By now, we all know about the iPhone 4’s antenna reception fiasco. Though Apple denies it, it seems to be the result of a hardware design flaw and has led to everything from class-action lawsuits to product-recall demands. Consumer Reports, even though it deemed the iPhone 4 the best smartphone on the market, refused to recommend it due to the antenna flaw, and Microsoft’s COO Kevin Turner went so far as to call the iPhone 4 Apple’s “Vista”. Ouch.

All in all, the latest iPhone has been a headache for Apple from the get go. From the leaked prototype to the reception issue, to complaints about discolorations in the “retina display,” I’m sure Steve Jobs would prefer to skip ahead to the iPhone 5 and forget about the past few months.

So the question is, if the iPhone 4 really is all that bad, how come I still want one? How come I would be willing to buy the phone, cover the antenna with duct tape (as CR recommends) and happily drop calls anyway? Am I a blind-loyalist? Have I chosen to cast away all rational thinking and reasoning in the name of getting my hands on Apple’s latest, greatest supergadget fun-panel?

I think I know the answer, and it comes down to the strength of the brand. You see, whether it’s true or not, I believe that the iPhone 4, with all of its imperfections, is still far better (and more importantly) far cooler, than its competition.

This is the power of branding. Even though I know there are critical problems with the product, I’ll trade those for the chance to own it — to further my status in the Apple tribe.

Granted, my iPhone 4 desires will go unquenched because I’m firmly mired in the early-goings of a two-year service contract; I must make do with my primitive 3GS until next summer. That being said, I think it’s a great testament to the power of the Apple brand that I would even entertain the thought of buying one.

So what do you think? Is there a part of you that still wants an iPhone 4? Do you already own one? Can I see it/play with it?

Exactly 13 months ago today, Wolfram|Alpha, a self-billed “Computational Knowledge Engine,” went online. It was hailed as a new type of search engine. Unlike Google or Yahoo!, Wolfram|Alpha wasn’t made to scan the entire web for relevant articles and content. Instead, it was built to deliver objective, factual data on the search topic as well as solve complex mathematical queries.

For instance, search “barrel of oil” in Wolfram|Alpha and instead of a slew of articles about the Gulf spill, you’ll get a collection of facts about oil barrels. Search “Chuck Norris” on Wolfram|Alpham, and instead of facts like “Chuck Norris sheds his skin twice a year,” all you’ll get are his hometown and birth date. Boring, yes.

Having been designed largely for academic and scientific purposes, Wolfram|Alpha is a powerful tool for everything from solving calculus equations, to doing a quick calorie audit of what you had for breakfast. The point being, it only yields results that are demonstrably true.

So the question is, with today’s students enjoying the unmatched research power of Google and Wikipedia along with Wolfram|Alpha for the math homework, is personal knowledge losing value? Are we transitioning from a society of “knowers” to a society of “finders”? Is this a good thing?

I’m not quite sure, but a strong argument can be made that traditional learning, i.e. repeating, understanding and storing information, is quickly becoming obsolete. These days, the answer to virtually any question you can think of is only a web search away, and with mobile technology, access is abundant.

While genuinely knowing things will never go out of style (I’d hope), it seems to be ceding ground to knowing how to find things. With our collective human knowledge growing at an exponential rate, perhaps this is as it should be; I guess only time will tell. However, it does seem that while personal knowledge will never become worthless, it’s certainly becoming worth less. ;-)

For the past couple of weeks the internets have been abuzz with complaints over Facebook’s new terms of service and privacy policies. The primary gripe is that Facebook’s recent changes have opened up previously protected parts of its over 400 million profiles for the masses to see. Now, unless you spend some serious time negotiating Facebook’s new, extra-convoluted privacy settings, your city, employer, friends, hobbies and other profile information can be easily accessed with a casual google search.

In addition to this, they’ve introduced a new way to cull your browsing data, placing “Like” or “Recommend” buttons on hundreds of thousands of unrelated websites. So now, if you’re logged into your Facebook account and happen to visit cnn.com for example, with the click of a button you can “Recommend” their story about the 50th birthday of the laser to all your Facebook friends. Though this might seem benign, it raises some important questions about what, if anything, Facebook is doing with our browsing data.

So, what does this all mean?

In my opinion, not much. While I do disagree in principle with Facebook, or anyone else, unabashedly mining personal data to assemble individual marketing “genomes” for us all, I’m not sure what the real consequences are. A more customized browsing experience? That’s not too bad, is it?

And in terms of the more accessible personal information, so what? If anything, it reinforces the fact that we shouldn’t post anything on our Facebook profile that we wouldn’t want our boss (or grandma) to see. Our digital footprints are basically permanent, and if you don’t want to be haunted by college party pics for decades to come then keep them off Facebook.

Finally, there’s no requirement that one must join Facebook. Though life without Facebook would be tough for many, there are numerous other ways to keep in touch with your friends and family. Telephones are novel. Email is also an old standby. Heck, if you’re inclined, you could even go back to myspace. But whatever you decide, if you’re really fired up about Facebook’s new privacy policies, you can let the whole world know by joining one of the many Facebook groups dedicated to the cause.

Like medicine, marketing follows its own sort of Hippocratic oath. Rule #1 is: Do no harm. But it’s a rough and tumble world out there. Just like people, brands take hits, and when they do it’s frequently a marketer’s job to staunch the bleeding, bind the wound and recommend therapy. I’ve been musing on this topic recently as I've watched two of the world’s strongest brands, Toyota and Tiger Woods, tumble down their own rocky hills.

For the past thirty years or so, Toyota has enjoyed a reputation for building the world’s safest, most reliable, longest-lasting cars. Lately, that reputation has been heavily tarnishes due to some highly publicized quality control issues. Once almost unthinkable, a Toyota model now carries a Consumer Reports “Do Not Buy” rating.

Tiger Woods has suffered a similar fate, losing his squeaky-clean reputation thanks to an ever-unfolding and also highly publicized personal scandal. In both cases I've found myself wondering: how does a marketer even begin to heal this type of damage?

Toyota has run “mea culpa” TV spots, admitting to having taken their eye off the ball Q.C. wise. The spots couple shots of American factory workers and classic Toyota models, conveying the idea that they’ve been around for a long time and deserve a second chance.

The message behind Tiger Woods’ new Nike spot is less clear, featuring a solemn Tiger staring down the camera as audio of his deceased father rambles on about learning from one’s mistakes.

Personally, I’m not sure which spot works better, but neither seems totally satisfactory. On Toyota’s side, you get the “I’m sorry I hurt you baby” message whereas the Nike crew opted to hide behind some scarcely relevant canned audio, leaving things open to interpretation.

Call me a marketing nerd, but these are the kinds of questions I ask myself as I’m driving home at night. If a patient like this were to be wheeled into our brand emergency room, what instrument would I reach for first?