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.
Sunday, August 16, 2009
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.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Week 4- Midweek Post
My Thoughts on Chapter 6:
Most of the chapter seemed like a review of the rest of the book and did not include much new info; however, the example companies were interesting.
To start with Johnson and JOhnson, I like a lot of the things they do. First the idea that you can no longer commit to advertising as far out, seems related to the idea that the consumer has control nowadays. This applies to the advertising companies too, the companies they sell to will no longer commit as heavily or long term as in the past.
I also found it interesting that they saved money when they expanded into multiple advertising venues. This seemed counter-intuitive initially. I liked the idea that they brought ad executives in to "extern" at Johnson and Johnson.
Lonely girl was interesting because it felt like barter. Johnson and Johnson supports the show and that is traded for space on Johnson and Johnson's page. This made me wonder if this could be where online advertising goes. In a way, can it go back to old times and barter?
AKQA: I found it interesting that the company helped Microsoft with developing software development and their digital advertising. As more and more advertising companies learn how to excel in the internet, this seems like a good way to gain a competitive advantage, by adding another digital service expertise.
Most of the chapter seemed like a review of the rest of the book and did not include much new info; however, the example companies were interesting.
To start with Johnson and JOhnson, I like a lot of the things they do. First the idea that you can no longer commit to advertising as far out, seems related to the idea that the consumer has control nowadays. This applies to the advertising companies too, the companies they sell to will no longer commit as heavily or long term as in the past.
I also found it interesting that they saved money when they expanded into multiple advertising venues. This seemed counter-intuitive initially. I liked the idea that they brought ad executives in to "extern" at Johnson and Johnson.
Lonely girl was interesting because it felt like barter. Johnson and Johnson supports the show and that is traded for space on Johnson and Johnson's page. This made me wonder if this could be where online advertising goes. In a way, can it go back to old times and barter?
AKQA: I found it interesting that the company helped Microsoft with developing software development and their digital advertising. As more and more advertising companies learn how to excel in the internet, this seems like a good way to gain a competitive advantage, by adding another digital service expertise.
Monday, August 10, 2009
Week 4- First Blog
I plan to read all the readings/videos this week since there are not a huge amount.
I have already read chapter six and will work on the rest.
I have already read chapter six and will work on the rest.
Saturday, August 8, 2009
Week 3 End of Week Blog
I'm going to comment quickly on the two video clips from this week.
First, on the James Surowiecki interview. I found this to be a far more interesting clip. First I liked how to discussed how little blogging there was post Tsunami and how people were disappointed with the bloggers. It seems funny that this could be the attitude about a slightly less industrialized area and still everybody is expected to be attached to their phones and computers. I also feel like now they would be. That the interceding few years have connected all areas.
I also like the thoughts of blogs v. news and who is reporting "real" news. There are always also arguments between the gossipy companies and big news companies. As much as I cannot believe I'm doing this, because I am so sick of the coverage, but this makes me think of Michael Jackson's death. The story was the biggest so far this year and it wasn't broken by CNN or the New York Times, instead it was broken by TMZ. This seems on par with the bloggers breaking the George Bush falsified papers. A large insult and probably embarrassing situation for the big news outlets. Also at my work when the rumors started, nobody went and turned on a TV to see the news, instead everybody got on Iphones and computers looking for into. One this shows you how powerful the digital media is and the fact people were willing to "work" to find their own news.
I was also interested in the ideas that while one blog can be totally incorrect, the large mass of them will normally be far more accurate when viewed as a whole. The ant circling concept was also scary, but seems to become harder and harder as the internet involves larger numbers of people.
On the Twitter video, I found it interesting that CEO does not feel it involves "news" per say. I have added CNN and Time to my tweets, and they are the ones I probably look at the most. I do feel that CNN could be doing a far better job getting stories tweeted as they happen.
I did find it interesting when he was asked about how to pay for Twitter. I liked the fact that he was saying that they would "find" new ways, this seems appropriate since it is a new phenomenon.
Final thought for the week: It seems ridiculous that on blogger.com the word bloggers is not recognized by the spell check.
First, on the James Surowiecki interview. I found this to be a far more interesting clip. First I liked how to discussed how little blogging there was post Tsunami and how people were disappointed with the bloggers. It seems funny that this could be the attitude about a slightly less industrialized area and still everybody is expected to be attached to their phones and computers. I also feel like now they would be. That the interceding few years have connected all areas.
I also like the thoughts of blogs v. news and who is reporting "real" news. There are always also arguments between the gossipy companies and big news companies. As much as I cannot believe I'm doing this, because I am so sick of the coverage, but this makes me think of Michael Jackson's death. The story was the biggest so far this year and it wasn't broken by CNN or the New York Times, instead it was broken by TMZ. This seems on par with the bloggers breaking the George Bush falsified papers. A large insult and probably embarrassing situation for the big news outlets. Also at my work when the rumors started, nobody went and turned on a TV to see the news, instead everybody got on Iphones and computers looking for into. One this shows you how powerful the digital media is and the fact people were willing to "work" to find their own news.
I was also interested in the ideas that while one blog can be totally incorrect, the large mass of them will normally be far more accurate when viewed as a whole. The ant circling concept was also scary, but seems to become harder and harder as the internet involves larger numbers of people.
