Audi's Ad aired both online and TV in Japan.
Sunday, 4 May 2008
Funny But Creative Advertisement
They are not online ads... but very very creative!!! Let's all check them out.
Newspaper Online vs. Print Ad Revenue: The 10% Problem
by Scott Karp
How will newspapers shift their business center of gravity online the same way most have shifted their audience center of gravity? That is the question keeping every newspaper executive awake at night.
It’s hard to compare apples and oranges — a big pat of the problem — but the online ad looks like about a quarter of the screen:
So let’s say I wanted to buy a quarter page ad in the Sunday edition for each of four weekends across a month. A half page is 63 column inches, so four quarter pages would be 126 column inches for the four ads. At a half page rate of $1,247 per column inch, that’s $157,122 for the four quarter page display ads in print.
Those ads would run in the Money, Business, or Week in Review sections, so would reach people who didn’t necessarily look in the employment section. It’s difficult to compare it then to the $7,500, which gets you a 20% share of voice display ad in the online job market section. But given that the NYTimes.com has nearly 10 times the reach of the Sunday print edition, $157,122 vs. $7,500 is a pretty eye-popping disparity.
So for $10,000, you get a 20% share of voice on the homepage for a full month. For the same $10,000, you can also reach about 1 million people in the daily print edition, for ONE day, with a 10 column inch ad (based on open rate of $1,056 per column inch), which is about 1/12 of a page.
With such a disparity in how the New York Times values its print advertising and how it values its online advertising, is it any wonder that it suffers from the 10% problem?
by Scott Karp
FROM NEW YORK TIMES
How will newspapers shift their business center of gravity online the same way most have shifted their audience center of gravity? That is the question keeping every newspaper executive awake at night.
Bill Keller, the New York Times Executive Editor and excellent editorial emissary, made the following comment in an interview:
But the Web audience is growing at a great clip, while print circulation is not. And online revenues are growing faster, too, albeit from a smaller base. If the trend continues, there’s little doubt that — “eventually” — online becomes the main business.
Most newspaper executive use words like “eventually” to push off into a fuzzy future a transition that they know needs to happen sooner rather than later, but still find impossible to conceptualize because of the 10% problem.
What is the 10% problem? Let’s look at the New York Time’s numbers.
According to the NYT online media kit, here are the print and online audience numbers:
Online unique users (12 month average): 13,372,000
Print circulation - weekday: 1,120,420
Print circulation - Sunday: 1,627,062
NYT doesn’t report ad revenue for NYTimes.com broken out from its News Media Group (which includes mostly other local newspapers, but is likely dominated by NYT revenue)
Total advertising revenue: $483,594,000
Online advertising revenue: $51,000,000
Online unique users (12 month average): 13,372,000
Print circulation - weekday: 1,120,420
Print circulation - Sunday: 1,627,062
NYT doesn’t report ad revenue for NYTimes.com broken out from its News Media Group (which includes mostly other local newspapers, but is likely dominated by NYT revenue)
Total advertising revenue: $483,594,000
Online advertising revenue: $51,000,000
Let’s assume that the NYTimes.com has roughly the same portion of ad revenue coming from online. What you find, with some modest rounding, is that print circulation is about 10% of total audience reach, while online advertising revenue is 10% of total ad revenue — the economics are nearly the perfect inverse of what they should be.
But why is this so? Let’s take a look at NYT print and online ad rates, using employment as an example. Here are the print display ad rates for employment:
And here is the rate for an online employment display ad in the job market section of NYTimes.com:
It’s hard to compare apples and oranges — a big pat of the problem — but the online ad looks like about a quarter of the screen:
So let’s say I wanted to buy a quarter page ad in the Sunday edition for each of four weekends across a month. A half page is 63 column inches, so four quarter pages would be 126 column inches for the four ads. At a half page rate of $1,247 per column inch, that’s $157,122 for the four quarter page display ads in print.
Those ads would run in the Money, Business, or Week in Review sections, so would reach people who didn’t necessarily look in the employment section. It’s difficult to compare it then to the $7,500, which gets you a 20% share of voice display ad in the online job market section. But given that the NYTimes.com has nearly 10 times the reach of the Sunday print edition, $157,122 vs. $7,500 is a pretty eye-popping disparity.
Let’s try another print/online comparison. NYTimes.com also has a package called Employer of the Day, which gets you an ad on the homepage of NYTimes.com:
The homepage of nytimes.com is viewed by more than 1 million unique visitors every day. For Job Market advertisers seeking quick access to an extremely large audience, the Employer of the Day position can deliver a branded message twice per week.
Attract passive jobseekersThis position exists on the homepage of nytimes.com in order to attract jobseekers who may not be visiting nytimes.com specifically to visit Job Market. This provides you with an outstanding opportunity to woo potential jobseekers, who may be on the site to read articles, view award-winning multimedia content or use any one of our other services. By becoming the Employer of the Day, all visitors to nytimes.com become potential jobseekers for you to target.
