marketing

Free #FAIL – another example where “free” does not work

Duane Reade grand opening of a store — had guys offering free coffee — from a BACKPACK dispenser!  Let’s just say Duane Reade is not known for its coffee. And even if people stopped for coffee, they didn’t even get the person to enter the store.  Anyway, I am sure all of this was thought through when the marketing campaign was planned.

IMG00027 20100607 0800 Free #FAIL   another example where free does not work

When planning a marketing campaign, ask the hard (or easy) questions — what does the brand stand for? Does the marketing program reinforce the brand? Does it drive desirable actions (like people actually going into the store, not to mention drives sales). And definitely don’t do stuff that will make people go “huh?” and then run away even faster.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Monday, June 7th, 2010 marketing 1 Comment

What is Web 3.0? Characteristics of Web 3.0

2009 06 16 What Is Web 3.0

2009 06 16 What Is Web 3.0 – Presentation Transcript

  1. What is Web 3.0? Dr. Augustine Fou June 16, 2009. June 16, 2009.
  2. Evolution of the Internet microprocessor 40 yrs 10 yrs 20 yrs 5 yrs present web internet 2.5 yrs social networks e-commerce 1.5 yrs Web 1.0 Web 2.0 Web 3.0? June 16, 2009.
  3. Evolution of the “Web” content commerce search social networks social content social search social commerce As each stage reaches critical mass, the next stage is tipped into present June 16, 2009.
  4. Key Characteristics present web 1.0 web 2.0 web 3.0
    • Speedy
    • more timely information and more efficient tools to find information
    • Collaborative
    • actions of users amass, police, and prioritize content
    • Trust-worthy
    • users establish trust networks and hone trust radars
    • Content
    • content destination sites and personal portals
    • Search
    • critical mass of content drives need for search engines
    • Commerce
    • commerce goes mainstream; digital goods rise
    • Ubiquitous
    • available at any time, anywhere, through any channel or device
    • Individualized
    • filtered and shared by friends or trust networks
    • Efficient
    • relevant and contextual information findable instantly

June 16, 2009.

  1. Illustrative Examples – retail/shopping present web 1.0 web 2.0 web 3.0
    • what friends bought or want to buy
    • drag-to-share items which friends know friends are looking for
    • item collections
    • value in the aggregation

overstock.com amazon.com FB app: MyFaveThings

    • contextual reviews
    • reviews of reviews
    • what others bought
    • individualized recommendations

June 16, 2009.

  1. Illustrative Examples – social networks present web 1.0 web 2.0 web 3.0
    • aggregates all your online identities
    • syndicates all your updates to all social networks
    • social actions visible to friends
    • trust networks across geography, time, and interests
    • collection of personal homepages

geocities.com facebook.com peoplebrowsr.com June 16, 2009.

  1. Illustrative Examples – restaurant reviews present web 1.0 web 2.0 web 3.0
    • Yelp content vetted through a user’s trust network and individual recommendations made based on situation and need, in real-time
    • user submitted reviews
    • related items based on similarity of user preferences
    • infrequent publication
    • centralized editorial control

zagat‘s yelp need reco for great Italian + GPS + Yelp 5-star Babbo, been there, love it June 16, 2009.

  1. Illustrative Examples – photos present web 1.0 web 2.0 web 3.0
    • real-time, contextual “do you like this knit shirt?”
    • friends give immediate feedback
    • share photos with friends and strangers
    • enable visitors to tag and comment
    • individual albums

kodakgallery.com flickr.com ? June 16, 2009.

  1. Illustrative Examples – real estate present web 1.0 web 2.0 web 3.0
    • information vetted by fellow users, recommended directly an in context
    • listings plus relevant information like school zones, comparable sales, alerts
    • listings based on parameters

corcoran.com streeteasy.com trulia iphone app June 16, 2009.

