My Photo

PGreenblog

Charlene Li's Blog

CRM Lowdown

Friends



  • Charlene Li
    I'm a Forrester analyst covering the impact of technology on media and marketing.
  • John Hagel
    Independent management consultant and author
  • Paul Greenberg
    Author: CRM at the Speed of Light: Essential Customer Strategies for the 21st Century (3rd Edition); MAJOR NY Yankees fan
Skypecasts

My Skypecasts



Feeds

  • http://1to1insight.blogspot.com/
  • Add to My Yahoo!

My Online Status

Wednesday, June 13, 2007

Lessons from Apple

What can I say? Good stuff.

From The Economist print edition

What other companies can learn from California's master of innovation


Getty Images

FOR a company that looked doomed a decade ago, it has been quite a comeback. Today Apple is literally an iconic company. Look at your iPod: the company name appears only in the small print. Some of the power of its brand comes from the extraordinary story of a computer company rescued from near-collapse by its co-founder, Steve Jobs, who returned to Apple in 1997 after years of exile, reinvented it as a consumer-electronics firm and is now taking it into the billion-unit-a-year mobile-phone industry (see article). But mostly Apple's zest comes from its reputation for inventiveness. In polls of the world's most innovative firms it consistently ranks first. From its first computer in 1977 to the mouse-driven Macintosh in 1984, the iPod music-player in 2001 and now the iPhone, which goes on sale in America this month, Apple has prospered by keeping just ahead of the times.

The company, which is shortly to join the S&P 100 index of leading companies, is not without its critics. The not-always-lovable Mr Jobs is still stuck in a greedy-looking share-option “backdating” scandal. The firm has come under attack for refusing to make its operating-system and music-protection software available to others (a price worth paying, Apple responds, for greater reliability and consistency). And there are grumbles about manufacturing defects and customer service.

     

Apple is hardly alone in the high-tech industry when it comes to duff gadgets and unhelpful call centres, but in other respects it is highly unusual. In particular, it inspires an almost religious fervour among its customers. That is no doubt helped by the fact that its corporate biography is so closely bound up with the mercurial Mr Jobs, a rare showman in his industry. Yet for all its flaws and quirks, Apple has at least four important wider lessons to teach other companies.

Not invented here, and very welcome

The first is that innovation can come from without as well as within. Apple is widely assumed to be an innovator in the tradition of Thomas Edison or Bell Laboratories, locking its engineers away to cook up new ideas and basing products on their moments of inspiration. In fact, its real skill lies in stitching together its own ideas with technologies from outside and then wrapping the results in elegant software and stylish design. The idea for the iPod, for example, was originally dreamt up by a consultant whom Apple hired to run the project. It was assembled by combining off-the-shelf parts with in-house ingredients such as its distinctive, easily used system of controls. And it was designed to work closely with Apple's iTunes jukebox software, which was also bought in and then overhauled and improved. Apple is, in short, an orchestrator and integrator of technologies, unafraid to bring in ideas from outside but always adding its own twists.

This approach, known as “network innovation”, is not limited to electronics. It has also been embraced by companies such as Procter & Gamble, BT and several drugs giants, all of which have realised the power of admitting that not all good ideas start at home. Making network innovation work involves cultivating contacts with start-ups and academic researchers, constantly scouting for new ideas and ensuring that engineers do not fall prey to “not invented here” syndrome, which always values in-house ideas over those from outside.

Second, Apple illustrates the importance of designing new products around the needs of the user, not the demands of the technology. Too many technology firms think that clever innards are enough to sell their products, resulting in gizmos designed by engineers for engineers. Apple has consistently combined clever technology with simplicity and ease of use. The iPod was not the first digital-music player, but it was the first to make transferring and organising music, and buying it online, easy enough for almost anyone to have a go. Similarly, the iPhone is not the first mobile phone to incorporate a music-player, web browser or e-mail software. But most existing “smartphones” require you to be pretty smart to use them.

Apple is not alone in its pursuit of simplicity. Philips, a Dutch electronics giant, is trying a similar approach. Niklas Zennström and Janus Friis, perhaps the most Jobsian of Europe's geeks, took an existing but fiddly technology, internet telephony, to a mass audience by making it simple, with Skype; they hope to do the same for internet television. But too few technology firms see “ease of use” as an end in itself.

