As everyone watches how SMARTPHONES and TABLETS will take over the world, it seems that they are steadily accounting for more and more of the web traffic each day. According to comscore, 7% of all web traffic stemmed from smartphones and tablets, most of the smartphone traffic coming thru a wi-fi connection .
As mobile web traffic continues to grow it will be interesting to understand which companies and industries will be fast movers to adopt compatibility with mobile web search, and which of those that will be left behind. How does one make the mobile web experience not only pleasant, but suitable enough that users will spend considerable time on their site or application? The retail industry has seemed to adopt the quick trend of mobile websites compatible for most phones. however, some companies even within the travel industry have failed to adopt a mobile web site format which may eventually hurt purchases - as consumers price search more and more each day.
Brands should be more and more cognizant of their mobile web presence to facilitate a customer friendly experience.
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/12/mobile-accounts-for-7-percent-of-web-traffic-report-says/?ref=technology
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Government initiative to increase digital literacy
The FCC is putting forth effort to provide basic computer training and subsidize broadband access. Is this a worthwhile effort, or a waste of taxpayer funds? In my humble opinion, this is an excellent endeavor akin to teaching someone how to fish to feed them for a lifetime, rather than bringing them a fish and feeding them for a day (or however the saying goes).
While the pessimist in me acknowledges that subsidizing broadband access may be abused and used for mischeif and harm, and that providing basic computer training can only go so far, the optimist in me believes that teaching computer skills and providing internet access will truly empower people for greater things. With 80% of Fortune 500 companies requiring appliations online, increasing digital literacy is as necessary a part of our society today as traditional literacy. Not knowing how to use a computer significantly handicaps one from being employed at most industries and positions: in this day and age, computer skills are necessary for anything from simple time entry and email communication, to writing reports and complex programming. Additinally, armed with computer savvy, one can search the internet for prospective jobs and submit the applications at the touch of a keystroke.
To succeed, these programs and partnerships which the FCC deploys must be well managed and closely monitored. With the rest of the world ahead of this curve (as diagnosed by the reference to South Korea in the article), we as the U.S. need to be cognicent of dynamically changing and conforming to the people's needs to be totally effective.
www.nytimes.com/2011/10/12/us/fcc-expanding-efforts-to-connect-more-americans-to-broadband.html?_r=1&ref=technology
While the pessimist in me acknowledges that subsidizing broadband access may be abused and used for mischeif and harm, and that providing basic computer training can only go so far, the optimist in me believes that teaching computer skills and providing internet access will truly empower people for greater things. With 80% of Fortune 500 companies requiring appliations online, increasing digital literacy is as necessary a part of our society today as traditional literacy. Not knowing how to use a computer significantly handicaps one from being employed at most industries and positions: in this day and age, computer skills are necessary for anything from simple time entry and email communication, to writing reports and complex programming. Additinally, armed with computer savvy, one can search the internet for prospective jobs and submit the applications at the touch of a keystroke.
To succeed, these programs and partnerships which the FCC deploys must be well managed and closely monitored. With the rest of the world ahead of this curve (as diagnosed by the reference to South Korea in the article), we as the U.S. need to be cognicent of dynamically changing and conforming to the people's needs to be totally effective.
www.nytimes.com/2011/10/12/us/fcc-expanding-efforts-to-connect-more-americans-to-broadband.html?_r=1&ref=technology
U.S. Mobile Ad Spend To Pass $1 Billion For The First Time
Mobile advertising is still a small and young business when you compare it to how much money goes into digital—let alone offline—advertising and marketing campaigns. But there are some clear signs of it growing up fast: eMarketer says the U.S. is on track to have its first year of $1 billion-plus in mobile ad revenues.
EMarketer first floated its $1 billion prediction back in April, but now it is revising that number up to $1.23 billion.
What’s driving this fast growth? Increased confidence from advertisers in the medium, for one. But also the fact that these advertisers are getting better scale for their investment: by the end of this year, some 38 percent of all U.S. consumers will be using a smartphone, accessing the mobile internet at least one time each month, says eMarketer.
The $1.23 billion figure is nearly double the investment made by advertisers into mobile ads in the U.S. in 2010, which was $743 million. And eMarketer believes that by 2015, that number will go up by another $4 billion to reach nearly $4.4 billion.
In its calculations, eMarketer includes the three main areas of advertising on mobile today: display ads, search ads and messaging-based advertising, with ads viewed both on phones as well as tablets. But within that, some areas appear to be growing faster than others:
Search advertising has seen the most growth over last year, and eMarketer predicts it will nearly double in its revenue in 2011, to $349 million from $185 million in 2010. Video will also see 100 percent growth, although the starting point is very small indeed: it will make nearly $58 million in revenues, compared to $28 million a year ago. Video, in fact, will see the most growth in the next four years and by 2015 will be generating more revenue than banners/rich media generates today.
Display (which includes rich media and banner ads) is also showing strong growth, and is currently the second-largest format. Display will generate $376 million of revenue in 2011, it predicts, compared to $202 million in 2011.
And as you would expect, the oldest format, messaging, grew the least but it remains the biggest format for mobile ads today. Messaging will generate revenues of $443 million this year, compared to $327 million in 2010.
(The full breakdown of how each format will balance out compared to the others is detailed at the end of this post.)
