Yes, cats are manipulative. In fact, when cats purr, it means they are premeditating nefarious machinations with intent to destroy not only you, BUT ALL MANKIND!!1!
It would seem the credit crisis and subsequent economic downturn have stripped the last vestiges of hype and glitz from Ford's image. They're now engaging brand fans and prospective buyers in a very dressed-down, straight forward way (headed by the likable companyman Scott Monty). Social media is a perfect way to do it, and they've got the demeanor down-pat.
Will it result in more sales? Probably. The more consumer touchpoints you have, the more opportunities you'll have to listen to the customer and pitch to them.
Personally, I don't care if my followers pitch me now and then, but
a) mix it up. make the ratio one advert per 10 quality, humanistic, value-oriented tweets
b) be transparent. Some of those magpie ads in the article were a little misleading I thought.
b) be clever about it. I've never felt even remotely interested in any paid tweet because they're so crappy, or reduntant, or irrelevant.
I have personally used magpie for advertising, and with success. It's not as potent as pay-per-click (ala Adwords) because the intent to purchase typically isn't there. That's why marketing on Facebook is such a lame idea. Brands are only getting inbetween conversations with loved ones. Not cool.
While there are many mimickers on the scene (Plurk and Yapp come immediately to mind), Twitter seems to have reached critical mass - the Bandwagon effect so to speak. Everyone is on it, and if you're not, you're a crusty, cantankerous old person (no matter what age you really are). Big brands and small businesses are leveraging Twitter as a cost effective social media tool. News media like CNN are amassing huge followings. Pre-teens are on it. It has a more dynamic interface than instant messengers as well (heck, Facebook copied it).
And of course, the Twitter API is open source, so you're seeing funky new apps, hacks and features appear every day.
Google is king of search, but Twitter owns realtime search, and that's where the future is headed. It's what people want.
Totally agree. Yahoo's front page has to go, and they need to bring their awesome properties like delicious, Yahoo pipes and flickr to the forefront. That's where the coolness is.
Twitter provides realtime search. It shows intent realtime. It shows trends. It's faster than the news media and blogs, and, with a 140 character limit, it cuts to the chase. And it's growing like crazy.
MS and / or Yahoo should be looking at Twitter seriously. It's the real deal.
Amazon's product referrals, customer reviews and gazillion other algorithms to have people buy stuff would've helped sales. I can't possibly see how you could say otherwise.
And 18 weeks wait, when I was promised 6 to 8? That's flat out bad service.
I've recently self-published my book Zero to Superhero at Lulu.com, and the masterplan was to have it distributed by Lulu to Amazon.com, Barnes & Noble etc. One hundred dollars and 18 weeks later, and Lulu still hasn't had my book distributed to Amazon as promised. Or anywhere for that matter.
Saturday I discovered that Amazon will no longer accept books from other POD publishers, so even if Lulu were to finally act to fulfill their promise and my order, they can't. Lulu has yet to reply to my email asking for answers either, and the online help was useless.
I'm not sure what to do at this point. Most of my sales have been directly from my own website, but I would've liked to have my book available at the internet's largest book retailer as well (or at least my $100 back).
is that I'm a Sympatico enduser/subscriber and my internet service has been noticeably slower. I thought it was only a problem with my particular LAN until my professor stated in class his Sympatico service was slow lately.
We're talking noticably slow(er) pretty much every minute of the day lately.
Not since Pretty Hate Machine have I been so enthusiastic with Trent Reznor's Nine Inch Nails. I find his latest release an interesting, meandering, sometimes beautiful and occassionally grooving body of work. It's made me a fan again.
However...
there are two significant problems I see with this (and Radiohead's In Rainbows) otherwise brilliant execution of the freemium business model:
1. Radiohead's internet release of "In Rainbows" could've been a lot more lucrative for the band if their servers dolled out the files and accepted all the payments instead of quickly crawling into fetal position. The reality is many eager fans tried to pay Radiohead for their music (and symbolically give the bloated corpse of the traditional music market a bootheel in the ribs) but couldn't, because the website was felled by the massive demand. We're seeing the same tragic error perpetuated again with Ghost's, as fans attempt to pay via Paypal or some other mechanism and are rejected as if by the house of Mutombo. Whatever the cash intake for Ghosts ends up being (and I'm sure they will be amazing), it could've and should've been much more.
2. Ghosts(I) is good, but it's not great, and it's too short. More promising tracks reveal themselves when you listen to all four volumes (there are 36 tracks in all), but many people won't be able to make payment and download the complete Ghosts I-IV from the official website until tommorrow at the earliest. And if people forecast how good II through IV is based on what they heard on Ghosts I, they may not think it's worth downloading at all. My suggestion is arrange more listener-accessible tracks in volume one, and the more esoteric stuff as the premier content hardcore fans would pay for anyway.
Don't get me wrong. I think Trent scored bigtime with this internet launch/release, but I see these relatively easy problems throttling the possible revenue stream.
