Today, I’ll talk about the CEO of Google talk and the articles “Googlenomics” and “Advertisers Face Hurdles on Social Networking Sites.” On the Google articles I was interested because I didn’t know that it was effectively an advertising site or was working it’s own style. I honestly may be a little behind here but I hadn’t even thought of my search results as being advertisements until I was told they were. It makes a lot of sense. I was noticed when our other classes suddenly came in with game theory and the Long Tail. I do like the fact that they also effectively do quality assurance with their quality scores. I really like the fact you get a penalty if the quality is too low, it’s a smart move on Google’s side since it should cause Google itself to have higher credibility with consumers.
For the CEO talk, I was interested to hear more about the mobile market being the big future, and hadn’t thought about emerging markets. It is amazing that everybody can access a library. That is huge in the education and honestly could do a lot to move the third world closer to everybody else. England was always known for having an amazing library system because they were all combined. So from any public library you could get any book at any library shipped to you. This huge cumbersome system will soon exist on everybody’s Iphones. Crazy. I found the idea of the smart TV to be awesome. I hadn’t thought about that, but if my TV could have items available that I like, that’d be great. I do like the fact that he admitted that no we don’t have the advertising answers for social networking now, but don’t discount innovation. I also love the idea of Google ocean. Not sure what it has to do with this class, but it sounds cool and I might look at it during my next study break. Finally, I find the idea of Google Blips finding uncommon searches and using this to estimate future actions. This would be helpful for multiple sites to adopt.
And for my final blog thoughts for this class, the “Advertisers Face Hurdles” article. I agree that the banner ad is not effective, or at least I avoid them. And out of principle alone, I refuse to click on an add that floats, moves, or hides what I’m trying to read. It seems like advertisers tried to take ideas that worked in traditional ads and just throw them on a new advertising venue. Advertising needs to meet the medium, and these are almost the exact opposite of this.
Friday, August 28, 2009
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Week 6- Second Post
Today I’ll talk about the Second Life speeches. First of all, the whole idea kind of freaks me out. I know that’s probably not the most accepting attitude, but its just weird to me. It makes me think of a trailer I saw recently for a movie about the Avatar taking over.
Anyway, moving on, I do think it’s interesting figuring out how to advertise in this environment. It’s similar to what we’ve heard all class of needing to engage the consumers. It seems like real advertising doesn’t work, but the idea of bringing in experts or concerts or speeches will get attention. This makes sense with a more discriminatory audience that doesn’t want ads preached at it. It also does take a lot of commitment from the company that it needs to be updated almost constantly. Honestly, I’ve almost found Twitter to be exhausting. I can’t imagine some of these people who have the largest followings who seem to update 20-30 times a day. That is more than I could handle on a regular basis and asking a company to do that will be painful.
I do feel like games are a good place for advertising. If its done correctly you would actually “use” the ads. So if you’re driving a car, it could effectively be an ad for that car.
As far as the concerns that you can make any group in a virtual world, ie people who like chocolate milk, but you can’t keep them to keep caring about each other for more than 5 minutes, it made me think of our HR classes. You need to give them a “war”, or a common reason to care, not just expect them to because they are similar.
Anyway, moving on, I do think it’s interesting figuring out how to advertise in this environment. It’s similar to what we’ve heard all class of needing to engage the consumers. It seems like real advertising doesn’t work, but the idea of bringing in experts or concerts or speeches will get attention. This makes sense with a more discriminatory audience that doesn’t want ads preached at it. It also does take a lot of commitment from the company that it needs to be updated almost constantly. Honestly, I’ve almost found Twitter to be exhausting. I can’t imagine some of these people who have the largest followings who seem to update 20-30 times a day. That is more than I could handle on a regular basis and asking a company to do that will be painful.
I do feel like games are a good place for advertising. If its done correctly you would actually “use” the ads. So if you’re driving a car, it could effectively be an ad for that car.
As far as the concerns that you can make any group in a virtual world, ie people who like chocolate milk, but you can’t keep them to keep caring about each other for more than 5 minutes, it made me think of our HR classes. You need to give them a “war”, or a common reason to care, not just expect them to because they are similar.
