news.com.au, 9/11/2007
GEN Y workers are more career-focused and ambitious than any other
generation, but they are also the most money-hungry, according to a job
survey.
But HECS debts, a lack of affordable housing and the rising cost of living
because of the drought and high petrol prices are the driving force behind
their desire for cash, the report by employment website SEEK found.
Of the 5000 Australian employees polled in the website's annual satisfaction
and motivation survey, 30 per cent were identified as Gen Y - aged 18 to 26.
Gen Y are more motivated by money than previous generation and mostly work
to pay for their lifestyles, the study found.
Almost one-third said money was their main motivator, compared with 15 per
cent of Gen X respondents and 9 per cent of Baby Boomers.
As a result, many said they would readily leave their employer for better
money or career possibilities.
Generation Y have the itchiest feet out of all the generations, with 73 per
cent of respondents saying they intended to leave their current employer in
less than a year.
Almost four out of five Gen Y-ers surveyed said more money would keep them
in their current job.
But the younger generation could be justified in their money lust, with the
results showing money may buy happiness.
The most unsatisfied were those in the $30,000 to $49,000 salary bracket,
where most entry level or graduate professional salaries start, with half
saying they were unhappy in their jobs.
The happiest were those being paid more than $150,000 a year.
The study also found Australia's happiest employees work in HR and
recruitment, in government or defence jobs and in the community and sport
sector.
Employees in the real estate, insurance and superannuation sectors were the
country's unhappiest.
But Gen Y employees shouldn't be criticised for their money lust because
they are trying to develop their financial independence against tough odds,
SEEK spokesman Joe Powell said.
"Many believe that Generation Y is likely to be the first generation in
history to be financially worse off than their parents and for many in this
group that's got to be a scary prospect," he said.
Friday, November 9, 2007
facebook & advertising
Some more, vital reading on the recent developments on facebook and how we might apply them
This, a great post from Techcrunch on the new developments:
Within hours of Facebook’s announcement of its social advertising plans, the backlash began. What about privacy? What about relevance? (I know everyone is sick of hearing about Facebook, but there are some important business issues at stake here, so bear with me). As far as privacy goes, there is none on Facebook, in that any information you share is fair game for targeting by advertisers. So get used to it. You don’t want to be targeted, don’t share information on Facebook. Perhaps the more important question, though, is around the relevance of the ads themselves.
Already, there’s been some insightful critiques on this front. Nick Carr started things off with his tart summary: “The medium is the message from our sponsor.” He goes on to point out that becoming a fan of a animated Sprite can is not exactly a revolution in advertising:
It’s a nifty system: First you get your users to entrust their personal data to you, and then you not only sell that data to advertisers but you get the users to be the vector for the ads. And what do the users get in return? An animated Sprite Sips character to interact with.
Henry Blodget asks, not unreasonably: Will advertisers pay people to recommend their products to friends? (That would be a bad idea, but you never know what Madison Avenue will try to do next).
And Umair Haque warns of adverse selection with Facebook ads that are presented as updates to people’s feeds (aka Beacons). Excerpt:
Yes, we all know referrals are powerful. But real referrals aren’t what Facebook’s offering. Real referrals aren’t broadcasting preferences; they are matching preferences. See the difference?
Beacon is essentially a biased market mechanism. That is, advertisers have control - but connected consumers (despite Facebook’s hype) don’t.
The synthetic relevance Facebook is pushing is a drug for the strung-out advertisers of the world: they desperately need a hit of something to make them believe they matter again.
As advertisers buy into Facebook - no one will be better off - except Facebook.
Marketers and firms won’t gain true connection with consumers.
And, crucially, consumers will be trapped into not just receiving crappy ads - but sending them as well.
These are all valid points. The best referrals come from people who know you have a particular need or are looking for something. They usually come out of a conversation. “Have you seen any good movies lately?” “Oh yeah, just last week we rented . . .” I only want referrals when I need them. If all my friends and casual acquaintances start bombarding me with referrals that are not matched to what I need, that could very quickly just become another source of noise I need to filter out.
And yet, it is just too soon to tell where all this will go. Granted, many of the advertising partners that have jumped on board this bandwagon are faceless consumer products companies. I am not sure I want to be a fan of Sprite or Chase or Verizon (and I am a customer of all of these brands). But some of the partnerships do make sense. I don’t mind identifying myself as a fan of the New York Times.
The social ads that will work will tend to be niche or high-end brands that people really like to show off because it says something about who they are. They will also work for other media sites where people already interact in a social way.
For instance, Epicurious now knows if you are a Facebook member and broadcasts any recipe you rate or save on the site to all your friends on Facebook (via their feeds). You can opt out if you don’t want to share this information, but it seems to me to be very similar to what people are already seeing in their feeds. “I like this recipe, check it out.” The New York Times will be doing something similar for travel ratings, movie ratings and reviews, and articles you save or e-mail (except, in that case, you will have to opt in to share the information and it won’t say who you are emailing it to). That too seems to me to be in keeping with the spirit of the Mini feed. “Here’s an article you should read.”
But those are not product endorsements. They are more akin to other Facebook applications, except that they are surfacing activity from a different site. Which is why I think that for this to work advertisers need to think more like developers. Help people do something useful, informative, or fun, and they will gladly broadcast that experience to the world. If people see these as ads, they will revolt. If they see them as indistinguishable from the stream of Facebook chatter already in their feeds (which is often inane, but addictive nonetheless), the messages will have a better chance of getting through.
This, some resources and further inspiration on apps and what some companies are already doing out there
Best of facebook - a site where people vote on applications
Facebook ads - facebook's page with all you need to know about the new ad developments and how to use them
Oktoberfest Lives On – seems quite popular app that ties beer to an event!!!
Verizon Wireless – group page, more a content webspace within facebook, rather than an app
Coke – very basic ‘product’ profile page. They don’t even own their own url!
Sprite – quite extensive product profile page and interaction app
The New York times: – company profile page
The New York times: – company profile page
epicurious - quite extensive product profile page
This, a great post from Techcrunch on the new developments:
Within hours of Facebook’s announcement of its social advertising plans, the backlash began. What about privacy? What about relevance? (I know everyone is sick of hearing about Facebook, but there are some important business issues at stake here, so bear with me). As far as privacy goes, there is none on Facebook, in that any information you share is fair game for targeting by advertisers. So get used to it. You don’t want to be targeted, don’t share information on Facebook. Perhaps the more important question, though, is around the relevance of the ads themselves.
Already, there’s been some insightful critiques on this front. Nick Carr started things off with his tart summary: “The medium is the message from our sponsor.” He goes on to point out that becoming a fan of a animated Sprite can is not exactly a revolution in advertising:
It’s a nifty system: First you get your users to entrust their personal data to you, and then you not only sell that data to advertisers but you get the users to be the vector for the ads. And what do the users get in return? An animated Sprite Sips character to interact with.
Henry Blodget asks, not unreasonably: Will advertisers pay people to recommend their products to friends? (That would be a bad idea, but you never know what Madison Avenue will try to do next).
And Umair Haque warns of adverse selection with Facebook ads that are presented as updates to people’s feeds (aka Beacons). Excerpt:
Yes, we all know referrals are powerful. But real referrals aren’t what Facebook’s offering. Real referrals aren’t broadcasting preferences; they are matching preferences. See the difference?
Beacon is essentially a biased market mechanism. That is, advertisers have control - but connected consumers (despite Facebook’s hype) don’t.
The synthetic relevance Facebook is pushing is a drug for the strung-out advertisers of the world: they desperately need a hit of something to make them believe they matter again.
As advertisers buy into Facebook - no one will be better off - except Facebook.
Marketers and firms won’t gain true connection with consumers.
And, crucially, consumers will be trapped into not just receiving crappy ads - but sending them as well.
