chart
Evidence for Increasing Online Use that is also Accelerating
If you sum up the total unique user sessions in Jan 2008, Jan 2009, and Jan 2010, you get
Jan 2008 – 285M
Jan 2009 – 337M
Jan 2010 – 413M
That is a year-over-year increase of 18% and 23% respectively. Assuming the population of the world does not change that much year to year, the change in total unique sessions leads to the conclusion that online usage continues to increase noticeably.
The Compete.com chart below shows nearly identical number if unique users monthly — Google at 148M uniques and Yahoo at 132M uniques. And Facebook alone achieved another 134M uniques. So while the unique visitors across these 3 sites are not mutually exclusive, there are 414M unique user sessions in the month of January 2010
Well, this is strange. January 2010 numbers from Nielsen reveal Google has 66.3% of the search market, while Yahoo has 14.5% and Microsoft has 10.9% across its various properties. Google is 4x more than Yahoo and 6x more than Microsoft.
Inside Google’s Secret Search Algorithm
Source: http://feeds.gawker.com/~r/gizmodo/full/~3/zzkIcilnJp4/inside-googles-secret-search-algorithm
Wired’s Steven Levy takes us inside the “algorithm that rules the web“—Google’s search algorithm, of course—and if you use Google, it’s kind of a must-read. PageRank? That’s so 1997.
It’s known that Google constantly updates the algorithm, with 550 improvements this year—to deliver smarter results and weed out the crap—but there are a few major updates in its history that have significantly altered Google’s search, distilled in a helpful chart in the Wired piece. For instance, in 2001, they completely rewrote the algorithm; in 2003, they added local connectivity analysis; in 2005, results got personal; and most recently, they’ve added in real-time search for Twitter and blog posts.
The sum of everything Google’s worked on—the quest to understand what you mean, not what you say—can be boiled down to this:
This is the hard-won realization from inside the Google search engine, culled from the data generated by billions of searches: a rock is a rock. It’s also a stone, and it could be a boulder. Spell it “rokc” and it’s still a rock. But put “little” in front of it and it’s the capital of Arkansas. Which is not an ark. Unless Noah is around. “The holy grail of search is to understand what the user wants,” Singhal says. “Then you are not matching words; you are actually trying to match meaning.”
Oh, and by the way, you’re a guinea pig every time you search for something, if you hadn’t guessed as much already. Google engineer Patrick Riley tells Levy, “On most Google queries, you’re actually in multiple control or experimental groups simultaneously.” It lets them constantly experiment on a smaller scale—even if they’re only conducting a particular experiment on .001 percent of queries, that’s a lot of data.
Be sure to check out the whole piece, it’s ridiculously fascinating, and borders on self-knowledge, given how much we all use Google (sorry, Bing). [Wired, Sweet graphic by Wired's Mauricio Alejo]
Why Job Seekers Should Worry About Their Online Reputation
Source: http://www.labnol.org/internet/online-reputation-important-for-jobs/12582/
If you are looking for a job or are a potential job-seeker, be very careful of what you write or share online because HR departments and recruitment professionals are scanning tweets, blog posts, photos, and other online profiles of job candidates before offering them positions.
Why Online Reputation Management is Important
Around 70% of hiring managers in in US have rejected candidate just because of their online reputation. The chart looks at the various types of online information that have led companies to reject candidates.
Tomorrow is Data Privacy Day and this research (download PPT) was originally commissioned by Microsoft as part of the same initiative.
Other than Microsoft, Google, Intel, AT&T are also part of the Data Privacy Day group. You should also check their site as it contains some excellent resources on how companies, students and parents can better protect their online information.
Why Job Seekers Should Worry About Their Online Reputation
Originally published at Digital Inspiration by Amit Agarwal.
The JKWeddingDance video was real; the viral effect was MANUFACTURED – Post 1 of 2
originally investigated and reported on Friday July 31, 2009 by Augustine Fou, with Tugce Esener @tesener
Several friends and colleagues had the same reaction when they found out about this video — that it was at such a high view count already and we were late to the party of finding out. Then we did some more digging — digital forensics :-) And this is a case where a viral hit was indeed successfully manufactured. There’s something to be learned from all this – how to successfully manufacture a viral video sensation and make viral profits.
