Slashdot Mirror

IBM hires outside advertising and marketing agencies to handle both their internal and external sales and marketing materials, including some of the research and the entirety of their branding. Their leading agency partner since the mid-1960's has been Ogilvy & Mather. This means that IBM's "outside counsel" is gravely complicit with enabling IBM to push forward these violations. (For more chronology, see http://adage.com/article/adage...)

P.S. Ogilvy & Mather personnel have previously been held responsible/guilty for things like embezzlement, misappropriation of funds from federal contracts, and various grey legal area misdeeds.

Is that all the Russians spent? Are you sure about that? Where did your figures come from?

RUSSIA SPENT $1.25M PER MONTH ON ADS, ACTED LIKE AN AD AGENCY: MUELLER

You can bet that's the tip of the Borisberg, too.

See when you try to minimize the Kremlin's spending on corrupting US "democracy", you appear to be either blind, very gullible or part of that spend.

Wrap another layer of tinfoil on that hat, buddy

How dark and dank a world you must live in, where everything is a conspiracy, and all people and corporations have no other motivation other than to see how much money and information and advantage they can gain on you.

June 2, 2015: Apple's Tim Cook Delivers Blistering Speech On Encryption, Privacy - "Cook lost no time in directing comments at companies (obviously, though not explicitly) like Facebook and Google, which rely on advertising to users based on the data they collect from them for a portion, if not a majority, of their income."

https://techcrunch.com/2015/06/02/apples-tim-cook-delivers-blistering-speech-on-encryption-privacy/

January 22, 2016: Google Paid Apple $1 Billion To Keep Search Bar On Iphone - Secret Sum Surfaced in Transcript of Court Proceedings From Oracle Corp.'s Copyright Lawsuit Against Google

http://adage.com/article/digital/google-paid-apple-1-billion-search-bar-iphone/302287/

Google Being the default search engine (which you can change) is a FAR CRY from Apple handing over data THEY collect to them.

So, is that the best you can do? Change your search to use DuckDuckGo, and STFU, Hater. You can do that in iOS and macOS.

Wrap another layer of tinfoil on that hat, buddy

How dark and dank a world you must live in, where everything is a conspiracy, and all people and corporations have no other motivation other than to see how much money and information and advantage they can gain on you.

June 2, 2015: Apple's Tim Cook Delivers Blistering Speech On Encryption, Privacy - "Cook lost no time in directing comments at companies (obviously, though not explicitly) like Facebook and Google, which rely on advertising to users based on the data they collect from them for a portion, if not a majority, of their income."
https://techcrunch.com/2015/06/02/apples-tim-cook-delivers-blistering-speech-on-encryption-privacy/

January 22, 2016: Google Paid Apple $1 Billion To Keep Search Bar On Iphone - Secret Sum Surfaced in Transcript of Court Proceedings From Oracle Corp.'s Copyright Lawsuit Against Google
http://adage.com/article/digital/google-paid-apple-1-billion-search-bar-iphone/302287/

Getting its name on the Android operating system was "a pure co-branding partnership," Parnell (*) says, adding that Oreo didn't pay for naming rights.

(*) Justin Parnell, Oreo's global brand director - http://adage.com/article/cmo-s...

Also, your link implies that the cameras use local storage

Not for very long. As soon as a smart criminal or two take the recorder along with the driver's money at the end of a ride, the next generation of such cameras will be hailing "instant uploading of videos to the cloud". And the cabbies will upgrade. They are upgrading already — credit card acceptance by taxis is rising. Though cash still remains an option, that too may be on its way out.

BTW, cities like New York have required data-collection from taxis for years — and now require the same from Uber/Lyft as well. Scandals like this will, no doubt, happen again.

At any rate, I can accept the opposition based on privacy — even if I still think, you are naive, if you think, paying cash in a taxi is substantially beneficial to your privacy. But anything based on the supposed "illegality" of Uber/Lyft is just nonsense.

And taxi companies are taxi companies -- they're not into selling your data to marketeering filth

Unless you turn off and disable your smart phone, when you enter a cab, tracking you personally is already easy — and will become more so, when the new generation of taxi equipment is adopted. To Uber, Lyft, or traditional taxis (as well as to any retailer, policeman, or passer-by) the WiFi and Bluetooth radios in your phone already uniquely identify you... Crap, it is already happening.

May as well ride Lyft and save money...

Bitcoin is a Cananadian global warming conspiracy.
Careful or you'll fry the planet!

Also - not convertible to Flooze or Beenz, so obviously a bunch of useless pikers.