What we cannot see from eMarketer’s figures is how advertising distribution/consumption—and crucially engagement—is comparing across smartphones versus tablets, and whether some platforms encourage more interaction than others. Given that tablet penetration is still low compared to smartphones, it’s likely that they are still carrying only a small part of traffic, but that they will be key to the rich media and larger (more premium) format growth over time.
eMarketer says that it bases its calculations on a “meta-analysis of mobile advertising estimates from research firms,” as well as company data from mobile ad networks, smartphone and tablet usage trends and interviews with executives.
http://paidcontent.org/article/419-u.s.-mobile-ad-spend-to-pass-1-billion-for-the-first-time-this-year/
EMarketer first floated its $1 billion prediction back in April, but now it is revising that number up to $1.23 billion.
What’s driving this fast growth? Increased confidence from advertisers in the medium, for one. But also the fact that these advertisers are getting better scale for their investment: by the end of this year, some 38 percent of all U.S. consumers will be using a smartphone, accessing the mobile internet at least one time each month, says eMarketer.
The $1.23 billion figure is nearly double the investment made by advertisers into mobile ads in the U.S. in 2010, which was $743 million. And eMarketer believes that by 2015, that number will go up by another $4 billion to reach nearly $4.4 billion.
In its calculations, eMarketer includes the three main areas of advertising on mobile today: display ads, search ads and messaging-based advertising, with ads viewed both on phones as well as tablets. But within that, some areas appear to be growing faster than others:
Search advertising has seen the most growth over last year, and eMarketer predicts it will nearly double in its revenue in 2011, to $349 million from $185 million in 2010. Video will also see 100 percent growth, although the starting point is very small indeed: it will make nearly $58 million in revenues, compared to $28 million a year ago. Video, in fact, will see the most growth in the next four years and by 2015 will be generating more revenue than banners/rich media generates today.
Display (which includes rich media and banner ads) is also showing strong growth, and is currently the second-largest format. Display will generate $376 million of revenue in 2011, it predicts, compared to $202 million in 2011.
And as you would expect, the oldest format, messaging, grew the least but it remains the biggest format for mobile ads today. Messaging will generate revenues of $443 million this year, compared to $327 million in 2010.
(The full breakdown of how each format will balance out compared to the others is detailed at the end of this post.)
What we cannot see from eMarketer’s figures is how advertising distribution/consumption—and crucially engagement—is comparing across smartphones versus tablets, and whether some platforms encourage more interaction than others. Given that tablet penetration is still low compared to smartphones, it’s likely that they are still carrying only a small part of traffic, but that they will be key to the rich media and larger (more premium) format growth over time.
eMarketer says that it bases its calculations on a “meta-analysis of mobile advertising estimates from research firms,” as well as company data from mobile ad networks, smartphone and tablet usage trends and interviews with executives.
http://paidcontent.org/article/419-u.s.-mobile-ad-spend-to-pass-1-billion-for-the-first-time-this-year/
What can Steve Jobs Still Teach us?
What Can Steve Jobs Still Teach Us? By: FastCompany StaffSeptember 14, 2011
What Can Steve Jobs Still Teach Us?
By Cliff Kuang
Apple's Leader has died at the age of 56, having recently stepped down as Apple's CEO. He wasn't trained as a designer or an engineer. But he was one of the greatest users of technology ever. That was his secret asset.
Paul Chinn/San Francisco Chronicle/Corbisn
In the wake of Steve Jobs's resignation [Ed. Note: And now, death], let's consider the greatest decision he ever made. It didn't happen in a garage in Cupertino, California, sweating with Steve Wozniak as they dreamed up a computer for the common man. Or in a conference room, as managers told him that no one would ever pay $400 for a portable music player. Or in another conference room, as new managers told him no one would ever pay $400 for a cell phone. Rather it was in an almost forgotten annex on the Apple campus.
Jobs had recently come back to the company after a 12-year hiatus working for two of his own startups: NeXT, which made ultra-high-end computers, and Pixar. He was taking a tour of Apple, becoming reacquainted with what the company had become since he'd left. It must have been a sobering, even ugly, sight--Apple was dying at the hands of Microsoft, IBM, Dell, and other competitors that were doing what Apple did, only cheaper and with faster processors.
In a dusty basement across the road from Apple's main building, Jobs found a solitary designer who was ready to quit, languishing amid a stack of prototypes. Among them was a monolithic monitor with a teardrop swoop, which integrated all of a computer's guts into a single package. And in that room, Jobs saw what middle managers did not. He saw the future. Almost immediately, he told the designer, Jonathan Ive, that from here on out they'd be working side by side on a new line of computers.
Jobs was ahead of his time: he saw usability as way more important than speed and tech specs.
Jobs may not be the greatest technologist or engineer of his generation. But he is perhaps the greatest user of technology to ever live, and it was to Apple's great fortune that he also happened to be the company's founder.
Those computers that Ive and Jobs worked on became, of course, the iMac--a piece of hardware designed with an unprecedented user focus, all the way to the handle on top, which made it easy to pull out of the box. ("That's the great thing about handles," Ive told Fast Company in 1999. "You know what they're used for.") That single moment in the basement with Ive says a great deal about what made Jobs the most influential innovator of our time. It shows an ability to see a company from the outside, rather than inside as a line manager. He didn't see the proto iMac as a liability or a curiosity. He saw something that was simply better than what had preceded it, and he was willing to bet on that instinct. That required an ability to think first and foremost as someone who lives with technology rather than produces it.