Related: How to manufacture a viral video sensation and make viral profits – Post 2 of 2
Chris Brown is successfully tapping into the viral halo of a funny video that coincidentally used his song.
ReadWriteWeb article on how rights owners (Sony, Chris Brown) can make viral profits on other people using their work instead of suing them - http://bit.ly/KA3HI
The video was real. But promotional activities (possibly/likely paid) created the initial viral effect (led to the tipping point of the viral effect) which then got carried a further by people thinking they were simply late to the party, including myself (e.g. 440k bit.ly clicks and 3k detectable retweets out of the 13M views). The numbers don’t jive.
The viral halo has added 1 million more views to the video from August 1 – August 2. (13.1 M to 14.5 M)
Ten ELEVEN TWELVE THIRTEEN proof points to follow, each with screen shot to illustrate.
1a. anyone notice that the “Forever” soundtrack is remarkably consistent throughout the video as if it were dubbed or added in after the original footage was shot. The sound is too consistent in volume and loudness to have come from a built-in, on-camera microphone. At the very end of the video, once it cuts back to the couple at the altar the sound quality goes back to the echo-y, tinny sound of an on-camera mic.
1b. The “TheKHeinz” user on YouTube was registered on July 19, 2009, the day the video was posted. We usually look for clues like this to detect “plants” by PR agencies. This is an issue of trust — a user “CmdrTaco” on Slashdot has been around the forums for years, made hundreds of posts, and was rated by the community very highly. PR agencies trying to seed stories have to create new user accounts during the PR campaign (recent registration date) and have made no other posts or uploads before (no history).
2. The social intensity detected in all of the top social venues like Technorai, Delicious, Reddit, Digg, etc. indicate there was not enough organic sharing to support a view count of 13 million views in 11 days (updated: 14.6 million today August 2, 2009).
a) Bit.ly shows only 447k clicks on the shortened URL
“At Fortune’s Brainstorm:Tech conference Ashton Kutcher effectively took credit for boosting the views from – in his words – 12,500 views before he tweeted the link – to some 1.2 million views 12 hours later…”
Well, unfortunately he used a bit.ly link which provides public analytics on how many people clicked. Most tweets result in immediate traffic, which then tails off immediately after the tweet falls off the first page. In his case, look at the following bit.ly stats URL and click “past month” to see the peak clicks on July 23. All he can actually claim is that his tweet drove a peak of about 100,000 clicks on that day not 1.2 million 
http://bit.ly/info/Z7vMw
too bad Ashton. next time you make a BMOC claim, be sure to use a non trackable method, so analytics won’t “out” you so easily.
after only 3.5 days of retweets the twitter intensity died off to next-to-nothing; if this were a truly viral video, carried forth by real people (and not by paid PR support and paid media) the retweet intensity would remain high. As of August 21, there are over 21M views on the video and the 505k retweets does not show actual organic support for that number.
b) Twitturly shows only 3 thousand retweets on the YouTube URL itself
c) Delicious shows only 447 bookmarks of the video itself
d) Reddit only shows 673 thumbs up for the video itself
e) Technorati shows only 277 blog mentions of the video itself — this could be undercounting if blogs used URL shorteners. But if you look at the blog intensity results (below) sorted by blogs with most authority the blogs have very little authority (i.e. influence or size of audience).
– these are real indications of interest by real people. The social intensity of the passalong for this video does not substantiate the huge number of views in 11 days.
What we are seeing now is the additional viral halo, as the momentum is sustained by large media outlets reporting on the story — even Google Blog blogged about it (boasting about the success of YouTube advertising in driving revenues). Of course TechCrunch is right that viral videos can be monetized: http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/07/30/youtube-viral-wedding-videos-are-great-for-advertising/ )
3. Twitter shows nothing in the top “trending topics” related to this video – indicating few people are actually tweeting about it — if this video is SO viral (13M views in 11 days) then it has GOT to show up on a scan of social intensity. (see screen capture below)
July 31 (Friday) August 2 (Sunday)
4. The original video was posted July 19, 2009. The people from the video appeared on NBC’s Today Show and danced around Rockerfeller Center on July 25th (6 calendar days after posting). Today Show staff may be great at spotting news, but to get all the wedding party from the wedding to re-enact the dance on the Today Show in 6 calendar days — too good to be true? Hmm…
5. Out of all the wedding videos on YouTube, how did Chris Brown detect this particular one that used his song. @glenngabe noted that there are song detection mechanisms - ContentID - which detect the pattern of the copyrighted song and report that to the rights owners. We know there are hundreds, if not thousaands, or really funny wedding home videos — America’s Funniest Videos has been running for years and years on TV showing funny wedding blooper videos that people submitted to them.