Stay hungry, stay foolish

Listening to customers is generally a good idea, but it is not the whole story. For all the talk of “user-centric innovation” and allowing feedback from customers to dictate new product designs, a third lesson from Apple is that smart companies should sometimes ignore what the market says it wants today. The iPod was ridiculed when it was launched in 2001, but Mr Jobs stuck by his instinct. Nintendo has done something similar with its popular motion-controlled video-game console, the Wii. Rather than designing a machine for existing gamers, it gambled that non-gamers represented an untapped market and devised a machine with far broader appeal.

The fourth lesson from Apple is to “fail wisely”. The Macintosh was born from the wreckage of the Lisa, an earlier product that flopped; the iPhone is a response to the failure of Apple's original music phone, produced in conjunction with Motorola. Both times, Apple learned from its mistakes and tried again. Its recent computers have been based on technology developed at NeXT, a company Mr Jobs set up in the 1980s that appeared to have failed and was then acquired by Apple. The wider lesson is not to stigmatise failure but to tolerate it and learn from it: Europe's inability to create a rival to Silicon Valley owes much to its tougher bankruptcy laws.

None of these things, of course, guarantees success: you can buy in clever ideas, pursue simplicity, ignore focus groups and fail wisely—and still go bust. Apple very nearly did so itself. No doubt the bumptious Mr Jobs will overreach himself again: the iPhone's success is not guaranteed. But for the moment at least it is hard to think of a large company that better epitomises the art of innovation than Apple.

         

Friday, May 18, 2007

Social Networking at CIO Symposium at MIT

The last panel at MIT's Fourth CIO Symposium was the most interesting one- to me. Generally we discussed Social Networks  ((a la LinkedIN ). The panel provided a thought provoking range of ideas on measuring the effectiveness of social networks in generating revenue. Erik Brynjolffson presented quality data on the correlation between revenue production and level of networked-ness (connectedness?) which intuitively seems pretty direct. David Teten talked about specific ways of measuring and assigning value to a particular aspects of an individuals network.

All in all very thought provoking stuff- given the bright light that is on this space at the moment.

more to come

Tuesday, June 27, 2006

A reality check for online advertising

(From McKinsey)

A rising demand for online ad vehicles could surpass supply in the near term.

2006 Number 3

Internet advertising has recaptured the imagination of marketers, who see an enormous potential to raise the profile of their brands through vehicles such as paid search and online video. But the fact that scarcity is an issue for digital-advertising often gets lost in the enthusiasm. McKinsey research finds that bottlenecks in supply could limit the pace of online ad growth and raise prices over the next 24 months.1 The study also suggests that a dearth of ad agencies that can manage both traditional and digital campaigns could further slow the shift in spending to online ads.

Our research combined quantitative analysis and more than 50 interviews with leading digital advertisers, ad agencies, and media companies. We compared both current and projected US ad spending for online vehicles—including video, banners, and paid search (ads tied to keywords that consumers enter in search engines)—with the maximum amount of advertising such vehicles could theoretically absorb today. This analysis revealed that the utilization of the most attractive digital-ad vehicles is already quite high and that, without large increases in the level of online advertising "inventory," demand could outstrip supply over the next 24 months (exhibit). While prices are a closely guarded secret, our interviews indicate that they are already rising and likely to jump further as advertisers bump up against constrained supply.

Short-term mismatches between supply and demand appear greatest for the video ads that interrupt or precede online content, such as news clips. The inability of consumers to skip these ads and their use of sound and motion—proven tools for driving brand awareness among consumers—make online video highly attractive to marketers. According to many of the video suppliers we interviewed, very little unsold advertising capacity remains today. Assuming that marketers don't increase the number of ads they place in each video stream, the maximum supply of video ads is currently about $600 million a year—far less than future demand, which we expect to reach $1.4 billion to $3.2 billion in 2007. Help will come from new strategies (such as Disney–ABC Cable Networks' recent offering of television shows for download and the creation, by Ford Motor's Mercury division, of a series of short online films), but they don't seem likely to meet burgeoning demand on their own.