People often say that Jobs is a great explainer of technology--a charismatic, plainspoken salesman who is able to bend those around him into a "reality distortion field." But his plainspokenness had force because he always talked about how wondrous it would be to use something, to actually live with it and hold it in your hands. If you listen to Jobs's presentations over the years, he comes across not as the creator of a product so much as its very first fan--the first person to digest its possibilities.
It's when Jobs has fancied himself the chief creator, rather than first fan, that Apple has stumbled. His much ballyhooed Apple Cube, which was in fact a successor to the NeXT cube he'd developed, was an $1,800 dud. Even before his hiatus from Apple, in 1985, his meddling and micromanagement had gotten out of control. But the years away reportedly helped him begin ceding more responsibilities to others. He became less enamored of tech for tech's sake. He blossomed into a user-experience savant. A reporter who asked Jobs about the market research that went into the iPad was famously told, "None. It's not the consumers' job to know what they want." It's not that Jobs doesn't think like a consumer--he just thinks like one standing in the near future, not in the recent past. He is a focus group of one, the ideal Apple customer, two years out. As he told Inc. magazine in 1989, "You can't just ask customers what they want and then try to give that to them. By the time you get it built, they'll want something new."
Jobs has been criticized for exhibiting a ruthless and arbitrary perfectionism, scrapping a product because it didn't feel right, because some minor feature like a power button or a home screen seemed unresolved. (He notoriously tore through three prototypes of the iPhone in 2007 before finally giving the okay; he berated Ive over the details of the USB port in the first iMac.)
But that interpretation is unsophisticated. A myopic focus on details can destroy as much value as it creates. (Think about how often you've sat through a meeting with a boss who harped on details, killing an idea before you had a chance to explain what it could be.) Jobs certainly did not destroy value. True, he killed far more ideas than he let live--there are more than 300 patents under his name covering everything from packaging to user interfaces. But those that survive outweigh all the rest. His focus was, continually, on what it would be like to come at a product raw, with no coaching or presentation but simply as a new, untested thing.
The most obvious example of this hides in plain sight and is a fundamental part of every Apple product. From the 1970s to the 1990s, if you opened up a new gadget, the first thing you faced was figuring out how the damn thing worked. You'd have to wade through piles of instruction manuals written in an engineer's alien English. But a funny thing happened with the iMac: Every year, Apple's instruction manuals grew thinner and thinner, until finally, today, there are no instruction manuals at all. The assumption is that you'll be able to tear open the box and immediately start playing with your new toy. Just watch a 3-year-old with an iPad. You're seeing a toddler intuit the workings of one of the most advanced pieces of engineering on the planet. At almost no time in history has that been possible. It certainly wasn't when the first home computers were introduced, or the first TV remote controls, or the first radios. And it was something Jobs was driving for his entire career. Again, from 1989, Inc. asked him, "Do you sometimes marvel at the effect you've had on people's lives?" Jobs said: "There are some moments. I was in an elementary school just this morning, and they still had a bunch of Apple IIs, and I was kind of looking over their shoulders. Then I get letters from people about the Mac, saying, 'I never thought I could use a computer before I tried this one.'"
A decisive factor that aided Steve Jobs was fortuitous timing. He came of age just in time to become a founding father of the personal-computer movement. And he was still young enough when he returned to Apple, in 1997, that his own instinctive sense of what a computer might become could be brought to life. In the 1980s and 1990s, computers were sold on their speed and technical capabilities. But by 2000, these features had largely become commoditized--it no longer mattered how fast a computer was when basic issues of usability and integration became paramount. What did speed matter if you didn't know what all the menus meant, or if you were hit with pop-up errors every time you clicked your mouse?
Before 1997, Jobs was ahead of his time: The computers he made were overpriced for the market, because he thought that usability was more important than capability. But as computers reached maturity and became a staple in every home, his obsessions became more relevant to the market. Indeed, many of Apple's recent signature products, such as the iPad or the iPhone, were ideas first conceived in the 1990s or even the 1980s--they had to bide their time.
Jobs is ahead of his time in other ways too: He has taught his entire organization to play in the span of product generations rather than product introductions. Apple designers say that now, each design they create has to be presented alongside a mock-up of how that design might evolve in the second or third generation. That should ensure Apple's continued success for a long time, aided, of course, by the tremendous momentum that Jobs's leadership has provided the company.
It's not clear that anyone else at Apple will possess Jobs's same talent for looking at Apple's products from the outside view of a user. Tim Cook, his anointed successor, proved his worth by revamping Apple's production processes and supply chain. That talent is vital to running the business and has increased Apple's profits by untold billions. But being able to break apart the nuances of sourcing is the exact opposite of being a usability genius: Cook's career has largely been spent focusing on precisely those things the consumer never sees.
Does Cook have an in-house product critic who could stand in Jobs's place? Will Cook have as close a working relationship with Ive as Jobs did? Will Ive even stay? And did Jobs create an entire organization that reflects his balance of concerns--for the back end, yes, but for usability first and foremost? The biggest risk is that Apple takes for granted that its superior design will forever demand a price premium. That might lull it into thinking that Apple itself is great, rather than its products. But Apple, all along, has only been as good as its last "insanely great" thing.
"What would Steve do?" has long been a mantra at Apple (albeit often unspoken). No doubt his example and presence will persist in the organization. The world's most valuable company has one man's vision at its core, in roots that go back 30 years. The unanswered question for Apple is: Who's dreaming its future now?
Monday, October 10, 2011
If a Tree Falls in the Internet...