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Week 6- First Post
This week I plan to read all of the assignments except for "Now is Gone" and "The Online Advertising Playbook." This is mainly due to how much I want to print.
I also plan on posting early so that I am not competing with the MedNet assignment and assignments in other classes.
Today I'm going to talk about the Always On Chapter 3. The first thing I was amazed by is that Volvo launched a car with only online advertising. I can't really believe that. It makes sense to me to work adds for used cars but for new cars, its more surprising to pick exclusively online. This is due to the fact that I feel like alot more people shop for used cars online than new cars.
I also find that impulse buys online tend to happen while people are browsing so in someways this cuts the advertising in half. Companies do not need advertising away from and at the source since the source is the only spot.
I do wonder about fragmentation though. It seems intuitive that this will lead to more advertising money needed since there are more spots to advertise. Where does this money come from? Is it time to decide that the digital world has changed businesses enough that we should change the overall business model?
I feel that this digital advertising is such a hot topic right now that it is huge for a company to be on the forefront because somebody will write about it, and this is basically free advertising.
I also started thinking about the Dream House competition when reading about Home Depot, so laughed when it showed up a few pages later.
This did make me think of how TV in general is merging campaigns with online sites and in particular blogs. This seems to be happening in shows that focus on 20 year olds who grew up with computers. The TV shows that I can think of which have online sites that are merged with Web 2.0 engaged models are: Entourage, Lost, and the Hills. Some of these have extra characters and in others you can blog with characters. This also made me realize that its becoming very normal from TV, nightly news, radio... whatever, to hear TV or radio tell you to check their website for more or expanded information.
I also plan on posting early so that I am not competing with the MedNet assignment and assignments in other classes.
Today I'm going to talk about the Always On Chapter 3. The first thing I was amazed by is that Volvo launched a car with only online advertising. I can't really believe that. It makes sense to me to work adds for used cars but for new cars, its more surprising to pick exclusively online. This is due to the fact that I feel like alot more people shop for used cars online than new cars.
I also find that impulse buys online tend to happen while people are browsing so in someways this cuts the advertising in half. Companies do not need advertising away from and at the source since the source is the only spot.
I do wonder about fragmentation though. It seems intuitive that this will lead to more advertising money needed since there are more spots to advertise. Where does this money come from? Is it time to decide that the digital world has changed businesses enough that we should change the overall business model?
I feel that this digital advertising is such a hot topic right now that it is huge for a company to be on the forefront because somebody will write about it, and this is basically free advertising.
I also started thinking about the Dream House competition when reading about Home Depot, so laughed when it showed up a few pages later.
This did make me think of how TV in general is merging campaigns with online sites and in particular blogs. This seems to be happening in shows that focus on 20 year olds who grew up with computers. The TV shows that I can think of which have online sites that are merged with Web 2.0 engaged models are: Entourage, Lost, and the Hills. Some of these have extra characters and in others you can blog with characters. This also made me realize that its becoming very normal from TV, nightly news, radio... whatever, to hear TV or radio tell you to check their website for more or expanded information.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Week 5- Final Blog
Today I'm going to talk about two articles.
First, the chapter from Numerati. The first thing I liked was the definition of a "cookie", I honestly never knew what they were, and was kind of happy when later that night I had a website warn me that I had cookies disabled. I left it that way. I also found the concept of webmovers who move in group which are in sync was interesting in that it seems like in the end all this change may come back to demographics, just different ones. Being a Navy pilot I also found the research on p300 interesting. Like other articles have mentioned though, it seems incomplete. That we are looking for humans to not only process the data but to act on it. I also was a little disturbed at the thought that personalized data could be used to appeal to people who wanted anything, to include suicide bombers. It seems like some companies (fertilizers maybe?) would find this appealing and that regulations are lagging far behind the technological wave. I also wonder how much the shifting moves that are mentioned will make alot of this data far less useful.
The second article I will talk about is the smartphone. I did notice after reading this that I do get adds for San Diego companies through my Iphone app's. I also found it interesting that again digital innovation may be pushing the bubble with privacy invasions. I liked the fact that some apps email buyers their legalese, but it seems like legalese itself is so overdone that nobody reads it for anything. Maybe its time for a law making the small print large and to the point. I also found the apps that can locate you down to an aisle of a grocery store to be a little ambitious. My GPS on my phone is nowhere near that accurate. I also started wondering if I have a problem with getting adds that are based on my data. I like the idea of getting adds which interest me, but in the modern world it does make me nervous of identity theft and other identity based crimes. I also like the fact at the end that none of this applies yet because there aren't enough smartphone users. Maybe its just where I live, but that fact seems very outdated.
