The Indubitable Hatter

Motorola Mobility is one of the few brands that frustrates me, with such history, such successful brands in the past and such stories to tell and yet it seems to fail to get people excited about much of what it does. Due to this failure Motorola Mobility is currently being eaten up by its competition.

What can they do about this? Well there are four key aspects of their business they need to take care of, these are their advertising, marketing, public relations and business strategy.

Motorola Mobility must embrace their history, look at their past successes and then look towards establishing themselves as future thought leaders. Thought leadership is something that must be achieved if they wish to gain a stronger position in the mobile (cell) phone market and build a strong reputation. The key to being a thought leader is the ability to look ahead, gaze into the crystal ball, recognise upcoming trends, while anticipating threats and opportunities.

As you’re reading this, do you know that Neil Armstrong’s famous first words on the moon were communicated through a Motorola transceiver? and that they created the first truly rectangular colour television, which eventually became the industry standard?

These are all factors that must be embraced and used by Motorola Mobility (MM) when planning their advertising, marketing and PR activity.

Their business strategy must change. Cutting out under-performing products and replacing them with more business orientated products, the old Blackberry professional audience is becoming disillusioned with them. Blackberry’s threat is MM’s opportunity.

— DS —

Since 1925, photography and filming have been understood to be prohibited in courts throughout England and Wales, with the exception of the Supreme Court. This has been due to the 1925 Criminal Justice Act.

Recent suggestions in the media that the decision to allow cameras into court will be announced in the Queen’s speech in May, have reignited the cameras in court debate.

It is a fundamental principle of our legal system that justice must be seen to be done. Cameras in the courtroom promote an unprecedented level of openness, which plays a role in increasing and in some cases restoring public confidence in the legal system. But there is no shortage of detractors to such a move and their criticisms must be addressed.

The major criticisms have included the idea that the presence of cameras would open up the courtroom to theatrical displays by participants. Some critics have noted that the use of cameras in court threatens the relative anonymity of victims and witnesses. To combat this possibility, safeguards must be put in place for vulnerable individuals. According to Kenneth Clarke (Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice) the ban on the filming of witnesses, offenders and jurors will stay, this seems to acknowledge the need for safeguards. What will in fact be filmed is limited to the judiciary summary and sentencing.

Broadcasting of some if not all of a trial is allowed in Australia, Canada and Scotland among others. The move to allow cameras in Court would move Britain closer in line, offering a more open and demystified legal system. The change in legislation is a step towards increased transparency. Additionally it should be noted that parliamentary select committees and inquiries are often televised, where the legal system is not. The televising of parliamentary select committees and inquiries has lead to an increased understanding in the public discourse rather than drama.

Despite his support for a more open legal system with regards to cameras in court, Ken Clarke has also proposed secret evidence and trials. This seems somewhat hypocritical, seemingly giving with one hand and arguably taking even more away with the other.

To summarise, it is clear to see that having cameras in court presents some issues, however, if addressed this move can help make the British legal system more open and respected than ever before.

- DS -