Post Updated: 5 May, see end of post

Are we really a First World country with a world-class service industry serving the economy? Certainly not if our still unresolved issue with Singapore Post (SingPost) is a yardstick for measurement. A simple request for Singapore Post to re-deliver my wife’s parcel (containing online purchases of clothes from Forever 21) has dragged on for almost 3 weeks with no end in sight. Much worse is the customer service treatment we have been receiving at the hands of this monopolistic (we don’t really have a choice, do we?) Singaporean postal service. Truth is: no one at SingPost seems to care!

‘Parcel is Lost in Our Service’ says Singapore Post

The parcel, with a total purchase value of US$385.16, had been declared ‘lost’ by Singapore Post. And this happened while it was in its care! Unbelievable? Unfortunately, this is true, SingPost officially states so in this email and this one too. And for the record, there WAS an attempted parcel delivery to our door step on 30 December 2009 (more on this later). But it seems as though the parcel simply….vanished!

Obviously, we were deeply concerned and wanted this resolved as quickly as possible. As the lost item was a combined purchase between Elisa (my wife) and her friends and acquaintances, it is only right on Elisa’s part, as purchase coordinator, to rectify this quickly. If the parcel is really lost as claimed, then compensation must be made, especially when SingPost has clearly acknowledged losing it. Simple enough? Turns out, not quite.

Ignored by Singpost?

It is painfully obvious from our interactions that Singapore Post does not see any urgency in this matter nor does it feel totally responsible for this blunder. Despite countless calls and information request via emails, no single person at Singapore Post took the initiative or claimed any service responsibility over our case. Read on to find out how SingPost tries to ‘tai chi’ this problem away. (Note: ‘To tai chi’ is Singlish for shifting work or blame to someone else)

Since January 11, Elisa had been making periodic calls to Singapore Post’s customer service hotline to enquire about this parcel. The same mantras were repeated countless times: ‘We are looking into it’, ‘Our operation team is still investigating’, ‘The parcel is still missing’, etc. And she kept being told ‘We will give you a call’, but never heard back from anyone. Not a single call-back came from SingPost in the course of 2 weeks. Unbelievable but true.

This perceived ‘lack of interest’ by SingPost is also evident in email communication. A certain ‘Jxcqueline Lim – Senior Manager’ offered to keep a close watch on this case when Elisa spoke to her on January 22. Unfortunately, that did not happen. See the chain of emails that is still unresponded (and possibly ignored by Miss Lim) since January 22.

All Talk, No Action

From January 11 till the 22nd, this case was ‘ping-ponging’ between Singapore Post’s Customer Service team, their Investigation team and quite possibly their Claims Department. It seems like no one wanted to make any decision. If it takes 2 weeks to locate a single physical parcel, then there must be something seriously wrong operationally at SingPost.

Only on January 22, when we demanded immediate concrete action to be taken, was a police report given to us the very same evening (more about discrepancies of this police report later). We deduced it to be SingPost’s way of saying: ‘Yes, we lost your parcel but can you wait in case it turns up so that we don’t have to claim insurance and save some bucks?’

This whole episode, coming hot on the heels of the controversial Singapore Post’s "Acts of Vandalism" publicity stunt that backfired, does make us wonder the quality of decision-making business managers currently helming the company. SingPost is not exactly doing itself any favour here. And to think I had voluntarily proposed a revolutionary business idea to SingPost previously.

Next, I’ll detail a factual rundown of events that led to this blog post.

What Actually Happened

20 December: Elisa and myself left Singapore for a 3-week holiday in the Middle East.

29 December: Parcel arrived in Singapore on 29 December at 3.10pm. View the online tracking report by United States Postal Service for item CJ242179875US (Elisa’s parcel).

