers factoring in wearables, sensors within the home, and online support and management.
It is great to think, and see the possibilities that now exist to improve the outcomes and lives of patients with such tragic diseases such as Alzheimer’s but I question why it has taken the pharma industry so long to get involved – and in fact why even today they are not doing more in this space. The opportunities are there – now it just needs to vision and willingness to be patient centric and accept innovation.
Last week I wrote an article inspired by Mighty Casey’s blog post and in response to the very insulting post written by Niam Yaraghi in USA Today. The essence of the article can be summed up by quoting directly from the article:
“Patients are neither qualified nor capable of evaluating the quality of the medical services that they receive. How can a patient, with no medical expertise, know that the treatment option that he received was the best available one?”
As a patient I felt compelled to respond to this incredibly arrogant and derogatory post which paints patients as intellectually challenged when it comes to their health. I have personally experienced the effects of poor judgement from my doctors and the positive response of being an empowered patient – and I am certainly not intellectually challenged when it comes to my health!
I was expecting a few responses from patients to my post but I am positively surprised by the size of the response I have got from other patients. This article has clearly hit a nerve, not just with me, but with patients around the world, and quite rightly so.
For years patients have had to put up with a patriarchal attitude from doctors towards patients. Traditionally a doctors’ word was seen as gospel and patients were deemed uneducated enough to do anything but follow this medical gospel. This attitude still persists, sadly, with some doctors, and clearly also with some academics, despite substantial changes to society and access to health information.
For years we patients had to put up with being misdiagnosed, and having to suffer in silence. Women in particular have born the brunt of negative responses from physicians. A hard working woman (mother, lawyer, etc.) turning up with depression, fatigue and weight gain, for example, has generally automatically been diagnosed with depression and put on anti-depressants. No further questions asked, no further tests done, problem solved. Simple. Except many of these women were not suffering from depression and had to subsequently put up with years of ill health – and any queries on this diagnosis put down to “hormones” or “emotions” or indeed “it’s all in your head” (this was the response one endocrinologist gave me). We slaved on – sick, tired, depressed (despite the meds) and made do with being told what to do. Whilst women often bore the brunt of this many men also went through the same thing.
There has however been a big change in our society and healthcare, both from the patient side but also from more enlightened doctors (and academics). The doctor’s word is no longer always seen as gospel – for better or worse. Patients are now querying this gospel, and if they are not satisfied they seek other opinions and find their own answers. Patients are standing up for their own healthcare and becoming empowered enough not to accept this medical gospel. The internet and social media is allowing us patients to do our own research and to become more educated in our own healthcare. While we may not have gone to medical school, and I would never suggest patients are more medically educated than doctors, we are becoming educated enough to be able to enter into a discourse with our doctors and to challenge the old fashioned gospel. We know our own bodies and we know when something is not right.
There is now plenty of evidence of patient’s seeing potentially huge health improvements through their own empowerment and through taking a stand when they feel a doctor’s response may be overlooking a key factor. Doctors, whilst highly educated and trained, are still only human and they are not infallible. Today’s medicine is quite rightly moving towards a dialogue rather than the traditional gospel-like monologue.
After so many years of putting up with false diagnosis, of our queries and opinions being dismissed and of having to make do with sub-optimal health, patients are are naturally becoming more vocal in the healthcare arena. So when an academic comes along and tries to put us back into that old patriarchal system and tries to tell us that we are incapable of evaluating our own healthcare, we are quite naturally angry and upset. Years of not having had a voice has now made us louder and more vocal. We will no longer make do with the medical gospel and we will no longer just accept a doctor’s word, unquestioning, if we continue to experience the same ill health. We will dig deeper, we will look for more information and we will question the medical gospel in order to regain our health. And we will respond when someone questions our ability to understand our own health.
I am proud to be an empowered patient and I am proud to see so many other empowered patients also speak up against this derogatory portrayal of patients as being incapable of making decisions about their own health. I am proud to be part of this revolution in healthcare and to be a witness to the dawn of a new era in our own healthcare.
Yesterday I read an awesome post by the MightyCasey in response to an astonishing post by a certain Niam Yaraghi in USA Today. According to said Niam Yaraghi patients are incapable of managing or understanding their own health and should leave it all entirely up the medical professionals. In essence in his article he treats patients like small, stupid children who have no idea what they are talking about and, whilst capable of making highly complicated investment decisions, are not capable of making basic healthcare decisions.