These are all valid points. The best referrals come from people who know you have a particular need or are looking for something. They usually come out of a conversation. “Have you seen any good movies lately?” “Oh yeah, just last week we rented . . .” I only want referrals when I need them. If all my friends and casual acquaintances start bombarding me with referrals that are not matched to what I need, that could very quickly just become another source of noise I need to filter out.
And yet, it is just too soon to tell where all this will go. Granted, many of the advertising partners that have jumped on board this bandwagon are faceless consumer products companies. I am not sure I want to be a fan of Sprite or Chase or Verizon (and I am a customer of all of these brands). But some of the partnerships do make sense. I don’t mind identifying myself as a fan of the New York Times.
The social ads that will work will tend to be niche or high-end brands that people really like to show off because it says something about who they are. They will also work for other media sites where people already interact in a social way.
For instance, Epicurious now knows if you are a Facebook member and broadcasts any recipe you rate or save on the site to all your friends on Facebook (via their feeds). You can opt out if you don’t want to share this information, but it seems to me to be very similar to what people are already seeing in their feeds. “I like this recipe, check it out.” The New York Times will be doing something similar for travel ratings, movie ratings and reviews, and articles you save or e-mail (except, in that case, you will have to opt in to share the information and it won’t say who you are emailing it to). That too seems to me to be in keeping with the spirit of the Mini feed. “Here’s an article you should read.”
But those are not product endorsements. They are more akin to other Facebook applications, except that they are surfacing activity from a different site. Which is why I think that for this to work advertisers need to think more like developers. Help people do something useful, informative, or fun, and they will gladly broadcast that experience to the world. If people see these as ads, they will revolt. If they see them as indistinguishable from the stream of Facebook chatter already in their feeds (which is often inane, but addictive nonetheless), the messages will have a better chance of getting through.
This, some resources and further inspiration on apps and what some companies are already doing out there
Best of facebook - a site where people vote on applications
Facebook ads - facebook's page with all you need to know about the new ad developments and how to use them
Oktoberfest Lives On – seems quite popular app that ties beer to an event!!!
Verizon Wireless – group page, more a content webspace within facebook, rather than an app
Coke – very basic ‘product’ profile page. They don’t even own their own url!
Sprite – quite extensive product profile page and interaction app
The New York times: – company profile page
The New York times: – company profile page
epicurious - quite extensive product profile page
Thursday, November 8, 2007
My (Early) Predictions For 2008
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
By Cory Treffiletti
Can you believe it's already November? Where'd all the time go? It seems like just yesterday I was getting settled back in San Francisco, sitting around counting the days till the iPhone was released, and planning the way I'd ask my fiancé to marry me! Ahhh... how time flies.
Of course, now that it's November, there's no better time than the present to lay out my predictions for 2008! I know, I know... some of you might think it's a little early, but I like to be first, so that none of my predictions are too heavily influenced by what everyone else is thinking. So with that brief explanation for jumping the gun, here are some of my bold and not-so-bold predictions for 2008:
1. P2P will become an important, ad-supported vehicle for reaching consumers. The P2P market is fast trying to push forward with ad-supported models and they are being very aggressive in trying new ideas. Patience is no longer a virtue in the music business, as more people are recognizing that digital has effectively increased the opportunity for interaction directly between the artists and the consumers. This is especially important as it's not all about music in this environment now - it's about video as well. This market will mature quickly simply because there is a lot of volume, and it provides an untapped resource with detailed behavioral information. The dirty word of "P2P" will likely go away and advertisers will begin to be more enticed by this environment.
2. The maturation of mobile as an ad-supported medium is still 1-2 years away, but mobile search will increase dramatically and usher in the beginning of this stage of growth. Mobile has been promised for many years, but hasn't yet met expectations. This year saw the iPhone launch, and the game here effectively changed because of the interface and the integration of such application as Google Maps, etc. With the platform now open for developers and with Google becoming aggressive in this market, the opportunity to reach consumers here will increase. Video is still too far away to be a viable ad-supported mobile medium, but search is the killer app on phones, and advertising in this portion of the platform will dramatically increase attention toward mobile in much the same way it did on the Internet. Dollars will flow to mobile search quickly, ushering in mobile platforms as ad-supported vehicles. Which brings us to the next prediction...
3. The Google phone and version 2.0 of the iPhone (increased memory, more applications) will dominate the sales of smart phones. With the Google phone getting coverage in The New York Times, it is close to becoming a reality. Other players will launch new phones, but none will come as close to the cool factor as these two companies. 'Nuff said.
4. Standards for online video advertising will be announced... by NBC, CBS and ABC. The fact that standards will be announced is not the surprising part. The surprise is that this movement will be led by the major television networks, notoriously slow to lead the packaging of online video. Still, the networks are also the leading source of quality video content that is accessible and of interest to the mass audience! As eyeballs come from TV to the Web to see this content, and as tools emerge for the management of the syndication of video content and the associated advertising, the networks will be in a power position to manage these standards and lead the industry forward. For better or for worse, that's what I see happening.
5. Social media will develop the "killer app": an aggregate buying tool for groups. I have always said that social media is the digital extension of multi-level marketing (Amway, Mary Kay, etc.). The common element between these two models is commerce and the aggregation of consumers to purchase products (though in different ways).
I think that social media will become a VERY useful tool when social networks are used to benefit the individual user along with the group (as in business networking, etc.). I see the killer app as an aggregate commerce engine where you can gather together 10 of your friends looking to buy a flat-screen TV and buy them all in bulk at a discounted price, shipped to each separate location. It's Costco embedded in your social network, and it puts the "social graph" to a practical purpose. The logistics of this may be difficult, but I think it will be inevitable.
That leaves me to a couple of predictions related to Facebook:
· Facebook will not be bought in 2008, nor will it go public.
· The OpenSocial initiative will not hurt Facebook, but it might decrease its valuation slightly.
For my final prediction: The role of the media planner will become even more difficult, as these emerging formats become more widely used by consumers and a more viable opportunity for interaction with brands. There are lots of implications for these trends, but I'll have to hold off on that explanation for another day.
What do you think?
By Cory Treffiletti
Can you believe it's already November? Where'd all the time go? It seems like just yesterday I was getting settled back in San Francisco, sitting around counting the days till the iPhone was released, and planning the way I'd ask my fiancé to marry me! Ahhh... how time flies.
Of course, now that it's November, there's no better time than the present to lay out my predictions for 2008! I know, I know... some of you might think it's a little early, but I like to be first, so that none of my predictions are too heavily influenced by what everyone else is thinking. So with that brief explanation for jumping the gun, here are some of my bold and not-so-bold predictions for 2008:
1. P2P will become an important, ad-supported vehicle for reaching consumers. The P2P market is fast trying to push forward with ad-supported models and they are being very aggressive in trying new ideas. Patience is no longer a virtue in the music business, as more people are recognizing that digital has effectively increased the opportunity for interaction directly between the artists and the consumers. This is especially important as it's not all about music in this environment now - it's about video as well. This market will mature quickly simply because there is a lot of volume, and it provides an untapped resource with detailed behavioral information. The dirty word of "P2P" will likely go away and advertisers will begin to be more enticed by this environment.
2. The maturation of mobile as an ad-supported medium is still 1-2 years away, but mobile search will increase dramatically and usher in the beginning of this stage of growth. Mobile has been promised for many years, but hasn't yet met expectations. This year saw the iPhone launch, and the game here effectively changed because of the interface and the integration of such application as Google Maps, etc. With the platform now open for developers and with Google becoming aggressive in this market, the opportunity to reach consumers here will increase. Video is still too far away to be a viable ad-supported mobile medium, but search is the killer app on phones, and advertising in this portion of the platform will dramatically increase attention toward mobile in much the same way it did on the Internet. Dollars will flow to mobile search quickly, ushering in mobile platforms as ad-supported vehicles. Which brings us to the next prediction...