30 December: Delivery was attempted on 30 December by owner of mobile no. +6581461087 to our flat in Toa Payoh Central. The following are text messages (signed off as ‘S’pore post’) sent to Elisa on the same day regarding this attempted delivery:

Another text message was also sent on January 2:

31 December: My mom called on my mobile and mentioned that our neighbour, an elderly lady, had contacted her to inform of a postal delivery man at our door the previous day. Our kind neighbour had spoken to the delivery man and that she was ready to ‘make payment’ on our behalf (we found out later that Goods and Services Tax (GST) was due on Elisa’s parcel). However, our neighbour mentioned that the man was nowhere to be found when she returned to the door later with her money bag.

8-9 January: Elisa sent several text messages to +6581461087, but did not receive any reply.

11 January: Elisa made the first call to Singapore Post’s Customer Service to enquire on re-delivering the parcel. She was told that parcel cannot be located and SingPost advised that it will need at least 2 working days to look for the parcel. SingPost assured her that a return call will be made within the next few days.

Text messages and phone calls made to +6581461087 were still not answered. Gave up on that channel of communication.

13 January: No news from Singapore Post. When contacted, SingPost informed that ‘the Operations team is still trying to locate the parcel’. SingPost also mentioned that if the parcel is not found by January 18, a police report will be made in order to initiate claims. We decided to wait it out and requested to SingPost to provide a prompt update by January 18.

18 January: Again zero communication received from Singapore Post. Elisa made a call and told the same thing: ‘the Operations team is still trying to locate the parcel’.

So no police report had been made. When asked when exactly the police report will be filed, the Customer Service Officer  quipped that she had just updated the system for the ‘Operations team’ to file the police report. Ping! Pong! Among other things:

• Was also told that the police report would take THREE working days to complete
• After which the report will go to the Claims Department to look into the matter and handle the proceeding steps Ping! Pong!
• Will be updated via a phone call regarding the police report and claims

I guess Elisa and friends have to wait. Again.

The Singapore Post’s Police Report Mystery!

22 January: Still no update on a late Friday afternoon so we decided to give Singapore Post a call.

No police report had been made! The atrocity!

The SingPost Customer Service officer on the line said ‘Don’t worry, we’ll take care of it and will call you back on Monday’. ‘NO WAY!’ we protested. Eventually, by sheer verbal force, Elisa and yours truly managed to speak to Jxcquxlinx Lim (Senior Manager, Customer Service) and she agreed to file the report so that a compensation claim can be initiated as soon as possible.

Do see the chain of emails here on this. Notice an attempt to delay official action again, despite an earlier verbal agreement with Jxcquxlinx Lim. Elisa highlighted this in her last email reply.

A police report was eventually lodged by SingPost on the same evening and we duly received a copy of this report. Please do view the full copy of this police report.

Now, let’s play detective! Notice the following discrepancies in the police report:

1. Police report was made in the personal name of ‘Ayub Bin Hamzah’. Is this normal practice? I assume this is a safeguard so that Singapore Post, as a business entity, is likely to be absolved from any connection or responsibility in case a criminal offence had been committed.
2. No signature or name and details of police officer-in-charge visible in the report. The informant ‘Ayub Bin Hamzah’ did not sign as well. Extremely odd! I wonder what is the real story here. Anyone familiar with police reports?
3. Look again at the following text message sent by owner of mobile no. +6581461087 on the afternoon of 30 Dec when the parcel was still in his/her possession:

Notice the time and date message was sent and received:

30 December, 2.59pm

Now look at the ‘Time of Incident’ for loss of parcel as stated by Singpost in the police report.

30 December, 11.47am-11.59pm

So Many Questions!

