company
Source: http://gizmodo.com/5481545/record-labels-change-or-die
It’s a lousy time to be a record label. Profits are tanking, bands are angry—OK Go just ditched EMI—and YouTube and BitTorrent changed the game. Still, some labels are transforming themselves to help musicians in the digital age.
“Change or Die” may sound like hyperbole, or an idle threat, but for the music business, the two alternatives have never been more real. EMI may very well go extinct in the coming months, and all of the major labels are fighting losing battles. But all is not lost.
The traditional role of a record label, in the broadest sense, is to bankroll a band until they start making lots of money, at which point the label gets to keep most of it. They own the master recordings a band makes, and by taking on this ownership they put all of their resources behind selling said recordings.
This setup makes sense when bands lacked the wherewithal to produce and record their own albums and when manufacturing and distributing physical copies of albums and marketing said albums costs hundreds of thousands of dollars. It also makes sense when a popular album will sell millions of copies at $15 a pop.
But that’s definitely not the case now. Record stores are dying at an alarming rate, and fewer and fewer people are buying CDs every day. It’s safe to say that the current generation of teenagers has never perused record stores as a normal activity; it’s all downhill from here for physical music sales. And FM radio isn’t doing too hot either. In short, everything that the music industry has known to be true for the last few decades is quickly turning to dust. Big labels can still bank on country, R&B and pop acts, but the bottom has already fallen out on alternative groups and other internet-friendly genres. And that’s just the beginning.

The Old, Dead Way of Doing Business
The way bands operate has changed so much in the last decade that what a label can provide and what bands require of a label has changed drastically, faster than labels have been able to adapt.
Manufacturing and distribution used to be the cornerstone of a label’s business; every major label owned its own plants to make the albums and also dealt with shipping the albums worldwide. Today, only Sony still owns plants that manufacture CDs, with the other three big labels outsourcing manufacturing to them. But they all still have reps who have to go out to record stores and make sure that their albums are getting proper shelf space. They have to deal with defects and returns. There are lots of resources required to deal with the manufacture and distribution of a physical product, but that physical product is quickly headed towards irrelevancy.
The biggest music stores are now virtual, so there’s no need for someone to go gladhand every Sam Goody manager so they give you endcap space for Use Your Illusion II. The iTunes Music Store sells 25% of the music sold in America as of last August, and that number is definitely going up, not down.
According to the IFPI, physical sales of music dropped 15.4% globally between 2007 and 2008. But in that same year, digital sales rose 24.1%. And Nielsen SoundScan numbers show that the number of units sold between 2006 and 2009 rose from 1 billion per year to 1.7 billion per year, with a unit referring to either an album or a song sold. It’s a significant increase, but when someone buying three songs counts the same as someone buying three CDs, you can see why the labels are losing money despite the positive-sounding stat.
But for unsigned bands, companies such as TuneCore and CD Baby act as middlemen between them and digital storefronts like iTunes for very small amounts of money; getting your album up on major stores such as iTunes, Amazon and eMusic will set you back about $47 through TuneCore. And you retain all ownership of your music and keep all royalties, unlike working with a record label.
And TuneCore’s internal numbers show that online sales are growing even faster for independent acts than those already well established. TuneCore CEO Jeff Price told me that between 2007 and 2009, TuneCore artists have gone from earning $7-8 million a year to $31 million, with $60 million in earnings projected for 2010. That’s insane growth, to be sure, but it’s got a long way to go before it represents a sizable proportion of global music sales. To put things in perspective, the IFPI recorded $4.9 billion in sales for 2008.
Furthermore, these days it’s easier than ever for musicians to record music without an expensive studio. Software such as Reason, Pro Tools and Logic can be bought for $300 or less, and run on a mid-range laptop. Cheap mics and gear can be found all over eBay and Craigslist. Tie everything together with a $200 to $500 mic preamp analog-to-digital/digital-to-analog box, and you have a mini-studio in your bedroom.
And music blogs have turned the way artists are discovered on its head. It used to be that high-paid A&R executives would scour clubs to find underground bands to sign, acting as the filter between the millions of mediocre bands and the discriminating public. Today, obsessive music fans scour clubs and the web for free, discovering new acts and writing about them on blogs. Labels then discover bands from these blogs. The A&R system is no longer as relevant.
