The days of paying a huge monthly cable bill for a pre-packaged bundle of shows you don’t watch may soon be over, and just about everybody realizes it except for the cable companies.

Consumers no longer need to be at the mercy of cable companies, paying for stations and programming they don’t watch. It’s time for cable companies to realize that their business model has been rendered obsolete by a company that is renown for putting the entertainment industry on its head; Apple.

With the iPad, Apple may soon revolutionize how TV is delivered, much like it did with the music industry. Apple is promoting content through its iPad bookstore where publishers can use it as storefront to deliver content. This approach is similar to Amazon’s Kindle, but goes far beyond Kindle’s limited scope as a single use tool for reading. Through the iPad, consumers will not only be able to download books, but also movies and TV programming.

Cable companies are no longer the only source of on-demand content, as in years past. With the advent high-speed wireless delivery, consumers can find the programming they want, when they want it, through a variety of VOD (video on demand) services. The Wall Street Journal reports Hulu, YouTube, iTunes, are just some options consumers are navigating. Netflix is staying abreast of the changing dynamic of content delivery. They changed the video rental business by not adopting a bricks and mortar business model to compete with Blockbuster, which is close to becoming bankrupt, but instead incorporating a low-cost, convenient mail/internet process.  Interestingly, Netflix is also moving away from physical delivery of DVDs by mail to streaming movies and video directly to game consoles and devices, bypassing cable boxes entirely. In addition, the video provided includes a depth of content (director interviews, plot analyses, criticism, reviews) not available through cable access.

The issue isn’t content, but delivery. The days of must-buy bundles delivered by cable companies is on the wane. Victim of the new kid on the block iPad, whose flexible, portable, interactive access to broadband web, provides a far richer experience. The Harvard Business Review notes the iPad and a good internet connection is all the consumer needs for their entertainment.

Can the cable companies reinvent their business model and remain relevant to in this dynamic industry? Or are they doomed to go the way of music industry, where fans took advantage to purchase — or steal — one hit single off an otherwise mediocre album. Why buy the whole package when you can get only what you want, when you want it?

In the era of Google, Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn, there is still irrefutable value in the good old fashioned card. Business cards, arguably one of the oldest and most important marketing tools, have been in the marketing news as of late and deserve our attention, as well they should. The business card is an essential part of your marketing strategy and should never be overlooked.

MSNBC has recently been quoted to say business cards are becoming obsolete, being replaced with complete profiles on LinkedIn and digital cards with mobile applications. Some believe this is necessary new technology, but I’m not quite convinced. Don’t overlook your business card as part of your overall marketing strategy as it plays a key role in your business image.

I am confident technology will never replace the business card as the first brand representation of yourself, other than your physical being. In many situations, business cards are the first presentation of your brand image other than your physical being. Inc.com did a story on creative, innovative, business cards, but there is no need to be that extravagant. Your card needs to carry the necessary information so a prospective client can easily contact you.

Don’t chintz on developing a quality business card—use a quality, heavyweight cardstock. Consider hiring a graphic designer. Are the business card elements consistent with your company brand image? Is your  logo and slogan included along with all your phone numbers, address, email and other pertinent information? Don’t underestimate your business card, this marketing tool has power: the power to sell your brand — how you want others to perceive you.

As antiquated as it may seem, sharing a quality business card is also a remembrance of a more civil time, pre-DUB era. (DUB is the abbreviation of DubMeNow, an electronic business card application said to be replacing physical business cards.)

A personable time when face-to-face contact concluded with, “Do you have a card?” And how nice it is that this has endured.

To talk or not to talk? That is the question, but with nothing but dodging from Florida, the blogosphere is more than happy to answer.

While Tiger maintains his silence, or his roundabout explanation that fuels guilt and scandal yet explains nothing, has this mega-superceleb squeaky clean sure thing fallen like … like … Kobe and Phelps and Serena and Michael Vick and Britney and Chris Brown and Kanye and … and … well, you get the drift.