I've been reading a lot about the famine in East Africa, and below is an interesting article highlighting the "full court press" of online efforts to mobilize awareness and, subsequently, action. This highlights questions I have about reach and results of online campaigns. On the topic of reach, I can't help but wonder if the only people that read the messages are those that are already drinking the proverbial kool-aid. Clearly online media is great for deepening relationships with existing supporters, but what about acquiring new customers. I'd love to know more about growing your online audience in a meaningful way - I've certainly seen gimmicks in the nonprofit community where we do "$1 for each like" and then I just force my friends to like our pages; but are they a meaningful audience or just people that hide our posts as soon as they subscribe to them. Additionally, I would love to see statistics regarding how "calls to action" online indeed motivate action. Last week I saw a quick stat that said that asking your friends to 'retweet' something will cause that message to be 'retweeted' 4x more than posts that don't make that ask. So that's something, but I wonder more about the results of actions that encourage people to make a purchase or a donation -- something that calls for real action rather than a virtual cut and paste. In "direct mail" we look at cost per dollar raised. What are the statistics that measure success of an online campaign? Some formula that measures revenue against audience? Clearly measuring friends/followers accounts for something...but certainly that isn't enough. I welcome any suggestions for resources on benchmarking.
http://mashable.com/2011/07/29/africa-famine/
http://mashable.com/2011/07/29/africa-famine/
New FB Tool lets you track how well your fan page is doing
http://www.brandingpersonality.com/new-facebook-analytics-tool/
Facebooks new analytics tool, "What people are talking about" is a great way to see how well your fan page is doing. The tool tracks metrics such as number of wall posts, likes, sharing things from the page, answering questions on a page, mentioning your page, and checking out your page. The tool also reports two new metrics that have never been tracked before - "Friends of Fans" which is exactly what it sounds like and "Weekly Total Reach", which reports how many people on facebook have referenced the page in any way, how many other pages have mentioned it and how many things on your page have gone viral.
The tool rolls up all of these metrics into a simple "What people are talking about" score which gives you an overall score on how well your page is doing.
Facebook and LinkedIn for recruiters
In the past three months, two of my colleagues have left the company for jobs found through LinkedIn. In both cases, neither of them were actively looking for jobs and they were simply recruited through their profiles. One went to Paypal and the other went to Google. I had been skeptical about the effectiveness of social media sites to actually find jobs but I have since been proven wrong.
Given that companies want to find the best talent it is not surprising that they are active in the social media space. It reminds us once again to be mindful of our social media activity as it can be both helpful and hurtful to our job opportunities.
Go here for the full article: http://mashable.com/2011/10/09/recruiters-prefer-facebook/
Sunday, October 09, 2011
Smartphone Usage
I recently came across an article on eMarketer.com that comments on Smartphones and what device implies about its users (http://www.emarketer.com/Article.aspx?R=1008626).
What is most amazing about this article is that you could have spent 15 minutes on a new york city subway observing individuals on their morning commute and reached these same conclusions. You'd likely notice that nearly everyone getting off at wall street or any other midtown location would be carrying a blackberry-- mainly because it's the only approved mobile device by their IT departments. You also likely find few apps downloaded to that device. When you are in a "work mindset" one of the last things you are going to do is download a facebook app or angry birds to your phone. If you are anything like me you'd reserve the app downloads for your personal phone.
So, Mr. eMarketer what does my cellphone say about me? Crack open my purse and you'll find my blackberry (for work) and my Android phone (for personal use). Due to company mandates you cant merge these two devices so I carry them both around. Do I count on two device "lists"? I'm still the same person. I've got the same annual income and purchasing habits. I'm just as likely to book a major trip, buy electronics, purchase apparel online, and consume media wherever I am. I'd expect that the landscape and personalities of consumers and their smartphones will continue to evolve especially if consumers continue to own multiple devices.
What's even more interesting is that instead of having one device to make my life better I seem to have way too many. At a recent conference I marveled at how heavy my bag was. Inside was the following: 1 blackberry, 1 android, 1 iPad (for taking notes), 1 iPod (for exercising) and 1 laptop (to log into company systems). I'm curious what eMarketer would say about that one? I'm either uber connected or just the victim of way too much technology!
What is most amazing about this article is that you could have spent 15 minutes on a new york city subway observing individuals on their morning commute and reached these same conclusions. You'd likely notice that nearly everyone getting off at wall street or any other midtown location would be carrying a blackberry-- mainly because it's the only approved mobile device by their IT departments. You also likely find few apps downloaded to that device. When you are in a "work mindset" one of the last things you are going to do is download a facebook app or angry birds to your phone. If you are anything like me you'd reserve the app downloads for your personal phone.
So, Mr. eMarketer what does my cellphone say about me? Crack open my purse and you'll find my blackberry (for work) and my Android phone (for personal use). Due to company mandates you cant merge these two devices so I carry them both around. Do I count on two device "lists"? I'm still the same person. I've got the same annual income and purchasing habits. I'm just as likely to book a major trip, buy electronics, purchase apparel online, and consume media wherever I am. I'd expect that the landscape and personalities of consumers and their smartphones will continue to evolve especially if consumers continue to own multiple devices.
What's even more interesting is that instead of having one device to make my life better I seem to have way too many. At a recent conference I marveled at how heavy my bag was. Inside was the following: 1 blackberry, 1 android, 1 iPad (for taking notes), 1 iPod (for exercising) and 1 laptop (to log into company systems). I'm curious what eMarketer would say about that one? I'm either uber connected or just the victim of way too much technology!
