Amazon has just made things interesting.

Today, in my daily quest to find new electronic gadgets, I stumbled across the news that Amazon has boldly announced their new line of Kindle devices — four devices to be exact.

Posted on Amazon are the upcoming $79 Kindle, the Kindle Touch Wi-Fi and 3G, as well as its most interesting product of all, the Kindle Fire. The Fire is Kindle’s response (albeit a rather late one) to both the iPad and, more directly, the Nook Color.

This all made me wonder, wouldn’t these devices really have been something two years ago? You know, before they were essentially created by Apple and Barnes & Noble?

Instead, Amazon is now trying to make waves by promoting products that can be, at best, second place in their respective categories. And I believe Amazon realizes this too.

Why?

Posted on the lead page of Amazon’s website is a letter scribed by its billionaire CEO, Jeff Bezos. The opening of Bezos’ letter reads:

There are two types of companies: those that work hard to charge customers more, and those that work hard to charge customers less. Both approaches can work. We are firmly in the second camp.

Interestingly, in order to gain market share in this already dominated market, Bezos wants to play the game of price and essentially own the position of having the most affordable and well built e-reader and tablet on the market. That’s something no one really is doing right now. This is also, in my estimation, the only shot Amazon has to gain market share.

Just think about it: Amazon’s Fire will always be a second-class citizen to the iPad. Take a look at the specifics — it is built to be a multi-purpose touchpad (which certainly is far from unique these days) and its screen shots show similar layouts to that of iBooks and iTunes apps. You can watch movies, listen to music, read PDF’s and check your e-mail on it too. Basically, Amazon has created the iPad for those people who can’t afford an iPad. And they’ve acknowledged this by letting customers know that their product is affordable.

Also, should you visit the purchase link for the Fire, Amazon has written: “Pre-order now to reserve your place in line.” Suggesting to customers that the Fire will be a big-time seller in the market place.

A microcosm of this scenario can also be seen with Amazon’s release of the $79 Kindle. Here, Amazon, through price alone, is now contending for the second place position behind the Nook’s second generation E-Ink reader. Its hope is to increase market-share by selling more of a product that is very similar to the Nook, and for just a little cheaper price.

Truthfully, what else should Amazon do? In this overrun of an e-reader and tablet marketplace, it has no alternative but to play the price game. What helps is that these new e-readers and tablets are being made by Amazon — one of the most powerful and most recognizable brands today.

It will be interesting to see how much demand these will be upon their release. And, for a gadget geek like me, a whole lot of fun too.

Motor Trend has named Chevy Volt the “Car of the Year” for 2011, even though the car is not available yet. I cant’ help but think about how useless these industry rags have become over the years. Does the Addy Awards for best TV commercial actually mean the commercial worked (i.e.., grew sales)? Not hardly. It represents represents self-congratulatory hyperbole.

A look at some of the recent winners brings up such long-lasting blockbuster models as Ford Thunderbird (2002) and Chrysler’s PT Cruiser (2001).

It all makes is sound like Motor Trend is simply industry fodder, rather than a perspective of what may actually be most meaningful to consumers.

Just something to think about the next time you read about industry awards. They don’t mean lick.

Just ask the three folks who bought the now discontinued Chrysler PT Cruiser.

Is it news that Borders finally jumped into the online bookstore business? Only as a footnote demonstrating how behind the times the once mighty bookseller has become. The book market is shifting with the suddenness of an earthquake and, very shortly, all the old models will be relics. With this in mind, Borders continues to forge “behind” and invent new ways to be seen as an also ran.

There is nothing wrong with their online book store, having the desire to allow multiple format downloads and sell an eReader. The problem is that Borders has not come to grips with the real problem: Its brand has no meaning.  They are just like everyone else and less so.

Yesterday, Borders tried to differentiate itself by being almost as good as everyone else that it believes it competes with. So, how is Borders better? Well, it has lots of books available (just like Amazon and Apple and, soon, Google). Its bookstore has a nice interface (just like Apple). It has reasonable prices (just like everyone else). And let’s not forget that it has a coffee shop in its stores, sells music and DVDs, and has a loyalty program. Take that to all of you that scoff “so what?” when Borders claims to be different and better.

Borders needs brand work if it is going to survive, let alone thrive. It needs to look at the future market it hopes to engage and understand the market’s aspirations and preceptive fabric better then anyone currently does. Only then can it innovate on a delivery of services that the market covets. The strategy will dictate the offer and, maybe, Borders will look less reactionary.