Copyright infringement is copyright infringement, not a crime per se. It may be an illegal use of content, but it's rarely considered criminal unless the copyright infringement is on a significant scale (or you have the distorted mindset of the RIAA). And that's a fact, jack.
The number of clicks on an ad campaign is also not strongly correlated with brand awareness for the ads' subject
On the internet, brand isn't near as important as relevance. That said, once relevance is achieved and the web surfer has a choice of web pages to choose from, then brand plays a more prominent role (ie: they'll choose a website they know over one they don't know).
As for the rest of the study's findings, I think you couldn't possibly convince a reputable marketer not to invest more money/talent/energy into online marketing. There's a lot of fluidity and change on the internet, but the upside is just far too great.
Amazing, NewYorkCountryLawyer is actually getting under the skin of the RIAA. I love it.
I guess the RIAA hate it when you lift up the rock from under which they dwell, and expose their churning, writhing selves to the bright sunlight of truth.
It only makes sense that Yahoo would embrace the deal. They've been in a downward spiral for years, and taking the money would be maximizing value for shareholders both in the short and long term.
Yahoo confirmed that it has received an unsolicited offer and said that its board would evaluate the proposal, "carefully and promptly in the context of Yahoo's strategic plans and pursue the best course of action to maximize long-term value for shareholders."
Judging by this blurb, I think the answer is going to be a big, fat yes.
I've authored the book Zero to Superhero, and the work is licensed under the Creative Commons "Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative" licence. It essentially allows those who buy a copy of the e-book to give it away for free to anyone (with attribution, without changes) but in a non-commercial context (it can't be re-sold).
I believe this is fair and adds value for the reader. Besides, those who purchase the Zero to Superhero e-book aren't hurting me (financially or otherwise) by sharing it with family and friends - they are extending my potential readership who may be interested in my future works.
Goodwill in this case means "an intangible asset valued according to the advantage or reputation a business has acquired (over and above its tangible assets)" and not a disposition of kindness.
I'm glad this went through. Maybe DoubleClick's practices and privacy policies will be more transparent now their part of Google. And from a marketing standpoint, I can see the contextual relevancy of advertising online become a whole lot more relevant to the user.
Would this work for written content, where if someone wants to use a portion of a book, they would pay a predetermined fee to do that? The only examples I see for CC+ are code.
Slashdot Mirror
When is Wikipedia going to be released in audio format, in whole or in part? Might be a worthwhile project for someone.
Yes, cats are manipulative. In fact, when cats purr, it means they are premeditating nefarious machinations with intent to destroy not only you, BUT ALL MANKIND!!1!
Get a grip people.
Will it result in more sales? Probably. The more consumer touchpoints you have, the more opportunities you'll have to listen to the customer and pitch to them.
Dying in a fire wouldn't be so bad, actually. Believe it or not, I've had worse things happen to me in my life.
I frickin' love the letter b. I tried to slip another one by you guys, get you thinking about b's all the time, but youse caught me.
a) mix it up. make the ratio one advert per 10 quality, humanistic, value-oriented tweets
b) be transparent. Some of those magpie ads in the article were a little misleading I thought.
b) be clever about it. I've never felt even remotely interested in any paid tweet because they're so crappy, or reduntant, or irrelevant.
I have personally used magpie for advertising, and with success. It's not as potent as pay-per-click (ala Adwords) because the intent to purchase typically isn't there. That's why marketing on Facebook is such a lame idea. Brands are only getting inbetween conversations with loved ones. Not cool.
Twitter has the advantage of having real-time search, so intent can be captured as it's happening.
You definitely can use contextual marketing on twitter and still look at yourself in the mirror each morning. You just gotta know how.
While there are many mimickers on the scene (Plurk and Yapp come immediately to mind), Twitter seems to have reached critical mass - the Bandwagon effect so to speak. Everyone is on it, and if you're not, you're a crusty, cantankerous old person (no matter what age you really are). Big brands and small businesses are leveraging Twitter as a cost effective social media tool. News media like CNN are amassing huge followings. Pre-teens are on it. It has a more dynamic interface than instant messengers as well (heck, Facebook copied it).
And of course, the Twitter API is open source, so you're seeing funky new apps, hacks and features appear every day.
Google is king of search, but Twitter owns realtime search, and that's where the future is headed. It's what people want.
Totally agree. Yahoo's front page has to go, and they need to bring their awesome properties like delicious, Yahoo pipes and flickr to the forefront. That's where the coolness is.
Twitter provides realtime search. It shows intent realtime. It shows trends. It's faster than the news media and blogs, and, with a 140 character limit, it cuts to the chase. And it's growing like crazy.
MS and / or Yahoo should be looking at Twitter seriously. It's the real deal.
Amazon's product referrals, customer reviews and gazillion other algorithms to have people buy stuff would've helped sales. I can't possibly see how you could say otherwise.
And 18 weeks wait, when I was promised 6 to 8? That's flat out bad service.
I've recently self-published my book Zero to Superhero at Lulu.com, and the masterplan was to have it distributed by Lulu to Amazon.com, Barnes & Noble etc. One hundred dollars and 18 weeks later, and Lulu still hasn't had my book distributed to Amazon as promised. Or anywhere for that matter.