First, the chapter from Numerati. The first thing I liked was the definition of a "cookie", I honestly never knew what they were, and was kind of happy when later that night I had a website warn me that I had cookies disabled. I left it that way. I also found the concept of webmovers who move in group which are in sync was interesting in that it seems like in the end all this change may come back to demographics, just different ones. Being a Navy pilot I also found the research on p300 interesting. Like other articles have mentioned though, it seems incomplete. That we are looking for humans to not only process the data but to act on it. I also was a little disturbed at the thought that personalized data could be used to appeal to people who wanted anything, to include suicide bombers. It seems like some companies (fertilizers maybe?) would find this appealing and that regulations are lagging far behind the technological wave. I also wonder how much the shifting moves that are mentioned will make alot of this data far less useful.
The second article I will talk about is the smartphone. I did notice after reading this that I do get adds for San Diego companies through my Iphone app's. I also found it interesting that again digital innovation may be pushing the bubble with privacy invasions. I liked the fact that some apps email buyers their legalese, but it seems like legalese itself is so overdone that nobody reads it for anything. Maybe its time for a law making the small print large and to the point. I also found the apps that can locate you down to an aisle of a grocery store to be a little ambitious. My GPS on my phone is nowhere near that accurate. I also started wondering if I have a problem with getting adds that are based on my data. I like the idea of getting adds which interest me, but in the modern world it does make me nervous of identity theft and other identity based crimes. I also like the fact at the end that none of this applies yet because there aren't enough smartphone users. Maybe its just where I live, but that fact seems very outdated.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Week 5- Second Post
Here are my thoughts on chapter 4 in Always On. This was actually the chapter I found most interesting. I had thought alot about how marketing was changing as it moved away from TV but hadn't thought about how TV advertising was also changing.
I am interested in the Google Pay for Performance in that it seems more fair, but harder to predict. It also seems like too many metrics for measuring make it impossible to compare performance.
I hadn't thought about engagement in relation to TV and was curious as to where the responsibility will fall. If evidence is found that watchers aren't engaged in adds during a specific show, is the responsibility on the broadcaster to reduce the cost or on the advertiser to create an engaging add? Also, who drops who when its not working out?
I am interested in the Google Pay for Performance in that it seems more fair, but harder to predict. It also seems like too many metrics for measuring make it impossible to compare performance.
I hadn't thought about engagement in relation to TV and was curious as to where the responsibility will fall. If evidence is found that watchers aren't engaged in adds during a specific show, is the responsibility on the broadcaster to reduce the cost or on the advertiser to create an engaging add? Also, who drops who when its not working out?
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Week 5- First Post
This week I plan to read all of the assignments since there are a reasonable amount of them.
For the first post, I'll concentrate on the Kimberly-Clark video. I found some of the thoughts in this video interesting. First of all the overall move away from focus groups. These were seen as the sterotypical advertising tool, but it does make sense that as we get more information on what people are actually buying, it becomes pointless to ask them what they "would" buy.
I also know that the "virtual" stores are all the craze in many different forms, stores, cars, clothing, but I'd like to see data that shows they actually work. I feel like they may be a cool new toy that sounds great, but is actually just weird to the actual customer. That is how I feel, but maybe I'm the minority. I would never buy a product based on how it looks on me without seeing it first. Its just too weird and I am not that trustworthy.
I also wonder about the retinal scan. It seems like a great invention for marketers in that it can see where the person is focusing when they might not even realize that; however, I feel like this is another area that may push into privacy issues.
For the first post, I'll concentrate on the Kimberly-Clark video. I found some of the thoughts in this video interesting. First of all the overall move away from focus groups. These were seen as the sterotypical advertising tool, but it does make sense that as we get more information on what people are actually buying, it becomes pointless to ask them what they "would" buy.
