Nokia’s cell phone division has a long and storied past. One of the oldest manufactures of mobile devices, they have been making them since the early 1980s. In the 90s, they were the number one brand in the category, known for their iconic candybar-style phone. Their phones were so ubiquitous that their default ringtone was used in TV shows to signal to the audience that someone was receiving a call. For example, the kick-off of every “Big Cell Phone Guy” bit on Trigger Happy TV (2000-2001) was the Nokia default jingle. However, by 2010 they had given up most of their ground to touch screen phones, and Samsung surged ahead to grab the number one spot.
This represents an interesting opportunity to explore why Lumia, Nokia’s smartphone line, has been totally unable to become a competitive brand, despite the strength of Nokia’s manufacturing, the financial backing of Microsoft, and significant advances to its technological core that ought to make it competitive with its closest rivals: Apple and Google. Lumia’s history is complicated. It started as a Nokia brand, but ended as a Microsoft brand, feels like the only Windows phone, while just being the most recognizable one. A second rate brand running a third place operating system, Lumia has languish in relative obscurity, failing to garner the attention that their competitors did. But perhaps, buried deep in the creative outputs of three years of collaboration between two giant and famous companies, there just might be a brand worth saving.
What follows is a very in-depth look at the Lumia brand and the problems it has faced. It is more information than I would provide if I were to actually present my findings to a live audience, like during a pitch, but I thought it would be worth expressing my thought process here in full. If you would rather skip to a summary of my brand audit, click here.
During 2011, Nokia, in partnership with Microsoft, launched their line of smartphones intending to bring their brand into the modern age, and into direct competition with Apple’s iPhone and Google’s myriad of Android partners. This partnership made sense to Nokia at the time. They didn’t think they could create a smartphone interface that could compete with the existing operating systems, in the way that their Symbian platform had trounced the competition the decade before. There were three operating systems out there at the time: iOS, Android, and Windows Phone. iOS was proprietary. Nokia had already passed on the opportunity to develop phones for Android, over fears of not being able to differentiate themselves from competitors on the same OS platform. Windows, on the other hand, had comparably few manufacturers for the platform, which left lots of room for Nokia to stand out. And so, surprising many analysts at the time, Nokia and Microsoft partnered to create the Lumia line of smartphones.
Three years later, in early 2014, Microsoft and Nokia completed a deal that sold Nokia’s mobile business, including the brand name Lumia, to Microsoft. In the process, several high-ranking managers from Nokia jumped ship and joined the newly formed Microsoft Mobile group. “What did this change signify?” pondered many analysts. Maybe Nokia wanted to divest itself of its telephone division in order to refocus on its origins as an information technology and infrastructure business. Maybe Microsoft wanted to move its cell phone manufacturing in-house for more straightforward branding and greater product control, emulating Apple’s iPhone model. Maybe both were true. Maybe Nokia’s smartphone offerings simply weren’t generating enough interest, and that failure led to a whole series of moves, by both companies, to try to save face, their brand, and their business. Perhaps the most important question of all, for every party involved, is: who even buys Lumia phones?
It’s a fair question, especially when you consider the power of Windows Phone’s biggest competitors: Apple and Google. Apple’s iPhone is iconic to smartphones in the same way that Nokia’s candybar phones were iconic to the previous generation of mobile devices. Thanks to Apple’s reliable commitment to simplicity, intuitive usability, and superior design aesthetic, iPhones were a must-have device on launch, and rocketed the idea of smartphones into the public conscience. This gave them a lot of the advantages of being first. It made them the market leaders, providing the valuable brand recognition that comes with that. It made their app store robust, since it was the only profitable platform on which to develop for a number of years (Apple maintained more than 50% of the smartphone market from its launch in 2007 to 2010, when it was overtaken by Android). Their iconic status made them a desired accessory for celebrities, providing a lot of free publicity. The momentum from this launch carries forward to today, even as innovation has stalled and new iPhones feel more like also-rans than cutting edge.