6. ALL TEN of the top viral videos on AdAge’s Viral Video Chart took around 3 – 6 months to achieve full viral effect — not 6 days. See all 10 videos’ stats, as reported by YouTube at the following link. This video has not shown up at all on the list of Adage viral videos.
AdAge Top Viral Videos all take 3 – 6 months to reach full viral effect
7. From @RedW0rm – YouTube Declares Wedding Video a Financial Success – http://bit.ly/9ZUtu
8. also check the velocity of this http://twitter.com/#search?q=jkwedding or this http://twitter.com/#search?q=jkweddingdance notice the tweets are not seconds apart but hours apart. Something that achieved 13M views in the 11 days since posting would show far higher velocity or twitter intensity.
9. For a top-trending topic on twitter, there is usually correspondingly high search volume that is detectable. At first glance, terms related to this viral video like “jkwedding” or “jk wedding dance” all seem to spike. But if you put it against even “Corazon Aquino” (one of the top trending topics NOW on Twitter) those JK wedding search volumes are dwarfed. (see chart below).
10. Google only reports 366 links to the video and most of them are not even important websites (see Alexa blue bar)
11. The video itself has no honors and no stats (yet); YouTube stats are conveniently turned off. Other videos have their stats graphs publicly available.
12. see the fine print in the YouTube description — For more information or to make a donation towards violence prevention please visit our website: http://www.jkweddingdance.com/ – why would a normal wedding video ask people to make a donation towards violence prevention? (see screen capture below), the WHOIS record shows the domain jkweddingdance.com was created 29-Jul-09 — today is 31-Jul-09
Updated: This was circumstantial evidence. A source confirmed that Jill is studying patterns of violence propagation for her PhD. Their choice of charity was their own choice. And the site was set up to help that cause.
Conclusion? The video itself is real, made by those nice people in the wedding. They may not even realize why or how their wedding video went viral (and the tens of thousands of other wedding videos on YouTube did not). On the Today Show, “The couple told Lauer they were surprised at the video’s popularity” (also see NY Daily News article – http://bit.ly/OA3iG )
Related articles:
ReadWriteWeb – Build Profit Not DMCA Suits
WSJ – YouTube Declares Wedding Video a Financial Success
PSFK – Co-opting Viral Hits to Sell More Music
TechCrunch – YouTube: Viral Wedding Videos Are Great For Advertising
Huffington Post – Viral Wedding on YouTube Drives Buyers to Chris Brown Music
The generalization that TV ads are more “helpful” than internet ads is simply false and irresponsible
In the following study published by Harris Interactive and Adweek Media, they show a chart which seemingly shows that TV ads are “most helpful” in making a purchase decision. If you were give the following list of choices — TV ads, newspaper ads, search engine ads, radio ads, banner ads, and none — and asked to select which was most helpful to your purchase decision; which would you choose? And would you choose that because it was more familiar to you (e.g. TV), seen more frequently, etc. Or is it that banner ads are generally known to be ignored (eye tracking studies show that most users know not to look at the top and right sides of a web page, knowing that banner ads typcially go there).
Source: http://www.marketingcharts.com/television/tv-ads-most-helpful-web-banners-most-ignored-9645/
More than one-third of Americans (37%) say that TV ads are most helpful to them in making a purchase decision, while nearly half say they ignore internet banner ads, according to (pdf) a poll from AdWeekMedia and Harris Interactive.
In terms of the helpfulness of ads in other media, newspapers rank second behind TV, with 17% reporting that newspaper ads are most helpful, while 14% say the same about internet search-engine ads:
At the other end of the spectrum, Radio ads (3%) and internet banner ads (1%) are not considered helpful by many people. The poll found also that more than one fourth (28%) of Americans say that none of these types of advertisements are helpful to them in the purchase-decision-making process.