My first jaw dropping moment was when I read:
“Patients are neither qualified nor capable of evaluating the quality of the medical services that they receive. How can a patient, with no medical expertise, know that the treatment option that he received was the best available one?”
“……….” That’s me being speechless. Really? So we are not capable of realising that we are getting better or worse? And doctors always have the answer to whether we are getting better or not? Looking at this one point I go back to my own experience. I had been diagnosed with hypothyroidism, was on the appropriate medication, and, according to the specialist I went to see, I was totally healthy and the severe fatigue, depression, 15kg weight gain, etc. was all in my head. This was a doctor that followed Niam Yaraghi’s view that patients were total idiots and had no idea what was going on with their own bodies. As it happens I am not a total idiot and I knew the doctor was not right (shock horror! But doctors are always right according to Mr Yaraghi!) and something was wrong. I went online, self-diagnosed and then got got a second opinion from a specialist back in the UK. It turned out that stupid patient me was actually right and the specialist I had first seen was wrong. I had Hashimoto’s and I needed to do more than just take my pills to get back to normal. Had a acted like the USA today article says I should act as a patient and just trust the doctor I would by now be too sick to work or write this blog, or worse.
This also leads on to the second point in the quote namely that patient’s cannot possibly have any idea about what the best treatment option is. Casey covers this very nicely in her post by flagging that a doctor who graduated years and years ago, and who may not have remained totally up to date in your specific condition, may in fact not have the best idea of the latest medical breakthrough in this disease. This is especially true for patient with rare diseases, who are often much more knowledgeable on the latest medical news in their disease. This is all thanks to this amazing tool called the internet and social media. I myself for example informed my doctor of some new trials happening around timing of taking thyroid meds – the established knowledge is that you take the pill in the morning but new evidence suggests night time may in fact be better – my doctor had not seen this bit of news. This is not to say that all patients know more about the latest thing than doctors do but you cannot discount the knowledge of patients with chronic diseases who spend considerable time researching online as well as sharing experiences with other patients.
Next our article goes on to say that people are able to make complex financial investment choices as they have a baseline with which to compare the end results but that patients have no such thing for their healthcare. He also goes on to say that we are not capable of judging the short and long term outcomes – only a doctor can do this. Admittedly we cannot say how many years we will have left to live – but frankly no doctor can guarantee that either. What we can tell you is by how much we feel better – and we do have a baseline of our health prior to sickness. In my case, for example, once I got the right diagnosis and made the appropriate changes, my depression disappeared, I was able to function normally again and I lost some of the weight (sadly not the entire 15kg). This to me is a pretty good indication that my healthcare was improved. In terms of timing I had a small positive short term outcome and currently the longer term outcome is looking pretty good too (although still not lost any more weight). I have also had this disease long enough to have a good idea of what my blood results mean (at least in terms of good and bad) and I can tell that my blood results are improving.
“While the interaction between patients and their medical providers is an important element of the medical care process, it is not the most important one. To choose the best medical provider, patients are encouraged to rely on measures of medical expertise and avoid invalid online reviews.”
Finally I would like to point out that slighting the importance of the interaction between patients and their medical providers is also somewhat shortsighted. Admittedly in many cases it may not be the most critical element but it will probably come in a close second or third, whilst in other cases it is indeed the most important element. If the interaction is terrible a patient may ignore all of the doctor’s advice and turn to other sources, which may endanger their lives, or simply become less vested in their healthcare, less adherent and in future lie to their doctor – also resulting in negative outcomes. After my personal, horrific experience with the Spanish endocrinologist, I could have just fallen deeper and deeper into depression and stopped going to seek medical help altogether, instead I ended up finding the most amazing doctor I have ever, ever had (Dr Kruhl in Zurich) and who I trust entirely with my health and my life. If she tells me to do something I will, had the Spanish endocrinologist told me to I would have ignored her. I think it is fairly clear from this just how important the patient physician interaction is.