The situation is similar for paid search. Annual growth in the overall number of searches is slowing, from 30 percent in 2004 to 20 percent in 2005. Without significant changes in consumer click-through rates or in the prices advertisers are willing to pay, we estimate—using our analysis of the prevailing cost per thousand impressions (CPM) and Nielsen Media Research figures on paid search—that the maximum current value of paid-search advertising is about $7 billion. Meanwhile, our analysis of current and forecast page views, ads per page, and CPM rates suggests that advertisers will want to spend $9 billion to $12 billion on paid search in 2007, up from around $5 billion in 2005. Even without severe supply bottlenecks, there won't be room to handle rapid near-term growth.

Finally, although the inventory of banner ads—$4 billion to $8 billion—appears more than sufficient to accommodate the likely demand of $2.5 billion, advertisers probably won't be interested in much of what's available. The complex task of spreading media spending across thousands of small Web sites, many with different ad formats, means that advertisers tend to return to heavily trafficked sites, where supply is at a premium. Even on the big portals, marketers are leery of having their ads placed near consumer-generated content that might be objectionable. In fact, advertisers currently direct 96 percent of their spending for online display ads to pages that represent just 30 percent of overall Web traffic.

Our interviews highlighted two additional hindrances. First, most advertisers expressed frustration at the small number of ad agencies with the skills to manage both traditional and digital campaigns. Many advertisers have no choice but to employ separate agencies and to coordinate cross-media efforts themselves, which makes it more challenging to manage—and evolve—their marketing mix. Second, the absence of a widely accepted independent metric for digital media (such as the NielsenTV ratings) makes it difficult to compare the results of online campaigns and to measure their impact—an uncomfortable fact for marketers considering major spending reallocations.

Of course, digital advertising won't be permanently constrained. Consumers will eventually come to spend more time watching video on PCs and mobile devices. By some measures, they already focus upward of 30 percent of their media attention online—a far higher proportion than advertisers currently spend there. Marketers and media players thus have an enormous incentive to innovate and increase supply, which, along with better measurement technologies, will allow marketers to shift more of their budgets online.

Marketers must build the capabilities necessary to thrive in an environment where audiences and vehicles are highly fragmented, prices change quickly, and advertising's performance differs by customer, vehicle, brand, offer, and message. This transition will require not only new management skills but also a detailed understanding of the marginal economics of products, customers, and customer conversion.

Monday, June 19, 2006

Sandi Thorn- Top UK single last Week.

First Thank You UK Music fans for reading my blog entry about Sandi Thorn. It is much appreciated. I am glad you are as fascinated by what I now call "The Sandi Thorn Phenomenon" as I am. I mean think about it! You can produce your own music for very little money and webcast it for very little money and build not only a paying audience but a passionate fan base!

I wish I Was A Punk Rocker' is the first hit single to be released from Sandi Thom's debut album. Other highlights on the album include: 'Little Remedy', where Sandi throws down the gauntlet to a prospective lover; 'Lonely Girl' an ode to the lost, isolated and the abandoned; 'Time' a comment on the current hare and tortoise race between humanity and the clock; and 'What If I'm Right' which explores the bittersweetness of a newfound relationship, where the excitement of what there is to gain is eclipsed by the fear of what there could be to lose. (This paragraph is from Sandi Thorn's own website-not my writing)

I'd love to hear your comments, since I will be devoting a small section of this blog on the Sandi Thorn Phenomenon. Let me know how you think I can do more here and if you would like to write something (About Sandi related stuff)

Tuesday, June 13, 2006

Teens Online Doing Homework, Text Messaging and Watching TV

I know none of this is a surprise, but read on...
(From AdAge.com)

Survey: A Third of Teens Spend Three Hours Each Day on the Web

NEW YORK (AdAge.com) -- As any parent of teenagers will attest, the internet is occupying an ever greater portion of young peoples' time. Indeed, nearly four in 10 teens -- 37.4% -- are spending at least three hours online daily outside of school settings, according to a Burst Media survey of more than 1,800 connected teens between the ages of 13 and 17. Just one in five -- 19.6% -- say they're spending less than an hour online outside of school.