Not surprisingly, the types of ads Americans find helpful vary by age and, slightly, by region:
- 50% of people ages 18-34 find TV ads most helpful.
- 31% of those ages 55+ say newspaper ads are most helpful.
- 40% of Southerners find TV ads most helpful, while only one-third (33%) of Midwesterners feel the same.
Banner Ads Most Ignored
Almost half of Americans (46%) say they ignore internet banner ads, according to the study. Much further down the list of ignored items are internet search engine ads (17% of people ignore), television ads (13%), radio ads (9%), and newspaper ads (6%):
One in ten Americans (9%) say they do not ignore any of these types of ads.
Age and regional differences:
- 50% of those ages 35-44 and 51% of Midwesterners say they ignore Internet banner ads compared with 43% of 18-34 year olds as well as Easterners and Southerners.
- 20% of Americans 18-34 years old (20%) say they ignore Internet search engine ads while 20% of those ages 55+ ignore TV ads.
Harris Interactive suggestes that these findings are important because, despite online video and the ability to use a DVR to shift live programming, TV ads remain most helpful to consumers. Conversely, while an internet strategy is essential for a comprehensive ad campaign, banner ads are only considered helpful by a few and are ignored the most, the polling fiirm said.
About the survey: The AdweekMedia/The Harris Poll was conducted online in the US from June 4-8, 2009 among 2,521 adults (ages 18+). Figures for age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, region and household income were weighted where necessary to bring them into line with their actual proportions in the population. Propensity score weighting was also used to adjust for respondents’ propensity to be online.
Occasions and Holidays Drive Movie Box Office Sales, Not Advertising
Taking the top box office results for each of 52 weekends from the past 10 complete years (1998 – 2008; Source: IMDB.com) we see consistently that occasions like Valentines, Memorial Day, July 4th, and Thanksgiving show increased movie going activity. People have more time during these holidays to go to the movies and Valentines is a date+movie occasion. Also, during the summer, many people go to the movie theatre to escape the heat so there is an overall hump every year during the summer months — from Memorial Day to Labor Day.
People go out during Valentines, Memorial Day, July 4th, and Thanksgiving. And they still spend what they planned to spend — 2 tickets for movie — they didn’t buy 2 more tickets and see a second movie on the same date or holiday weekend. If they had several good movies to choose from (often, they don’t), they would choose to spend the finite dollars on the one movie they really wanted to see. The overall movie spending “pie” did not increase much, if any, year over year.
1998 $4,055,194,733 n/a
1999 $4,253,601,768 5%
2000 $4,496,554,005 6%
2001 $5,003,433,737 11%
2002 $5,489,974,199 10%
2003 $5,581,797,720 2%
2004 $ 5,697,299,530 2%
2005 $ 5,524,566,579 -3%
2006 $ 5,660,826,625 +2%
2007 $ 5,968,027,963 +5%
2008 $ 5,887,193,490 -1%
The chart below shows a red line which is the average of all 10 years. The 10 thin blue lines are the annual lines from1998 – 2008, inclusive and these are plotted as actual dollars. They come out right on top of each other.
Movie advertising, which runs into the hundreds of millions of dollars a year, has failed to noticeably increase the overall spending year-round or even during specific times. The chart below shows the differentials (difference between an annual line and the 10-yr average line). These all hover closely in the +$50M and -$50M band. The amplitude of the 10-yr average (red line) is larger than $50M in the summer hump — implying that the average change in movie ticket sales due to normal seasonality is larger than the change in amplitude caused by ALL movie advertising combined.
And the summer “hump” is due to actual demand (people going out to movie theatres, some to escape the heat) not due to advertising. The only effect of advertising is to share-shift from one movie to another — the total spending remains consistent and even seasonal variations are consistent — a “zero-sum game.”