When it comes to online reviews they also can have a role to play – firstly I found my amazing Dr Kruhl through online reviews. Secondly I value the input from other patients with similar conditions far more than a random pick of a doctor’s surgery based solely on their location or position in the yellow pages. It is also not just about the medicine any more. It is about having the empathy, the understanding, the interaction skills as well as being digitally adept enough to stay up to speed with the latest thinking. You can have the most medically adept physician but if his expertise has not been kept up to date and he treats his patients like stupid little nincompoops then his outcomes will not compare to an equally medically adept physician who is able to empathise and interact with this patients, and share the latest digital support tools with them.
So I say to you Niam Yaraghi, as a patient – we are not incompetent nincompoops incapable of educating ourselves around our healthcare and of making valid decisions around our healthcare. The days of your type of thinking, when doctors were revered and were never wrong, and patients were treated like irritating, stupid little children are drawing to an end. In fact this article highlights the dangers of people with no empathy or understanding for patients, for today’s changing healthcare dynamics and for the real world, of getting involved in the healthcare system. I would challenge an academic technologist and economist to get out of the theoretical environment of the university and go out and talk to empowered patients and patients with chronic diseases before you label all patients as stupid and incapable.
Brilliant post about #autoimmune disease and #hashimoto’s – a must read IMHO
Originally posted on Natalie Hanson:
I had intended to write a post for Thyroid Awareness month (which was in January). I thought it would be important to share my experience, with the hope that others would get the help they needed way sooner that I did. But, if nothing else, this disease is teaching me to manage my own expectations about what I can do. So, it took me four months longer than planned to get this written. That, I’m learning, is my new reality.
On my birthday (In October) last year, I was diagnosed with Hashimoto’s Thyroiditis. If you know anything at all about the thyroid and it’s role in human biology, you’ll understand why I’ve been largely absent online. The thyroid controls the most basic functions in the body at a cellular level; when it’s not working properly, nothing in the body really works as it should. Body temperature, digestion, basic cell functions are…
View original 5,895 more words
I recently had the pleasure of visiting a friend in Salvador de Bahia in Brazil, staying in the non-touristy Itapua on the outskirts of Salvador. One of the benefits of staying with a local was that I got to see a part of Brazil few tourists really get to experience, including visiting his family in the nearby favela. Needless to say it was a truly amazing experience and I felt very lucky to be there, to be welcomed into their homes and to get to appreciate some amazing home cooked Brazilian food. I am now a solid convert to Brazilian cuisine – and the passion fruit cocktails – totally amazing!
I have to admit that I had a few preconceptions about the favela and was really surprised to find high speed internet in the family’s flat, and that they all had smart phones. I had presumed that given that the favela were very poor neighbourhoods that internet would be limited and I certainly did not expect to see people with the lastest Samsung or iPhones. This was further compounded when I found out how expensive smartphones actually are in Brazil! Then again I also had not expected to be welcomed into a lovely, flat on the 2nd floor of a solid construction with a pleasant balcony overlooking the favela streets. Whilst the flat was basic it was very clean and had the “basics” including a television and the said internet. And did I mention the amazing food and cocktails?
As I was out and about locally I also spotted people on Instagram and Facebook. I know of course that Brazil is one of the top countries in terms of social media penetration and use, including on the big platforms like Facebook and Instagram and I also expected to see this is the more prosperous part of town. What did surprise me though was just how ubiquitous the internet, smart phones and social networks were in all parts of Salvador – from the high end part of town right down to the favela. Everyone had phones and everyone appeared to have internet access. This to me is something that we do not always consider when looking outside of our comfort zones in the US and Europe. There is sometimes still the misconception that in “developing” countries they are still “developing” internet and mobile access. Whilst Brazil is certainly not a “developing” country, parts of it are so poor and with such poor infrastructure that one could be tempted to bundle these parts into that somewhat derogatory term.
My lesson learnt was that even in the poorest, less well developed parts of the world, the internet has embedded itself, and often jumping straight to mobile connection. Smartphones are now no longer just for the rich or middle classes. Internet access, and increasingly mobile access, are starting to be a given – almost a basic requirement. As we look at developing our global strategies we need to stop thinking about splitting the world into tiers, such as “developing” but start splitting the world into customer groups. A Brazilian teenager in the favela probably has more in common with a Portuguese teenager than a Brazilian 40-something year old in terms of internet usage. When we look at the online world we have to remember that our offline geographic boundaries do not exist in the same way. Behaviour is a key driver, split by language, not geography.