Here’s the pricing:
Here’s the pricing:
So for $10,000, you get a 20% share of voice on the homepage for a full month. For the same $10,000, you can also reach about 1 million people in the daily print edition, for ONE day, with a 10 column inch ad (based on open rate of $1,056 per column inch), which is about 1/12 of a page.
With such a disparity in how the New York Times values its print advertising and how it values its online advertising, is it any wonder that it suffers from the 10% problem?
Of course, the New York Times can’t just go charging the same rates for online employment ads as it does in print. In print, no other channels reach the same high-end national audience — but online, the competition is fierce.
Still, it seems impossible for the New York Times or other newspapers to overcome the 10% problem without beginning to value online ads at a premium, the same as they do in print, rather than making online look like a giveaway by comparison.
Here’s a telling line from the NYT’s Display Advertising: Print+Online Packages:
Print and online are powerful, and complementary, recruitment channels; Job Market integrates both to provide an unsurpassed employment marketplace.
All of our display listings now go online for 30 days at nytimes.com so that you can recruit from two top-quality audience pools.
I’m sure it’s true that both audience pools are “top-quality” — it’s just that one happens to be 10 times as large — the challenge is to bring ad rates in line with that disparity in the face of fierce competition online
Online Ad Spend By Industry
Interesting summary of which industries are spending money in online advertising. Figures are US only and should widely differ per country, but it’s an interesting information giving editors an idea of what content should actually net advertising money.
The Online Ad Story in a Picture
April 11, 2008, 2:27 pm
The Online Ad Story in a Picture
By Saul Hansell
Sometimes you see a graph that tells the whole story. The one in The Wall Street Journal this morning showing the relative share of online advertising spending of the big players is one of them. (The data, from eMarketer, is below.)
The big picture is that the online ad market is booming. But the big portals that dominated spending in the early part of the decade — AOL, Yahoo and Microsoft — are all losing share, even though all of them have been buying up advertising companies. Social networking sites and sites further out the long tail are increasing their share of audience time, and thus ad dollars.
You might say it is like the big three TV networks after cable arrived. Except for one difference: Google. No cable network arose to sop up one-third of the commercial time.
So as we try to second-guess the mating games of the big Internet companies, this graph raises the question: Does combining two past-their-prime giants that are both losing market share really solve any problems?
The Online Ad Story in a Picture
By Saul Hansell
Sometimes you see a graph that tells the whole story. The one in The Wall Street Journal this morning showing the relative share of online advertising spending of the big players is one of them. (The data, from eMarketer, is below.)
The big picture is that the online ad market is booming. But the big portals that dominated spending in the early part of the decade — AOL, Yahoo and Microsoft — are all losing share, even though all of them have been buying up advertising companies. Social networking sites and sites further out the long tail are increasing their share of audience time, and thus ad dollars.
You might say it is like the big three TV networks after cable arrived. Except for one difference: Google. No cable network arose to sop up one-third of the commercial time.
Source: eMarketer
It’s not that we didn’t know this. Of course Google is booming and the traditional portals are struggling. But the numbers are stark: Last year, Google’s advertising revenue of $6 billion was roughly the same as that of Yahoo, AOL and Microsoft combined.
Google’s growth is slowing, but it continues to be a juggernaut. EMarketer estimates that ad revenue at Google will increase by 32 percent this year. That makes it the only one of these four companies that will grow faster than the ad market as a whole, which is estimated to expand by 23 percent this year. (To be sure, the uncertain economy makes any predictions especially suspect this year, but the relative trends appear stable.)
So as we try to second-guess the mating games of the big Internet companies, this graph raises the question: Does combining two past-their-prime giants that are both losing market share really solve any problems?
Eric Schmidt on the Future of Advertising
Eric Shmidt, the CEO of Google's point of view about the internet advertising future.
The Future of Online Advertising is Video
Emphasizing the importance of Video Advertising in Online Field
Ogilvy's New Media Guru On Online Advertising
Ogilvy's New Media Guru commenting about the Video Advertising
Monday, 28 April 2008
Tuesday, 25 March 2008
KTF`s SHOW a marketing success
KTF`s SHOW a marketing success
기사입력 2008-03-14 10:00
http://news.naver.com/main/read.nhn?mode=LSD&mid=sec&sid1=108&oid=044&aid=0000071843
A television commercial aired in February 2007 showed numerous sperm swimming toward an ovum in a lilac-colored womb. The ovum, upon accepting one of them, began rapid cell division.
Then there came the message: "The show begins in March - a show never seen and everyone has been waiting for."
