Nokia just released its HTC One phone. While the instrument looks good, its marketing tagline doesn’t work: “Everything your phone isn’t.”

It’s at odds with HTC’s brand theme of “Quietly Brilliant” because there is nothing quiet or understated about “Everything your phone isn’t.”

Also, the tagline is about the phone, not the customer who uses it. That makes it easily forgettable. Potential customers will ignore it.

OK, HTC has produced a nice-looking phone. But the iPhone, Galaxy, Blackberry and Experia smartphones also provide visually appealing models, so a fetching phone doesn’t make the product viable. By itself, it doesn’t steal market share.

With that forgettable tagline, HTC won’t threaten its competitors.

What’s so bizarre about the mobile phone industry is that manufacturers (Apple, Samsung) are playing offense in growing their market share, while the providers (AT&T, Verizon) are playing defense.

Case in point: T-Mobile announced yesterday it will finally carry the iPhone 5 and customers can pay a $99.99 down payment for the phone with monthly payments after that without signing a contract with T-Mobile.

You might think this is a great marketing strategy for T-Mobile. Maybe so, but think about this. You can’t leave T-Mobile until the phone is paid off. By paying off the iPhone, specifically designed for T-Mobile’s network, in monthly payments you actually have the contract of sorts with the phone, not the carrier.

T-Mobile is reduced to just being the supplier.

A company’s success will be stunted without a focus on brand. But brand alone can’t salvage a lack of functionality. The two must work in tandem.

BlackBerry recently addressed some of those critical issues by increasing the size of their app store. CEO Thorsten Heins vowed that BlackBerry will offer 100,000 apps to coincide with the release of the Z10 smartphone.

Customers whose last interaction with the BlackBerry brand was its Playbook tablet will need to be convinced that the company’s app store is first rate.

BlackBerry needs a win after multiple product flops, internal executive shuffling, and a market that has changed rapidly. Everything now depends on sales of the Z10.

It’s critical that BlackBerry also offer an array of dazzling apps. Applications were irrelevant when BlackBerry was at its prime, but they are critical in today’s smartphone market. BlackBerry’s success will be tied to its ability to transform its brand while offering a product that can compete in the current market.

The transition can be difficult. Don’t take my word for it, look at Palm.

Photos of BlackBerry’s new offering, the BlackBerry Z10, are trickling out and the phone looks good. Aesthetically, it is the strongest showing BlackBerry has ever made. But it will take more than good looks to make the new phone a success.

What BlackBerry really needs is a resurgence of its brand.

BlackBerry has encountered numerous hurdles in the past few years. One of the most recent was its unfortunate foray into the tablet market. That move was hindered by a tired brand that was associated with antiquated technology. The failure of the tablet reinforced BlackBerry’s decline in relevance.

Success for BlackBerry cannot simply be about a nice product.

Consumer expectations are high in the smartphone market. The product must look good, its operating system must be intuitive, and the carrier must support it. These are the mere table stakes, the ingredients necessary to introduce a product to the market.

A strong brand is what makes a successful product.

The Z10 is a substantial change in design for BlackBerry and the new BlackBerry 10 operating system offers a new user experience. The next step is to define the BlackBerry user. Once upon a time, that consumer was a businessperson. The iPhone has taken that market share away, but Apple doesn’t define itself that narrowly.

If BlackBerry can recapture its own brand equity, it can turn the Z10 into a true winner.

Coming soon to a Blockbuster Video near you: Mobile phones. The devices are already available on Blockbuster’s website and rumor has it they will soon be in brick and mortar stores as well.

But Blockbuster should stop selling phones.

Immediately.

Sadly, the switch from movies to cell phones is not surprising. This is one company that has struggled to adapt its brand identity to the changing market. But the brand confusion that will be caused by the addition of mobile phones illustrates an even bigger problem.

Blockbuster’s fall from grace was not due to a lack of mobile phones. It was due to a lack of an identifiable brand and failure to adapt to the new marketplace of streaming video.

Rather than introduce mobile phones without any context, Blockbuster should focus its effort on the company’s brand. Without proper brand context, the question of why it is in the mobile phone business goes unanswered and consumers are left without a reason to choose Blockbuster for their mobile phone needs.