In the meantime, I could see Borders unveiling the earth-shattering announcement that it accepts credit cards as a form of payment. Now that would set it apart.

I was interviewed by the New York Times a few weeks back regarding CNN’s plunging ratings.  The article (you can read it here) was mostly about Larry King and his show’s decline in the ratings. My perspective was that Larry King’s show was a symptom of the CNN problem and not the cause.

Well, if CNN sticks to form, I would expect that they follow the traditional TV entertainment route when choosing King’s successor.  Too bad. They need to hire Stealing Share to fix the serious brand problems and find their raison d’etre.

CNN has lost its way. The network has no idea who it is or who we are when we watch. Unless they spend the energy and resources to uncover their core brand problems and then redefine their core brand promise and position, they will continue to compete with other entertainment choices of their ilk… Real Housewives of (insert geography here) and the latest reiteration of Jon & Kate Plus 8.

We will learn a lot about CNN’s desire to succeed or go blindly into the night by their Larry King replacement choice — … Larry suggested Ryan Seacrest.  As I was saying…

I was just thinking about the number of advertising agencies that convince clients to “trust their creativity” and yet never engage Stealing Share to develop the brand message and a strategy to steal market share. Funny that.

This past weekend I witnessed, first hand, how a belief in creativity alone to deliver something the target audience needs and appreciates can fail and fail miserably. Unfortunately, I invested an hour and a half of my time sitting though the movie “Spliced.” Luckily, only four other people besides my wife, sister-in-law and I fell into the trap of wasting a perfectly good Sunday evening in the local theatre watching this debacle.

What you need to remember is that the production company invested $30,000,000 in this film with the high hopes and “creative certainty” that it would be loved, accepted and recommended to other movie gowers. No one said…”Lets make this movie even though I think it is bad.”

Remember this lesson when your ad agency tells you that your communications need to be “entertaining.”  Ask them how they know what is entertaining and how their track record is better than Hollywood which does this sort of thing as a full time job?

What is wrong with CNN and why are its ratings dropping faster than a meteor? Well, it is not the fault of Larry King or Anderson Cooper. They are a result of the problem.

CNN is a brand without a promise. It claims to be a news channel, but delivers the same playful entertainment content as TLC and the History Channel. At CNN, news is secondary to the personalities that host it.

This is the reverse of the heady days of CBS news when the program came first, even before icons like Walter Cronkite. It was the CBS News with Walter Cronkite. We knew very little about Walter. Knew nothing of his politics or personal life until well after his retirement. He hosted the show, announced the news, and reported on it. He did not fill the broadcast with alternating talking heads where, in the service of “fairness,” he had to alternate between interviews with Martin Luther King Jr. and the Grand Wizard of the clan. No, he was able to make the distinction of what is responsible and fair, and only reported the words of the former. That was news.

Today, we watch the CNN personality Anderson Cooper (AC 360), Wolf Blitzer in the “Situation Room” and Larry King Live. The star is not the news. The star is the personality of the celebrity. Haiti is not the big story for CNN. For it, the big story was how worn out, tired, concerned, deep feeling, and dedicated Anderson Cooper is.

CNN does not compete with FOX News. No one chooses between the two. We choose between Pawn Stars, Dancing With the Stars, Glen Beck, and AC 360. If we want news, we tune in Headline News.

Maybe we don’t want news any more. One thing is for sure, we don’t want the personality tainted entertainment cloaked as news from CNN anymore.

Talk about chasing a business model into the ground. Redbox is “testing” a price point of anywhere between a buck and a buck and a half for their video rental kiosks.

Redbox toys with higher DVD rental prices

Already the king of the DVD rental kiosk market, Redbox recently announced that its 25,000th kiosk has rolled off the assembly line. But even as Redbox consolidates its position and signs deals with Hollywood studios, it’s again tinkering with its famous buck-a-night pricing scheme.

The problem with renting a DVD or Blu-Ray disk is that it is nowhere to build a brand today. The physical medium does not matter any more. It does not matter if it’s a CD, DVD, or Blu-Ray disk. It is yesterday’s story.

Everyone that distributes any entertainment medium needs to recognize that its market space is closing. The Redbox kiosk is not as convenient as going absolutely nowhere to receive content through cyberspace.