Yet when I look at the pharmaceutical companies I have been working for, their structure, due to the regulatory environment, is clearly defined by geography. The shift in thinking to meet the new boundry-less world is still a long way away, and we still see Portugal and Brazil doing their own, often very different, online activities, even though their customers do not behave in this way. There is currently a duplication of budget and effort where synergies actually exist with the customer groups. The continued focus internally, rather than externally and around customers, continues to persist in too many companies and this is clearly a redundant way of thinking in today’s global digital age. In order to meet our customer’s expectations we need to understand them – and part of this is to break down our pre- and mis-conceptions about the big wide world of digital. We all need to get out of our comfort zones, go visit a favela and appreciate the ubiquity as well as the diversity that exists out there.
PS: All photos courtesy of Nokia or Samsung (sadly not my Samsung as I left my darling S6 behind to bring a cheap replaceable Nokia with a pretty poor camera)
Wearables are this year’s hot item. They are trendy and all the cool kids want one. They can link to your mobile, they can tell you your heart rate, how far you have run, calories burnt and they are shiny. I want one.
Or rather I want another one and this time I want one that actually suits my activity and lifestyle not that of some marathon running health junky. I also want a wearable that actually has a decent lifespan – both in terms of battery life but also in terms of years of use.
My first request, that of a wearable that suits me, has been quite hard to find. The majority of consumer wearables and health apps are heavily focused on jogging or walking. My recently purchased Samsung S6 has a health app, S Health, which seems okay, ticking quite a few boxes, as long as you are into running. You see my problem is that I do not jog and do not ever intend to jog (my body is not made for running). I walk a fair bit but not as a “sport”. The only real sport I do is swimming. Whilst the app does give you the option of adding a whole array of other sports the parameters for these is very restricted, and IMHO pretty rubbish. I am a “proper” swimmer, and even had lessons a few years ago to perfect my strokes. I swim a reasonably paced front crawl and I try to swim between 2-3km a day and I swim 1km in about 15 minutes. My S Health app however only gives me the variable of time – I cannot input what strokes or distance along with time. I swim faster than a lot of swimmers in the pool, doing a strenuous stroke, and what I swim in 30 minutes is very different from what they swim. Equally those powering past me in the other lane are swimming way more laps in that time frame. Yet the S Health app does not allow any input other than time. That is pretty rubbish.
So how about buying a wearable for swimming? Well I have. Been there done that. I bought a PoolMate Swimmers watch which counts my laps, speed, distance, efficiency and time. I loved it! It was great and allowed me to concentrate on my swimming without having to worry about counting laps. It also finally allowed me to get an idea of how I swim and how many calories I burn (turns out I am quite an efficient swimmer). Sadly though it is not “smart” so I cannot synch it to my phone or track my progress with an app. It does however come in colours other than the usual dull black (I opted for the baby blue version).
Then there is the lifespan of the product. I bought my PoolMate just over a year ago and have been using it on a very regular basis, but recently it has stopped counting laps properly. I am gutted as I now have to go back to counting my laps. The poolmate is however not the first wearable I have had – I had a Nike Fuelband too. That also turned out to be cool to start with before it went demented. In the case of the Fuelband I gave up on it when I had done a 2 1/2 hour hike up a Swiss mountain and the stupid thing told me I had not met my target of steps for the day!
Both of these products started with high cool and wow factors and I was very happy with them, only for them to then shatter my happiness by losing accuracy. As I look at many of the new wearables and technology hitting the market I notice that we do not seem to be that fussed anymore about product lifespan. Many of the new smartwatches may be mega shiny but they often only have a battery life of a day! What is the point of a watch that you need to charge every day?! The same actually goes for phones – but as long as my phone last a day with full use I am happy (my old iPhone 5 did not manage this at all in the end – it barely made 1/2 day). We seem to have moved into a world where we are happy for products to have a short lifespan and batter life – or is it in fact that we have just accepted that this is the new world because this is what the manufacturers offer us? Newer phones come out with more shiny functionalities but not much improvement on batter power. Wearables last a year or two and then there is the expectation that we will upgrade or buy a new one. Is this right? I feel like it shouldn’t be.