3. The Google phone and version 2.0 of the iPhone (increased memory, more applications) will dominate the sales of smart phones. With the Google phone getting coverage in The New York Times, it is close to becoming a reality. Other players will launch new phones, but none will come as close to the cool factor as these two companies. 'Nuff said.
4. Standards for online video advertising will be announced... by NBC, CBS and ABC. The fact that standards will be announced is not the surprising part. The surprise is that this movement will be led by the major television networks, notoriously slow to lead the packaging of online video. Still, the networks are also the leading source of quality video content that is accessible and of interest to the mass audience! As eyeballs come from TV to the Web to see this content, and as tools emerge for the management of the syndication of video content and the associated advertising, the networks will be in a power position to manage these standards and lead the industry forward. For better or for worse, that's what I see happening.
5. Social media will develop the "killer app": an aggregate buying tool for groups. I have always said that social media is the digital extension of multi-level marketing (Amway, Mary Kay, etc.). The common element between these two models is commerce and the aggregation of consumers to purchase products (though in different ways).
I think that social media will become a VERY useful tool when social networks are used to benefit the individual user along with the group (as in business networking, etc.). I see the killer app as an aggregate commerce engine where you can gather together 10 of your friends looking to buy a flat-screen TV and buy them all in bulk at a discounted price, shipped to each separate location. It's Costco embedded in your social network, and it puts the "social graph" to a practical purpose. The logistics of this may be difficult, but I think it will be inevitable.
That leaves me to a couple of predictions related to Facebook:
· Facebook will not be bought in 2008, nor will it go public.
· The OpenSocial initiative will not hurt Facebook, but it might decrease its valuation slightly.
For my final prediction: The role of the media planner will become even more difficult, as these emerging formats become more widely used by consumers and a more viable opportunity for interaction with brands. There are lots of implications for these trends, but I'll have to hold off on that explanation for another day.
What do you think?
Google Coming To A Gas Station Near You
November 7 2007
By Duncan Riley
Google’s quest to be everywhere continues to grow with news that the Mountain View search giant will today announce a new deal that will see motorists in the United States hooking up to Google at the gas station.
Pumps made by Gilbarco Veeder-Root Inc will include an Internet connection and will display Google Maps on a small color screen. Motorists will be able to obtain directions to hotels, restaurants, hospitals, or other local landmarks as specified by the gas station owner and get a print out from the pump to take with them.
Google will not be displaying ads against the content, however there may be opportunities for coupons and similar revenue streams at a local level directly with each gas station owner. The initial roll out will be 3,500 gas stations with future expansion dependent on demand.
AP quotes Google’s Karen Roter Davis saying that the move is part of Google’s drive to make its services available whenever and wherever people need them; “This will be sort of a Googley, more stealthy way of getting directions,” she said. Googley indeed
By Duncan Riley
Google’s quest to be everywhere continues to grow with news that the Mountain View search giant will today announce a new deal that will see motorists in the United States hooking up to Google at the gas station.
Pumps made by Gilbarco Veeder-Root Inc will include an Internet connection and will display Google Maps on a small color screen. Motorists will be able to obtain directions to hotels, restaurants, hospitals, or other local landmarks as specified by the gas station owner and get a print out from the pump to take with them.
Google will not be displaying ads against the content, however there may be opportunities for coupons and similar revenue streams at a local level directly with each gas station owner. The initial roll out will be 3,500 gas stations with future expansion dependent on demand.
AP quotes Google’s Karen Roter Davis saying that the move is part of Google’s drive to make its services available whenever and wherever people need them; “This will be sort of a Googley, more stealthy way of getting directions,” she said. Googley indeed
Facebook Ad Backlash Begins
November 7 2007
Erick Schonfeld
Erick Schonfeld
Within hours of Facebook¹s announcement of its social advertising plans, the
backlash began. What about privacy? What about relevance? (I know everyone
is sick of hearing about Facebook, but there are some important business
issues at stake here, so bear with me). As far as privacy goes, there is
none on Facebook, in that any information you share is fair game for
targeting by advertisers. So get used to it. You don¹t want to be targeted,
don¹t share information on Facebook. Perhaps the more important question,
though, is around the relevance of the ads themselves.
Already, there¹s been some insightful critiques on this front. Nick Carr
started things off with his tart summary: ³The medium is the message from
our sponsor.² He goes on to point out that becoming a fan of a animated
Sprite can is not exactly a revolution in advertising: sprite-sips.png
It¹s a nifty system: First you get your users to entrust their personal
data to you, and then you not only sell that data to advertisers but you get
the users to be the vector for the ads. And what do the users get in return?
An animated Sprite Sips character to interact with.
Henry Blodget asks, not unreasonably: Will advertisers pay people to
recommend their products to friends? (That would be a bad idea, but you
never know what Madison Avenue will try to do next).
And Umair Haque warns of adverse selection with Facebook ads that are
presented as updates to people¹s feeds (aka Beacons). Excerpt:
Yes, we all know referrals are powerful. But real referrals aren¹t what
Facebook¹s offering. Real referrals aren¹t broadcasting preferences; they
are matching preferences. See the difference?
Beacon is essentially a biased market mechanism. That is, advertisers
have control - but connected consumers (despite Facebook¹s hype) don¹t.
The synthetic relevance Facebook is pushing is a drug for the strung-out
advertisers of the world: they desperately need a hit of something to make
them believe they matter again.
As advertisers buy into Facebook - no one will be better off - except
Facebook.
Marketers and firms won¹t gain true connection with consumers.
And, crucially, consumers will be trapped into not just receiving crappy
ads - but sending them as well.
These are all valid points. The best referrals come from people who know you
have a particular need or are looking for something. They usually come out
of a conversation. ³Have you seen any good movies lately?² ³Oh yeah, just
last week we rented . . .² I only want referrals when I need them. If all my
friends and casual acquaintances start bombarding me with referrals that are
not matched to what I need, that could very quickly just become another
source of noise I need to filter out.
And yet, it is just too soon to tell where all this will go. Granted, many
of the advertising partners that have jumped on board this bandwagon are
faceless consumer products companies. I am not sure I want to be a fan of
Sprite or Chase or Verizon (and I am a customer of all of these brands). But
some of the partnerships do make sense. I don¹t mind identifying myself as a
fan of the New York Times.
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
OnlineSpin: Do The Laws Of Branding Not Apply Online? -
Do The Laws Of Branding Not Apply Online?
By Joe Marchese
Don't get me wrong, I love what Microsoft is doing. The concept of proper "click attribution," or giving credit to all of the impression prior to a click that may have contributed to the end result, is an important step in the evolution of online advertising ("Microsoft Regarding Google: If you Can't Beat'Em..." <http://blogs.mediapost.com/spin/?p=1138> ). And Microsoft, as well as many others, is well motivated to solve this important equation to get its share of current online marketing budgets since the odds of breaking into search, where Google currently reaps all the benefit, are long at best.
The problem with looking to click attribution as the solution to branding online is that the practice still only values impressions that happen to precede or alter online behavior. That means an impression must be part of an online "click value chain" to have any value. What should be worrisome about this to the Web community (web publisher and would-be Google challengers alike) is that by taking this approach, we are saying that the sum value of all impressions on the Internet can only be equal in value to the sum total of all ROI on fully optimized direct response campaigns. In short, if the click or acquisition is all that matters, then there is still no accounting for branding.
What is missing from click attribution methodology is any accounting of online marketing changing offline behavior and people's brand perceptions (which may not alter their online behavior). This is the key to unlocking brand dollars online. And much of the squeeze in online branding is being inflicted by the brands themselves. I have actually had agencies tell me that clients only want online campaigns that have measurable ROI, because they spend plenty of money in "other media" for branding purposes that they can't track.