Those claims are ridiculous in light of what actually happened:

Hillary Clinton, with her sophisticated, very expensive data analytics machine, won the popular vote by the slimmest of margins on Election Day. But Donald Trump, with his reality-TV-tested, carnival-barker sense of what people wanted to hear, was able to find a path through America’s Rust Belt to a stunning electoral college victory.

He did it by tapping into emotion, not by mapping data points.

Hillary's data-driven campaign:

Kriegel’s anodyne title is Clinton’s director of analytics, but it’s a job that makes him, and his team of more than 60 mathematicians and analysts, something of the central nervous system for the campaign: charged with sensing, even predicting, the first tinglings of electoral trouble and then sending instructions to everyone on how to respond.

When Clinton operatives talk about their “data-based” campaign, it’s invariably Kriegel’s data, and perhaps more importantly his models interpreting that data, they are talking about.

Hillary was clearly targeting individual voters and groups.

Curious that they are portrayed by the poster as some insidious master data manipulator...when as recently as 2016 advertising industry magazines mocked them for being "all hat, no cattle".
Several customers were quoted as complaining that their $16k monthly fee produced nothing of value except constant sales pitches.

http://adage.com/article/campa...

The entire thing is based on a six-year-old news article that estimates that 40% of Youtube's views are for music.

Then they follow that up with a bunch of garbage economics that purports to show that Youtube pays less money per song than streaming sites like Pandora because not all of those 40% of views pay royalties, and then conclude that making Youtube pay more money for the songs it does pay royalties for will make up the difference.

But you can rest assured that Trump himself will try to claim some credit. That's just how he rolls.

Will he take responsibility for the 10,000+ layoffs after encouraging supporters to boycott Macy's?

http://adage.com/article/cmo-strategy/trump-supporters-celebrate-macy-s-job-cuts/307381/

Well, if they were truly talking about Android phones... I'll explain:

First, see, the first image shown in the article itself. Then note that it has the following caption: "Verizon has offered to install marketers' brands directly on new Android subscribers' phones, according to agency executives. Credit: Courtesy Verizon"

Don't you just love advertising execs?

Yes, it's paywalled, so why use that link? Do you really think I'm going to subscribe to the WSJ just to see an article? There are plenty of other sources:

http://www.businessinsider.com...

http://adage.com/article/agenc...

I thought the idea of audio ads was interesting. I haven't had speakers turned on for years, except when I do something like running a youtube video. I don't like being surprised by irrelevant sounds when I'm trying to concentrate. So if someone out there is yelling at me right now about the best laundry soap then I'm unaware of it.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee rented the Obama for America list twice in April, services valued at $135,000, according to an FEC report.

US users value at between $13.62 and $37.98 annually, each. Even at 100 to 1, you'd be at .12*20 = $2.4M a year, and 100 to 1 is probably very low in a G8 country like Fronce.

You don't even need to be a government.

Snooping: It's not a crime, it's a feature

Facebook Wants To Listen In On What You're Doing

Big Brands Use Mobile Apps to Direct Offers as You Watch TV

Google looks to patent tech that listens to calls to promote ads

and people will stand in line for days to pay $99 and sign a two-year contract for this.

That said, people that treat Facebook as a requirement for using their internet services (dating websites are notorious for doing this) are scumbag douches that deserve to fail. It's the web, not Facebook, and you are overcharging and limiting your user base by doing this.

If you need people to use real names, offer the option of paying a $1 credit card fee on signup. That gives you real names, without the huge privacy invasion called Facebook, which is worth far more than $1. (estimates are over $17 per female user, and $13 per male user. Source: http://adage.com/article/digit... )

That's the NSA.

Tale of Obama: Davis Guggenheim and Lesley Chilcott, the Academy Award winning director/producer team behind Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth, returned to politics this summer when Barack Obama's campaign managers called them to produce A Mother's Promise, the ten-minute biographical film of the senator that aired at the Democratic National Convention and now appears on Obama's campaign site, which relaunched with a new design this week.

> Look for sponsored articles in the media soon
> about how ad-blocking is "theft" or "stealing".

No need to wait. They've been saying that for years, and they're pounding that drum louder than ever.

"As abetted by for-profit technology companies, ad blocking is robbery, plain and simple..."

http://adage.com/article/digitalnext/ad-blocking-unnecessary-internet-apocalypse/300470/

And this douche thinks the problem is with device makers and browsers. Yeah. It's Apple's fault that a Verge article is 9.5 MB and 263 HTTP requests.

>> Maybe they hired someone an paid $100,000 to do it, and he went and selected a different font in 30 seconds of work

Remember when Gap did that? I'll bet they paid more that $100K for their turd, making Google's font change a bargain!.
http://adage.com/article/behin...
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazi...