For teens, the web is a more meaningful source for movie and TV news than word of mouth or local newspapers.
For teens, the web is a more meaningful source for movie and TV news than word of mouth or local newspapers.
Photo Credit: AP

Today's kids are multitaskers, however, so internet time is simultaneously homework time, or TV time. About half -- 48.9% -- at least claim to be working on homework assignments while online, while 33.8% say TV or a movie usually competes for their attention.

Additionally, a combined 40% say they're also text messaging or talking with friends on their mobile phones while online.

"Corralling these distractions to minimize their disruption is a significant challenge for marketers," said Chuck Moran, manager of market research for Burst Media.

Net gaining on TV
How do brands overcome this challenge? "Use the internet to create a central content point for teens on a variety of subjects and interests," Mr. Moran said. "By doing so, marketers can then develop integrated-marketing campaigns with advertising creative and programs referencing a central platform and working in tandem to get teens' attention."

Notably, the internet is now seen by teens as the top source of information on music artists and bands. And, while teenagers are still more likely to cite TV as their main source for movie and TV-show updates -- 29% in the survey did so -- the web isn't far behind, at 25.5%. That makes the web a more meaningful source for movie and TV news than word of mouth (15.7%) or local newspapers (10.3%).

The Burst findings mirror broader research surfacing today. About 20% of all Web usage occurs while viewing TV or immediately before or after, according to a study just released by the Online Publishers Association and conducted by Ball State University. More than 60% of all web users spend two hours a day online, the OPA study found.

Review of Cyber-Budget, the French Budget Game

This review by Ian Bogost, is very good. Thanks Ian! I have posted it unembellished...

By          Ian Bogost         

               

               

Cyber-BudgetI mentioned the French Cyber Budget game a week or so ago, but I couldn't find the actual game until Mark Nelson sent me the link this week. You can play Cyber-Budget online, but keep in mind that it's in French only, and pretty language-heavy.

Budgets are comprised of multiple allocations in conflict. They are abstract--numbers on balance sheets--but their effects are concrete. It's hard to personalize them and create empathy around them. This game is an interesting attempt to make budgeting playable. The main strategy is to contextualize the budgeting process in the material world through a map interface to buildings where you do the necessary business. Unlike previous efforts like Mass Balance, the focus of Cyber-Budget is not on allocating and reallocating numbers to actually balance the budget. Instead, the player gets a more abstract, higher-level sense of the fiscal and social issues at work in budgeting, and then a highly abstracted representation of the budgeting process itself.

The game has high production values and an interesting, welcoming approach to a dry topic. But it doesn't start that way. First, the game drops the player off in the library, where the player is expected to research and learn esoteric budgeting terms. I think the designers were trying to familiarize the player with the fact that such a resource exists and can be used at any time during play (via a persistent button), but the effect risks overwhelming the new player with the complexity of the system.

The majority of play between this step and the actual budgeting mission is comprised of minigames. The minigames themselves are couched as tests that you must complete to be deemed competent to construct a budget of your own. The first challenges the player to identify the components of the federal budget. A second minigame follows, asking the player to identify items in and out of the federal budget via a TV quiz-show format. I love the idea of a minigame for this purpose, but the implemented one requires the player to place abstract objects in income/expenditure columns. Cyber-BudgetIt doesn't explain the concepts, reinforcing the idea that the player was expected to do a bunch of digital reading in the library. The final minigame in the sequence is both the most interesting and the most maddening. It asks the player to match budget expenditures to their equivalent in "common" goods like Airbus aircraft, computers, or single-family homes. For example, non-fiscal income for 2005 totaled 25 million euros, or the equivalent of 161 155 million euro Airbus A380s. The player is given the unit cost of the Airbus and a choice of three answers (see at right). It's somewhat akin to a Brain Age-style rapid arithmetic/estimation game, and each response is timed, which made it a lot harder for me to appreciate, even if the idea is sound: contextualize unthinkable sums of money in terms of comprehensible products.

After each minigame, the game shows you the media response to your performance, which is a nice touch. I wonder how they modeled French popular opinion.