All-Time USA Box office
Source: IMDB.com
| Rank | Title | USA Box Office |
| 1. | Titanic (1997) | $600,779,824 |
| 2. | The Dark Knight (2008) | $533,316,061 |
| 3. | Star Wars (1977) | $460,935,665 |
| 4. | Shrek 2 (2004) | $436,471,036 |
| 5. | E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial (1982) | $434,949,459 |
| 6. | Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace(1999) | $431,065,444 |
| 7. | Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest (2006) | $423,032,628 |
| 8. | Spider-Man (2002) | $403,706,375 |
| 9. | Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith (2005) | $380,262,555 |
| 10. | The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King(2003) | $377,019,252 |
| 11. | Spider-Man 2 (2004) | $373,377,893 |
| 12. | The Passion of the Christ (2004) | $370,270,943 |
| 13. | Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (2009) | $367,614,540 |
| 14. | Jurassic Park (1993) | $356,784,000 |
| 15. | The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002) | $340,478,898 |
| 16. | Finding Nemo (2003) | $339,714,367 |
| 17. | Spider-Man 3 (2007) | $336,530,303 |
| 18. | Forrest Gump (1994) | $329,691,196 |
| 19. | The Lion King (1994) | $328,423,001 |
| 20. | Shrek the Third (2007) | $320,706,665 |
| 21. | Transformers (2007) | $318,759,914 |
| 22. | Iron Man (2008) | $318,298,180 |
| 23. | Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone (2001) | $317,557,891 |
| 24. | Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull(2008) | $317,011,114 |
| 25. | The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring(2001) | $313,837,577 |
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince and other Harry Potter Movies
interest in Harry Potter movies (indicated by search volume) match exactly to the launch of the movies themselves. What is interesting is that the current movie (Half Blood Prince) and the upcoming 7th Harry Potter Movie (Deathly Hallows) had enormous search volume over 2 years ahead of each movie, 2005 and 2007, respectively. See second chart below.
Daniel Radcliffe…Harry Potter
Michael Gambon…Professor Albus Dumbledore
Dave Legeno…Fenrir Greyback
Elarica Gallagher…Waitress
Jim Broadbent…Professor Horace Slughorn
Geraldine Somerville…Lily Potter
Bonnie Wright…Ginny Weasley
Julie Walters…Molly Weasley
Rupert Grint…Ron Weasley
Emma Watson…Hermione Granger
Helena Bonham Carter…Bellatrix Lestrange
Helen McCrory…Narcissa Malfoy
Timothy Spall…Wormtail
Alan Rickman…Professor Severus Snape
Oliver Phelps…George Weasley
The hardest thing to do in web 2.0 …
is keep your audience, keep them interested, or provide enough value to them to get them to switch or get them to come back.
Case in point, Wolfram Alpha. In many ways it is superior (in a different way) than Google because it is a computational search engine — its results are focused on things that can be calculated — e.g. distance between NY and San Fran, etc.
Interest has waned (see search volume chart) and traffic has dropped (see Compete chart).
Viral videos are cool and all, but most of them don’t drive sales.
Samsung LED Sheep – how do I even buy an LED from Samsung, if I wanted one?
T-Mobile Dance – not sure exactly what it means or how it is related to cell phone service, but it SURE was cool!
Cadbury Eyebrows – cool, and forwardable video. but what does Cadbury make again? So I can go buy some of whatever they make? ;-)
etc. etc. you get the point…
the only videos (below) that actually have anything to do with the product are Filet-O-fish, condom bunnies doing their thing, and Denny’s banana on pancakes.
Source: http://adage.com/digital/article?article_id=135717
| Last Week | Brand | Campaign | Agency | Current Week Views* | % Change in Views** | Watch the Spot | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1 | Samsung | Extreme Sheep LED Art | The Viral Factory | 2,866,364 | +39% |  |
| 2 | 2 | T-Mobile | T-Mobile Dance | Saatchi & Saatchi, MediaCom | 876,946 | -15% |  |
| 3 | 4 | Cadbury | Eyebrow Dance | Fallon | 636,418 | +27% |  |
| 4 | New | Geico | It’s the Gecko/ Numa Numa | The Martin Agency, Horizon Media | 442,653 | New |  |
| 5 | 5 | McDonald’s | Talking Filet-O-Fish | Arnold | 378,488 | -2% |  |
| 6 | 9 | E-Trade | E-Trade Baby | Grey, New York | 323,100 | +17% |  |
| 7 | New | Ray-Ban | Never Hide | Cutwater | 304,970 | New |  |
| 8 | 8 | Durex | Get It On | Fitzgerald & Co., SuperFad | 235,290 | -18% |  |
| 9 | Back on chart | Denny’s | Nannerpuss | Goodby, Silverstein & Partners | 178,359 | -3% |  |
| 10 | 6 | Vodafone | Lewis Hamilton and the RC Office Grand Prix | Outsider | 171,123 | -49% |  |
|
Source: Visible Measures
|
|||||||
The Perfect Babe – Megan Fox (pics)
Megan Fox – The Perfect Babe Product Placement
No, this post is not about Megan Fox. Well, yeah it is. But it’s about the MARKETING of Megan Fox.