That's one good commercial, and its air time. Okay, maybe two

Um, Superbowl commercials only cost about $4M. Typical prime time adds are much less, by about an order of magnitude, sport.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=cost+of+s...
http://adage.com/article/news/...

This has been troubling me for over a year. Last winter I twice got ads for something I picked up at a retailer, never having searched it online, causing me to look up and find these articles.

Admittedly I've lived in very small villages before where there was no privacy, and I can relate to those who say that the idea of privacy is a fairly modern thing. But never in a village was there such a preponderous difference in power between villagers than there exists between individuals and the corporations who can now track our every move.

BBC http://www.bbc.com/news/busine... NYT http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02... Here is a video https://www.youtube.com/watch?... http://adage.com/article/digit...

After I posted that, I found this story about what really happened. It's an interesting read, but the tl;dr is that they did in fact totally revamp the business model and fire a whole bunch of people. They're bumping along as a smaller company with a less crazy model.

That may not meet the criterion for these fail lists; but it certainly sounds like a failure for some VCs. The company as originally conceived certainly no longer exists; but it sounds like the corporate framework is still there. It might still have a good outcome for people that survived the layoffs, founders, and some patient investors.

TiVo and Nielsen have had a relationship for some time, beginning around 2004. It's an opt-in system, so you would have been contacted by TiVo/Nielsen to allow monitoring of your recording and watching habits. Before the DVR, Nielsen used surveys and electronic systems from a segment of the population to generate data.

http://adage.com/article/digit...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...

I addressed it squarely. Advertisers don't get information from Google, but don't complain (much) because Google is so effective at targeting.

Yawn. http://adage.com/article/digital/amazon-apple-catch-a-break-madison-ave/291724/ "Apple might come out ahead of its competitors on data, if it would share. "It's one of the best in terms of data quality and accuracy but I think Google is a little more open," said Dan Grigorovici, co-founder of mobile-ad firm AdMobius, "

I repeat: Apple has better data, and Google shares more of it.

There is no time in my life I am less likely to buy some white pants, a toaster or a flight to Los Angeles than after I've just bought these items, yet that's precisely the time I see ads for these products or services.

In other words, digital marketing is a con. It's conning business into paying for technology. No actual value is achieved.

The lack of data both [Apple and Amazon] deliver is frustrating for marketers because these notoriously opaque giants sit atop incredible troves of information about what consumers actually buy and like, as well as who they are and where they live. One person familiar with the situation said Apple's refusal to share data makes it the best-looking girl at the party, forced to wear a bag over her head.

Microsoft has been caught selling DATA to advertisers, which is the worst offense.

http://rt.com/usa/yahoo-microsoft-campaign-political-862/ [rt.com]

No. They don't. Its obvious you haven't even read the link. You just posted some bullshit news link with a click-bait headline knowing most people wouldn't read it. All that has happened is political campaigns purchased ads (Protip: Ads are not data) targeting their voters.. Like they would on any advertising platform. So yeah.. just like what Google does. But hey.. I hope you've read up on what google is actually planning though... its no secret.

---

The architect of Google's display strategy is former DoubleClick exec and VP Neal Mohan. He told Ad Age that "we are working on a couple of things," but also said "there is no timetable" for what will be released and when.

  "If our vision is a comprehensive one, it needs to contemplate data in addition to ad inventory," he said in an interview. "We are working on initiatives to help publishers and advertisers do just that ."

http://adage.com/article/digital/google-readies-ambitious-plan-web-data-exchange/228637/

Funny how anti-ms trolls love to project the thing they hate onto microsoft when in reality other "web" companies (aka slimy advertising executive filled companies) are much worse.

Google will NEVER sell data of its customers...not because of any moral code, but because it is simply not profitable

LOL.. its funny to see google shills trying to repeat this lie...

The architect of Google's display strategy is former DoubleClick exec and VP Neal Mohan. He told Ad Age that "we are working on a couple of things," but also said "there is no timetable" for what will be released and when.

"If our vision is a comprehensive one, it needs to contemplate data in addition to ad inventory," he said in an interview. "We are working on initiatives to help publishers and advertisers do just that ."

http://adage.com/article/digital/google-readies-ambitious-plan-web-data-exchange/228637/

What's the point of this article, and why the comparison with Apple?

The answer is quite simply: http://adage.com/article/digital/mac-pc-battle-microsoft-winning-perception/136731/ (as linked in the summary) Title being: "In Mac vs. PC Battle, Microsoft Winning in Value Perception" which pretty much sums up the comparison to Apple.