KTF, the nation`s No.2 mobile carrier, adopted the previously taboo advertising scheme to stir curiosity about the new brand for its third-generation mobile telephone service, SHOW.
In 2007, the company started an innovative and aggressive advertising campaign in a bid to pitch the features of the SHOW 3G services such as video calling, global roaming and high-speed data service.
KTF, which was a distant runner-up to SK Telecom in the conventional 2G market, intended to transform itself into the top 3G service provider with the launch of SHOW on March 1, 2007.
None of the SHOW advertisements disclosed the name of KTF.
At the time of its inception, the nation`s 3G market was at an infant stage. The local telecom market was dominated by conventional 2G services represented by basic voice and text-messaging services.
KTF aims to jump to the first spot by taking the initiative in the nascent, but growing 3G market. For the first time in the world, KTF launched the nationwide service of High Speed Downlink Packet Assess, which gives higher data transmission speed and capacity.
The name "SHOW" intends to deliver its visual communication features such as video calling and data service.
"The 3G service has wide-ranging unique features, but what differentiates 3G service from 2G service most is visual communication functions," Shin Hoon-joo, an official of the carriers brand marketing team.
"The service offers as much fun as watching a show," he said.
The carrier came up with the name, SHOW, after 10 consumer surveys and brainstorming for nine months.
The word "SHOW" has a somewhat negative meaning in Korean, but the company hoped to grab public attention by creating controversy over the new name.
Its first ad featured world-renowned video artist Paik Nam-joon in a bid to deliver its key brand identity - innovation.
In subsequent ads, KTF also promoted the benefits of using 3G services such as video calling and global roaming - targeting families and lovers living apart.
In one commercial, a goose father - a man who lives alone in Korea after sending his wife and children overseas to study - has visual contact with his family members via mobile phone.
The company also has offered cheaper 3G handsets and competitive pricing plans so that people can use premium 3G services at affordable prices.
The prices of 3G gadgets and 3G services were cited as the major hurdle for the take-off of the fledging standard.
The new pricing programs include offering mobile internet service at discount prices. The firm also rolled out a new movie tariff plan which provides one free movie ticket per month and other benefits with its 3G users.
The movie tariff plan, which was launched in May 2007, was a hit, with over 200,000 people signing up for the service by the end of 2007.
KTF`s advertising and marketing efforts paid off, with the operator seeing fast growth in the number of its 3G users.
In April, KTF overtook its bigger rival, SK Telecom, in terms of the number of 3G subscribes, with its 3G users exceeding 300,000.
It took the company four months to attract 1 million subscribers to the new service, three months to have 2 million subscribers and one month to pass the 3-million mark. It took another two months to add 1 million subscribers.
The company swept top brand and advertising awards in 2007 for its successful launch of SHOW. KTF has been also inundated with requests for lectures on SHOW from universities and firms here and abroad.
By Jin Hyun-joo
(hjjin@heraldm.com)
기사입력 2008-03-14 10:00
http://news.naver.com/main/read.nhn?mode=LSD&mid=sec&sid1=108&oid=044&aid=0000071843
A television commercial aired in February 2007 showed numerous sperm swimming toward an ovum in a lilac-colored womb. The ovum, upon accepting one of them, began rapid cell division.
Then there came the message: "The show begins in March - a show never seen and everyone has been waiting for."
KTF, the nation`s No.2 mobile carrier, adopted the previously taboo advertising scheme to stir curiosity about the new brand for its third-generation mobile telephone service, SHOW.
In 2007, the company started an innovative and aggressive advertising campaign in a bid to pitch the features of the SHOW 3G services such as video calling, global roaming and high-speed data service.
KTF, which was a distant runner-up to SK Telecom in the conventional 2G market, intended to transform itself into the top 3G service provider with the launch of SHOW on March 1, 2007.
None of the SHOW advertisements disclosed the name of KTF.
At the time of its inception, the nation`s 3G market was at an infant stage. The local telecom market was dominated by conventional 2G services represented by basic voice and text-messaging services.
KTF aims to jump to the first spot by taking the initiative in the nascent, but growing 3G market. For the first time in the world, KTF launched the nationwide service of High Speed Downlink Packet Assess, which gives higher data transmission speed and capacity.
The name "SHOW" intends to deliver its visual communication features such as video calling and data service.
"The 3G service has wide-ranging unique features, but what differentiates 3G service from 2G service most is visual communication functions," Shin Hoon-joo, an official of the carriers brand marketing team.
"The service offers as much fun as watching a show," he said.
The carrier came up with the name, SHOW, after 10 consumer surveys and brainstorming for nine months.
The word "SHOW" has a somewhat negative meaning in Korean, but the company hoped to grab public attention by creating controversy over the new name.
Its first ad featured world-renowned video artist Paik Nam-joon in a bid to deliver its key brand identity - innovation.