Celebrity endorsements mean a big cha-ching for product placement and sales. Celebrities are a brand onto themselves, as corporations are quick to scoop up the good ol’ boys and girls to be their shining star. But who calculates the missteps? What is the cost of damage control — the necessary clean ups in Aisle Life – when the star crashes to earth?  Or into the neighbor’s tree?

Tiger screwed up (or perhaps he didn’t). We don’t know how or why or when or what, but his silence is deafening. And the corporate bigwigs are squirming big time. Buick, Nike, Gatorade, Gillette, TAG Heuer, Accenture, AT&T.  Is this fixable? What’s it going to cost?  What’s plan B for when the best and brightest prove to be all too human? The brands Tiger represents are now running through the “what if” scenarios, praying for a minor character flaw and not a shock and awe to their brand image.

Sure, celebs of yesteryear were only human too. But that was before Twitter, Facebook, TMZ, MySpace, breaking news all night and all day, and with a buzz of a CNN update, dirty laundry is spilled for all to see.

Speak now, Dear Mr. Clean, or others will speak for you. The blogosphere is erupting. If Tiger doesn’t talk, others put words into his mouth and ergo, the mouths of his sponsors. And the many, many customers are just waiting and listening, wallets in hand.

Fighting public opinion can be tough, as McDonalds found out a few years back. Environmentalist groups had been pressuring McDonalds to change from using Styrofoam packaging to paper. They alleged that Styrofoam was contributing to landfill problems because of Styrofoam’s long life.

The President of McDonalds at the time, Ed Rensi, disagreed and hired archaeologists from the University of Arizona to conduct extensive research into the landfills. They concluded Styrofoam had little, or nothing, to do with the impact or contribution of the landfill problem, especially McDonalds packaging.

McDonalds tried to share their findings with the news media, but found it difficult for them to pick it up. It just seemed that it didn’t fit the narrative of what the news media thought was environmentally correct.

After months of trying to change public opinion and the news media, President Ed Rensi angrily realized he just was not going to change public opinion. He ultimately switched McDonalds from Styrofoam packaging to paper packaging.

Recently, I read an article that appeared in the New Yorker Magazine. It discussed how two well-known cereal companies, Kellogg’s and Post, dealt with the economic depression in the late 1920s. At the time, ready-to-eat cereals were relatively new and Americans didn’t view them as a real alternative to oatmeal or cream of wheat.

When the Depression hit, Post did what most companies do, reined in expenses, cut back on research and development and cut its advertising budget. But Kellogg’s did the opposite, it doubled its ad budget, moved aggressively into radio advertising, and heavily pushed its new cereal, Rice Krispies. Even when the economy cratered in the early 1930s, Kellogg’s profits rose 30% and used that momentum to go on and become the industry’s dominant cereal company.

Research has shown time and time again that companies that continue to spend on acquisition, advertising, and research and development during economic downturns do significantly better when the economy turns around.

You can read more about Kellogg’s in my book: “Branding Insights for Small Business” available on Amazon.com.

To read the complete article, click here. Special thanks to Gary Carr, an excellent media rep at Hanley Wood, for forwarding the article link to me.

My rules about company names are simple and very straight-forward:

• avoid generic sounding names
• avoid initials or acronyms and
• avoid names with too many words

That’s it. Pretty simple.

If you’re marketing a product or service that’s consumer oriented, it just makes sense to create a distinguishable brand name.

For example, I bought a computer router manufactured by a company called SMC Corporation. I had never really heard of this company, but my tech expert recommended it. From a branding perspective, and as a consumer, I was a bit concerned. I thought I should buy something made by a company with a name like NetGear or Cisco.

My router had to be replaced (a little too soon for my liking). Guess which brand of router I replaced it with? NetGear. I just don’t understand why a major technology company in such a competitive industry, would continue to use a name that is so nondescript.