What Do Facebook Pages Mean For Companies?
As posted by one of my classmates, Facebook recently added a new metric to assess the success of a Facebook fan page beyond its "like" count called "people talking about." This new metric seeks to gain a more accurate measure of Facebook status for a brand and takes into account comments, posts, and activity related to the brand.
The top 10 Facebook pages in terms of Likes compared that with the top 10 for People Talking About are as follows: http://mashable.com/2011/10/09/top-facebook-brands-talking-about/.
Famecount provides detailed data on brand Facebook pages as well as brand presence on other social media: http://www.famecount.com/facebook-rank/Worldwide/all/Brand.
Ultimately, the big question is, how does this social media and brand presence translate to dollars and cents for these companies? Are certain fans more valuable than others? I.e., do they spend more and/or are they opinion leaders? Does social media work better for certain brands as opposed to others? Do firms who have products that can be purchased online see a more direct impact to the bottom line from their Facebook presence?
Obviously, as with any marketing effort, these are difficult and complex questions to answer, but I think it is fair to say that significant brand presence on Facebook and Twitter is crucial for most, if not all, consumer companies.
For those looking for a detailed study, take a look at this PDF: www.syncapse.com/media/syncapse-value-of-a-facebook-fan.pdf.
The top 10 Facebook pages in terms of Likes compared that with the top 10 for People Talking About are as follows: http://mashable.com/2011/10/09/top-facebook-brands-talking-about/.
Famecount provides detailed data on brand Facebook pages as well as brand presence on other social media: http://www.famecount.com/facebook-rank/Worldwide/all/Brand.
Ultimately, the big question is, how does this social media and brand presence translate to dollars and cents for these companies? Are certain fans more valuable than others? I.e., do they spend more and/or are they opinion leaders? Does social media work better for certain brands as opposed to others? Do firms who have products that can be purchased online see a more direct impact to the bottom line from their Facebook presence?
Obviously, as with any marketing effort, these are difficult and complex questions to answer, but I think it is fair to say that significant brand presence on Facebook and Twitter is crucial for most, if not all, consumer companies.
For those looking for a detailed study, take a look at this PDF: www.syncapse.com/media/syncapse-value-of-a-facebook-fan.pdf.
Saturday, October 08, 2011
How Sir Richard Branson keeps his social media alive?
There are a lot of well-known companies who treat social media as something new and mysterious. Business people of older generation used to run their businesses in a certain way and switch to online 'world' seems awkward for them. As it turns out, companies are more likely to create new departments with 'Chief Twitter Officer' and 'Chief Facebook Officer' ect to delegate those online duties to other people. But not Mr Branson. Although, he is a very experienced 'old school' guy in business, he still gets on with new online trends very well and approaches social media in his own unique way. Well, as usual.
Unlike other companies Virgin Group keeps Twitter, Facebook and Google+ equally active all the time. Branson himself posts a lot about his activities and events held by Virgin America,Virgin Galactic etc. He thinks that this is the best way to hear from his customers what they really think about the service. They inspire companies do their best in order to give consumers what they want. Also it is a very good opportunity for a company to catch latest trends in the field. Overall, Branson is satisfied with the existence of social media because it helps him to share what he is doing and hear comments on it immediately. Moreover, he thinks that this is also a very organic way to stay 'global', so talking to people is much more efficient than listening to managers and marketers.
Social media is also a very good channel for Branson to promote Virgin Unite, a non-profit foundation of Virgin Group. By creating an awareness about his philanthropic efforts, Mr Branson can tell other people that the business he runs serves good purposes. For example, Virgin America's Twitter channel drove lots of donations to educational charities in a very short period of time.
Virgin group also has its blog on the main website which is held my Branson. He thinks that an opportunity to talk closely to his customers as well as with new entrepreneurs allows him exchange feedback and new ideas for further implementation. Regardless of lack of time, Branson posts online constantly and finds this process very natural and organic. He says that if these thoughts do not come to your mind naturally, if you do not really want to share them with others, social media is not for your company. A truly 'social' company should be active 24 hours off-line as well as on-line, and only this can keep it close to people.
Unlike other companies Virgin Group keeps Twitter, Facebook and Google+ equally active all the time. Branson himself posts a lot about his activities and events held by Virgin America,Virgin Galactic etc. He thinks that this is the best way to hear from his customers what they really think about the service. They inspire companies do their best in order to give consumers what they want. Also it is a very good opportunity for a company to catch latest trends in the field. Overall, Branson is satisfied with the existence of social media because it helps him to share what he is doing and hear comments on it immediately. Moreover, he thinks that this is also a very organic way to stay 'global', so talking to people is much more efficient than listening to managers and marketers.
Social media is also a very good channel for Branson to promote Virgin Unite, a non-profit foundation of Virgin Group. By creating an awareness about his philanthropic efforts, Mr Branson can tell other people that the business he runs serves good purposes. For example, Virgin America's Twitter channel drove lots of donations to educational charities in a very short period of time.
Virgin group also has its blog on the main website which is held my Branson. He thinks that an opportunity to talk closely to his customers as well as with new entrepreneurs allows him exchange feedback and new ideas for further implementation. Regardless of lack of time, Branson posts online constantly and finds this process very natural and organic. He says that if these thoughts do not come to your mind naturally, if you do not really want to share them with others, social media is not for your company. A truly 'social' company should be active 24 hours off-line as well as on-line, and only this can keep it close to people.