In subsequent ads, KTF also promoted the benefits of using 3G services such as video calling and global roaming - targeting families and lovers living apart.
In one commercial, a goose father - a man who lives alone in Korea after sending his wife and children overseas to study - has visual contact with his family members via mobile phone.
The company also has offered cheaper 3G handsets and competitive pricing plans so that people can use premium 3G services at affordable prices.
The prices of 3G gadgets and 3G services were cited as the major hurdle for the take-off of the fledging standard.
The new pricing programs include offering mobile internet service at discount prices. The firm also rolled out a new movie tariff plan which provides one free movie ticket per month and other benefits with its 3G users.
The movie tariff plan, which was launched in May 2007, was a hit, with over 200,000 people signing up for the service by the end of 2007.
KTF`s advertising and marketing efforts paid off, with the operator seeing fast growth in the number of its 3G users.
In April, KTF overtook its bigger rival, SK Telecom, in terms of the number of 3G subscribes, with its 3G users exceeding 300,000.
It took the company four months to attract 1 million subscribers to the new service, three months to have 2 million subscribers and one month to pass the 3-million mark. It took another two months to add 1 million subscribers.
The company swept top brand and advertising awards in 2007 for its successful launch of SHOW. KTF has been also inundated with requests for lectures on SHOW from universities and firms here and abroad.
By Jin Hyun-joo
(hjjin@heraldm.com)
Internet Advertising Competition Awards 2008
These are the winners of 2008 Internet Advertising Competition Awards
-Smashing Ideas for Nintendo Picross Evolution (Best Ads the Client Did Not Pick)
-Xylem CCI for Jack Link's Warm Wishes Email (Best of Show Email Message)
-Mr & Mrs Smith for Get A Room (Best of Show Email Message Campaign)
-Critical Mass for SUPERVALU's Selection '07 Interactive Campaign (Best of Show Integrated ad campaign)
-Texturemedia for PENTAX Photo Gallery (Best of Show Interactive Application)
-McKinney for Wakey'z Website (Best of Show Microsite/Landing Page)
-i33 communications for PBS (Best of Show Online ad)
-RDA International for NIVEA FOR MEN Up 4 Anything Dream Week Contest (Best of Show Online Campaign)
-BGT Partners and FedEx for FedEx LAC Sales Team Intranet Redesign (Best of Show Online Newsletter Campaign)
-Mullen for Mobile Nuance Type Test Banner (Best of Show Rich Media Online Ad)
-Advanced Medical Optics, Lauren Kanner and Ignite Health for Reality LASIK (Best of Show Rich Media Online Campaign)
Let me update more on this once I find the related advertisings.
-Smashing Ideas for Nintendo Picross Evolution (Best Ads the Client Did Not Pick)
-Xylem CCI for Jack Link's Warm Wishes Email (Best of Show Email Message)
-Mr & Mrs Smith for Get A Room (Best of Show Email Message Campaign)
-Critical Mass for SUPERVALU's Selection '07 Interactive Campaign (Best of Show Integrated ad campaign)
-Texturemedia for PENTAX Photo Gallery (Best of Show Interactive Application)
-McKinney for Wakey'z Website (Best of Show Microsite/Landing Page)
-i33 communications for PBS (Best of Show Online ad)
-RDA International for NIVEA FOR MEN Up 4 Anything Dream Week Contest (Best of Show Online Campaign)
-BGT Partners and FedEx for FedEx LAC Sales Team Intranet Redesign (Best of Show Online Newsletter Campaign)
-Mullen for Mobile Nuance Type Test Banner (Best of Show Rich Media Online Ad)
-Advanced Medical Optics, Lauren Kanner and Ignite Health for Reality LASIK (Best of Show Rich Media Online Campaign)
Let me update more on this once I find the related advertisings.
Wednesday, 5 March 2008
Internet Video: Advertising Experiments and Exploding Content
As proof that the Internet video revolution is truly underway, Google paid $1.65 billion for YouTube, a company not 20 months old. The aftershock of that mash-up will, all by itself, contribute to Internet video's growth. In addition, eMarketer projects video ad spending will soar 82.2% this year and 89.0% in 2007.
Attention: Advertising Agencies, Marketers, Television and Cable Executives, Film, Video and Music Producers, Newscasters and Movie Distributors.
The Internet Video report analyzes the fastest growing—and perhaps most important and far reaching—trend online today.
As elements of television and the Internet converge for both advertising and content, testing new methods of video delivery and marketing are more the rule than full-play campaigns. In other words, spending is low.
But here are some numbers to take to the bank.
Though Internet video ad spending represent only 0.6% of TV ad budgets this year, large spending gains for Internet video advertising are down the road—and not too far.
By 2010, one in ten dollars devoted to Internet advertising will go for video placements.