Cyber-Budget BallooningIn the second mission, the player starts to make gestures that influence the actual budget he will create. It starts with a deeply metaphorical minigame, a hot-air balloon ride that tests your "budget piloting" (seriously, check out the image at right). You have limited fuel, which represent financial resources. You can collect Euro symbols to get more fuel. The environment is very trippy, with a dreamy soundtrack and magenta sky. The player must avoid the sharp "growth curve" on the top and the "deficit curve" on the bottom of a cave, and a Defender-style radar helps the player guide the craft through the environment. It's very hard to do. At first I thought this minigame was an interesting allegory. "Piloting" the budget too aggressively toward growth or deficit puts you at higher risk of crashing. Flying through the middle of the course and collecting the easy to reach income (not every Euro you see) is a more sound strategy. But, upon completing the game using that strategy, I realized I was being scored based on the number of Euro tokens I picked up (I only got 25%). In retrospect, I wonder if this apparently conflicting strategy wasn't intentional: the game is structured to require careful piloting of the budget from the policymaker's perspective, but the public will demand new programs and incentives no matter.

In the next minigame, the player answers questions for the press, for the first time offering opinions about what tradeoffs are important to him in preparing a budget. Then the player must balance different resources in another minigame, applying different fund types to funding requests. The game literally takes place on a scale, and the player must put the appropriate weight on one side to counterbalance the demand.

The last minigame allows the player to travel into the hypothetical future of various budget decisions. The choices are fixed rather than based on a set of allocations or even the funding requests the player just completed (unless the system had calculated them transparently for me), but they include different conflicting options like Public Services or Tax Reductions. I was a bit surprised to see that the future machine seemed to have a strong political opinion; it was not simply showing the pros and cons of decisions, but rather one or the other. Improving public services brings "a dynamism to the French economy and allows it to address social problems." The image on screen depicts a bunch of British immigrants fleeing to France. Increasing taxes causes French businesses and investments to flee the country. Reducing funding and public services makes it impossible to finance even basic federal functions. The image on screen depicts a rusted and cob-webbed tank. In the next segment, the player provides his opinion on a variety of budget proposals.

In the third mission, the player actually manages the budget for a three year term. The approach is unique; the budget numbers are fixed (again, I assume this is based on the opinions I gave previously) and the player cannot change them wholesale during the simulation. Instead, as time passes different interests around the country and world make requests. The player uses the map interface to speed around the city, considering proposals and responding to them through budget reallocations or refusals. While this concretization of budgeting trade-offs succeeded at personalizing the decisions, the sense of conflicting interests was hard to comprehend fully. When I reduced certain expenditures, the proper groups would request new aid, but inevitably they felt isolated. The strongest response I noticed was related to debt. When surpluses arose, both domestic and foreign opinion responded very positively to reducing the debt rather than investing in new programs or even leaving the budget untouched. Interestingly, all my decisions felt very short-lived. Opinion would dip back down even soon after a popular decision, based on other factors.

In this sense, the game was very successful in telegraphing the challenges of the political process of budgeting, but not so successful in representing the real-world effects of conflicting decisions. I appreciated the minigame design, the idea of slowly bringing players to the numbers, and the production value. There were some design issues, some mechanical (the mouse interface to the map is somewhat wonky), some functional (it's not possible to go back and change things you've already done in the game, so you have to start a whole new one).

But I felt myself pondering the game's intentions. It was commissioned by the French government, and by the end of one session with it (which took around an hour) I got the sense that they were not interested in fiscal literacy so much as political empathy. The game seems tuned to create an appreciation of the tough job of the fiscal policymaker rather than the fiscal policy. Rhetorically, I wonder if this wasn't the actual goal of the project, a kind of videogame foil Liz Losh has observed in other government-sponsored games. Cyber-Budget may not be intended to help citizens consider difficult social tradeoffs as they think about ways to balance the budget, but rather to coerce players into assent, given the difficult choices such a process demands politically.

Tuesday, May 30, 2006

Bill Gates v/s Sergey Brin, Microsoft looking to buy eBay?