TFA basically claims that Microsoft is winning ground in the popularity contest which makes the price tag seem more appealing.

I personally don't agree, as many others point out in here, (the majority of) people look at the price tag first and don't understand the difference from Windows 7 to 8. They just need something that works, and all they know is that others buy PCs.

That's pretty rediculous, $1.1 billion advertising two new products?! I always knew Apple was a marketing company but damn.

This could simply be because I haven't seen regular ad numbers before though. Does anyone know what competing products have spent on advertising? That kind of information would help make more sense of their numbers.

Samsung Launches Biggest U.S. Campaign to Date for Galaxy S III - remember this is US only.

If any Americans haven't yet heard about the new Galaxy S III phone, chances are that will change this week.

That's because Samsung is unleashing the biggest-ever marketing campaign in Samsung Mobile USA's history for the phone's launch, beginning this week. Although Samsung declined to provide specifics on spending on the phone, it's believed that the marketing budget for the next few months will more than double what the company spent on all Galaxy-branded products in the U.S. in 2011.

Samsung spent $142 million in measured media on Galaxy products in 2011, according to Kantar Media, up from $79 million in 2010.

So that would be about $300 million just for the Galaxy S III in the US for half of 2012 alone. That probably adds up worldwide to more advertising for the S III alone than for all iPhones and iPads together in 5 years.

That's pretty rediculous, $1.1 billion advertising two new products?!

...
Does anyone know what competing products have spent on advertising? That kind of information would help make more sense of their numbers.

Remember the original scifi-ish Verizon Droid campaign?

From that link:

The integrated campaign encompasses TV, out-of-home, digital, in-store displays and merchandising. New online interactive work breaking today includes a takeover on Verizon's homepage and a dedicated microsite, Droiddoes.com"

$100 in 2009 money: "the largest in Verizon history" back in November 2009. Compare to Apple and ..."wow" INDEED. Another tidbit:

The target market is the tech-savvy, early adopter young male in his 20s or 30s who cares more about functionality and productivity, and tends to eschew certain lifestyle brands that attract herds of followers.

The link is for the NY Post. The NYT doesn't block, but has a 20 article limit.

http://adage.com/article/digital/specific-media-ceo-talks-myspace-justin-timberlake/228494/

1. Buy MySpace
2. Have Justin Timberlake promote it
3. ???
PROFIT!!!

tfa url

http://adage.com/digital/article?article_id=148452

Since /. editors couldn't be arsed to make sure the link worked, here's a working link.

Correct article link

Perhaps the poster is still reeling from this YouTube video...

For someone who only has access to the free channels, I was really surprised when I realised this. I don't get it, the networks expect people to pay them good money for access to their channels and then suffer through commercials?
And these guys wonder how people have the morale to pirate their shit...

I just read the other day, but now I can only find this link, that there are studies suggesting that DVR's are actually good (or at least do no harm) to ads. Television Week: Study Says DVRs, Ads Can Co-Exist (television)
For those of you who understand Swedish: MMS (Mediamätning i Skandinavien) has some info on it, and they also encourage you to visit www.adage.com, I did this, and the results are interesting.

According to Ad Age this week: "Facebook, whose 2007 valuation of $15 billion has shrunk to about $3.7 billion, had 2008 revenue estimated at $300 million." http://adage.com/article?article_id=135440

But as the parent says, Facebook is an *extremely* useful site to its users. I have been doing interviews with British teenagers, and many of for them, Facebook *is* the internet - and their pub/ club/ youth centre. Would they pay £1 a month for it? Hell yes. And then suddenly Facebook has an income stream.

Yes, I'm aware the Facebook group "We Will Not Pay To Use Facebook. We Are Gone If This Happens" has over 2m members" http://www.nma.co.uk/Articles/38482/Subscription+model.html ...but to be honest I'm not sure I believe all 2m members of that group would leave. 1m perhaps. But as for the rest? It's a lot easier to join that group than to leave Facebook - I think they would stay, and suddenly Facebook is making £1m a month from those users. Plus spend less on bandwidth for those who have left.

We are at home with techonlogy and we are used to saying that *other* groups of people (e.g. musicians) have to adjust to the "new reality" even if they don't like it. Well, I would suggest that the credit crunch may bringing in a new reality which *we* don't like - but have to adjust to. One in which formerly deep-pocketed investors will no longer pay facebook's server and bandwidth fees for ever. And where we actually have to (gasp) pay for the stuff we want.