Key questions the "Internet Video" report answers:
What factors most support the spread of Internet video advertising?
How well do TV commercials translate to the Web?
Can you estimate how much Internet video ads cost?
Will the Google-YouTube combination help or hurt online video?
What are the essential elements for effective video ads?
And many more...
eMarketer Reports—On-Target and Up-to-Date
The Internet Video report aggregates the latest data from leading marketing and communications researchers with eMarketer numbers, projections and analysis to provide the information you need to make the right business decision—every time.
Internet Video: Advertising Experiments and Exploding Content
As proof that the Internet video revolution is truly underway, Google paid $1.65 billion for YouTube, a company not 20 months old. The aftershock of that mash-up will, all by itself, contribute to Internet video's growth. In addition, eMarketer projects video ad spending will soar 82.2% this year and 89.0% in 2007.
Attention: Advertising Agencies, Marketers, Television and Cable Executives, Film, Video and Music Producers, Newscasters and Movie Distributors.
The Internet Video report analyzes the fastest growing—and perhaps most important and far reaching—trend online today.
As elements of television and the Internet converge for both advertising and content, testing new methods of video delivery and marketing are more the rule than full-play campaigns. In other words, spending is low.
But here are some numbers to take to the bank.
Though Internet video ad spending represent only 0.6% of TV ad budgets this year, large spending gains for Internet video advertising are down the road—and not too far.
By 2010, one in ten dollars devoted to Internet advertising will go for video placements.
Key questions the "Internet Video" report answers:
What factors most support the spread of Internet video advertising?
How well do TV commercials translate to the Web?
Can you estimate how much Internet video ads cost?
Will the Google-YouTube combination help or hurt online video?
What are the essential elements for effective video ads?
And many more...
eMarketer Reports—On-Target and Up-to-Date
The Internet Video report aggregates the latest data from leading marketing and communications researchers with eMarketer numbers, projections and analysis to provide the information you need to make the right business decision—every time.
Companies struggling to find widget advertising strategy, ROI
Panel details bevy of challenges facing emerging viral marketing methods
By Heather Havenstein
March 4, 2008 (Computerworld)
SAN DIEGO --
Last week, Walker Fenton, general manager of syndication services at NewsGator Technologies Inc., met separately with officials from Home Depot, Staples and Best Buy to discuss online advertising sales strategies. Each of the retailers is still struggling to develop use cases and an ROI for online advertising, he noted.
"They still don't get the online advertising space," Fenton said. "They don't know how to monetize or build ROI use cases around a number of impressions on a Web site to sales in the store."
Fenton noted that each of the companies he spoke to remains reluctant to move away from advertising via newspaper fliers, where responses can be easily measured by analyzing sales in stores in a zip code where ads run.
Companies that create or distribute widgets -- mini-applications that can be used as advertisements that can be posted to user blogs or personalized Web pages -- are working hard to overcome such prejudices, according to executives of companies that distribute widgets who were on a panel at the Graphing Social Patterns West 2008 conference here last night.
Makers of widgets, which often rely on users to spread a campaign message "virally," face more challenges than just proving an ROI for their products. They must also deal with the common misconception that widgets quickly spread like wildfire on the Web and cause companies to give up the tight control over their marketing messages.
"From a technical perspective, you can monitor and report on just about anything under the sun -- where a widget lives, how it go there how many people have seen it," Fenton added. "There is a real education gap ... in trying to tie that into some metric that [advertisers] can build an ROI on."
Pam Webber, vice president of marketing at online widget marketplace Widgetbox Inc., said that companies must be willing to give up some control over issues like where their widget advertisements appear to effectively use the technology.
"The consumer owns your brand," she said. "The more tools you can give them to evangelize the brand, the more successful your marketing efforts will be."
Ben Pashman, vice president of business development at widget distribution and tracking company Gigya Inc., said that companies seeking to use widgets for advertising must first create plans for an end-to-end marketing campaign. Just like any other advertising campaign, companies must have a clear understanding of widget-based marketing concepts, the process of distributing widgets and how to measure success, he added.
"If any one of those three are not completely thought out ahead of time, it is destined to fail," Pashman said.
NewsGator's Fenton added that a successful widget strategy requires that companies identify the "top one or two things that people come to your [Web] site for and then you let them take it away."
For example, if a company's top function is search, then they can create a widget that allows users to make search portable; sites that focus on publishing content need to build a widget to allow users to post that content at various Web locales.
"A widget is just an extension of your Web site," he noted. "It is a little window into your content, your brand."
Another important strategy is not to fall into the common misconception that every widget created will immediately spread like wildfire over the Web, noted Hooman Radfur, founder and CEO of Clearspring Technologies Inc. "If your site is getting 100,000 unique visitors a month, you want to gauge the success of your widget relative to that," he added.