Thursday, October 06, 2011
Steve Jobs and the creation of media we know today
A lot of articles have sprung up about Steve Jobs and the legacy he is leaving behind. Some question the future of innovation and technology now that the icon is no more.
I found this article in BusinessWeek particularly insightful about the impact Steve Jobs has had on the manner in which we consume media, especially music, magazines, and books. The article argues that the iPod actually helped save the global music industry, which was in decline by creating the iTunes store through which music could be previewed and purchased, legally. The article refers to the iPod as a “disruption” that although wasn’t the first in its category, was successful because it combined the technology with the content, making both available to the user through one platform.
The iPhone is referred to as a “ground-breaking” media consumption device, which created a new lingo of “apps” that everyone was racing to put their content on. The iPad, similarly, changed the way people consumed news and published media, choosing to read The Economist and The Wall Street Journal on their iPads rather than the traditional paper forms. Apple also disrupted the model Amazon has worked hard to set-up through it’s offering, the Kindle. Instead of using market dominance, Apple used an “agency-model of pricing” with publishers and retailers. Even though this model didn’t dislodge Amazon’s status as number one in the industry in terms of book sales, it certainly increased the competition.
In conclusion, Steve Jobs managed to disrupt and change the traditional ways in which we have consumed media, a change that will have considerable implications on how and what new technology is created next.
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/steve-jobs-and-the-continuing-disruption-of-media-10062011_page_2.html
As though there wasn’t enough to do already on Facebook…
Facebook now has a new tool. If you were just about using the “Like” icon, they have now included a new metric called “people talking about” as part of their page insights and analytics.
The statistic is featured on Pages below the “Likes” in order to incentivize Page “owners” to create more updated content that is more comment worthy, thus drawing more people to that particular page. In addition, the metric will also measure user-initiate activity on the page such as posts and comments or further sharing that page with other people. Even “checking-in” to the Page would be measured from now on.
Other metrics such as “friends of fans” and “weekly total reach” are designed to help digital administrators and brand managers understand better how their content is being viewed and shared by fans. All these new metrics will be featured soon under a “Facebook Gestures” banner. While this is good news for marketers to help understand the activity better, the metric does not (yet) differentiate between positive and negative feedback. Therefore volume is not the only metric they should be assessing.
http://mashable.com/2011/10/02/facebook-people-talking-about/
BI: The CEO Of Coca-Cola Reveals Why The Company Will Never Make Alcoholic Beverages
article can be found at http://www.businessinsider.com/muhtar-kent-coca-cola-2011-09
This short but illuminating interview with Coca Cola head Muhtar Kent is worth reading. It talks about managing a brand everyone knows, making it fresh (with vision), and thinking critically about the marketplace. Muhtar talks, specifically, about the ease with which big brands and successful companies can get caught up in simply maintaining the status quo. He also positions the relationship with the bottling companies of Coca Cola in a positive light. He is adapt at utilizing media moments to set and advance his agenda...whether it be shedding new light on an iconic brand, portraying a positive management outlook, or discussing a broad vision for the company (2020 Vision). Worth reading given all the case studies and discussions we have had at CBS over Coke.
Facebook login for Spotify
I was so glad to see this Mashable article on Spotify now requiring facebook login to use their service as this is something that really bugs me.
Yes, I'm a facebook user. However I religiously avoid facebook apps - I know there's already a ton of information out there about me, but I just don't see the point in linking it all together into one platform where my every move on the internet is tied to my facebook account (that's what Google is for). I hate websites that require you to login with your facebook account - its never clear whether they're going to post things on my wall, contact my friends, advertise to me or add me to their mailing list.
When facebook login first came out, I remember everyone being really excited over consolidating accounts - now you don't have to create a username and password for every site you want to interact with. But in today's world of phishing/hacking, do we really want one login to grant access to all those sites as well?
I'm really torn on this issue, but at least in the past I always had the option to log in with an email. Spotify's move to require a facebook login makes me nervous - is this the new direction for websites? Is this a good thing? I welcome disagreement and discussion on this, because I definitely could be swayed in either direction. See article below:
Should Spotify Users Be Required to Have Facebook Accounts? [POLL]
Posted: 26 Sep 2011 08:32 PM PDT
Spotify has come under a lot of fire for a recent decision to force users to use Facebook to sign up for its streaming music service. The change, made not long after Facebook’s f8 developer conference on Thursday, removes the option of signing up with an email address and a password. Instead, users have to use Facebook Connect.
Here’s how Spotify explained the decision in a statement:
“To us, this is all about creating an amazing new world of music discovery. As most of our users are already social and have already connected to Facebook, it seemed logical to integrate Spotify and Facebook logins. We already use Facebook as part of our backend to power our social features and by adopting Facebook’s login, we’ve created a simple and seamless social experience.”
Spotify goes on to explain that it believes the change makes it easier on the user, since they don’t have to remember yet another username and password.
SEE ALSO: Spotify Comes to Facebook [PICS]
There are a lot of people that are unhappy with the decision. The company’s GetSatisfaction account is filled with angry and confused responses:
“I just don’t get it. Before you had access to every user of the web, and now you are restricting membership to people who like and trust Facebook. If you want to make more money, improve your service, add better features and provide a better product. It’s the only way to win the freemium battle, not ridiculous moves like this.”
Spotify is trying to leverage the reach and power of the world’s largest social network to grow its user base and distinguish itself from the competition, but has it gone too far?