It is almost as if someone at Blockbuster headquarters mused, “We have stores. What can we put in them?” Then someone replied, “Mobile phones are big. Let’s sell those.”

Even if this rollout had been well planned, it would not be successful because the Blockbuster brand does not have the permission of the market to sell cell phones. Blockbuster should pull back and re-examine its brand. A clearly defined brand will dictate Blockbuster’s focus and its future.

Business successes are something to celebrate. But don’t be fooled by the buzz surrounding the newly released Blackberry 10.

You may have read that Research in Motion (RIM) recently experienced a sharp rise in its stock. This was prompted by positive reviews of the company’s new phone, the Blackberry 10. Until now, RIM had been the cellar dweller of the highly competitive communication market. The company was crippled by idiotic decisions, such as the release of its business-oriented tablet, the Blackberry Play, without email capabilities.

Blunders and a lack of innovation combined to keep RIM behind the competition.

Last week RIM stock jumped and market watchers took notice. When Goldman Sachs invested in the company other investors quickly followed. This caused shares to close at $11.60, an 80% increase since September.

These numbers are cause for celebration — but RIM’s party will be short lived.

The Blackberry 10 meets the market’s necessities in a phone: multitouch technology, live information, social network integration, email, voice mail control and an effective keyboard. Yet there isn’t a marketable difference between the Blackberry 10 and its competitors. You don’t steal market share by mimicking the market.

Years ago, RIM was the king of the cell phone industry. The Blackberry was a pioneer in communication, a staple in business, and the phone customers craved. It ruled because it was was different and better than any other device being sold. Today, the Blackberry holds a splinter of the market, and the release of the 10 will only impress those clinging to the past.

RIM’s success is admirable, but it’s too little too late.

Samsung and Google are doing their best to steal market share from Apple but, as usual, it won’t work.

Google has set its sites on Apple’s voice recognition and command software called Siri. Google’s version is being touted in the news as the Siri-Killer.

When will these tech companies finally get it?

The value of Apple’s brand is defined by what it means to their consumers. Witness the company’s release of the iPhone 5: While the phone was only mildly better than its predecessor, it is selling faster than any other iPhone to date.

Being the first to taste what Apple is serving is both sweet and special. Nobody’s brand is as rich.

In fact, Apple’s brand is so strong that even if Google is offering a better voice recognition service, or if the Samsung Galaxy allows you to magically bump phones and share playlists, it doesn’t matter. At least not now. These are not game-changing tactics. While such technological innovations deserve praise, the expectation of a sea change is delusional.

Google’s attempt to perfect voice commands is admirable, but it will not prompt Apple users to jump ship, and it won’t help steal market share. Ultimately, Google is offering a variation of what is already a table stake.

Until alternative brands like Samsung and Google are infused with a deeper meaning, the tactics of one-upping Apple will only lead to an empty harvest.

Over the past month, two pieces of news have caught my attention. The first was Sony’s purchase of Gaikai, a cloud-based video game site that allows big-named game titles to be played through an Internet browser. The second was that Ouya, an inexpensive game console that runs the Android operating system and Android-based games, is teaming up with OnLive to allow cloud gaming of some AAA content.

These moves have exciting and curious implications for the market. It’s exciting to see the industry rumbling towards digital, which will lead to the instant ability to play and be simple to use.

But how will the existing brands transition?

It will be interesting to see what, if any, integration Sony has planned between Gaikai and its next Playstation. Sony puts a lot of weight behind its high-priced hardware, using it to push new technologies. But streaming services, like Gaikai, don’t require much in the way of hardware. The Ouya is set to sell for $109 and that includes the processor chips, storage, etc.,needed to run Android-based games that would be downloaded to the unit. That $109 ticket price is quite a bit less then the $599 pricetag Sony slapped on the original 60GB PS3 in 2006.

Because of Ouya’s marriage with OnLive, Sony will have to think very strategically about how it utilizes Gaikai. If the company is too soft in its approach, Ouya has an opportunity to take market share. Sony needs to be aggressive, which means stepping out of its comfort zone and leaning more towards software than hardware.