When Google came into the market with Android, they smartly positioned themselves as the opposite of Apple in pretty much every conceivable way. Where Apple kept their device manufacturing in house, Google was open to working with existing phone makers, eventually attracting the likes of HTC, LG, and Samsung. Where Apple kept their iOS a closely held trade secret, Google made their operating system open source. Where Apple tightly controlled their app marketplace, Google opened the floodgates to any and all developers. Everywhere Apple was rigid, Google was loose. Without this tactic, Android might not have been such a success. While the ability to natively access Google’s (arguably) superior suite of web tools like Gmail and Google Maps shouldn’t be ignored, those features alone would never have been enough. But Google’s lack of rigidity let them make up ground in a way that no other competitor, such as RIM’s Blackberry, HP’s PalmOS, or, eventually, Microsoft’s Windows Phone, could. By having open partnerships, the market presence of Android devices shot up as each partner put out their own version, increasing visibility for the platform. By having open development, the app store was able to catch-up to Apple’s offerings as developers looked for opportunities outside of Apple’s draconian system to make money on their apps. And so, thanks to loads of free apps and customization options, Google carved out a niche that eventually surpassed Apple.
Now let’s look at Microsoft’s Windows Phone. While Apple had proven it knew how to apply its brand promise of fashionable usability to portable devices with the success of multiple generations of iPods, Microsoft only had the incredibly unpopular Zune. While Apple paved the way for a revolution in mobile devices, Microsoft wasn’t even second, but third, to the party. A poor reputation and bureaucratic logjam kept cutting edge technology from reaching mainstream success. For example, Microsoft actually developed the first tablet computer, in 2002, but was unable to make it successful the way Apple did with the iPad. Unlike Google, Microsoft was not able to develop strong relationships with phone manufacturers the same way it had with computer manufacturers. Unlike Google, Microsoft was not able to build a vibrant app market that could offer the depth and variety of apps needed to be competitive.
Apps are almost certainly one of the largest failings of the Windows Phone platform. For many years, Windows phones simply didn’t have the apps that Apple and Google did. They had neither the well-curated collection of $.99 apps like Apple nor the abundance of free apps like Google. Over time, all of the big three app stores have trended towards the center. Apple added many more free apps, in-app purchases, OS customization, and other features of the Google app store. Google expanded its paid collection to have more premium apps like Apple. Microsoft has expanded its app store to, well, actually have apps. But consumers largely know the app markets by their (old) reputations and not their current realities. A particularly telling Amazon review of the Lumia 1520 explained how this purchaser had considered Lumia years before but was put off by the absence of “essential” apps: Pandora, Pinterest, Spotify, MyFitnessPal, etc. When they realized that the 1520 now had all of their desired apps, and more, they were convinced to buy it and have been happy with the purchase ever since. The fact that this prejudice about the app store still exists is obviously a problem.
Another glaring weakness of the Lumia phones is their agreements with the telecom companies. In the United States, purchasing a phone from the network, on contract, is the primary way in which cell phone sales are made. Even if you are savvy enough to look beyond your provider’s website or brick and mortar offerings, chances are you’ll be scared away from buying an expensive phone off contract by fears that your provider can’t, or won’t, connect it to your network. As a result, cell phones offered through networks have a massive advantage. It is troubling, then, how few Lumia phones the big American networks appear to offer. Limiting the search to their consumer facing websites, and filtering for only new (not refurbished) models, shows just how bad it is. AT&T offers two, T-Mobile offers one, Sprint offers one, and Verizon doesn’t appear to offer any. By contrast, even the similarly tightly controlled iPhone has four models on each of the major networks: 6, 6s, 5s, and 5c. How does Microsoft expect the Lumia to sell well if the major carriers have such a limited selection? To make matters worse, the Lumia 1520, their flagship offering, didn’t appear in any of the networks’ on contract listings. In fairness, more Lumia phones can be purchased on contract than are listed on those websites, but the fact that they aren’t on those websites is still rather telling.