The problem here is that marketers want to play both sides of the coin. They want their ROI and their branding too; they just don't admit it. Here's a perfect example for the definitive ROI based marketing services, a search engine marketing firm (source and industry to remain anonymous, also paraphrased for effect):
Client: I will hold you accountable to ROI metrics.
SEM: OK, here are the key words and text ads we are going to run.
Client: You can't use the work 'cheap' in our ads!
SEM: But the click rate will go up, and therefore you will pay less and get a better ROI.
Client: We can't have the word 'cheap' in ads for our product/services.
SEM: OK, we will use something else.
Client: Great. And we will continue to hold you accountable for ROI.
The difference in branding online vs. acquisition online is this: Is your marketing aimed at acquiring a transaction or a customer? I think the example above proves that even the most ROI-driven exercises are still looking to build particular perceptions so as to acquire customers, because acquiring transactions would have been easier with the word "cheap" in the ad.
Finally, we have our infamous funnel. Sitting at the top (wide mouth of the funnel) is all the people who have awareness of your brand; as you proceed down the funnel, you then have all those people with favorable brand perception; then action, then purchase. If online can be proven out as a medium that can significantly increase the top of the funnel (awareness and perception) for a brand and actually create a brand, then we can begin to see the tipping point we discussed last week in "A Tipping Point For Social Media Advertising." <http://blogs.mediapost.com/spin/?p=1161> The problem with click attribution is that while it looks to back out the value of impressions at the top of the funnel (display) based on actions that occur at the bottom of the funnel (transactions), because online transactions only make up a percentage of overall transactions (where offline still dominates), then online impressions can only receive credit for a percentage of their potential value.
By Joe Marchese
Don't get me wrong, I love what Microsoft is doing. The concept of proper "click attribution," or giving credit to all of the impression prior to a click that may have contributed to the end result, is an important step in the evolution of online advertising ("Microsoft Regarding Google: If you Can't Beat'Em..." <http://blogs.mediapost.com/spin/?p=1138> ). And Microsoft, as well as many others, is well motivated to solve this important equation to get its share of current online marketing budgets since the odds of breaking into search, where Google currently reaps all the benefit, are long at best.
The problem with looking to click attribution as the solution to branding online is that the practice still only values impressions that happen to precede or alter online behavior. That means an impression must be part of an online "click value chain" to have any value. What should be worrisome about this to the Web community (web publisher and would-be Google challengers alike) is that by taking this approach, we are saying that the sum value of all impressions on the Internet can only be equal in value to the sum total of all ROI on fully optimized direct response campaigns. In short, if the click or acquisition is all that matters, then there is still no accounting for branding.
What is missing from click attribution methodology is any accounting of online marketing changing offline behavior and people's brand perceptions (which may not alter their online behavior). This is the key to unlocking brand dollars online. And much of the squeeze in online branding is being inflicted by the brands themselves. I have actually had agencies tell me that clients only want online campaigns that have measurable ROI, because they spend plenty of money in "other media" for branding purposes that they can't track.
The problem here is that marketers want to play both sides of the coin. They want their ROI and their branding too; they just don't admit it. Here's a perfect example for the definitive ROI based marketing services, a search engine marketing firm (source and industry to remain anonymous, also paraphrased for effect):
Client: I will hold you accountable to ROI metrics.
SEM: OK, here are the key words and text ads we are going to run.
Client: You can't use the work 'cheap' in our ads!
SEM: But the click rate will go up, and therefore you will pay less and get a better ROI.
Client: We can't have the word 'cheap' in ads for our product/services.
SEM: OK, we will use something else.
Client: Great. And we will continue to hold you accountable for ROI.
The difference in branding online vs. acquisition online is this: Is your marketing aimed at acquiring a transaction or a customer? I think the example above proves that even the most ROI-driven exercises are still looking to build particular perceptions so as to acquire customers, because acquiring transactions would have been easier with the word "cheap" in the ad.
Finally, we have our infamous funnel. Sitting at the top (wide mouth of the funnel) is all the people who have awareness of your brand; as you proceed down the funnel, you then have all those people with favorable brand perception; then action, then purchase. If online can be proven out as a medium that can significantly increase the top of the funnel (awareness and perception) for a brand and actually create a brand, then we can begin to see the tipping point we discussed last week in "A Tipping Point For Social Media Advertising." <http://blogs.mediapost.com/spin/?p=1161> The problem with click attribution is that while it looks to back out the value of impressions at the top of the funnel (display) based on actions that occur at the bottom of the funnel (transactions), because online transactions only make up a percentage of overall transactions (where offline still dominates), then online impressions can only receive credit for a percentage of their potential value.
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Beckoning Boomers to the Web
Eons and TeeBeeDee both court the over-50 crowd, but their diverging paths illustrate the differences between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0
by Sarah Lacy
In the summer of 2006 my inbox was flooded with pitches from new Web companies hoping to bring some of the MySpace (NWS) magic to the largest and most neglected demographic on the Web: baby boomers. Makes perfect sense. Boomers represent a huge market, and more than 65% of Americans between the ages of 50 and 70 use the Internet. Many would feel out of place on MySpace or Facebook, though they'd still like to connect online. And advertisers who use the online medium would certainly like to reach them.
A year later, many boomer-focused sites are discovering it's a lot harder than they thought to build a MySpace for adults. There are plenty of contenders, including Gather and BoomJ. But the duo that most interests me is last year's glitziest entrant, Eons.com, and a scrappy newcomer, TeeBeeDee, standing for both "the boomer demographic" and "to be determined," a reference to the options open to people in the postkids and retirement stage of life.
Eons and TeeBeeDee are a study in the contrasts between Webs 1.0 and 2.0 and how each generation of companies views—and tries to conquer—its respective corner of the world.
A Portal for All Things Boomer
Reminiscent of an earlier Web era, Eons has pedigree, cash, and eyeballs: Founder Jeff Taylor previously founded Monster Worldwide (MNST); Eons has raised $32 million from Sequoia Capital and General Catalyst Partners; and it gets about 600,000 unique visitors a month, according to comScore (SCOR).
Headquartered in Boston, Eons launched with fanfare, issuing press releases about its cash, early advertisers, and how Taylor—a few years shy of 50—left a cushy job to start this new venture. Reporters ate it up (BusinessWeek.com, 10/16/07). And since free press only gets you so far, Eons began spending hundreds of thousands of dollars a month on marketing.
Taylor also did copious market research and found that virtually none of his focus group participants wanted anything to do with social networking. So Eons began as more of a portal for all things boomer, with a staff writing articles about life-changing topics boomers face. Taylor soon discovered his focus was wrong. An article on how to quit smoking would get a paltry 30 page views, while a posting from a user who hadn't smoked in 51 hours but said he was tempted to have a cigarette would get 300 comments. "It was clear people wanted to talk to each other, not get talked to," Taylor says.
Indeed, much of the early Eons approach was out of step. Credentials, lavish spending, even large audiences—all of it was paramount in the 1990s, when entrepreneurs dreamed more of huge brands than useful sites, and getting to market first was more important than getting to market right. Spending millions of dollars—including on TV commercials—to buy traffic, as Eons did, is now anathema to many who lived through the excesses of 1999 and 2000 and paid dearly when it all crashed. Better to invest in engineers who can build a product so indispensable it spreads on its own.
Authenticity Over Market Research
Compare all of this to TeeBeeDee, begun by Parenting magazine and CNET Networks (CNET) veteran Robin Wolaner. The company has put out a grand total of two press releases and spent a few thousand dollars on marketing. It has raised a modest $7.5 million from Shasta Ventures, Monitor Ventures, and several angel investors including Ron Conway. Wolaner has hired just 19 people. TBD did some modest market research but ignored most of it. Wolaner says she learned to distrust research after working in Penthouse magazine's promotion department, where she used market research to "prove" to advertisers that people bought the magazine for the articles, not the pictures.