• The parcel was reported/discovered ‘lost’ between those hours when it is obvious that, evidenced through the text messages sent to Elisa, the owner of mobile no. +6581461087 still had the parcel in his possession. Isn’t this downright fishy? A parcel gone missing while being delivered? Should this not be grounds for a criminal investigation?
• Who is the owner of mobile no. +6581461087 anyway? Singapore Post’s official response to us on this query is “We do not know to whom this mobile number belongs to”. ???
• Singapore Post does not keep track of its own delivery men/women? Inconceivable? Apparently so.
• Could the owner of mobile no. +6581461087 be ‘Ayub Bin Hamzah’?
• If parcel was already ‘lost’ on 30 December, why did Elisa receive another text message from +6581461087 on January 2? What was its purpose? There was no other communication after this message.
• How is it possible that a parcel, in SingPost’s care and ready to be delivered to owner, can go missing and untraceable within the space of a week? Aren’t all parcel shipments individually tagged and tracked?
• There was never a ‘Request for Re-delivery’ note left behind at our door by owner of mobile no. +6581461087 or was there ever an official SingPost call made to Elisa to arrange for re-delivery afterwards. Is this an attempt to cover up something?

25 January: No call from SingPost, specifically from the Claims Department.

26 January: Still no call and no news. So Elisa made a direct call to Jxcquxlinx Lim to ask for status of the claims.

Jxcquxlinx’s reply was: ‘Oh, no staff contacted you yesterday? Someone was supposed to call you. Ok, let me try to get hold of someone from the Claims department and have them speak to you.’

We felt really numb by now. Ping! Pong!

Later on a Fxdilx called, informing Elisa that the claims process will take several days. However, Jxcquxlinx had earlier agreed to resolve the claims process by Monday, January 25. Fxdilx claimed that she was ‘unaware of this’. Com’mon, SingPost, COMMUNICATE!

When asked to speak to Jxcquxlinx, Fxdilx informed that she had left for the day and instead a ‘Miss Umx’ would be calling by 9.30pm that evening. Unfortunately, Elisa missed this call. A return call to ‘Miss Umx’ was, however, unanswered.

The Final Straw: Singapore Post Washes Hands and ‘Tai Chis’ Tasks to USA Post, Forever 21 and Us!

27 January: Elisa picked up the phone and called a ‘Miss Umxmagasvary – Asst Manager, Customer Relations’ (we theorise that the concept of calling back or following up apparently does not exist in SingPost’s operations manual). In the call, the message communicated by Miss Umx simply astounded us!  Elisa asked that this be documented in an email, which was received promptly. The full copy of the email is available for viewing. Reproduced here is an excerpt from Miss Umx’s email:

Dear Ms Elisa

ENQUIRY ON USA PARCEL NUMBER CJ242179875US

Please refer to your conversation with our call center dated 12 Jan 2010.

We are sorry to inform you that despite a through search, we are unable to locate the parcel. As such, the parcel has been declared as lost in our service.

We have reported the lost of the parcel to the USA Post and have requested to liasie with the sender accordingly. We have also informed them to compensate the sender at our expense as in accordance with the UPU Regulations.

As the sender would have the prior right of claim, please advise your sender to file a claim with the USA Post.

Our sincere apologies for the lost of the parcel and the inconvenience experienced

Yours sincerely

Umx (Ms)

Asst Manager, Customer Relations, Customer Service (Business Division)

DID: 65 68456222, Fax: 65 68425114

Case closed?! This is totally unbelievable! MAJOR PING PONG!

This is as good as Singapore Post saying:

‘Sorry, we fxxked up, please help clean the mess after us’.

After 3 weeks of dealing with Singapore Post’s Customer Service and after it admitted to losing Elisa’s parcel, SingPost now wants to close off this matter by making USA Post, Forever21 and us to ‘take care of business’. How much more crazier can this get? There are even more questions now:

• Why is Singapore Post getting USA Post involved in this when it is pretty obvious that SingPost lost Elisa’s parcel in Singapore? The parcel was delivered and arrived safely in Singapore on 29 December at 3.10pm. It went missing under SingPost’s watch, for goodness sake.
• And why is Singapore Post making my wife do their work for them? “Please advise your sender to file a claim with the USA Post”. Not content with making Elisa constantly following up with customer service at SingPost (who lost Elisa’s parcel, by the way, if I haven’t already mentioned that), she is suddenly asked to TAKE CARE OF HER OWN BUSINESS? Nasty.
• “Compensate the sender”: Whatever happened to the person whose money and time has been spent in this? In this email from Miss Umx, there is ZERO mention of claims or compensation to my wife, the paying customer. An oversight? Nah. It is likely that SingPost just does not care. Instead, the email implied as such: ‘Sorry, we tried our best but you are on your own. Now shoo. Leave us in peace.’
• Is this a way for Singapore Post not to claim compensation on its insurance? Or not to fork out any money from its own coffers by making the sender claim from its own insurance, etc.? In the real world, if I were to lose someone else’s property, I should jolly well be made responsible for it.

Answer our questions, Singapore Post!

Elisa and myself have given enough opportunity and time to Singapore Post to ‘play’ nice’ and resolve this matter amicably. Yes, Elisa will probably be fully compensated, albeit in a ‘gazillion years’. But there are still so many questions that need answers, even legal ones.

Thus, we decided to bring this out to a public forum. We decided to let you be a witness and, hopefully, a commentator to this issue. We are always lamenting about our Singaporean service industry and this is probably just one of many cases you’ve heard. Now here’s a platform for your thoughts so that we can all learn from this unfortunate episode.

But above all, we would like Singapore Post to respond publicly to our many unanswered questions and the mysteries surrounding the vanished parcel, police report, compensation etc. Keeping it quiet and under wraps have not worked at all in our favour. We have stopped believing in your ‘stories’ over the phone and now we desire some real deal honesty.

On to you, Singapore Post.

5 May Update:

We thank you, visitors here who have found our story, for reading and sharing your thoughts on the SingPost issue and also for giving us your encouragement and support. We are happy to update that we had received compensation directly from SingPost for the full value of the lost package.

There are still questions that remains unanswered, including what really happened with the lost package and the conclusion of the police investigation on the matter. However, we commend SingPost for taking up our issue directly, visiting us to discuss in detail, leaving comments on this blog and keeping the conversation open. Please read Peggy Chong’s reply to us on this matter.

We hope in some ways we have helped institutions like SingPost and other exasperated consumers find a way to communicate better in resolving similar issues. Technologies and communication platforms that allow a much closer interaction between businesses and consumers have evolved greatly with the Web2.0 revolution. We hope opportunities like these will be fully utilised on both sides of the commercial divide.

Thanks again for visiting and do leave your thoughts and opinions for the benefits of others. I also invite you to read the rest of the blog if you have the time. Cheers!

Here is something I received last Saturday morning, what I termed as ‘Door Spam’, leaflets/flyers stuck on the front door grille. It is a leaflet for a condominium development. Which one? I really can’t say. This is the second time I have received this leaflet. I cringed both times.

Observe for a moment. What is wrong with this leaflet?

Absolutely Zero Product Branding

Somehow, the creator of this leaflet had failed to provide a name for the condominium. Apart from a spot of personal branding for a ‘Mabel Ang’ and ‘artist’s impressions’ images, no other product branding element is visible on this leaflet. Perhaps they had deemed revealing the condominium’s name as none-too-important, or keeping it a mystery will entice prospects to put in a call. Wrong move I say.

Or perhaps the condo was so badly named, they decided not to use it after reading the article on the importance of naming condos and its significance.

Cryptic Copywriting

What exactly is the inspiration behind ‘cryptic’ and ‘ambiguous’ copywriting? There is a neglect to inform prospective clients of the condominium’s actual address but instead, ‘Minutes to Somerset MRT/Orchard/CBD/IR’ and ‘Prime District 9’ are used.  Come on! That can be anywhere on the southern part of this island.

Is it a top-secret, top-end location that is only to be revealed once you are funneled through the sales pipeline? To see if you fit the bill of a likely buyer persona first, someone who is flushed with cash to spare? But why then did this leaflet appear on my HDB door in Toa Payoh!? I see that as a failure in market research and a waste of money and paper it is printed on.