Yes, I'm a facebook user. However I religiously avoid facebook apps - I know there's already a ton of information out there about me, but I just don't see the point in linking it all together into one platform where my every move on the internet is tied to my facebook account (that's what Google is for). I hate websites that require you to login with your facebook account - its never clear whether they're going to post things on my wall, contact my friends, advertise to me or add me to their mailing list.
When facebook login first came out, I remember everyone being really excited over consolidating accounts - now you don't have to create a username and password for every site you want to interact with. But in today's world of phishing/hacking, do we really want one login to grant access to all those sites as well?
I'm really torn on this issue, but at least in the past I always had the option to log in with an email. Spotify's move to require a facebook login makes me nervous - is this the new direction for websites? Is this a good thing? I welcome disagreement and discussion on this, because I definitely could be swayed in either direction. See article below:
Should Spotify Users Be Required to Have Facebook Accounts? [POLL]
Posted: 26 Sep 2011 08:32 PM PDT
Spotify has come under a lot of fire for a recent decision to force users to use Facebook to sign up for its streaming music service. The change, made not long after Facebook’s f8 developer conference on Thursday, removes the option of signing up with an email address and a password. Instead, users have to use Facebook Connect.
Here’s how Spotify explained the decision in a statement:
“To us, this is all about creating an amazing new world of music discovery. As most of our users are already social and have already connected to Facebook, it seemed logical to integrate Spotify and Facebook logins. We already use Facebook as part of our backend to power our social features and by adopting Facebook’s login, we’ve created a simple and seamless social experience.”
Spotify goes on to explain that it believes the change makes it easier on the user, since they don’t have to remember yet another username and password.
SEE ALSO: Spotify Comes to Facebook [PICS]
There are a lot of people that are unhappy with the decision. The company’s GetSatisfaction account is filled with angry and confused responses:
“I just don’t get it. Before you had access to every user of the web, and now you are restricting membership to people who like and trust Facebook. If you want to make more money, improve your service, add better features and provide a better product. It’s the only way to win the freemium battle, not ridiculous moves like this.”
Spotify is trying to leverage the reach and power of the world’s largest social network to grow its user base and distinguish itself from the competition, but has it gone too far?
Tuesday, October 04, 2011
Too much advertising: the Laffer curve and the social media
In the seventies the theory of the economist Arthur Laffer was very popular. One potential result of the Laffer model (Laffer curve) is that increasing tax rates beyond a certain point would become counterproductive for raising further tax revenue. Isn’t it the same with social media? Isn’t increasing the social mediaa in our daily life beyond a certain point would become counterproductive for developing communication and network? Isn’t source of pressure, overwhelming and even stress? A kind of nightmare?
Every day we receive tons of emails in our personal, work and University mailboxes. Plus many text messages. And if we don’t check Facebook, Tweeter and LinkedIn we can miss something important! The more we check and respond, the more we are solicited. Like a never-ending spiral.
And trying to reduce or stop seems to be as challenging as trying to stop smoking - well I assume since I don’t smoke. Who has never received advertising emails on his/ her mailbox? But do you remember having asked for receiving these emails? And have you ever try to unsubscribe? Very challenging! First, finding the “click here to unsubscribe” link on the email is difficult. Usually when it is easy to find you are re-routed to a new page asking your Login and Password. What Login? What Password? And if you pass the Login and Password ambush, the process to unsubscribe is more difficult than getting a 750 score at the GMAT. So much information requested and you if you are not careful you will subscribe to more newsletters and emails instead of unsubscribing to the original one. Any wrong click will add your email to friend-websites involving more advertising emails in your mailbox tomorrow.
So please Mr and Ms social media advertisers, stop overwhelming my mailboxes and websites. It is in the best interest of everybody.
Sunday, October 02, 2011
The Growth and Unknown Potential for Augmented Reality
While Metaio hosted an Augmented Reality conference in Munich, Germany last week, the field is clearly continuing to grow in popularity, yet the potential remains somewhat mysterious and unknown at this time. Well, that's my opinion anyway. As more companies pop up with unique business models and fascinating, innovative, futuristic-movie-style ideas for the Augmented Reality (AR) industry, it's exciting yet tough for me to understand which areas of AR will hit the big-time and generate serious revenue and profits. I hope the market does not offer financial investment, accolades, and undue praise for "cool" and innovative AR business models that are not focused on generating true financial returns. As we all witnessed during the Internet boom of the late 1990's, many futuristic Internet companies raised significant cash and went public at insanely-inflated valuations because the market hype supported it. As the majority of those firms went bust and people lost millions (billions?) of dollars, a handful have survived and prospered over the past 8-12 years. Some of those that have survived actually had business models in the 1990's that yes, did in fact, focus on revenues and profits. And whether these new AR firms are started by college-age brainiacs or dropouts, or graduates of top business schools (like Columbia!), I hope they all have the good sense to draft their business plans with the same basic themes of growth, revenue model, competitive advantage (Greenwald!), scalability, and returns on investment.
Because without these essential elements, any business is doomed to fail, unless of course fantasy (or heavy risk-absorbable) investors continue to pour the $$ into the firms with hopes that one day, somehow, some way, there will actually be revenue and profits. Anxious to see how amazing Augmented Reality truly is, and who can creatively tap the potential (profitably, of course).