Instead, her team mostly built what they would like to see online and figured they'd iterate from there. That's much the way some of the most successful Web 2.0 startups, including Yelp, Digg, and Facebook, were born. TBD is a lot like those companies in other key ways: It's housed in a dingy, anonymous building in San Francisco's South of Market district. Desks are scattered around a wide open space, there's a buzz of activity, and everyone is dressed casually, many in TeeBeeDee T-shirts. The only difference: Almost everyone working there is over 40.
Which underscores another key Web 2.0 hallmark: authenticity. Every great social networking site was built by someone the community can trust and relate to. Early on, college kids and recent graduates could identify with Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg. And what early MySpace hipsters didn't have a little affinity for the ubiquitous, automatic first "friend," MySpace co-founder Tom Anderson, even if he was lying about his age? Building a site by listening to hundreds of thousands of vocal members is hard work, but the more a site is built for you and your peers, the easier it is to understand what they have to say.
What to Do Next
Since Taylor, 47, can't even join his own site, which bars anyone under 50, Eons is breaking the cardinal rule of the Web 2.0 handbook from the get-go. Wolaner's site, on the other hand, has no such restrictions, because it's focused less on that pivotal birthday and more on the stage of life when you start to see more wrinkles, your career may be less important, your kids are out of the house, and you're figuring out what comes next. It's her stage of life. Wolaner, 53, knows well the feeling of getting that first AARP mailing at 50. It's not "Oh, great, I get a discount!" she says. Instead, it's "Ew, am I really old enough for this?"
To its credit, Eons has adapted well to at least one Web 2.0 way of doing business: iteration. The site has learned from early mistakes and reacted swiftly, recasting itself as a social network. Eons has slashed marketing and hopes to take off through word-of-mouth instead. The feisty Taylor is coming around to the benefits of a small but loyal community, over a mass torrent of clickers who don't stick around. "Everything about me is saying we need to get this business to grow, but I am learning to do things differently this time," he says.
Capital Can't Buy Community
As a result, the distinctions between the sites now are diminished. Both recognize that boomers want a site that will help them meet new people and organize around common interests. Both understand they have to be simple and intuitive so they lure more than just early adopters. And, Eon's early missteps aside, both realize listening to users will get them there.
So who will win? Part of that answer depends on what each company counts as success. Expanding to 600,000 users in a year clearly wasn't enough to support Eons' original business model, prompting layoffs of 35% of its staff. But TBD, with its lean staff and expenses, would be thrilled to hit those numbers sometime in the next year. Because, at its core, TBD gets something Eons still may not: To build a huge Web 2.0 company, it's not about getting big fast, it's about getting it right first and then growing. A community needs to love your site, and no amount of venture capital or advertising can buy that.
Lacy has been a business reporter for 10 years, most recently covering technology for BusinessWeek. Her book on the new generation of Internet moguls and the rise of Web 2.0 will be published by Penguin Publishing in 2008.
by Sarah Lacy
In the summer of 2006 my inbox was flooded with pitches from new Web companies hoping to bring some of the MySpace (NWS) magic to the largest and most neglected demographic on the Web: baby boomers. Makes perfect sense. Boomers represent a huge market, and more than 65% of Americans between the ages of 50 and 70 use the Internet. Many would feel out of place on MySpace or Facebook, though they'd still like to connect online. And advertisers who use the online medium would certainly like to reach them.
A year later, many boomer-focused sites are discovering it's a lot harder than they thought to build a MySpace for adults. There are plenty of contenders, including Gather and BoomJ. But the duo that most interests me is last year's glitziest entrant, Eons.com, and a scrappy newcomer, TeeBeeDee, standing for both "the boomer demographic" and "to be determined," a reference to the options open to people in the postkids and retirement stage of life.
Eons and TeeBeeDee are a study in the contrasts between Webs 1.0 and 2.0 and how each generation of companies views—and tries to conquer—its respective corner of the world.
A Portal for All Things Boomer
Reminiscent of an earlier Web era, Eons has pedigree, cash, and eyeballs: Founder Jeff Taylor previously founded Monster Worldwide (MNST); Eons has raised $32 million from Sequoia Capital and General Catalyst Partners; and it gets about 600,000 unique visitors a month, according to comScore (SCOR).
Headquartered in Boston, Eons launched with fanfare, issuing press releases about its cash, early advertisers, and how Taylor—a few years shy of 50—left a cushy job to start this new venture. Reporters ate it up (BusinessWeek.com, 10/16/07). And since free press only gets you so far, Eons began spending hundreds of thousands of dollars a month on marketing.
Taylor also did copious market research and found that virtually none of his focus group participants wanted anything to do with social networking. So Eons began as more of a portal for all things boomer, with a staff writing articles about life-changing topics boomers face. Taylor soon discovered his focus was wrong. An article on how to quit smoking would get a paltry 30 page views, while a posting from a user who hadn't smoked in 51 hours but said he was tempted to have a cigarette would get 300 comments. "It was clear people wanted to talk to each other, not get talked to," Taylor says.
Indeed, much of the early Eons approach was out of step. Credentials, lavish spending, even large audiences—all of it was paramount in the 1990s, when entrepreneurs dreamed more of huge brands than useful sites, and getting to market first was more important than getting to market right. Spending millions of dollars—including on TV commercials—to buy traffic, as Eons did, is now anathema to many who lived through the excesses of 1999 and 2000 and paid dearly when it all crashed. Better to invest in engineers who can build a product so indispensable it spreads on its own.
Authenticity Over Market Research
Compare all of this to TeeBeeDee, begun by Parenting magazine and CNET Networks (CNET) veteran Robin Wolaner. The company has put out a grand total of two press releases and spent a few thousand dollars on marketing. It has raised a modest $7.5 million from Shasta Ventures, Monitor Ventures, and several angel investors including Ron Conway. Wolaner has hired just 19 people. TBD did some modest market research but ignored most of it. Wolaner says she learned to distrust research after working in Penthouse magazine's promotion department, where she used market research to "prove" to advertisers that people bought the magazine for the articles, not the pictures.
Instead, her team mostly built what they would like to see online and figured they'd iterate from there. That's much the way some of the most successful Web 2.0 startups, including Yelp, Digg, and Facebook, were born. TBD is a lot like those companies in other key ways: It's housed in a dingy, anonymous building in San Francisco's South of Market district. Desks are scattered around a wide open space, there's a buzz of activity, and everyone is dressed casually, many in TeeBeeDee T-shirts. The only difference: Almost everyone working there is over 40.
Which underscores another key Web 2.0 hallmark: authenticity. Every great social networking site was built by someone the community can trust and relate to. Early on, college kids and recent graduates could identify with Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg. And what early MySpace hipsters didn't have a little affinity for the ubiquitous, automatic first "friend," MySpace co-founder Tom Anderson, even if he was lying about his age? Building a site by listening to hundreds of thousands of vocal members is hard work, but the more a site is built for you and your peers, the easier it is to understand what they have to say.
What to Do Next
Since Taylor, 47, can't even join his own site, which bars anyone under 50, Eons is breaking the cardinal rule of the Web 2.0 handbook from the get-go. Wolaner's site, on the other hand, has no such restrictions, because it's focused less on that pivotal birthday and more on the stage of life when you start to see more wrinkles, your career may be less important, your kids are out of the house, and you're figuring out what comes next. It's her stage of life. Wolaner, 53, knows well the feeling of getting that first AARP mailing at 50. It's not "Oh, great, I get a discount!" she says. Instead, it's "Ew, am I really old enough for this?"
To its credit, Eons has adapted well to at least one Web 2.0 way of doing business: iteration. The site has learned from early mistakes and reacted swiftly, recasting itself as a social network. Eons has slashed marketing and hopes to take off through word-of-mouth instead. The feisty Taylor is coming around to the benefits of a small but loyal community, over a mass torrent of clickers who don't stick around. "Everything about me is saying we need to get this business to grow, but I am learning to do things differently this time," he says.