Does the whole thing sounds fishy?

You bet. The credibility factor is non-present in this effort. For a $800k product, this leaflet certainly did not help in providing consumer confidence to anyone that came upon this. I find it intriguing that, if this leaflet really does indeed belongs to the ‘Developer’s Sales Team’, why the secrecy and ambiguousness behind the effort?

Perhaps someone from the real estate industry, or close to it, can provide an explanation for this? I’d love to get to the bottom of this! Leave your comments below!

Bonus section for the marketer in you!

Using Direct Marketing Mailers to Win Online

Direct marketing via mails (physical or electronic) may not be the best form of marketing (it is interruptive after all). But heck, since this method is being regularly employed and money is going to be spent, might as well use the opportunity to provide content or more information to the prospective customer, right?

So how to do this on limited real estate on a piece of flyer?

By bringing them online to your website through a printed URL. As long as there is compelling content and relevant information provided on your website, you can be sure your prospects will be happy to devote time and attention to your efforts. It is also an excellent opportunity to build a database of customers who are willing to listen to you on a regular basis. With the permission you have received, you are now ready to start a direct mail campaign online. I am sure that is more cost effective than printed materials and manpower cost for ‘door or letterbox spamming’.

Provide your social media information to direct your prospects to connect with you. This is your Facebook or Twitter pages. The fastest way to connect with you.

See? Your investment in a leaflet has possibly doubled or tripled! Perhaps Mabel Ang might want to take a leaf out of this :P

Updated 13/11: This post also appears as a guest blog post on Penn Olson.

I was recently reading an early chapter of Al and Laura Ries’ ‘The Origin of Brands’ and was struck by this concept:

The world’s best and long-lasting brands were typically created by a divergence from an existing product category and that these brands continue to survive not because of their ‘share of market’ but for being first in the mind of consumers.

Consider these examples of divergence and its disregard for market size of the day:

• What was the size of the cola market the day Coca Cola was launched?
• What was the market size of Mac users when Apple launched their Apple I system?
• How about the size of the personal computer market the day Microsoft launched their MS-DOS platform?
• And when McDonald first introduced the fast-food hamburger to the American public, what was the size of the fast-food market?

The answer to these questions: Zero.

However, these brands have proven they have what it takes to survive and prosper all these years. So, why is this possible?

The Importance of Mind Share

Because, as Al and Laura Ries stated it, the battle for customers is not in winning a large share of the market (although that is helpful) but rather through the creation of the market by winning over consumers’ minds.

So then, why are many marketers today still obsessed with ‘capturing’ every scrap and morsel of the pie that is ‘the market’ when winning minds has been proven an effective and sustainable business model? I personally believe this is the effect of overly revenue-driven organisations who are ready to sacrifice long-term sustainability for short-term profit gains. I digressed a little.

Please allow me now to theorise and tie Al’s and Laura’s ‘share of mind’ concept to the hottest topic in business and communication these days: social media.

Share of Mind and Its Relevance Today

Statistically, Apple’s iPhone does not command a whimper of market share in the mobile phone category. As of October 2009, the iPhone is estimated to own only 2.5% of the world’s mobile phone market. Surprising? No. It is after all the sole product in Apple’s mobile phone inventory.

But why has the iPhone become so iconic for a product so young (only 2 years old as we speak)?

Was it the first smartphone? No. Nokia’s Communicator first appeared in 1996.

The first touchscreen phone? That honour belongs to LG’s Prada phone in January 2007.

Because in our minds (and certainly in mine too, an iPhone non-lover), the iPhone is foremost in thought when ‘smartphones’ or ‘touchscreen phones’ are mentioned or discussed. Does not that translate into a complete dominance of the consuming mind? Even if I’ll end up never buying an iPhone in my entire life, I will still talk about it and get into conversations about it, would I not? (Can’t remember talking about the Prada phone ever!) By sheer branding genius and the accompanying buzz from its fanatical community of users, Apple has placed the iPhone right on the desktop of our mind, always visible, always conversation-worthy.