Despite these faults, it is not all negative for Lumia. There are a couple of areas in which people’s opinions are mixed, and a couple in which the brand is genuinely strong. For example, Lumias have a decent reputation for battery life. Based on the GSMarena.com battery endurance tests, which compares performance across a variety of tasks rather than only one metric, the Lumia 1520 is the longest lasting phone in the world. On the same site, comparisons between Lumia models and similar generation, or similar price point, phones generally have the Lumia outperforming the competition. On the other hand, tech journalists who write cell phone reviews were less impressed, claiming that the battery life for various Lumia models “didn’t feel very long,” “didn’t do well on our tests,” or “didn’t seem to last a full days usage.” Some of this might be chalked up to differing methods of testing, as many review sites favor timing how long the battery takes to run out while playing continuous HD video, or it might be an issue with model to model inconsistencies in battery usage that lead to differing results. On a related note, some Lumia smartphones have a reputation for being basically indestructible, like the 920. Other models, though, have a reputation for shattering with minimal impact. This isn’t necessarily a major weakness, as the iPhone still sells well with the same reputation, but it is worth noting.
Where Lumia really shines, however, is in their exceptional value and their personality. Reviewers from Cnet, Techradar, Trusted Reviews, and Engadget consistently rate Lumia phones as one of the best values in smartphones. Even when they don’t explicitly say that the phone is a great value, they use other phrases that express the same idea like making special note of its low price point, or mentioning its superior features for its price range. It isn’t just the reviewers, either. According to a Forbes article, Windows Phones are the most popular in developing nations, where their great value is one of the greatest selling points. This is in part a result of how Lumia’s most successful phones fit in the market. Where Apple and Google are driven by the sales of their flagship devices, and last year’s flagship devices, Lumia makes its bread and butter on low-end phones that compete more with a Motorola Moto G than an LG G3. And in that category, they provide more than competitive features.
Key amongst those features are all the things that give Lumia its personality. Sure, they have a more-than-capable Snapdragon processor, competitive onboard memory, and decent to exceptional battery life, but what really makes the Lumia stand out is its personalization options, its simple interface, and its top-in-class camera. Like the Moto X, the Lumia phones all have multiple color options for the phone’s back plate, which add a touch of personality. Thanks to the Windows Phone operating system, Lumia’s also have great customization features that let the user set the phone up however they want. Tweaking the smart tile interface, both in functionality and in look (color, pattern or image), is simple and intuitive, which makes customization much more user friendly than the “nerdy” time consuming methods associated with doing the same to iOS or Android. Once the phone is set up, it is similarly easy to use. Anyone familiar with Windows 8 will understand it immediately, and even those who aren’t have no trouble picking it up as they go. Finally, the camera is amazing. Lumia phones have cameras that range from 5 to a staggering 41 megapixels. The flagship 1520 (20mp camera) beats both of its competitor’s best models, when it comes to optics. The 1520 has more detail and better contrast than the iPhone 6 and outperforms the Samsung S5 in most light conditions and with most subjects. This is super important, as the camera is increasingly one of the most important features of a smartphone. It has all-but replaced the low end point-and-click digital cameras of Canon and Nikon, and the disposable cameras of Kodak. It is instrumental in how most people share content on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and Vine. An exceptional camera is a strong selling point.
So that’s a lot to take in, but it doesn’t necessarily show how to take Lumia from a second rate smartphone brand running a third place operating system into a market titan that can compete on equal footing with Apple and Google. What it does show us, I believe, is a convergence point of the brand’s strengths, weaknesses, and place in the market that present a route forward. In particular, there is an ironic similarity to the position of Microsoft’s Lumia now to Apple’s iMac G3s in 2002. In a sea of identical looking thin grey and black squares with increasingly large screen sizes, Lumias have colorful back plates that are more reminiscent of M&Ms than the brushed aluminum and industrial look pioneered by Apple. This kind of personality is a great way to stand out. As Ken Segall, originator of the “Think Different” campaign, explained it “There would be no saving Apple by churning out more beige boxes that failed to distinguish themselves, by looks or function, from the hundreds of PC models out there.“ Like the iMac G3, Lumia phones are also easy to use. The tile based interface is clean, intuitive, and user friendly. Any campaign to raise the public’s interest in Lumia phones needs to concentrate on this personality, as well as the excellent camera features and price point, while addressing the public’s greatest concern over Windows Phone: the so called “app gap.” To accomplish this, I think you need a two-pronged approach, one driven by Microsoft side marketing and one driven by an agency side communications strategy.