Moreover, many companies mistakenly assume that no matter what type of widget they create, that it will flourish on social Web sites, Pashman said. For example, many companies are eager to create a weekly circular type of advertisement and then try to get users to post it on Facebook, he noted. However, this type of ad would be better suited as a desktop widget, he noted.
"There is no reason why [a Facebook user's] friends are going to think they're cool or will be entertained by a widget that has daily or weekly specials," he said.
By Heather Havenstein
March 4, 2008 (Computerworld)
SAN DIEGO --
Last week, Walker Fenton, general manager of syndication services at NewsGator Technologies Inc., met separately with officials from Home Depot, Staples and Best Buy to discuss online advertising sales strategies. Each of the retailers is still struggling to develop use cases and an ROI for online advertising, he noted.
"They still don't get the online advertising space," Fenton said. "They don't know how to monetize or build ROI use cases around a number of impressions on a Web site to sales in the store."
Fenton noted that each of the companies he spoke to remains reluctant to move away from advertising via newspaper fliers, where responses can be easily measured by analyzing sales in stores in a zip code where ads run.
Companies that create or distribute widgets -- mini-applications that can be used as advertisements that can be posted to user blogs or personalized Web pages -- are working hard to overcome such prejudices, according to executives of companies that distribute widgets who were on a panel at the Graphing Social Patterns West 2008 conference here last night.
Makers of widgets, which often rely on users to spread a campaign message "virally," face more challenges than just proving an ROI for their products. They must also deal with the common misconception that widgets quickly spread like wildfire on the Web and cause companies to give up the tight control over their marketing messages.
"From a technical perspective, you can monitor and report on just about anything under the sun -- where a widget lives, how it go there how many people have seen it," Fenton added. "There is a real education gap ... in trying to tie that into some metric that [advertisers] can build an ROI on."
Pam Webber, vice president of marketing at online widget marketplace Widgetbox Inc., said that companies must be willing to give up some control over issues like where their widget advertisements appear to effectively use the technology.
"The consumer owns your brand," she said. "The more tools you can give them to evangelize the brand, the more successful your marketing efforts will be."
Ben Pashman, vice president of business development at widget distribution and tracking company Gigya Inc., said that companies seeking to use widgets for advertising must first create plans for an end-to-end marketing campaign. Just like any other advertising campaign, companies must have a clear understanding of widget-based marketing concepts, the process of distributing widgets and how to measure success, he added.
"If any one of those three are not completely thought out ahead of time, it is destined to fail," Pashman said.
NewsGator's Fenton added that a successful widget strategy requires that companies identify the "top one or two things that people come to your [Web] site for and then you let them take it away."
For example, if a company's top function is search, then they can create a widget that allows users to make search portable; sites that focus on publishing content need to build a widget to allow users to post that content at various Web locales.
"A widget is just an extension of your Web site," he noted. "It is a little window into your content, your brand."
Another important strategy is not to fall into the common misconception that every widget created will immediately spread like wildfire over the Web, noted Hooman Radfur, founder and CEO of Clearspring Technologies Inc. "If your site is getting 100,000 unique visitors a month, you want to gauge the success of your widget relative to that," he added.
Moreover, many companies mistakenly assume that no matter what type of widget they create, that it will flourish on social Web sites, Pashman said. For example, many companies are eager to create a weekly circular type of advertisement and then try to get users to post it on Facebook, he noted. However, this type of ad would be better suited as a desktop widget, he noted.
"There is no reason why [a Facebook user's] friends are going to think they're cool or will be entertained by a widget that has daily or weekly specials," he said.
Tuesday, 26 February 2008
Apple agonistes
Apple agonistes
Posted by Charles Cooper 5 comments
Steve Jobs: What, me worry?
Browsing the headlines on Yahoo Finance this morning was enough to make anyone briefly consider jumping out the window. To wit:
• Job worries sink consumer confidence
• S&P: U.S. home prices down sharply
• U.S. home foreclosures soar in January
• Harsh light shines on iPhone, iPod sales
So here's the multiple choice test: Which headline does not fit with the rest? If you chose letter "D" you win a dream date with my colleague Michael Kanellos (No worries: Kanellos is off reporting on start-ups in Ireland this week, and so you're safe.)
I have to confess that the depth of emotion punctuating the "whither Apple" debate never ceases to baffle me. Throughout its history, Apple has always received more than its fair share of scrutiny. The commentary has usually been marked by extremes, pro and con, between the bulls and bears. That just went with the territory. And now a new element has been injected into the debate over Apple's prospects: recession. On Monday, my ZDNET colleague, Larry Dignan, wrote eloqently about Apple: the angst versus the reality. And he's right in many respects.