That said I have just gone and followed the trend in the purchase of my latest wearable. Fed up with my poolmate I clicked on an advert on Facebook (yes they sometimes work!) to a kickstarter page for the Swimmo Smartwatch. Looking at the specs and the description I got very excited. It sounds like exactly the kind of wearable I am after, as a non-jogging swimmer. It counts laps, tracks my swimming, has a heart monitor, is linked to an app and tells the time. In fact I got so excited I pledged! What I didn’t think about was the battery life and whether it would actually be better to wait until it was on the market to see reviews and whether it actually works. But no – I got lost in the shiny shiny excitement, and a bit also in the “ooooh” of being involved in the kickstarter stage. I suspect my new watch when it comes will indeed be shiny but I will probably have to charge it everyday. On the other hand I like their Facebook page – they are clearly really into swimming – and I love the photos on their Facebook page too :)
I have to admit that I have never been a huge fan of corporate rebranding. In theory a rebrand should go deeper than just the corporate logo and colours but should also include a change in direction and culture for a brand. Of course very often though the result is essentially a change in logo and colours and everything else stays the same. Some of the somewhat dubious reasons for a rebrand include:
- Change in management – essentially new management, pander to their egos and want to get rid of the brand that is associated with their predessors and bring in something new that is linked to them.
- Corporate “stumble” – some corporate disaster that leads to the desire to disassociate the company with its previous mistake or scandal
- Consultants advice – Consultants are brought in (possibly as a result of the above points) and advise that a total rebrand is a great idea
- Negative brand perception – Possibly due to point 2 or simply the result of poor marketing there is a perceived need to change the brand to be able to build a more positive image
- Market research – Hopefully a large market research study, which includes a number of types of research from broad surveys to social media listening to focus groups, identifies the need to change the brand. Sadly often the size of the market research study group is far too small or is based on a few focus groups which may not represent the bulk of users, thereby leading to misleading insights.
There are of course many other reasons for rebranding but I think the above captures some of the main ones. Whilst I may be a bit cynical this is because I rarely see rebrands that I actually think “Wow – this new branding speaks to me”, but rather I am often left thinking “erm … why?”. This is in fact one of the big issues with rebranding is that often consumers are left feeling perplexed and sometimes even angry that their beloved brand has been changed, especially if it is a strong, well established brand. There are plenty of examples of failures out there so it does surprise me to still see corporations doing dubious rebrands – and paying big bucks to do so too.
And so I come to a recent rebrand here in Switzerland. The striking, and well known Orange mobile phone brand changed the other week to a bland, dull and mundane Salt. I remember when Orange first launched asking why on earth a mobile phone company was named after a fruit but then I got the striking and strong colour element and the brand grew on me. Now it is a clearly established brand with a strong identity. Why change it? Well let’s go back up to our list and then pair that with the fact that Orange Switzerland was recently acquired by French billionaire entrepreneur Xavier Niel for 2.8 billion CHF- it becomes a bit clearer what could have driven the rebrand. There is also the fact that Orange Switzerland was having to pay 20,000CHF per year for the use of the name. This makes a bit more sense and I see some potentially sound reasoning for a rebrand, but …. why on earth choose Salt?!
Orange Switzerland has gone from a strong, vibrant, dyanamic and energetic brand to a dull, monotonous, everyday commodity brand. Gone is the colour and the energy and in comes the black and white and nondescript condiment. To top of this bizarre branding is the fact that it apparently cost $40 million CHF and a pretty shaky brand switch. As an Orange / Salt customer I had the joy of experiencing my network being down, the Orange / Salt shops shut for 3 full days while they rebranded the shops (3 days? Most of these stores are tiny!) and an overall poor customer experience. Even though I have now been bombarded with very dull rebranding adverts I am still at a loss as to what has happened and more importantly why. Gone is the old strong brand, in comes the dull weak brand. Other Orange / Salt customers I have spoken to here are equally flabbergasted, a few were also seriously inconvenienced with the network issues during the rebranding.
For me branding is really important and if you are going to rebrand at least make it strong, impactful and meaningful, and do not disrupt your customer’s experience during the process! As a paying customer I was so unhappy with this rebrand and the whole experience that I have now switched to Sunrise (that and they had more flexible contracts!). Perhaps if there had been some clear communication around why there was rebrand and what it actually stood for – including what corporate culture and ethos the new brand brings – I may have seen some sense in it all. As it stands all I see if $40million CHF of wasted money and the birth of seriously non-descript brand.