On the Twitter video, I found it interesting that CEO does not feel it involves "news" per say. I have added CNN and Time to my tweets, and they are the ones I probably look at the most. I do feel that CNN could be doing a far better job getting stories tweeted as they happen.
I did find it interesting when he was asked about how to pay for Twitter. I liked the fact that he was saying that they would "find" new ways, this seems appropriate since it is a new phenomenon.
Final thought for the week: It seems ridiculous that on blogger.com the word bloggers is not recognized by the spell check.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Week 3 First Post
I have the feeling my posts will be a lot shorter and fewer this week with time restrictions with in-residence. I did all the readings and videos/podcosts since I was again traveling internationally and had time on planes.
Social Media Article- Left with the feeling that companies need to be very careful since once the ball starts rolling it can get out of control. In alot of cases it's actually better to not try to defend problems since the backlash may be huge. Transparency is also more and more important now.
Long Tail- I found it interesting to see the shear number of consumers in the "tail". Honestly, I expected more. Seeing this is the big idea and is mentioned by everybody else, I was expecting it to be one of the more engaging articles. It might be different to read the entire thing though.
Social Web- I found it interesting to look at the bottom up approach and the interactions between businesses. The shear amount of stuff that can be tracked with current technology is also interesting. I found the Ford examples interesting with the CEO blog. Basically, in addition to employee buy-in, now companies also need to work for customer buy-in.
Social Media Article- Left with the feeling that companies need to be very careful since once the ball starts rolling it can get out of control. In alot of cases it's actually better to not try to defend problems since the backlash may be huge. Transparency is also more and more important now.
Long Tail- I found it interesting to see the shear number of consumers in the "tail". Honestly, I expected more. Seeing this is the big idea and is mentioned by everybody else, I was expecting it to be one of the more engaging articles. It might be different to read the entire thing though.
Social Web- I found it interesting to look at the bottom up approach and the interactions between businesses. The shear amount of stuff that can be tracked with current technology is also interesting. I found the Ford examples interesting with the CEO blog. Basically, in addition to employee buy-in, now companies also need to work for customer buy-in.
Sunday, August 2, 2009
Week 2- End of the week posting
Today I’m going to discuss my impressions from two articles. But first, I’d like to point out that I wasn’t able to post this a few days ago because I could not prove to the internet in England that I was over 18 years old and this site was blocked. Pretty crazy when you think about how much American teenagers use these sites.
First, “Web Video: The New, New Thing,” I was initially amazed to see that a higher percentage of people watched advertisement videos than news or funny videos, then I realized the time frame was different between the two statistics. The fact that 15% of Google searches are image searches did surprise me. I wouldn’t expect this percentage to be anywhere near that high. I guess the younger generations must be more visual than I am. I am surprised that so many people successfully navigate the world of web videos. Personally, I am so overwhelmed by the shear volume that I will only look at clips which are recommended by friends. I feel that Barnes and Nobel has discovered a viable solution to this. Their Iphone application allows users to view books grouped not just by genres, but by best seller lists, book club recommendations, friend’s recommendations, and so for. Adding this feature to web video sites would make them far less intimidating for me.
Second, “Why the Groundswell, and Why Now,” which I found to be a very interesting article about the care that companies need to take when dealing with negative comments on the internet, and how these complaints can snowball. The most interesting insight was that the internet was not a sandbox that can be walled off anymore. This is not a fact that I feel like most people or corporations have yet realized. The other thought I had was how the instant price comparison provided by the internet will harm traditional gimmicks. Companies, such as appliance manufactures, would offer a deal where a customer could get a refund if they found a cheaper price in the next week or so. This was based on the assumption that the amount of work to do this was excessive and a customer would do this very rarely, but would assume they got a good price. This is still offered, but no longer seems viable in a world where a consumer can compare prices quickly on their phones while in the store. Companies need to come up with new strategies to keep customers when prices are so transparent.
First, “Web Video: The New, New Thing,” I was initially amazed to see that a higher percentage of people watched advertisement videos than news or funny videos, then I realized the time frame was different between the two statistics. The fact that 15% of Google searches are image searches did surprise me. I wouldn’t expect this percentage to be anywhere near that high. I guess the younger generations must be more visual than I am. I am surprised that so many people successfully navigate the world of web videos. Personally, I am so overwhelmed by the shear volume that I will only look at clips which are recommended by friends. I feel that Barnes and Nobel has discovered a viable solution to this. Their Iphone application allows users to view books grouped not just by genres, but by best seller lists, book club recommendations, friend’s recommendations, and so for. Adding this feature to web video sites would make them far less intimidating for me.
Second, “Why the Groundswell, and Why Now,” which I found to be a very interesting article about the care that companies need to take when dealing with negative comments on the internet, and how these complaints can snowball. The most interesting insight was that the internet was not a sandbox that can be walled off anymore. This is not a fact that I feel like most people or corporations have yet realized. The other thought I had was how the instant price comparison provided by the internet will harm traditional gimmicks. Companies, such as appliance manufactures, would offer a deal where a customer could get a refund if they found a cheaper price in the next week or so. This was based on the assumption that the amount of work to do this was excessive and a customer would do this very rarely, but would assume they got a good price. This is still offered, but no longer seems viable in a world where a consumer can compare prices quickly on their phones while in the store. Companies need to come up with new strategies to keep customers when prices are so transparent.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