The Microsoft side strategy should focus on consolidating its features to better define the phones as a collection rather than an assortment of individuals, and on fixing some of its larger placement and pricing problems. Lumia ought to be more universal in what you get under the brand. This covers minor gripes, like the fact that there are no consistent color choices across every model of Lumia, as well as major ones, like consistency of build quality and battery performance. People should know that they are getting tough as nails phones that outlast their competition for regular daily usage, in a selection of five bright colors, regardless of what numbers follow the Lumia name on the phone they purchase. When it comes to placement and pricing, Lumia either needs to poop or get off the pot. They either need to do whatever is necessary to get a broader range of their phones onto the featured lists of more networks, or they need to bail completely. Since they are such an underdog, I would favor a bold move here and suggest they jettison the idea of on contract phones. The Huawei Ascend Mate II ($250 on Amazon) and the One Plus One ($300 MSRP) prove that you can make a phone that shares the same processor speeds, same operating system, and same (or better) battery life as a flagship device, and charge a similar amount for it off contract as most of the major brands are charging on contract. This suggests that there is something fishy going on in the prices of many smartphones, but that is another discussion entirely. Lumia phones are known for their value. So double down on that identity. Price the phones competitively against iPhones and Androids, but without the hassle of the contract. And, as part of the marketing, make it crystal clear how each phone is set up to run on each network, and make it easy for consumers to set their new Lumias up on whichever network they are on.
There is a valid criticism that these suggestions are painfully close to the tactics that the Moto X tried to put some energy back into Motorola’s phone line. Moto X has amazing customization choices. Moto X is also primarily available off contract, but at $400 is likely more expensive than what the (historically cheaper) Lumia line could offer. The most important difference though, I think, is choice. Moto X has too many choices. Too many combinations of front plates, back plates, trim colors, cases, and engravings. A Columbia University study from 1995 showed that too many choices were paralyzing to many consumers. By studying how people purchased jam, they found that large selections drew more customers to displays, but had substantially lower conversion rates than small selections. Taking these principles and applying them to something more self-defining than fruit spreads, we can see that with cell phones, limited choices give people a sense of freedom and individual expression, but an excess of choices makes people panic. Lumia can hit that sweet spot with five to seven simple color selections, the same way that Apple did in the early 2000s with the iMac G3.
This sweet spot of personality and price, as well as an effort to eliminate people’s fears about the app store, should be the focus of the agency-side communications strategy. Now, truth be told, Microsoft has made several attempts at communicating these ideas. In 2014 they launched an ad that focused on their colorful personality: “Not Like Everybody Else.” There were a couple problems with it, though. The first is that it got such limited exposure I didn’t know it existed until I was researching Lumia for this post. Second, while it did a good job of introducing the Lumia, now sans Nokia, as the colorful alternative to the black, white, and grey of the iOS and Android phones of the world, it did little to assuage consumer fears of the weakness of the app store. The ads for specific Lumia models do a better job of addressing the app gap, but do so in a boring way. They are basically just a features list played over a funky EDM soundtrack. Not exactly going to light the cell phone world on fire.
Some actually brilliant creative work came out of Jack Morton’s Moving Image division. As I was working on this audit, my image of an ideal campaign for Lumia was one that combines the personality of “Not Like Everybody Else” with the feature-focused ads for individual phones, to show people what Lumia is all about. In a nutshell, that’s what Jack Morton created with their “This is Lumia” spots. They also created a longer form series of short films where they sent a National Geographic photographer around the world to take pictures using only the camera on a Lumia smartphone. The result is a very compelling demonstration of the sheer power of Lumia’s optics. The only problem with Jack Morton’s ads is that, as far as I can tell, they only ever played in international markets. This could be why, according to a Forbes article from 2014, Lumias are gaining ground faster in the five most important European markets (Britain, Germany, France, Italy, and Spain) than in the United States. In fact, the same article wrote that Windows Phones actually outperform iPhones in twenty four countries around the world. Again, this is as much a problem of exposure as it is branding. Why weren’t versions of these ads seen in America?