Capital Can't Buy Community
As a result, the distinctions between the sites now are diminished. Both recognize that boomers want a site that will help them meet new people and organize around common interests. Both understand they have to be simple and intuitive so they lure more than just early adopters. And, Eon's early missteps aside, both realize listening to users will get them there.
So who will win? Part of that answer depends on what each company counts as success. Expanding to 600,000 users in a year clearly wasn't enough to support Eons' original business model, prompting layoffs of 35% of its staff. But TBD, with its lean staff and expenses, would be thrilled to hit those numbers sometime in the next year. Because, at its core, TBD gets something Eons still may not: To build a huge Web 2.0 company, it's not about getting big fast, it's about getting it right first and then growing. A community needs to love your site, and no amount of venture capital or advertising can buy that.
Lacy has been a business reporter for 10 years, most recently covering technology for BusinessWeek. Her book on the new generation of Internet moguls and the rise of Web 2.0 will be published by Penguin Publishing in 2008.
Open Social - The Social Network For Companies Scared Of Facebook
by: Karl Long
And myspace might be saying “Thanks for the add” to google as well.
I had initially thought this story from Tech Crunch was like a formation of a “coalition of the willing” with the other social networks, but I’m begining to think it might have much bigger implications.
OpenSocial is a set of three common APIs, defined by Google with input from partners, that allow developers to access core functions and information at social networks:
* Profile Information (user data)
* Friends Information (social graph)
* Activities (things that happen, News Feed type stuff)
Hosts agree to accept the API calls and return appropriate data. Google won’t try to provide universal API coverage for special use cases, instead focusing on the most common uses. Specialized functions/data can be accessed from the hosts directly via their own APIs.
Could this form the foundation for the Internet to finally become the platform? Sure you’ve got a few social networks involved but what if enterprises started using this as the basis for their own social networks? Imagine companies that started to run their businesses on social applications. Sure email is the lingua franca still, but wikis, blogs, and the concept of social networking are changing the way businesses are working.
The only thing that I see missing that would really enable this to happen is some kind of real identity system, because still the advantage that Facebook has at this time is pretty good identity and relationship management. Again the old adage applies, “on the internet nobody knows your a dog”
UPDATE:
It seems that quite a few people think it’s likely that Facebook will likely join OpenSocial as well, it makes sense, but it’s clear that Google had to get everyone else on board first.
Ars Technica has some more on the story as does Read/Write Web who I totally recommend following for more insight on this.
Kylie launches her own social networking site
LONDON - Kylie Minogue is taking on MySpace and Facebook by launching her own social networking site today.
KylieKonnect, which was designed by digital company New Visions Mobile, allows fans to create personal profiles, upload images and blogs, and chat with other fans via mobile or web browsers.
The site also allows users to manage their web pages from their mobile phone and buy tickets for Kylie concerts.The pop star has promised to update her blog regularly on the site, which launches in tandem with her new single '2 Hearts' today.
KylieKonnect is a timely move for Minogue after EMI record label boss Guy Hands said that artists had to use the digital arena to generate fan loyalty or risk being dropped.
Kylie's label, EMI-owned Parlophone, claimed that she was the first global recording artist to create their own social-networking brand.
Dan Duncombe, head of digital at Parlophone, said: "Kylie Konnect is for new and old fans alike; they can link directly to Kylie's profile, leave their blog, upload photos and share their experiences with other Kylie fans. Kylie's blog will regularly be updated, offering exclusive music, news, tour information and more, with fans able to download exclusive behind the scenes footage and have a chance to win 'money can't buy' prizes.
"Kylie Konnect is a great way of engaging fans wherever they are in the world, using multiplatforms and great content."
The single is to be followed on November 26 by Kylie's first new studio album in four years, called 'X'.
The album, Kylie's 10th, features 13 new tracks and was recorded in London, Stockholm and Ibiza.
Along with the new album, Kylie is starring in a documentary 'White Diamond', which she made with long-time creative director William Baker.
'White Diamond' gives fans the unique chance to see Kylie's return to the world stage with her 2006 'Showgirl Homecoming Tour', after suffering from breast cancer.Spain's blogging gran a hit with surfers
SANXENXO, Pontevedra (Reuters) - "Today it's my birthday and my grandson, who is very stingy, gave me a blog."
So reads the first entry by one of the world's oldest Webloggers, Maria Amelia Lopez, who, at the age of 95, has surprised herself by a sudden conversion from Web-illiterate to cybercelebrity.
"At first I thought a blog was just a type of paper notebook," said Lopez, a great grandmother.
"When I saw my grandson using the Internet, it caught my attention. I said to myself 'What's this? You can find out about anything. I want an Internet!'"
With 60,000 regular readers so far, Lopez's homely mix of memory and chat, available at http://amis95.blogspot.com/, attracts regular readers from around the world and has put her back in touch with the younger generation in a way she had never imagined.
"No one pays any attention to old women any more. Not many people love us. But I was surprised by the Internet, because young people who were 18 years of age, or 14 or 15, tell me about their lives and what they think and ask my advice," said Lopez.
Only one in 10 people over the age of 65 use the Internet in Spain, slightly below the European average. Although that proportion has nearly doubled over the last two years, it still suggests older citizens are missing the digital revolution even though they make up a growing portion of the population.
"Age is more important (to determining Internet use) than income, gender .... or level of education," said Domingo Laborda, an official Spain's Industry Ministry. Continued...
Emirates Announces Non-Stop Brazil
What better way than to dramatise your new non-stop flight service than to get someone to talk about Brazil non-stop.
http://www.nonstopfernando.com
http://www.nonstopfernando.com
Aussies 'addicted' to social networks
Monday Nov 5 16:45 AEDT
For many users, checking their MySpace or Facebook account has become 'automatic and compulsive behaviour'. (Getty Images)
A growing number of young Australians are becoming addicted to online social networks, according to a new study.
Naked Communications digital strategist and recent Monash University graduate, Julian Cole, uncovered the trend as part of his research into the use of social networking sites such as Facebook and MySpace.
"For many moderate to heavy users, checking their MySpace or Facebook account has become an automatic and compulsive behaviour, with some participants reporting they log on up to twenty times a day," Mr Cole said.
He found that many openly admitted to their addiction and, in an ironic twist, contribute to online confession groups.
"It's very bizarre. With a lot of other addictions people tend to hide it, but because it's such a common thing it's not hidden and people talk about it more," Cole said.
He believes one of the key reasons behind the addictive nature of social networking is it's "sticky nature".
"People lose track of time," he said.
"The thing that makes social networking so sticky is that there are so many paths you can take. You'll be on one friend's profile and then you click on their friends, and their friend's friends. It's never ending."
According to Mr Cole, warning signs of possible social networking addiction include frequently visiting the site for longer than intended, experiencing negative psychological or physical effects when the activity isn't available, and scheduling other activities around your time online.
"The point where it crosses over to an addiction is when people go there without a goal, it becomes part of their habit," Mr Cole added.
The study also revealed a divide between blue and white collar workers, with the later more likely to be addicted.
"The fact that they are in front of their computers means they are more likely to become addicted to these websites," he said.
He said typical addicts are more likely to be university students or people new to the workforce, people who have ready access to computers.
Mr Cole points out that the benefits of online social networking currently outweigh the negatives.
"A lot of social relationships are now being maintained, and the ability to connect with people you may not have normally," he said.
His tips for ensuring you don't become addicted are planning the amount of time you'll spend on online, and finding alternate ways of staying in touch with friends.
Mr Cole's findings were based on an in-depth survey of 20 participants, chosen from a larger survey of 300 people.