Does Facebook want to be free - or do we want it to be free? Well, sometimes you can't get want you want. Even on the internet.

That's not a lone example. Search with Google for "craigslist auto posting software". These are all paid Google ads:

• "CL Posting Software www.adsoncraigs.com The worlds Best Selling CraigsIist software. Works with new CAPTCHA!"
• "Craigs Works Must Try Us webtrafficus.com We do the work no software To Buy Best Service All Ads Guaranteed Up"
• TopPost Inc. www.toppost.com The Leader in Posting Services 866-895-6888 -- info@toppost.com
• Buy Craiglist accounts Phone verified accounts, hassle-free, only 4.95$/account . www.craigsup.com

We track the "bottom feeders" in Google AdWords over at SiteTruth. We consider about 36% of Google's advertisers, out of a set of 20,000 ad domains, to be "bottom-feeders" - no visible business address, or we have other negative info. If you download AdRater, our Greasemonkey script for Firefox, we rate the advertiser behind every Google ad you see and display a rating icon on top of the ad. (Yes, the plugin "phones home". It tells us lots of stuff about the advertiser, which we're interested in, and very little about the user's browsing, which we don't care about. The plugin is open source, so you can check this.)

With the information we have, it's painfully obvious that Google isn't picky about their advertisers. The example in the article is one of many, not a unique exception.

Google CEO Eric Schmidt was quoted last month as saying "The Internet is fast becoming a cesspool" Was he complaining, or boasting? Much of that is Google's doing.

"Blogs shift power from broadcasters to individuals"... yes thats good, but advertisers are also using misinformation on blogs, to create so called Flogs. So how many popular blogs are really Flogs? ... However many it is, they are definately trying to game the system, to get popular blogs which are really just flogs.

Advertising + Blogs + advertisers_with_no_ethics = Flogs
http://adage.com/smallagency/post?article_id=113945
e.g. "Sony and agency Zipatoni have come under fire for one of their marketing tactics for the Sony PSP. Sony has added its name to a growing list of flogs [fake blogs] including McDonald's, WalMart and Lonely Girl 15, that are being called out by consumers. This isn't the first time Sony has been caught and questioned about the ethics of its marketing practices."

What would happen to a politician that challenged the media? They would be torn apart in the press.

Palin, anyone? But why would the media support Obama at all costs? Why, did Pelosi promise the media a new Shield Law? Or is it that Obama is outspending McCain 3 to 1? Elections sure is good for bid'ness.

Will they start banning videos that talk about presidential candidates poorly?

Already happened to McCain mocking Obama — one of the videos by this ("computer illiterate") man's campaign was pulled by YouTube.

I mean, we can't have people inciting hateful thoughts about a candidate.

Yes, we can — it is not a crime to hate someone.

Making/using a pipe-bomb, on the other hand, usually is a crime, and there may be some justification in banning people from teaching others, how to do it.

You of course already know how a monopoly is broken because it happens so frequently. Y'know, cuz like... it's always in the news that our government breaks monothic companies like Microsoft or Halliburton into pieces to foster competition, create free markets, and promote options for the consumer.

Regardless, here is a handy chart to illustrate how Ma Bell was broken up in '84 and what has happened since. Stephen Colbert broke it down nicely here, although that link has been removed do to copyright claims by Viacom, one of our six global media conglomerates.

Thank goodness you can still watch it in Canada.

Of all the AT&T derivatives... we know Qwest didn't spy on us. So that's one.

W

Actually Slashdot ran this story about trends in commercial skipping. Odds are that he would have watched some of the commercials and probably no different than he would have avoided by changing the channel, getting a drink or using the bathroom.

It looks like much of the hiring was done in the marketing area, according to Advertising Age: Google's Hiring of Ad Folk Blamed for Missed Earnings Expectations

What Google is probably talking about in Congress is their trouble hiring engineering talent from other countries. Before you all start bashing marketing - Google is in great need of good marketers at this time. The engineers have done great work (obviously) to date. But have you ever noticed how many really cool features and applications Google has that only geeks know about? Google could do a lot better getting the word out to the larger public that there is more to their company than just search, maps, and GMail. They could use some good marketers.

At any rate, hiring engineering talent is probably a bit of a different challenge than hiring marketing talent.

The reason the N-Series PCs are more expensive, as others have noted, is because Dell gets paid bounties for customers signing up for AOL or McAfee, etc. They can't make this extra money from customers if they can't install this extra nag(crap)-ware. Personally, at least when it comes to desktops, I would rather spend the extra hour or two to build my own from parts I order myself (likely for less than I would pay Dell), and not pay MS or add to their claims at market dominance.