  1. Illustrative Examples – encyclopedia present web 1.0 web 2.0 web 3.0
    • content is ubiquitous and available through any channel or device
    • trust network proactively forwards relevant info to user who needs it
    • created, updated, and edited (policed) by user actions
    • digitized version of printed encyclopedia

britannica.com wikipedia.com chacha.com June 16, 2009.

  1. Illustrative Examples – online coupons present web 1.0 web 2.0 web 3.0
    • coupons delivered contextually and proactively when user needs it (without the user even asking for it)
    • instant feedback
    • community action makes it more accurate and useful for others
    • collection of online coupons – value in the aggregation

dealcatcher.com retailmenot.com June 16, 2009.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Reaching Half a Million Customers Daily, with NO Media Cost

Updated: April 3, 2010 – JetBlue has 1,603,926 followers as of today.

Updated: Aug 30, 2009 – JetBlue has 1,139,682 followers as of today.

In days of old, advertisers had to buy TV airtime, magazine placements, or radio spots to send their ads out to reach customers. Usually one of the largest chunks of cost is the media placement, followed by “creative” development and content creation.

What if there was a way to cut out most or all of the media cost?  And what if we could also substantially reduce the cost of “creative development” and “content creation?”  Look at the JetBlue example below.  On Twitter, JetBlue has nearly 600,000 followers.  Each of these followers has basically “opted in” to receive their updates, often multiple times a day (“costless media”). There is no “media cost” for getting these messages out. Compare this to what it would cost to air a TV ad that reaches 600,000 viewers (assuming all the viewers wanted to receive the ad, and were sitting there in front of the TV watching the ad when it was aired).

Also, the cost of content is nearly zero too. JetBlue has their customer service people (and fans) help create content by tweeting. These tweets range from customer service (“twitter customer service”) , to service notices (e.g. dense fog in NYC area airports causing delays, etc.), to tips from frequent travelers. This type of content is more “real,” valuable, and trusted than an advertisement. And there is no cost of “creative development” because the content does not need to be dressed up into a glossy ad for TV or print — it’s just 140 characters of text at a time. It’s more effective AND lower cost?!  Imagine that!

Finally, notice in the “bio” area on the upper right of the screen shot that it reports who is currently on duty — “Morgan and Lindsey” — this gives the normally faceless customer service system a name and a face and perhaps even a personality.  JetBlue’s twitter is a great example of social marketing done awesome!

jetblue twitter Reaching Half a Million Customers Daily, with NO Media Cost

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Thursday, May 28th, 2009 integrated marketing, marketing No Comments

Microsoft Kumo vs Wolfram Alpha – FIGHT!

Microsoft should take a page from the launch of Wolfram’s Alpha using social channels.

Wolfram Alpha – 1.6 million google search results

Microsoft Kumo – 624k google search results

wolfram alpha search results Microsoft Kumo vs Wolfram Alpha   FIGHT!kumo search results Microsoft Kumo vs Wolfram Alpha   FIGHT!

www.WolframAlpha.com is launched, but Microsoft Kumo.com is not even launched. So there is NO benefit from all the news coverage.

wolfram compete Microsoft Kumo vs Wolfram Alpha   FIGHT!

wolfram referrals Microsoft Kumo vs Wolfram Alpha   FIGHT!

wolfram links Microsoft Kumo vs Wolfram Alpha   FIGHT!

Search intensity and volume indicates interest of users — Wolfram Alpha is kicking Microsoft butt.

search intensity Microsoft Kumo vs Wolfram Alpha   FIGHT!

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/28/wolfram-alpha-veil-lifted/

http://gizmodo.com/5240514/wolfram-alpha-and-google-tested-head+to+head

http://gizmodo.com/5236115/wolfram-alpha-search-engine-on-video

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

trends – coupon sites, network TV sites

coupon sites: definitely headed upward with a spike in Dec 08.

coupon sites trends   coupon sites, network TV sites

network TV sites are seeing healthy increases, likely due to “view full episodes” on their websites – but even this increase in traffic will not replace the advertising revenues lost on network television

tv network sites trends   coupon sites, network TV sites

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Monday, April 27th, 2009 integrated marketing, marketing, metrics No Comments

the overall advertising pie will shrink

the greater efficiencies of “digital” mean that the same amount of “advertising” can be achieved with fewer dollars because more waste can be eliminated. The decreases in ad spending in traditional media channels like newspapers will only be partially replaced by ad spending online.