There is a happy medium. Sony can achieve profits for its system and still retain preference for its brand, but if OnLive is successful at acquiring larger amounts of AAA content, Ouya’s existence will eat away at Sony’s margins.

Sony’s best bet is to champion the digital change rather than react to it.

During an almost two-week long blackout, millions of DirecTV customers were unable to watch about a dozen popular Viacom channels, including MTV, Nickelodeon and Comedy Central.

The stand-off between Viacom and DirecTV over fees might have ended last week, but neither brand comes out a winner.

DirecTV was already in a tough spot. Few rave about his or her television, Internet, or cell phone provider, which means it is easy to get mad at DirectTV in this instance.

It did not matter who most pointed the finger, Viacom or DirecTV, because a lapse in service meant the service provider failed. The bright spot for DirecTV is that since all providers are viewed negatively, there is no impetus necessarily for viewers to switch. The blackout, however, did help further perpetuate a negative brand perception.

The flip side to that customer perception is the value Viacom placed on its own brand. Owners of content can thank Netflix for spotlighting just how much power they wield. Distribution once was a massive undertaking. Netflix’s DVD service was unmatched because the start-up costs for distribution of that magnitude were prohibitive. Where there was a greater dependency on physical distribution, the changing environment of digital distribution has increased control for those with the content.  I say “increased control” rather than “complete control” because content providers are not yet confident enough in their brand or their content to capitalize.

The great thing about content is that in addition to defining your market it acts as a differentiator. Make great content worth watching and customers have a reason to switch and increase usage. A good example of this is comedian Louis C.K., who avoided traditional distribution channels and sold his latest standup special digitally through his website. His success proves that, if your content is worth consuming, customers will inconvenience themselves in order to get it.

If Apple has taught us anything, it’s that there is a thriving market for simplicity – in usability, design and consumption. If ever there was an industry where simplicity was lacking, it is television. DirecTV and Viacom did little to elevate either of their brands during the recent dust-up and, in the process, demonstrated weaknesses in the system and highlighted change that might be slow but is inevitably coming.

As is being reported, RIM’s Blackberry is losing crucial market share, plummeting to fifth place among active cell phone suppliers. Which leaves me to wonder, is this free fall any surprise at all?

In truth, and I imagine I am not alone in this speculation, the Blackberry conjures up ancient technology to me. Once the impressive model for the business worker to “stay connected,” RIM technology is about as interesting today as the Palm Pilot did several years ago. Blackberry was once the “it” phone. Now, just like the aforementioned Palm Pilot, Blackberry may soon be without any significance at all.

What can Blackberry do to increase market share?

1. Reduce the number of phones: If you visit the Blackberry website, you find a list of six different smartphones. Each of these smartphones has about 4-5 variations. Which leads to about 25-30 different Blackberry phones when all is said and done. Maybe this is the first problem? Too many options may not be all that wise for Blackberry. I consistently reference Apple, but what works for iPhone is that the 3GS, 4 and 4S are all variations of the singular iPhone. These are not entirely different pieces, but they are all part of the simple and unified iPhone umbrella. Blackberry, however, has six entirely different phone models with seemingly endless variations. Why not simply master one phone and revise it with significant improvements just as Apple does? That surely seems to work.

2. More touch screens: People want touch screens. Why? Because these days a touch screen is intuitive and they bring the user into the experience. When I had a Blackberry years ago, and from the models I have seen on its site, the Blackberry functions mostly with a small and clunky “scroll and select” interface. Which is really boring if you ask me. If you are marketing technology, you must be current, hip, sleek and smart. I don’t think any of these adjectives can be equated with Blackberry.

3. Make it simple: Likewise, when I was a Blackberry owner, I never had any idea how to set any component of my Blackberry correctly. Setting up email was unnervingly difficult, reaching the internet application and even searching on the internet was archaic and lacking any technological joy. Ease of use is paramount.

Adjusting these components of Blackberry may give it new life. But what truly must happen with Blackberry is that it must take on a new meaning in the marketplace. Ultimately, to get back to prominence, Blackberry must make a change, its brand must take on new meaning and prove again that it is the smartphone for the business savvy customer.