©AAP 2007
--
Melissa Bolling, Strategy Planner, BMF
Tel: 02 9552 7072 Fax: 02 9552 7070 www.bmf.com.au
For many users, checking their MySpace or Facebook account has become 'automatic and compulsive behaviour'. (Getty Images)
A growing number of young Australians are becoming addicted to online social networks, according to a new study.
Naked Communications digital strategist and recent Monash University graduate, Julian Cole, uncovered the trend as part of his research into the use of social networking sites such as Facebook and MySpace.
"For many moderate to heavy users, checking their MySpace or Facebook account has become an automatic and compulsive behaviour, with some participants reporting they log on up to twenty times a day," Mr Cole said.
He found that many openly admitted to their addiction and, in an ironic twist, contribute to online confession groups.
"It's very bizarre. With a lot of other addictions people tend to hide it, but because it's such a common thing it's not hidden and people talk about it more," Cole said.
He believes one of the key reasons behind the addictive nature of social networking is it's "sticky nature".
"People lose track of time," he said.
"The thing that makes social networking so sticky is that there are so many paths you can take. You'll be on one friend's profile and then you click on their friends, and their friend's friends. It's never ending."
According to Mr Cole, warning signs of possible social networking addiction include frequently visiting the site for longer than intended, experiencing negative psychological or physical effects when the activity isn't available, and scheduling other activities around your time online.
"The point where it crosses over to an addiction is when people go there without a goal, it becomes part of their habit," Mr Cole added.
The study also revealed a divide between blue and white collar workers, with the later more likely to be addicted.
"The fact that they are in front of their computers means they are more likely to become addicted to these websites," he said.
He said typical addicts are more likely to be university students or people new to the workforce, people who have ready access to computers.
Mr Cole points out that the benefits of online social networking currently outweigh the negatives.
"A lot of social relationships are now being maintained, and the ability to connect with people you may not have normally," he said.
His tips for ensuring you don't become addicted are planning the amount of time you'll spend on online, and finding alternate ways of staying in touch with friends.
Mr Cole's findings were based on an in-depth survey of 20 participants, chosen from a larger survey of 300 people.
©AAP 2007
--
Melissa Bolling, Strategy Planner, BMF
Tel: 02 9552 7072 Fax: 02 9552 7070 www.bmf.com.au
Monday, November 5, 2007
Open source hardware
I keep hearing more and more buzz about open-source hardware. One of the most ambitious open-source hardware startups is Bug Labs. The company is creating a Lego-like hardware platform that tinkerers and engineers can use to create their own digital devices. I visited their offices in New York earlier this week and played around with a prototype. It starts with a BUGBase, which is a general-purpose Linux computer about the size of a PlayStation Portable, encased in white plastic. This has four connectors that plug right into the motherboard. The company will also make a variety of modules that can plug into the computer—like an LCD screen, a digital camera, a GPS unit, a motion sensor, a keyboard, an EVDO modem, and a 3G GSM modem. (There are also places to add USB, Ethernet, WiFi, and serial ports). Bug Labs is planning on making 80 modules over time, and hopes outside companies and developers will create their own.
CEO Peter Semmelhack hopes to make possible the “long tail of gadgets.” With Bug Labs, the idea is that an engineer or entrepreneur can now create a digital device customized to their exact needs even if the market for that device is only 10 people, or only one. This could be great for making prototypes on the cheap—no need to tool up a factory or find one in China that wants a couple million dollars to do your first production run. Soon, designers will be able to just order a Bug Labs kit with the modules they need and write the software to tell the device what to do. This product is aimed squarely at engineers. But making a gadget will become a lot easier—maybe as easy as creating a Web 2.0 site.
And if someone comes up with a winning combination of hardware features, the guts can be easily repackaged into a slimmer, better designed case and manufactured in the thousands or millions like any other device. So there is a way to ramp from hardware curiosity to consumer gadget. Still, it is unclear that a long-tail approach to gadgets will ever create the scale and demand necessary to support a hardware business. Time will tell. (Fred Wilson of Union Square Ventures is an investor)
The Bug won’t be on sale until December at the earliest, but below are pictures of what they will look like. The modules literally click together like Legos, and you can put them anywhere you want. For a GPS camera, for instance, you would put the LCD screen on the back, the camera on the front, and the GPS module in one of the other slots. Rearrange the modules or swap in new ones to create an entirely different device. I want one. Don’t you?
NYTimes.Com Aggregates Third-Party Content, Marks Transformation of Media
Posted: 01 Nov 2007 09:11 PM CDT
NYTimes.com wasn’t the first traditional media brand to aggregate third-party content — and it certainly won’t be the last. But the New York Times, once considered the national newspaper of record, represented one of the last bastions of the traditional media approach to content, i.e. we produce it ALL ourselves.
And if anyone makes a credible run at doing it all by themselves, it’s the Times, which generates a prodigious volume of the highest quality content every day.
But in a networked media world, where news consumers have access to EVERY piece of content produced by EVERY news outlet large and small (and with high quality news outlets proliferating on the web), media is undergoing a seismic shift — it’s no longer strictly about producing and distributing your OWN content.
Media is now about distributing the BEST content — and Times has embraced this new reality with the launch of its new technology section, which incorporates third-party headlines surfaced by Blogrunner (which the Times acquired very quietly last year — and which uses a TechMeme-like algorithm based on link patterns) and then selected with input from Times editors.
NYTimes.com wasn’t the first traditional media brand to aggregate third-party content — and it certainly won’t be the last. But the New York Times, once considered the national newspaper of record, represented one of the last bastions of the traditional media approach to content, i.e. we produce it ALL ourselves.
And if anyone makes a credible run at doing it all by themselves, it’s the Times, which generates a prodigious volume of the highest quality content every day.
But in a networked media world, where news consumers have access to EVERY piece of content produced by EVERY news outlet large and small (and with high quality news outlets proliferating on the web), media is undergoing a seismic shift — it’s no longer strictly about producing and distributing your OWN content.
Media is now about distributing the BEST content — and Times has embraced this new reality with the launch of its new technology section, which incorporates third-party headlines surfaced by Blogrunner (which the Times acquired very quietly last year — and which uses a TechMeme-like algorithm based on link patterns) and then selected with input from Times editors.
Disclosure 2.0
Friday, November 2, 2007 by Wendy Davis
Call it "Disclosure 2.0." That's the term Internet guru Esther Dyson used today to describe a new type of privacy notice that might be coming to the online marketing world.
Speaking at the second day of a Federal Trade Commission conference about privacy and Web ads, Dyson proposed that social networking sites will drive new types of interaction between marketers and consumers.
She said that consumers -- now trained in some aspects of the art of profile creation and maintenance via sites like Facebook -- will want to wield similar control over their marketing profiles.
Dyson predicts that users will soon ask, "If I curate my profile... and if I can decide which of my friends can see which part of my profile, why can't I do that for marketers?"
It's an intriguing idea, but executing it will be another matter. There appears to be widespread agreement that very few consumers currently read privacy notices. Of course, it's not surprising that people don't interrupt their Web surfing to click on privacy links and then read policies written in page after page of dense legalese.
But, Dyson said, that doesn't mean that people don't want answers to the basic questions, "Why are you showing me this ad? What is it you know?"
Call it "Disclosure 2.0." That's the term Internet guru Esther Dyson used today to describe a new type of privacy notice that might be coming to the online marketing world.
Speaking at the second day of a Federal Trade Commission conference about privacy and Web ads, Dyson proposed that social networking sites will drive new types of interaction between marketers and consumers.
She said that consumers -- now trained in some aspects of the art of profile creation and maintenance via sites like Facebook -- will want to wield similar control over their marketing profiles.
Dyson predicts that users will soon ask, "If I curate my profile... and if I can decide which of my friends can see which part of my profile, why can't I do that for marketers?"