For example, the dollars that used to fund newspaper classified advertising has been replaced by free online classifieds through Craigslist. While newspapers had incremental costs due to materials, printing, labor, and distribution, online classifieds have virtually no incremental cost.

Similarly print advertising, which was based on targeting ads to specific demographics of readerships are being replaced by online ads which can be more finely targeted to even more niche readerships — e.g. contextual advertising. And the revenue models based around cost per click are inherently more efficient (and thus lower cost) than the impression-based revenue models of magazines. Again for every dollar taken out of print advertising, only a few cents are needed to replace it in “digital.”

100544 ad spending by media the overall advertising pie will shrink

Agree with me or tell me I’m stupid @acfou

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

so, you think you’re viral? here’s how to find out…

1. post your “viral” video, banner ad, etc.
2. tweet about it
3. see if any one of your followers re-tweets it
4. check twitt(url)y to see “twitter intensity” around you asset

this is a quick way to tell if what you think is viral is viral. If even your own circle of followers don’t retweet it, it probably isn’t viral.  What you think is cool may actually not be that cool.  And sticking it on YouTube and supporting it with a lot of paid media, doesn’t make it viral!

Agree with me?  Or tell me I’m stupid @acfou

using twitter intensity to determine if something is viral (or not).

twitturly2 so, you think youre viral? heres how to find out...

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Friday, March 20th, 2009 Uncategorized, digital, marketing, metrics No Comments

small company kicking big brands’ butt with SEO and SEM

almost 10X the search keywords driving traffic; 52,200 pages indexed by Google, and nearly 13X the monthly unique visitors.  And they started in Mar 2007. 

Top Keywords Driving Traffic to:
• dailymakeover.com
 
see all 1,335 keywords
• covergirl.com
 
see all 230 keywords
• maybelline.com
 
see all 189 keywords

 

dailymakeover.com+covergirl.com+maybelline.com+makeoversolutions.com uv 24 small company kicking big brands butt with SEO and SEM

Use This Data: Embed Graph | Export CSV | Show Permalink
Date: 01/2009 People Month Δ  about small company kicking big brands butt with SEO and SEM Year Δ  about small company kicking big brands butt with SEO and SEM What is this?
trust green 16 small company kicking big brands butt with SEO and SEM dailymakeover.com 3,888,546 1.9%arrow up small company kicking big brands butt with SEO and SEM N/A The number of people visiting a site.
See Full Description
trust green 16 small company kicking big brands butt with SEO and SEM covergirl.com 303,846 27.2%arrow up small company kicking big brands butt with SEO and SEM 34.2%arrow up small company kicking big brands butt with SEO and SEM
trust green 16 small company kicking big brands butt with SEO and SEM maybelline.com 70,669 -27.1%arrow down small company kicking big brands butt with SEO and SEM -37.8%arrow down small company kicking big brands butt with SEO and SEM
trust yellow 16 small company kicking big brands butt with SEO and SEM makeoversolutions.com 9,717 -49.7%arrow down small company kicking big brands butt with SEO and SEM -99.3%arrow down small company kicking big brands butt with SEO and SEM

Tags:

Tuesday, February 24th, 2009 SEM, SEO, integrated marketing, marketing No Comments

modern users are impatient

Comparing the 2008 and 2005 Google Heat Map Studies:

google ranking heatmap 2008 modern users are impatient

Source: Think Eyetracking, September 2008

In 2005, they would look down the page at the results. By 2008, users glance at the first 3 – 4 results and then refine their search. They’d sooner type in a “long tail” search than go to page 2 of the results.

Monday, February 23rd, 2009 SEO, digital, marketing No Comments