As Microsoft has gained a new rival in Google, the New York Post made quite a stir on Friday the 26th by reporting secret negotiations between Microsoft and eBay executives. As some of you know, things between eBay and Google have soured over the past few months (or years) due to Google’s ‘control’ of all customers getting to eBay. In other words, most eBay users/visitors come through google’s search engine. eBay (rightly so) is concerned enough to go out and create a strategic alliance with Yahoo!. Gravity is showing its effect on the Search Market and Google is in for a challenge.

So we got Sergey Brin, Larry Page and Eric Schmidt v’s Meg Whitman, Terry Semel, Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer. Fun!

More to come…

Thursday, May 25, 2006

Nike+iPod

Nike+iPod. Seconds after my post about Apple partnering with the NBA, we have this announcement. NIke and Apple have partnered to integrate music + excercise, while maintaining the leadership of the iPod as THE quintessential portable music player. My friend Paul Greenberg is going to LOVE the fact that Apple leapfrogged Sony on this one (although I have found no indication that such a deal was even contemplated, let alone discussed).

Now, there are three different product concepts according to Apple and Nike*

  1. Get in gear. Grab an iPod nano, a pair of Nike+ shoes, and the Nike+iPod Sport Kit.
  2. Rock ’n’ run. Your shoes talk. Your iPod nano listens. Track your run in real time.
  3. Stay in sync. Connect your iPod nano, then connect with the world on nikeplus.com.

Nikeshoe

The first one "Get in Gear" is just a kit that has limited assembling of the two product ideas.

Nikeipod Rock'n' Run on the other hand has this transmitter that goes in your Nike's and transmit's data to your iPod (Nano). Simple stuff like time, no. of miles, and other pedometer data.

Nikerunner
Stay in Sync. is an extension of Rock'n' Run where, all this data can be Sync-ed to multiple devices including (obviously) your .Mac over the internet.


Now you can grab your Nike's, grab your iPod Nano and go running with your favorite playlist and rest assured that all your important excercise data is being sent to the Nano and later on to the the internet.

The actual usefulness of the concept can be debated, needless to say. But it sure is COOOL! Very Coool. I mean i'd love to know how many miles I walk or run with Max (the Great Dane/Lab puppy) while I listen to "Eye of the Tiger" singing...

It's the eye of the tiger, it's the cream of the fight
Risin' up to the challenge of our rival
And the last known survivor stalks his prey in the night
And he's watchin' us all in the eye of the tiger

But before you run out to buy your Nike+iPod (SwooshPod?) gear, check prices. Oh! and make sure you check out the new games that are available on the iPod (kidding!). And the little golfer device that is built in to your Nike Golf Shoes, that tell your iPod Nano, how far the green is and wheather you should use your Five iron or your Three iron, and when you get there, how hard you would need to putt, what distance, what angle, and trajectory. Oh and it will also tell you, based on sweat analysis from your sweaty bicep, how much gatorade you need to drink in the next 10 minutes to keep you optimally hydrated (in case you are playing 54 holes that day).




** Pics. courtesy Nike+iPod

Apple’s iTunes shoots for the NBA business

Imagine this? How simple and wonderful is this match up? Along with its partnership with Nike, Apple is really allying itself with the right brands and extending its customer experience quite nicely. What could be next? A gaming engine on an iPod? Why not?

(From the Internet Retailer)

Now in addition to soundtracks and music videos, iTunes customers will be able to download to their iPods or computers complete game replays of the National Basketball Association’s Finals broadcasts the day after they air on ABC TV, Apple Computer Inc. said today.

Starting this week, iTunes customers will also be able to download 15-20-minute game recaps for every NBA playoff game within 24 hours after a game appears on any TV network that carries the games, including ABC, ESPN, TNT and NBATV. Apple is No. 17 in the Internet Retailer Top 400 Guide to Retail Web Sites.

Basketball fans can also sign up for a “Follow Your Team” package, which automatically downloads recordings of all recaps and any Finals games for a fan’s favorite team.

In addition to the basketball games, iTunes customers will be able to download more than 15 episodes of the TNT Sports program, “Inside the NBA on TNT.”

"We`re thrilled to be offering basketball fans this unique opportunity to follow NBA Playoffs on iTunes," said Eddy Cue, Apple`s vice president of iTunes. "With the new `Follow Your Team` feature, fans automatically receive full game recaps of every game their favorite team plays from the Conference Semifinals through The Finals."