What with home foreclosures on the rise, crude oil prices breaking record highs, and the banking industry in its deepest crisis since the S&L mess of the early 1990s, there's enough to worry even the most Panglossian optimist in the crowd. And so in the last couple of months, Apple shares have plummeted from the $200 level late last year to under $120.
Which side has it right? Based upon the current stock price, you have to go with the bears--at least until the free fall ends. The gist of their argument is as follows:
• Apple doesn't have any upside surprises coming off one of its biggest product cycles.
• Sales of iPhones are said to be coming up short of expectations, while the number of people unlocking the devices is higher than anticipated.
• There are increasing signs of iPod saturation.
• With the economy worsening, why assume strong demand for (relatively) expensive Apple electronics products will continue?
Eric Savitz from Barrons has a good synopsis of the current concerns being articulated by analysts at Bernstein Research, J.P. Morgan, and Morgan Stanley.
The problem I have with the bears is that they've been wrong for much of the last three years. Everyone knows that the iPod is maturing. That's yesterday's news. In fact, Piper Jaffrey analyst Gene Munster believes the debut of the iPod touch signals the start of more Internet- and Wi-Fi-connected iPods in the future. If he's right, that may well turn out to be a game changer.
On the iPhone front, we'll have to wait for Apple to disclose the latest numbers during its next earnings call. But the same worry warts bemoaning the rise in so-called unlocked iPhones remind me of the sturm und drang surrounding the early days of the iPod. It took a couple of years but Apple had a major hit on its hands by 2003. I'd be floored if the iPhone did not repeat that pattern.
iPod unit growth rates(Credit: PiperJaffrey)
The problem I have with the bulls (maybe "perma-bulls is the better term?) is that they turn insane when the subject is Apple. These folks would ordain Steve Jobs dictator for life. Nothing he touches is unworthy of hushed reverence. And woe to the infidel reporter who dares breathe a syllable of criticism--the Mac mujahadeen make no allowance for the 4th Estate (or the First, Second and Third, either.)
So here's where I think we're heading.
Apple is not immune to what's going on in the rest of the world. If the U.S. economy goes into the dumper, some prospective buyers will defer their purchases until a sunnier day. But that's old news by now. The iPhone remains head-and-shoulders above any smartphone in the industry. Everyone knows the product is a long-term play. When my wife, perhaps the most nontechnical human on the planet, told me last month she wanted one, it spoke volumes to me.
Don't lump in Macintosh customers with regular PC shoppers. These folks have always been ready to pay a premium because they believed the Mac offered special value. Save the fight about whether they're right for another day. What's important to recognize is that they groove on Apple. Recession or no recession.
Posted by Charles Cooper 5 comments
Steve Jobs: What, me worry?
Browsing the headlines on Yahoo Finance this morning was enough to make anyone briefly consider jumping out the window. To wit:
• Job worries sink consumer confidence
• S&P: U.S. home prices down sharply
• U.S. home foreclosures soar in January
• Harsh light shines on iPhone, iPod sales
So here's the multiple choice test: Which headline does not fit with the rest? If you chose letter "D" you win a dream date with my colleague Michael Kanellos (No worries: Kanellos is off reporting on start-ups in Ireland this week, and so you're safe.)
I have to confess that the depth of emotion punctuating the "whither Apple" debate never ceases to baffle me. Throughout its history, Apple has always received more than its fair share of scrutiny. The commentary has usually been marked by extremes, pro and con, between the bulls and bears. That just went with the territory. And now a new element has been injected into the debate over Apple's prospects: recession. On Monday, my ZDNET colleague, Larry Dignan, wrote eloqently about Apple: the angst versus the reality. And he's right in many respects.
What with home foreclosures on the rise, crude oil prices breaking record highs, and the banking industry in its deepest crisis since the S&L mess of the early 1990s, there's enough to worry even the most Panglossian optimist in the crowd. And so in the last couple of months, Apple shares have plummeted from the $200 level late last year to under $120.
Which side has it right? Based upon the current stock price, you have to go with the bears--at least until the free fall ends. The gist of their argument is as follows:
• Apple doesn't have any upside surprises coming off one of its biggest product cycles.
• Sales of iPhones are said to be coming up short of expectations, while the number of people unlocking the devices is higher than anticipated.
• There are increasing signs of iPod saturation.
• With the economy worsening, why assume strong demand for (relatively) expensive Apple electronics products will continue?
Eric Savitz from Barrons has a good synopsis of the current concerns being articulated by analysts at Bernstein Research, J.P. Morgan, and Morgan Stanley.
The problem I have with the bears is that they've been wrong for much of the last three years. Everyone knows that the iPod is maturing. That's yesterday's news. In fact, Piper Jaffrey analyst Gene Munster believes the debut of the iPod touch signals the start of more Internet- and Wi-Fi-connected iPods in the future. If he's right, that may well turn out to be a game changer.