So listen up. If your brand delivers a physical medium in any form, don’t worry about price point. Worry about cyber-distribution. If your brand manufactures CD, DVD, or Blue-Ray players, find another model because soon we won’t need you at all.

I was just thinking this morning that every CEO and marketing director I speak with insists that, more than anything else, they want to win and thrive. They want their business to steal market share from their competitors. I believe that they believe this.

The problem is most of these companies refuse to change anything. They see change as risk, not opportunity, and that thought is erroneous (I’m being kind).

Truth does not enter into most human behavior because we all see our own human behavior as subjective. Only from an outside perspective can truth be seen and understood objectively. Even then, our own truth remains mostly subjective and is therefore rarely changed or altered.

The truth about business, from an objective perspective, is that while it is claimed that businesses covet winning (which has “change” as a bitter requirement), many are in fact more comfortable with the status quo. Even if that choice means business stagnation or contraction.

Disagree with me? You want to win and are willing to fix what holds you back regardless of the risk of change? Call me. We have a lot to talk about.

One rule of thumb when it comes to brand marketing is to be focused. It’s related to the adage that if you’re trying to be for everybody, you’re for nobody in the end. What consumers look for is an aspirational reflection of themselves, which is why a singular position that says who you are for and who you are not for is the one that’s most meaningful. That’s what represents a true choice.

I bring all this up because Barnes & Noble announced today that its online profit has jumped 32% and that got me thinking that B&N just might eventually usurp Amazon as the leading online book retailer. It will take some time, but Barnes & Noble has more focus than Amazon and, therefore, it more truly reflects an image of what book readers see themselves to be.

Book retailing is, of course, an interesting category at the moment with invent of electronic books, especially with the introduction of the iPad to compete with Amazon’s Kindle, B&N’s Nook and Sony’s Reader. I have no doubt these devices will take over the publishing world (my wife and one of my co-workers swear by their Kindles), so there is no doubt that change in the air.

However, B&N might be the one that emerges strongest of them all because of their focus. It’s just about books. Amazon had turned into a retail portal where you can buy a lawn mower alongside purchasing “Wolf Hall.” Sony is an appliance manufacturer (mostly known for TVs) and Apple disappointingly didn’t create anything with iPad that seemed different, better and simple (which has been its brand).

Barnes & Noble still needs help with its brand to become truly meaningful to target audiences, and I know we at Stealing Share have some ideas on that. But let’s hope B&N doesn’t go the way of trying to be Amazon. If that happens, Amazon will win. However, if B&N can keep its focus and build a brand around the highest emotional intensities with book readers, they can own the category.

News about e-books are all the rage, as most of you are well aware. You only have to read this blog to know Apple’s iPad is the talk of the (business) town at the moment.

What’s also interesting is where this leaves everybody else, especially light of this news:

Amazon caves in to publisher’s demand

The immediate reaction to this is that Macmillan forced Amazon to raise prices because a powerful competitor entered the market. Amazon’s Kindle once rode the top of the e-book ship, but other competitors have been drifting in the market and now the biggest, baddest brand of them all has arrived.

Here’s the funny thing: Amazon could have staved off this market shift to come with a brand that spoke emotionally to the marketplace. While Amazon’s Kindle is the market leader with nearly 60% of the market, the introduction of competitors with stronger brands threatens to shrink that share significantly over the next few years.

That’s not even counting the other forces they’re now facing, such as publishers wanting more buck for their bang because they aren’t just tied down to one distribution channel anymore.

Yet, I can’t help but think the reason Amazon “capitulated” (Amazon’s own words) is that, in having no leverage, they didn’t even have brand leverage. Think of it this way: A manufacturer of shoelaces has many options of sneaker manufacturers it supplies. However, do you think one would force Nike to “capitulate” on price? The power would be in the hands of the one with the powerful brand.

Amazon lost its brand focus when it became a simple portal for retail shopping of all kinds and its brand on books began to fade away. From a simple business point of view, the portal idea has brought billions to the company and has made Amazon the world’s largest e-retailer.

However, more shopping portals are opening up and taking share. Even Procter & Gamble has launched a new retail site called ecost.com, and there are many more to come. That means market pressure – and market share loss – is sure to strengthen for Amazon. The lack of a strong brand means it no longer can bend the market to its will. Amazon is the bended now.