Saturday I discovered that Amazon will no longer accept books from other POD publishers, so even if Lulu were to finally act to fulfill their promise and my order, they can't. Lulu has yet to reply to my email asking for answers either, and the online help was useless.
I'm not sure what to do at this point. Most of my sales have been directly from my own website, but I would've liked to have my book available at the internet's largest book retailer as well (or at least my $100 back).
is that I'm a Sympatico enduser/subscriber and my internet service has been noticeably slower. I thought it was only a problem with my particular LAN until my professor stated in class his Sympatico service was slow lately.
We're talking noticably slow(er) pretty much every minute of the day lately.
Not since Pretty Hate Machine have I been so enthusiastic with Trent Reznor's Nine Inch Nails. I find his latest release an interesting, meandering, sometimes beautiful and occassionally grooving body of work. It's made me a fan again.
However...
there are two significant problems I see with this (and Radiohead's In Rainbows) otherwise brilliant execution of the freemium business model:
1. Radiohead's internet release of "In Rainbows" could've been a lot more lucrative for the band if their servers dolled out the files and accepted all the payments instead of quickly crawling into fetal position. The reality is many eager fans tried to pay Radiohead for their music (and symbolically give the bloated corpse of the traditional music market a bootheel in the ribs) but couldn't, because the website was felled by the massive demand. We're seeing the same tragic error perpetuated again with Ghost's, as fans attempt to pay via Paypal or some other mechanism and are rejected as if by the house of Mutombo. Whatever the cash intake for Ghosts ends up being (and I'm sure they will be amazing), it could've and should've been much more.
2. Ghosts(I) is good, but it's not great, and it's too short. More promising tracks reveal themselves when you listen to all four volumes (there are 36 tracks in all), but many people won't be able to make payment and download the complete Ghosts I-IV from the official website until tommorrow at the earliest. And if people forecast how good II through IV is based on what they heard on Ghosts I, they may not think it's worth downloading at all. My suggestion is arrange more listener-accessible tracks in volume one, and the more esoteric stuff as the premier content hardcore fans would pay for anyway.
Don't get me wrong. I think Trent scored bigtime with this internet launch/release, but I see these relatively easy problems throttling the possible revenue stream.
Copyright infringement is copyright infringement, not a crime per se. It may be an illegal use of content, but it's rarely considered criminal unless the copyright infringement is on a significant scale (or you have the distorted mindset of the RIAA). And that's a fact, jack.
The number of clicks on an ad campaign is also not strongly correlated with brand awareness for the ads' subject
On the internet, brand isn't near as important as relevance. That said, once relevance is achieved and the web surfer has a choice of web pages to choose from, then brand plays a more prominent role (ie: they'll choose a website they know over one they don't know).
As for the rest of the study's findings, I think you couldn't possibly convince a reputable marketer not to invest more money/talent/energy into online marketing. There's a lot of fluidity and change on the internet, but the upside is just far too great.
Facebook has been evaluated at $15 billion, and it doesn't have a fraction of the heft in assets or brand equity as Yahoo.
Heck, I would turn it down too.
Amazing, NewYorkCountryLawyer is actually getting under the skin of the RIAA. I love it.
I guess the RIAA hate it when you lift up the rock from under which they dwell, and expose their churning, writhing selves to the bright sunlight of truth.
It only makes sense that Yahoo would embrace the deal. They've been in a downward spiral for years, and taking the money would be maximizing value for shareholders both in the short and long term.
Yahoo confirmed that it has received an unsolicited offer and said that its board would evaluate the proposal, "carefully and promptly in the context of Yahoo's strategic plans and pursue the best course of action to maximize long-term value for shareholders."
Judging by this blurb, I think the answer is going to be a big, fat yes.
Alright, let's settle this once and for all - a SCO vs RIAA cagematch for most hated entity in the history of Slashdot.
I'm almost starting to believe RIAA is the favorite.
I've authored the book Zero to Superhero, and the work is licensed under the Creative Commons "Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative" licence. It essentially allows those who buy a copy of the e-book to give it away for free to anyone (with attribution, without changes) but in a non-commercial context (it can't be re-sold).
I believe this is fair and adds value for the reader. Besides, those who purchase the Zero to Superhero e-book aren't hurting me (financially or otherwise) by sharing it with family and friends - they are extending my potential readership who may be interested in my future works.
Now if they can do something with their name... "Trolltech" sounds problematic, esp. in a tech industry.
Goodwill in this case means "an intangible asset valued according to the advantage or reputation a business has acquired (over and above its tangible assets)" and not a disposition of kindness.
Just thought you should know.
I'm glad this went through. Maybe DoubleClick's practices and privacy policies will be more transparent now their part of Google. And from a marketing standpoint, I can see the contextual relevancy of advertising online become a whole lot more relevant to the user.
But mostly because it pisses off Microsoft.
Would this work for written content, where if someone wants to use a portion of a book, they would pay a predetermined fee to do that? The only examples I see for CC+ are code.