Apple is offering the downloads in a variety of pricing packages:
• $1.99 under an a la carte package for individual downloads of recaps, full Finals games and Inside the NBA programs;
• $5.99 for a package that includes every game of the Finals;
• $8.99 for a “Follow Your Team” package that includes all Conference Semifinals and Finals games played by one selected team, plus a season recap video;
• $8.99 for a package that includes all Inside the NBA episodes throughout the playoffs and finals.


Courtesy: The Internet Retailer

Monday, April 10, 2006

BlogBurst and Snubster (Snubbing Friendster?)

You've all heard of Blog Aggregators going after specific types of blogger content. We have MelodyTrip* going after Music Festival bloggers, Gather that's going after every type of blogger and of course we have the general blogger at Friendster.

Now, BlogBurst is providing a unique twist to blogger content. If you blog, BlogBurst will take your content and send it to a bunch of Newspapers (and other publications) who are looking for specific type of content. For example: take this blog. This blog primarily focuses on Internet Retail from a technology and a "social phenomenon" standpoint. So if the Boston Globe wants a quality article/story on Internet Retailing, they might come to this blog and pick it up (through BlogBurst). I am sure BlogBurst has competent editors who screen various blogs for quality of content.

Snubster is another interesting one. It wants to capitalize on 'venting' or 'bitching and moaning'. Although it is two years too late (Red Sox fan's would have been a PRIME group for snubster and they could wax eloquently and incessantly about the "pre-2004-when sox won the world series" minutiae). I can see it being a great tool for teenagers and the teenager in all of us, who can then vent about the parents, school, and everything in between. Hey who knows, they could even prevent a tragedy or two (here could a social phenomenon). 

Two pretty good ideas and I am sure hundreds more to come.

Blog Away!

(*Disclaimer: I maintain an active interest in MelodyTrip)

My Book

  • Game Based Business Models and Advergaming.
    (An excerpt) When I wrote a thesis on Internet Market development (in 1995) there was clear evidence that technologies take decades (and most almost exactly 30 years) to go from the ‘ lab’ to consumer acceptance. Having done a lot of research in the ‘Online Gaming Based marketing’ world, it is clear to me that the time for Retailers and Consumer Product Marketers, to seriously look at Gaming Media as the next pretty big thing has come. Look at any serious research on the proliferation of Online Gaming and it is clear that more and more people, in all age groups, are starting to become ‘gamers’ and I don’t mean the World of Warcraft type gamers but more in terms of their entertainment ‘instinct’. I would even go out on a limb here to say that people who enjoy the thrills of winning and the disappointment of losing a bid on eBay are kind of gamers. What is auction but a game where you outsmart and out-compete your adversary? The question is: how do smart Retailers and Marketers make use of this development? In other words, what is the smart way to approach Gaming Media? Well, the correct answer is “ Depends on what your customer’s want”. In this case, the simple explanation is the right one. According Shar Vanboskirk , an Analyst at Forrester who has had her eye on the Gaming Business for a while now (her expertise is in the entirety of online marketing though) “Marketers are too focused on identifying a game with their brand, rather than evaluating whether a specific gaming solution works for their CUSTOMERS (there’s that word again!) or Asking their customers if they’d be interested in a gaming model” Shar, who is very passionate about this business, also believes that a lot of marketers are missing the point of online gaming, specifically for the reason I just quoted. Gaming related promotions are starting to take shape in small but meaningful ways, signaling acceptance of the marketing opportunity in a fast shrinking space due to the obvious movement of the 19-34 year olds to ‘on demand’ non-traditional media. (See chapter on “Social Networking and On Demand Media”). Dell.com has done a couple of games online to offer discounts on particular products, a campaign credited to the 1 Online Promotions agency, ePrize. Other companies such as SMC (Networking Products) and Orbitz (online travel) are also experimenting with games that foster education among a certain set of customers and brand building. SMC actually uses a Trivia game that tests the knowledge of a Network Engineer of specific SMC Networking Products. SMC even offers discounts to high scoring individuals for SMC products.

Recent Posts

June 2007

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Recommended reading

My Squidoo Lens
Powered by TypePad

ads