Megan Fox has been around in films and TV since 2001 (see filmography below). But it wasn’t until 2007 when she starred in the first Transformers movie that she burst on the scene and became an overnight mega celebrity, especially online (see Google Search Volume chart). If you look at Ford’s search volume during the same period, there was NO lift in search that was detectable — there probably was some lift, but it is simply not detectable.
So Megan Fox went from very very little awareness to not only massive awareness, but also massive demand — people remembered her name and even took action (performed searches on her name). If some product placements would have had only 10% of the success of the “megan fox” product placement, they might actually justify the immense cost a bit better (millions of dollars paid by the advertiser to the movie makers to place products into the storyline of the movie).
And why is she “perfect,” in the marketing sense, of course? Her search volume has not only sustained but also continued to grow. She was not a flash in the pan that went away after the advertising/media dollars stopped or the public interest died off (see the snuggie and etrade search volume charts below).
transformer girl, second girl in transformers, other girl in transformers – Isabel Lucas
About Me
Tags
Recent Posts
- iPad on Sale today – only 24% will buy, 76% will wait and see
- Change or Die [Music]
- A Predictable Failure: Kimberly-Clark Offering Kleenex Hand Towels
- 1024-bit RSA encryption cracked by carefully starving CPU of electricity
- 975
- Apple vs Microsoft vs Sony [Graphs]
- This Is Why that Amazing NASA Earth Image Looked So Familiar
- 972
- Please Euthanize This Big Boy Already – How Lack of Innovation Killed Another Giant
- 969
Popular Posts
- HP Mini 311 Nvidia ION Netbook Hackintosh'ed
- Facebook advertising metrics and benchmarks
- What is Web 3.0? Characteristics of Web 3.0
- social media benchmarks
- Samsung 52 inch HDTV $9.99 at BestBuy - purchase receipt below (6:21a eastern time August 12, 2009)
- The JKWeddingDance video was real; the viral effect was MANUFACTURED - Post 1 of 2
- How to manufacture a viral video sensation and make viral profits - Post 2 of 2
- The Grand Unified Theory of Marketing(tm) - Digital String Theory
- Evian baby viral video has much higher ROI than Etrade baby superbowl ad
- RTB - real-time bidding may make ad exchanges more efficient, but it still won't save display (ads)
Recent Articles by Dr. Augustine Fou
- The ROI for Social Media Is Zero - ClickZ
- What's Wrong With the Net Promoter Score - ClickZ
- The 22 Immutable Laws of Marketing No Longer Apply, Part 2 ...
- How to Do Social Marketing in Heavily Regulated Industries ...
- The 22 Immutable Laws of Marketing No Longer Apply - ClickZ
- 11 Most Popular Experts' Columns of 2009 on ClickZ - ClickZ ...
- December 27, 2009 - January 2, 2010 - ClickZ - News and ...
- ClickZ - News and expert advice for the digital marketer ...
Pages
Archives
- March 2010 (10)
- February 2010 (21)
- January 2010 (12)
- December 2009 (4)
- November 2009 (2)
- October 2009 (14)
- September 2009 (6)
- August 2009 (19)
- July 2009 (34)
- June 2009 (11)
- May 2009 (4)
- April 2009 (6)
- March 2009 (13)
- February 2009 (32)
- January 2009 (25)
- December 2008 (1)
- October 2008 (1)
- November 2007 (1)