It's an intriguing idea, but executing it will be another matter. There appears to be widespread agreement that very few consumers currently read privacy notices. Of course, it's not surprising that people don't interrupt their Web surfing to click on privacy links and then read policies written in page after page of dense legalese.
But, Dyson said, that doesn't mean that people don't want answers to the basic questions, "Why are you showing me this ad? What is it you know?"
Motorola develops ads triggered by text messages
LONDON - Mobile phone company Motorola is developing new software which can scan customers' text messages and phone calls and pass on the information to advertisers.
Motorola said the software is capable of searching for specific words in text messages. It has the potential to detect words such as 'food' or 'hungry' and then send the mobile phone customers adverts for restaurants in their area.
Kenneth Keller, Motorola's chief marketing officer, said: "We have a technology which allows us to understand not only where that person might be, but also to understand what their interests might be. You figure out if the person is going for dinner or shopping and trying to find a particular retail outlet."Motorola also said the technology could be extended to voice calls.
The company acknowledged that the service raised privacy issues but stressed that it would only be used with customers' consent, possibly in return for cheaper calls.
Keller said: "I don't know how you would do this as an unsolicited effort."
The news has troubled both the Privacy International and The Information Commissioner's Office.
Simon Davies, the director of Privacy International, said: "We have deep concerns about this kind of technology. The phone companies may be talking about opting in to schemes but down the line it is more likely you will be penalised if you don't sign up."
Advertisers and mobile phone companies are keen to cash in on advertising via mobiles. The worldwide market is expected to top £5.5bn by 2011, according to Informa Telecoms and Media.
Blyk, the new mobile network aimed at 16- to 24-year-olds, recently introduced a tariff incentivising users to accept ads via their phone. Customers can sign up for "free credits entitlement" scheme and receive brand messages in exchange for a monthly free balance of 217 texts and 43 minutes.
Blyk keeps track of how many brand messages customers successfully receive during each 30-day period. Members who fail to receive most of the brand messages for three months in a row will have their Blyk membership terminated.
Microsoft’s Green News Site Launches
Microsoft has launched MSN Green, an environmental news site aimed at consumers.
MSNBC, The Daily Green, Conservation International, Environmental Defense, Grist, TreeHugger and StopGlobalWarming are supporting partners, writes Environmental Leader.
MSN says that the success of Live Earth was part of the impetus for the site. Liveearth.msn.com generated more than 15 million streams the day of the concerts and surpassing the number of people who watched the event on TV.
Today’s news includes a story on the disappearing bees, one covering whether climate change is affecting the color of foliage, and another on how many trees are used to make baseball bats.
Yahoo launched a green site in May.
Half of U.S. Mobile Phone Application Revenue from Location-Based Services
With GPS available on more new mobile devices - some 130 million GPS-capable handsets are in use in the U.S. - consumer demand for location-based services (LBS), such as navigation, is growing, according to a mobile-applications report by Telephia, a service of The Nielsen Company, reports sister site MarketingCharts.
Telephia reported that in the second quarter…
- Approximately 13 million mobile consumers downloaded a mobile application on their phone.
- While location-based services deliver highly personalized offerings such as friend-finding and other location-aware features, navigation represents the lion’s share of revenue.
- LBS accounted for 51 percent of the $118 million generated in revenue by downloadable mobile applications such as LBS, weather applications, chat/community, and personal organization tools.
- Networks In Motion (NIM) - an LBS navigation publisher for products, including Verizon Wireless’s VZ Navigator - secured a 27 percent share of carrier revenue from mobile applications and leads all mobile application publishers.
- Telenav Mobile, another LBS navigation publisher, is second with a 15 percent share of carrier revenue.
Favorable carrier deck placement for LBS applications and the bundling of navigation services with data packages have contributed to record high downloads, Telephia said.
LBS applications command a healthy price premium compared with other downloadable mobile applications. The average price per month for an LBS application is $9.23, compared with a range of $3.82-$5.41 for weather applications, sports, wallpapers/pictures, etc. (see table for average price paid for various mobile applications).
The selling price for LBS applications is roughly 180 percent of industry average. However, overall consumer penetration for mobile applications hovers around 5 percent, compared with penetration rates of 7-13 percent for other downloadable content, like games, ringtones and premium SMS.
“There are hurdles that LBS publishers face, most notably the relatively low incidence of application downloads when compared to other mobile data activity,” said David Gill, Director of Mobile Media, Telephia. “Many consumers may not realize the utility of a navigation application on their mobile phone until they use it.”
Half of U.S. Mobile Phone Application Revenue from Location-Based Services
With GPS available on more new mobile devices - some 130 million GPS-capable handsets are in use in the U.S. - consumer demand for location-based services (LBS), such as navigation, is growing, according to a mobile-applications report by Telephia, a service of The Nielsen Company, reports sister site MarketingCharts.
Telephia reported that in the second quarter…
- Approximately 13 million mobile consumers downloaded a mobile application on their phone.
- While location-based services deliver highly personalized offerings such as friend-finding and other location-aware features, navigation represents the lion’s share of revenue.
- LBS accounted for 51 percent of the $118 million generated in revenue by downloadable mobile applications such as LBS, weather applications, chat/community, and personal organization tools.
- Networks In Motion (NIM) - an LBS navigation publisher for products, including Verizon Wireless’s VZ Navigator - secured a 27 percent share of carrier revenue from mobile applications and leads all mobile application publishers.
- Telenav Mobile, another LBS navigation publisher, is second with a 15 percent share of carrier revenue.
Favorable carrier deck placement for LBS applications and the bundling of navigation services with data packages have contributed to record high downloads, Telephia said.
LBS applications command a healthy price premium compared with other downloadable mobile applications. The average price per month for an LBS application is $9.23, compared with a range of $3.82-$5.41 for weather applications, sports, wallpapers/pictures, etc. (see table for average price paid for various mobile applications).
The selling price for LBS applications is roughly 180 percent of industry average. However, overall consumer penetration for mobile applications hovers around 5 percent, compared with penetration rates of 7-13 percent for other downloadable content, like games, ringtones and premium SMS.
“There are hurdles that LBS publishers face, most notably the relatively low incidence of application downloads when compared to other mobile data activity,” said David Gill, Director of Mobile Media, Telephia. “Many consumers may not realize the utility of a navigation application on their mobile phone until they use it.”
The social network wars
MySpace Joins Google's OpenSocial
EAGER TO CHALLENGE FACEBOOK'S RISING star, MySpace has joined the Google-led initiative to court Web developers with an open system for creating social networking applications.
EAGER TO CHALLENGE FACEBOOK'S RISING star, MySpace has joined the Google-led initiative to court Web developers with an open system for creating social networking applications.
Named OpenSocial, the initiative is simply a set of common APIs for building social applications across the Web. The idea is to give Web developers standardized tools for writing applications and embedding them on social networkers' personal pages.
"Our partnership with Google allows developers to gain massive distribution without unnecessary specialized development for every platform," Chris DeWolfe, co-founder and CEO MySpace, said in a statement released late Thursday.
As a member of OpenSocial, MySpace is providing the group with platform experience and user mass, as it is still the most popular social network online.
Google had signed on more than a dozen other partners--including social networks like hi5, Friendster, and LinkedIn, along with software makers like Oracle and Salesforce.com--reaching a combined 100 million people.
"MySpace is one of the leading forces in the global social Web," Eric Schmidt, Google's CEO, said in a statement. "We're thrilled to grow our strategic relationship with MySpace by joining forces on this important initiative."
Facebook opened up to outside developers in May, and since then thousands of applications have been attached to the site; those applications are credited with helping increase its community to more than 48 million users.
Still without a dominant position in the social marketing space, Google is hoping it can leverage the developer community and establish a standard for their community.
"With the input and iteration of the community, we hope OpenSocial will become a standard set of technologies for making the Web social," a Google spokesman said Wednesday.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)