So Mind Share is Important, Now What?

For digital natives like me (and million others coming through in the next generational wave), we are gradually getting better at being ‘untouched’ by traditional advertising. We ignore advertising because we can Google it. We search for product information through our friends or within our circle of influence. And with social media channels, we can ask a brand directly for an opinion.

Let me repeat that: ‘we can ask a brand directly for an opinion’. Ponder on that for a moment and recall the last time a brand responded to you directly. You can? Via Twitter? A comment on your blog? Now place that brand in its category, say Starhub, a telco player in Singapore (who has @starhubcares on Twitter), or a brand new pasta restaurant that has responded to your gushes or criticisms of its dinner spread.

Social Media Creates Deeper Mind Share

Don’t these brands seem much more human to you? Much more approachable? Most certainly left an impression, right? And that I say is a fine mind share win! Social media simply helps to deepen these brand-to-customer connections. We, humans, are most likely to favour and navigate towards people or things we are familiar with or have a positive experience with. And thus, it is very likely that our next purchase decisions will be heavily influenced by these recall tendencies.

Here are some of my own personal experiences with Singaporean brands whom I have interacted with on social media channels and who have advertently been gifted a corner of my mind to call their own.

What Competitor?

Rochor Beancurd House has both Facebook and Twitter presence. The man behind these social media profiles is its director, Jason Koh, who maintains regular daily updates and interaction with tweeples. Always ready to respond and comment on issues of the day, I have had my fair share of tweet discussions with Jason, both casual and business.

Now, in my mind at this very present moment, Rochor Beancurd House is THE beancurd establishment in Singapore. Jason has done enough to fill this virtual category as I perceive it and, until a beancurd competitor comes along and starts dabbling in social media and interacting with me, Rochor Beancurd is top spot in this space. A brand name convenient enough in my mind to name-drop when needed.

There Is Always Room for Two, But Get There Soon

When I think of Japanese food, these 2 brands come to mind, Sakae Sushi and Standing Sushi Bar. As part of research, I have been observing Sakae Sushi lately as they engage bloggers in their ‘Sakae Monthly Bloggers Affair’ campaign. Although a little ‘laggy’ with their social media audience, Sakae Sushi nonetheless has a comprehensive approach to connecting with their customers. I was already a foodie fan of theirs but now I am a bigger fan because I know they are sincere in reaching out.

On the boutique end, Standing Sushi Bar is the perfect case study for ‘Social Media for Small Businesses’. Although Howard Lo, the main man and proprietor, said in a blog post ‘I don’t care about that’ in reference to social media marketing, it is really hard to believe. The various use of social media tools for his business is eye-catching and definitely worth emulating for small businesses trying to establish a niche and regular clientele. Here are some Standing Sushi Bar activities that I have observed in the social media space:

• Crowd sourcing to seek opinions on a new in-house menu via Twitter
• Taking enquiries, reservations and even hiring search via Twitter
• Blogging and sharing the Standing Sushi experience
• Coupon promotions and content sharing via Facebook

No other Singaporean Japanese food seller has come under my radar. However, the truth is I am always ready to eat at both Sakae Sushi and Standing Sushi Bar, so there is always room for two in the mind. But before every one else gets on social media, it is always good to stake territorial mind share claims early before it gets too crowded. Then we have to think of the next ‘fad’ in marketing communication :)

Personality First, First in Mind

The Garden Slug must be one of the friendliest Singapore brands on Twitter! Always happy to join in conversations and to make you feel at home on Twitter. For the record, I have not been there and I am not even sure who is behind the Twitter account. But The Garden Slug’s sincere brand personality shines through! It makes me want to have dinner there and to know the person/persons running the brand. That much of my mind has been won over and isn’t this a genuine mind share win through social media?