I also know that the "virtual" stores are all the craze in many different forms, stores, cars, clothing, but I'd like to see data that shows they actually work. I feel like they may be a cool new toy that sounds great, but is actually just weird to the actual customer. That is how I feel, but maybe I'm the minority. I would never buy a product based on how it looks on me without seeing it first. Its just too weird and I am not that trustworthy.
I also wonder about the retinal scan. It seems like a great invention for marketers in that it can see where the person is focusing when they might not even realize that; however, I feel like this is another area that may push into privacy issues.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Week 4- Final Blog
Today I will comment on three of the assignments:
First the Monetizing the Net video: I liked the idea that you can't afford to treat the internet as a captive audience and this was the assignment I found most interesting this week. The idea that you can find exactly what you want is very limiting compared to past models. I also really was interested in how internet can change the scale of production for companies, like in the beer distributor example. There seems to be no limit to this to include international. I have bought a swimsuit on line from China that came as quickly as mail from California and was just as simple.
I was also intrigued by the idea of Trip Adviser and Hotels.com being linked. I never knew this and it seems interesting to piggy back off of social networking sites. I'm really not sure what I think about this. I also was interested in the push towards your friends opinions. I feel like this is very prevalent recently and every website is beginning to offer options to see what your friends/people like you choose or recommended.
The idea that mobile advertising is a big mine field seems true in that I am very averse to this because one of the big initial advantages of a cell phone was avoiding people calling to sell stuff. If companies want to move here they need to wait then do so slowly. If they push it, they will turn people off, like the first attempts to advertise at movies do. To this day that idea has not succeeded because consumers did not feel that it was "right". The idea of the generational devide on mobile ads was also interesting. Companies need to work to be careful to only send to a specific and friendly audience.
In the talk between the professors, I felt it interesting that the Wall Street Journal was seen as a success. It was also mentioned in the article. I don't know how they can compete against competition who is picking their info up through the AP and giving it for free. I also felt like the recording stopped early.
Finally, I found the "Economics of Giving it Away" interesting. First the idea the minority of customers pay for the majority was interesting. The "freemium" concept seems to be everywhere on the web and is actually feasible due to the shear size of the web. I also had thought about how venture capital drying up has affected small businesses, but had not thought about how it would also affect websites. It seems amazing, but not too crazy due to the amount of digital innovation, that the marginal costs of anything digital falls by 50% per year. Companies need to always be innovating in that environment.
First the Monetizing the Net video: I liked the idea that you can't afford to treat the internet as a captive audience and this was the assignment I found most interesting this week. The idea that you can find exactly what you want is very limiting compared to past models. I also really was interested in how internet can change the scale of production for companies, like in the beer distributor example. There seems to be no limit to this to include international. I have bought a swimsuit on line from China that came as quickly as mail from California and was just as simple.
I was also intrigued by the idea of Trip Adviser and Hotels.com being linked. I never knew this and it seems interesting to piggy back off of social networking sites. I'm really not sure what I think about this. I also was interested in the push towards your friends opinions. I feel like this is very prevalent recently and every website is beginning to offer options to see what your friends/people like you choose or recommended.
The idea that mobile advertising is a big mine field seems true in that I am very averse to this because one of the big initial advantages of a cell phone was avoiding people calling to sell stuff. If companies want to move here they need to wait then do so slowly. If they push it, they will turn people off, like the first attempts to advertise at movies do. To this day that idea has not succeeded because consumers did not feel that it was "right". The idea of the generational devide on mobile ads was also interesting. Companies need to work to be careful to only send to a specific and friendly audience.
In the talk between the professors, I felt it interesting that the Wall Street Journal was seen as a success. It was also mentioned in the article. I don't know how they can compete against competition who is picking their info up through the AP and giving it for free. I also felt like the recording stopped early.
Finally, I found the "Economics of Giving it Away" interesting. First the idea the minority of customers pay for the majority was interesting. The "freemium" concept seems to be everywhere on the web and is actually feasible due to the shear size of the web. I also had thought about how venture capital drying up has affected small businesses, but had not thought about how it would also affect websites. It seems amazing, but not too crazy due to the amount of digital innovation, that the marginal costs of anything digital falls by 50% per year. Companies need to always be innovating in that environment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