On the iPhone front, we'll have to wait for Apple to disclose the latest numbers during its next earnings call. But the same worry warts bemoaning the rise in so-called unlocked iPhones remind me of the sturm und drang surrounding the early days of the iPod. It took a couple of years but Apple had a major hit on its hands by 2003. I'd be floored if the iPhone did not repeat that pattern.
iPod unit growth rates(Credit: PiperJaffrey)
The problem I have with the bulls (maybe "perma-bulls is the better term?) is that they turn insane when the subject is Apple. These folks would ordain Steve Jobs dictator for life. Nothing he touches is unworthy of hushed reverence. And woe to the infidel reporter who dares breathe a syllable of criticism--the Mac mujahadeen make no allowance for the 4th Estate (or the First, Second and Third, either.)
So here's where I think we're heading.
Apple is not immune to what's going on in the rest of the world. If the U.S. economy goes into the dumper, some prospective buyers will defer their purchases until a sunnier day. But that's old news by now. The iPhone remains head-and-shoulders above any smartphone in the industry. Everyone knows the product is a long-term play. When my wife, perhaps the most nontechnical human on the planet, told me last month she wanted one, it spoke volumes to me.
Don't lump in Macintosh customers with regular PC shoppers. These folks have always been ready to pay a premium because they believed the Mac offered special value. Save the fight about whether they're right for another day. What's important to recognize is that they groove on Apple. Recession or no recession.
Google: A bellwether or giant losing its grip?
February 26, 2008 2:35 PM PST
Google: A bellwether or giant losing its grip?
Posted by Jim Kerstetter 8 comments
We interrupt this scheduled lashing of Yahoo to ask a question about the company that's been putting a whuppin' on Jerry Yang & Co. over the last few years: Are you OK?
Google shares dropped 4.57 percent Tuesday largely on new ComScore numbers that show flat year-over-year growth in U.S. paid-click performance in January. It's an abrupt turn from the 25 percent year-over-year growth Google produced in the fourth quarter and the consistent growth Google has shown since, well, since there's been a Google. Regardless of what you think of ComScore's oft-controversial methods, this isn't good. As Henry Blodget aptly put it in Silicon Alley Insider, "Even if ComScore is only half right, this is a disaster."
Google declined to comment on the report.
Today's nearly 5 percent drop brings the search king's share price down from its 52-week high of $747.24 in November all the way to $464.19 at the end of trading Tuesday.That's just one more tidbit of bad news from Google's 52-week low, $437 per share, back in March 2007.
Google, it would seem, can't defy gravity or a bad economy more than any other company. For some, the ComScore numbers offer a fine opportunity to gloat. Others, and bless the optimists, aren't terribly worried just yet. But for most companies relying on advertising for their revenues (and who doesn't these days?), Google's bad news provides plenty of reason to fret.
Sure, it could be that Google's dominance of the ad market is waning. That would certainly be the glass-is-half-full scenario. But the more likely scenario is that Google is a bellwether for the rest of the online ad market, that everyone will struggle as the economy heads south, and that we're on the cusp of plenty more bad news.
But then I covered the first dot-com bust. I always think the glass is half empty.
Google: A bellwether or giant losing its grip?
Posted by Jim Kerstetter 8 comments
We interrupt this scheduled lashing of Yahoo to ask a question about the company that's been putting a whuppin' on Jerry Yang & Co. over the last few years: Are you OK?
Google shares dropped 4.57 percent Tuesday largely on new ComScore numbers that show flat year-over-year growth in U.S. paid-click performance in January. It's an abrupt turn from the 25 percent year-over-year growth Google produced in the fourth quarter and the consistent growth Google has shown since, well, since there's been a Google. Regardless of what you think of ComScore's oft-controversial methods, this isn't good. As Henry Blodget aptly put it in Silicon Alley Insider, "Even if ComScore is only half right, this is a disaster."
Google declined to comment on the report.
Today's nearly 5 percent drop brings the search king's share price down from its 52-week high of $747.24 in November all the way to $464.19 at the end of trading Tuesday.That's just one more tidbit of bad news from Google's 52-week low, $437 per share, back in March 2007.
Google, it would seem, can't defy gravity or a bad economy more than any other company. For some, the ComScore numbers offer a fine opportunity to gloat. Others, and bless the optimists, aren't terribly worried just yet. But for most companies relying on advertising for their revenues (and who doesn't these days?), Google's bad news provides plenty of reason to fret.
Sure, it could be that Google's dominance of the ad market is waning. That would certainly be the glass-is-half-full scenario. But the more likely scenario is that Google is a bellwether for the rest of the online ad market, that everyone will struggle as the economy heads south, and that we're on the cusp of plenty more bad news.
But then I covered the first dot-com bust. I always think the glass is half empty.
Wednesday, 13 February 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
