I read some really great year end posts during the week leading up to New Year’s Day. Amidst the “Top 10/50/100″ lists, there were thoughtful, humorous, and motivational takes on how to evaluate 2009 and approach 2010 with energy and enthusiasm.

One or two that caused me to take my finger off the mouse and pause for a second read-through had to do with the pace at which we work.  The net-net message was that those people who work around the clock, never take their eye off the ball, and keep their energy switch constantly in the “On” position, will achieve the highest level of success in today’s always-connected world. One post went further, bragging about the pace they were keeping and implying that if the reader isn’t doing the same, you could count on falling, not only out of the race, but off the competitive map.

While there have always been overachievers and workaholics in our midst (and I admit to being in at least the first category), this year’s version of the “never take your foot off the pedal” message was heavily influenced by our steady adoption of social media. After two solid years (or 3?) of absorbing social media serum into our blood stream, we are a people possessed. Possessed by activity, by multi-tasking, by to-do lists, and by immediacy.

My take on how we interact with social media and other technologies – and how we advise our clients to interact with them – is that we have to remain constantly vigilant about who is in charge.

• Do we own the blackberry/iPhone, or does it own us?
• Does a ringing phone cause us to drop eye contact with a prospective customer to see who’s calling?
• Can we manage our social media presence as part of our work day, or does social media become our day?
• Are we creating another reason to procrastinate on tasks more closely correlated with revenue generation than SM so-far?

Don’t get excited, I’m not walking away from continuing to build social media communication strategies as part of my client’s customer strategies, but I am advising people to keep things in balance. If you’re not convinced, I have two resources to share with you, one older and more current.

The more time that goes by, the more I applaud the brilliance of Stephen Covey’s 7 Habits of Highly Successful People. Covey encourages people to prioritize the “critical” tasks of the day ahead of the “important”. In plain English, I am always going to complete and deliver a promised deliverable for a paying client before catching up on my Twitter email or posting to this blog.

The second resource is evidence of a growing body of evidence that multi-tasking is just not good for us as human beings.

• I saw the first commercial from a wireless company discouraging texting while driving over the holidays. Congratulations to Verizon on that ad which you can see here.
• The Harvard Business Review published an article during 2009 on “The Dangers of Distraction” and I have read other summaries of research that indicates we humans do our best work in linear, not multi-threading style.

With all the attention given by Marketers today to Customer Engagement, the issue of attention spans is critical to understand, dissect, and integrate into our communication plans. Our success in reaching and building loyalty with Generation Y (the Millennial Generation) is highly dependent on our commitment to addressing this key issue.

In my opinion, we need to build some space into our own lives if we are to successfully design and execute effective strategies for our clients. Building space into our lives means that we need to create some “margin” in the day. You know the one inch or so of white space around the typical page full of copy? Well, we need to put a version of that into our calendars, drop the to-do list to the ground, and reside peacefully there for enough time that it takes to refocus on the strategic, the critical, and the longer term view.

I’ve got lots more to share on how to drive Customer Engagement in an over-stimulated consumer environment.

Stay tuned.

I own a Blackberry 7130. That doesn’t make me much different than any of my readers, except that, according to ATT Wireless, I’m a dinosaur.

I’ve owned the device since November 2006, which equates to 17 months in all. During that time, I’ve had to replace it once as the microphone stopped working, forcing me to use an earpiece to speak on the phone.

Through the course of ownership, I have become aware of two facts:

• Nearly instantly after acquiring this new phone, it was considered an old model by ATT. Today, it is greeted with quizzical looks from sales reps in ATT stores as if I was showing them a moon rock.

• The value of ATT Wireless stores, corporate owned or authorized reseller, is near zero once a purchase of new service or handset is completed.

To explain, each time I have sought service or to purchase accessories for the phone, the local stores could do nothing for me and justified their impotence by describing my phone as “an older model”. The replacement of my handset could not be processed in-store and I was referred to an ATT Wireless repair outlet. Yesterday, I learned that items such as replacement batteries are only going to be found via the website as the stores carry no stock except for brand new models.

The reason that wireless companies don’t generally have a loyalty program is that they don’t need one. Their business model is based on contract loyalty any brand affinity they enjoy is directly related to the term of the individual service contract.

All things being equal, the purchase decision for wireless service is driven by geography, price, and the current handset offering. Special promotions sometimes influence the final decision. Once the purchase is made, the consumer is generally locked in for up to 2 years.

Want to change your plan?

• That’s ok as long as you increase your minutes.

Want to change your handset?

• You have to wait for a year or so until you are eligible for an upgrade.

Want to upgrade earlier?

• Then pay an exorbitant price for a new phone or listen closely as the associates in the wireless stores wink at you as they suggest that you “lose” the phone when ready for an upgrade. Caution on this one: lose it more than once and your insurance will no longer cover the replacement. Oh yea, it’s unethical too…….

The root cause of the problem is that the wireless companies have evolved their business to a negative competitive state, i.e. all they can do is offer more minutes, lower prices, or bundle additional “free” services. The last frontier of differentiation is the handset.

Each wireless provider links up with manufacturers to launch new models with exclusivity. The ATT/iPhone partnership is the most visible example of this practice. The introduction was good for ATT users, awkward for anyone else. The cost of switching is still reasonably high and apathy, effort, and the (in)ease of number transfer are all barriers to changing providers just to acquire the latest phone.

With the handset positioned on the front lines of the wireless battlefront, the pace of change has accelerated, with each carrier pushing out new phones quickly to stoke the fires of customer acquisition. New models are constantly being introduced, and the advertising noise level is so high that consumers tend to tune it all out. Many new handsets seem to carry the same features repackaged in a new form factor. This frenetic pace of change has negatively affected the customer experience in transacting with wireless providers and is symptomatic of changes desperately needed in the industry.

The free enterprise system never stops teaching lessons. When companies behave in a way unpalatable for consumers, the market adapts. Don’t want to wait to be eligible for a new phone? Lose it! Want an iPhone but don’t want to change carriers? Hack the device to make it work on competing networks.

The wireless companies might want to consider these market behaviors not as something to be punished, but as guideposts to a future business model. When their own store associates are whispering instructions to beat the system, there is clearly a problem to be addressed.

My suggestion is to open up the device market, reduce contractual burdens, and provide better service at the store levels. Wireless boardroom fear is that high levels of churn will take place, but the risks are manageable. Just as with number transfer, after an initial surge of activity, each provider will land with a market share similar pre-change levels.

In the long run, giving the consumer more freedom, choice, and higher service levels in store will combine to create long term loyalty. Each wireless provider will then be competing in an open and consumer driven market.

Now that’s what I call a strong signal!

Bill Hanifin