The best ads Windows Phone has in the United States are the clever inversion of the Mac vs. Windows ads where Cortana shows how much more capable she is than Siri. Of course, this does nothing to help Lumia fight against Android, and it defines the brand by its competitors. You can define yourself against your competitors, as Samsung did with “The Next Big Thing,” but it worked for them because they were the next big thing. Samsung toppled Apple by being better at Apple than Apple was: innovative, feature rich, and trendy, and the ads reflected that. Also, the copy was flexible enough that it could come to mean something else once Samsung had surpassed their rivals.
Maybe the problem is that Microsoft doesn’t really know how to advertise. Apple and their partner agency, TBWA\Chiat\Day, are wizards at branding. From “1984” to “Think Different” to the more modern “There’s an App for That,” Apple has always known how to use advertising to their advantage, and press home what they stand for as a brand. With years of that powerful messaging, along with their technological innovations, they clawed their way from a somewhat niche alternative to Windows enabled PCs to being the most valuable brand in the world, according to Millward Brown’s annual rankings. Microsoft, on the other hand, has never done much advertising. Their most profitable product lines for many years, the Windows operating system and Office software suite, came bundled with most home computers, and as a market leader they saw little value in TV spots and billboard ads. I wouldn’t be surprised, based on how little exposure ads for Lumia and Windows Phone get, that large media buys are a hard sell in the Microsoft boardroom. But large media buys are what they need. Apple has an identity. The advertising enforces it. And the large media buy makes sure everyone sees the advertising.
Of course, before pushing for a big media buy, Microsoft needs to get its house in order. Most importantly, Lumia needs an identity. Apple sold people on smartphones by being a toolbox: “There’s an App for That.” Samsung was the successful upstart with “The Next Big Thing.” What is Lumia? Lumia is the cool phone for everyday people. Beyond the lustful cravings for bigger screens, more power, and fancy features that mark tech journalism, everyday people want web browsing, a small set of essential apps (social media, fitness, some games), a great camera, and a long battery life. Spice that up with a little color and personality, sell it at a reasonable price, and you should have a killer product.
Nokia used to be a titan of the mobile world, but failed to adapt to the smartphone world fast enough.
Nokia made what they thought was a smart business move, partnering with Microsoft and adopting the Windows Phone operating system, but the resulting Lumia line never caught up with its competitors.
The greatest weakness of Windows Phone was its app store. With limited development, it was less appealing to customers. With limited customers, there was less interest in development. While the current Windows Phone store is much more robust, public perception is that it is still bad: obviously a communications and branding problem.
Still, Lumias have a fun and colorful image; a reputation for good battery life, decent construction, and an exceptional camera; and are considered by most reviewers to be a great bang for your buck.
So how do we put Lumia on the same level as its competitors?
Work towards creating consistent features across the whole line of phones. Build quality, battery life, color choices, etc. should be the same for every phone. This helps create an identity for the brand.
Either get more visibility on the biggest telecom networks with on contract phones, or take a riskier approach and try to own the market for high quality off contract phones (at a reasonable price). Since Lumia is such an underdog, I favor the riskier choice.
While the ever-expanding feature creep of smartphones makes for a good sales pitch, it doesn’t match with what everyday consumers really need or want out of their phone: reliable battery, high quality camera, and a relatively small selection of “essential” apps.
Combining those core features with the colorful personality provided by Lumia’s customization options, and you have “Lumia: the cool phone for everyday people.“
Advertising tried to sell various single aspects of the Lumia line before (the camera, the colorful personality, the apps), but, for the most part, it wasn’t done the right way.
To pull off Lumia’s transformation, a campaign must cleverly address three points. First, it must reinforce the idea of Lumia’s colorful personality, in contrast to the competition. Second, it must highlight Lumia’s unique strengths, like its camera and battery life. Finally, it must assuage consumers’ fears over the weaknesses of Windows Phone as an operating system, in particular the weakness of the app store.
Finally, to ensure that their new, awesome campaign actually gets seen, Microsoft needs to overcome old habits and spend big money on large, splashy media buys the way some of their staunchest competitors do, such as Apple or Samsung.