That is not all that won me over. Go ahead and read The Garden Slug’s blog. Unpretentious and chock-full of social content, a delight and a respite from all-too-typical, stiff-backed corporate portals and blogs. In particular, I am smittened by this line on their Careers’ page ‘We are an indie startup and we do things a little differently at times’. Refreshing!

So at any time when I am in Telok Kurau and looking for a meal or some Ugly Salmon Cakes, I am pretty sure which ‘indie startup’ will come first to mind.

Be a Pioneer and Seek Minds

Penn Olson is not a retail or consumer brand, but nonetheless, a Singaporean brand worth mentioning. Founded in july 2009 by two students from Singapore Management University, Penn Olson.

I was recently reading an early chapter of Al and Laura Ries’ ‘The Origin of Brands’ and was struck by this concept:

The world’s best and long-lasting brands were typically created by a divergence from an existing product category and that these brands continue to survive not because of their ‘share of market’ but for being first in the mind of consumers.

Consider these examples of divergence and its disregard for market size of the day:

• What was the size of the cola market the day Coca Cola was launched?
• What was the market size of Mac users when Apple launched their Apple I system?
• How about the size of the personal computer market the day Microsoft launched their MS-DOS platform?
• And when McDonald first introduced the fast-food hamburger to the American public, what was the size of the fast-food market?

The answer to these questions: Zero.

However, these brands have proven they have what it takes to survive and prosper all these years. So, why is this possible?

The Importance of Mind Share

Because, as Al and Laura Ries stated it, the battle for customers is not in winning a large share of the market (although that is helpful) but rather through the creation of the market by winning over consumers’ minds.

So then, why are many marketers today still obsessed with ‘capturing’ every scrap and morsel of the pie that is ‘the market’ when winning minds has been proven an effective and sustainable business model? I personally believe this is the effect of overly revenue-driven organisations who are ready to sacrifice long-term sustainability for short-term profit gains. I digressed a little.

Please allow me now to theorise and tie Al’s and Laura’s ‘share of mind’ concept to the hottest topic in business and communication these days: social media.

Share of Mind and Its Relevance Today

Statistically, Apple’s iPhone does not command a whimper of market share in the mobile phone category. As of October 2009, the iPhone is estimated to own only 2.5% of the world’s mobile phone market. Surprising? No. It is after all the sole product in Apple’s mobile phone inventory.

But why has the iPhone become so iconic for a product so young (only 2 years old as we speak)?

Was it the first smartphone? No. Nokia’s Communicator first appeared in 1996.

The first touchscreen phone? That honour belongs to LG’s Prada phone in January 2007.

Because in our minds (and certainly in mine too, an iPhone non-lover), the iPhone is foremost in thought when ‘smartphones’ or ‘touchscreen phones’ are mentioned or discussed. Does not that translate into a complete dominance of the consuming mind? Even if I’ll end up never buying an iPhone in my entire life, I will still talk about it and get into conversations about it, would I not? (Can’t remember talking about the Prada phone ever!) By sheer branding genius and the accompanying buzz from its fanatical community of users, Apple has placed the iPhone right on the desktop of our mind, always visible, always conversation-worthy.

So Mind Share is Important, Now What?

For digital natives like me (and million others coming through in the next generational wave), we are gradually getting better at being ‘untouched’ by traditional advertising. We ignore advertising because we can Google it. We search for product information through our friends or within our circle of influence. And with social media channels, we can ask a brand directly for an opinion.

Let me repeat that: ‘we can ask a brand directly for an opinion’. Ponder on that for a moment and recall the last time a brand responded to you directly. You can? Via Twitter? A comment on your blog? Now place that brand in its category, say Starhub, a telco player in Singapore (who has @starhubcares on Twitter), or a brand new pasta restaurant that has responded to your gushes or criticisms of its dinner spread.

Socia