Facebook: The Future of Marketing
Hi guys,
I found this really interesting article on Face book as future of Marketing. Face book has approximately 550 million members, Hence the reason why face book is being valued at $50 billion, a number which is way bigger than its current cash flow and futures expected growth. It’s the number of members and marketing opportunities, which lead to such a high valuation.
http://www.littleandking.com/white_papers/facebook_future_marketing.pdf
Thanks
Mo Khalid
I found this really interesting article on Face book as future of Marketing. Face book has approximately 550 million members, Hence the reason why face book is being valued at $50 billion, a number which is way bigger than its current cash flow and futures expected growth. It’s the number of members and marketing opportunities, which lead to such a high valuation.
http://www.littleandking.com/white_papers/facebook_future_marketing.pdf
Thanks
Mo Khalid
Saturday, October 01, 2011
Fashion Brands Use Augmented Reality
The NY Times article, Brands embrace an augmented reality brought me back to a 90s classic film that I, along with every other high school girl across America, must have watched over a thousand times- it was called Clueless [and if you say you’ve never seen it, well, your lying].
There’s a scene in the movie where Cher, Alicia Silverstone’s character, virtually tries on every outfit in her closet to prepare for a big date (turns out the guy was gay, but that’s another story). A picture of herself appeared on her computer screen and she could actually see how her outfits looked on her without physically trying them on. It was brilliant. Why didn’t we have one? Why did we have to spend hours trying on clothes when Cher could just press a button? The idea seemed so futuristic to us back then, something out of the Jetsons. My friends and I would all daydream that one day, we’d be able to do that too...Well, as it turns out, that day has arrived.
AR, the acronym used for this technology, is a new trend that fashion brands are using to help customers visualize what their products look like on them without trying them on. Does this particular shade of red go with my skin tone? Will the cut of the trousers make my butt look big? Just take a look at the screen and you can decide for yourself. Customers can use virtual controls to adjust the garment’s position, change the color & size and show your friends [for approval].
The Financial Times recently reported that the AR market for handheld devices in the US alone was predicted to grow from $6 million in 2008 to $350 million in 2014. That’s a pretty optimistic projection. Here’s what we know: About 2% to 3% of all online browsers actually make a purchase, compared to 20% to 40% of shoppers that purchase offline. In addition, online return rates are unusually high at 25% to 40%, partly because customers have no idea what the clothes will look like once they’re on. These numbers led to the idea that if customers could get the ‘at the rack’ experience online, it could potentially change the way we shop. And so, the race to make the perfect virtual changing room began. From scanning booths to size-matching kiosks, the purpose of these innovative technologies is the same- to replicate a person’s proportions and encourage them to shop, both on and offline.
It’s true that AR will never be real – we won’t be able to physically touch the material and see how it feels, but I’ll take what I can get. Visualizing myself in an outfit by looking at myself on a screen is a great first step and I’m excited to see how this technology is going to change the way we shop.
Is Amazon As Smooth As Silk?
Amazon announced that it's getting into the web browser game this week with the launch of Silk which will be featured on the new Kindle Fire. I personally didn't expect Amazon to ever make this move, but given its push to cloud computing and Silk's split browser construct, it actually does make a lot of sense. The real win here for Amazon deals with the advent of super data collecting above and beyond what the retailer already knows thanks to purchase behavior. With an overlay of browsing behavior, Amazon can build even more robust customer profiling, which at the end of the day can generate more sales. The kicker for the consumer is that Silk uses predictive technology to pre-cache the next potential move for the customer based on usual behavior. Definitely an interesting move. I'll be interested to see how successful Silk proves in the long run.
www.mashable.com/2011/10/01/silk-smooth-amazon
www.mashable.com/2011/10/01/silk-smooth-amazon
Facebook 'Timelines' Trouble
Timelines.com, a site which provides tools for making multimedia timelines, has filed a lawsuit against Facebook. The company claims that Facebook's upcoming rollout of its new digital-scrapbook-like timeline feature is infringing on its trademarks and creating confusion for users of their service.
It was reported by Mashable that Facebook added fuel to the fire by replacing the Timelines.com Facebook page (http://www.facebook.com/timelines) with a redirect to a page showcasing Facebook's new timeline offering. If that was true, the Timelines.com page has since been restored, which would seem to indicate that Facebook is responding.
News stories on the topic are speculating that the suit may force Facebook to halt the "timeline" release. But at least right now, the information Facebook is putting out publicly seems to indicate that Facebook Timeline is moving forward as planned. The Facebook Timeline intro page doesn't mention any delays. I followed some instructions posted online about how to get a sneak peek at what my own timeline profile will look like, and found a notice at the top informing me that my timeline profile will go live on October 8th. Who knows, maybe Facebook figures if worse comes to worst it will just buy Timelines.com and put the issue to sleep.
It was reported by Mashable that Facebook added fuel to the fire by replacing the Timelines.com Facebook page (http://www.facebook.com/timelines) with a redirect to a page showcasing Facebook's new timeline offering. If that was true, the Timelines.com page has since been restored, which would seem to indicate that Facebook is responding.
News stories on the topic are speculating that the suit may force Facebook to halt the "timeline" release. But at least right now, the information Facebook is putting out publicly seems to indicate that Facebook Timeline is moving forward as planned. The Facebook Timeline intro page doesn't mention any delays. I followed some instructions posted online about how to get a sneak peek at what my own timeline profile will look like, and found a notice at the top informing me that my timeline profile will go live on October 8th. Who knows, maybe Facebook figures if worse comes to worst it will just buy Timelines.com and put the issue to sleep.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)