Marketing and promotion, another cornerstone service that labels provide, has also been transformed by the web. You no longer need radio play and ads in Rolling Stone to get your band noticed. When a band makes a music video, there’s less of a need for a major label with contacts at MTV to push it through official channels to get it noticed. These days, you can just throw it up on YouTube and get it noticed by some music—or gadget—blogs. The fact that it’s a simple click or two from video appreciation to buying actual music is worth more than any paper ad in any dying magazine.
As Voyno from the musicians-as-entrepreneurs blog New Rockstar Philosophy told me, it’s very possible for a band to use the internet to replace much of what a label provides:
There are artists on YouTube who use creative on-the-cheap strategies to garner millions of views that direct traffic to their main site, iTunes pages, Facebook page and bandcamp.com profile. They then build an e-mail/text subscription from their new fans, which allows them to offer new merchandise, tickets for shows and other related info directly to fans. The web traffic analytics from all their sites can help them plan successful tours, target Facebook ads, and make better decisions on how to move forward.
These changes have shaken the foundation of the industry, and the biggest labels have borne the brunt of the losses that these changes wrought.
Tough Times for Major Labels
EMI is bleeding money. Earlier this month, it reported a whopping $2.4 billion loss, which, when added to its prior debts, puts it $4.5 billion in debt to CitiGroup. It owes Citi $160 million this month, and it’s facing a restructuring plan that’ll require an additional investment from its parent company.
EMI is owned by Terra Firma Capital Partners, a British private equity firm that also owns waste management companies, gas stations, residential home builders and movie theaters. To them, the art EMI is releasing is about as important as the trash that Waste Recycling Group collects. If it doesn’t make them money, it isn’t worth keeping around, 80 years of history or not.
Billboard’s Senior Editorial Analyst Glenn Peoples told me that it’s not for lack of trying that EMI finds itself in this position. “Labels have cut as many costs as they possibly can, they’ve taken fewer risks, they’ve signed fewer artists and tried to make safer bets,” he says. “They’re doing what they can, but the revenue might not be there to support the way they do business. So it’s very possible that the recorded music division of EMI will be sold off and will go elsewhere. An acquisition by Warner Music Group is a possibility, and that would take it down to three majors in recorded music, and that’d be pretty drastic and a lot of concentration between three companies.”
An EMI Music spokesperson told me, “EMI Music is doing well. We’ve reported revenue growth, despite a declining market, and strong operating profit and margin improvement, both in the last financial year and in the current year.” But if they can’t convince Terra Firma that they have a way out of the quagmire they’re in, the possibility of the number of major labels to dropping to three is very real.
And if that happens, what of those remaining three? Universal Music Group is owned by French media conglomerate Vivendi, a company with stakes in the Universal and Canal movie studios and the video game publisher Activision Blizzard amongst other holdings. Sony Music Entertainment is obviously a division of Sony, and we all know Sony has had problems of its own lately. Warner Music Group is the only major without a parent company to answer to, as it spun off from Time Warner in 2004, and its revenue dropped about $3.5 billion last year.
The Upside of Signing on the Dotted Line
But all is not lost, and the death of the record label at a business is not a foregone conclusion. Labels from EMI down to the smallest indie labels are racing to change the way they do business. And they still have quite a bit to offer.
Ra Ra Riot is a band from Syracuse, NY who’s currently prepping their second album from indie label Barsuk Records. Barsuk is a true indie based out of Seattle, featuring bands such as Death Cab for Cutie, Mates of State, Nada Surf and They Might Be Giants in addition to Ra Ra Riot.
I talked to Josh Roth, Ra Ra Riot’s manager, about the reasons bands still have for signing with a label. One big positive that signing to a label provides a band, he told me, is giving them legitimacy. “I think right now with the internet, there are just so many bands out there that it’s easy to go unnoticed,” he told me. “There’s still is a certain charm to having a label saying ‘We like this band and we’re going to sign them and you should take a listen.’ With the amount of bands that are out there, it’s hard to filter what is actually good now.”
Furthermore, as outlets such as radio and MTV have become less relevant, new venues for being heard and getting paid have opened up. “Commercials are becoming much more relevant,” Ra Ra Riot guitarist Milo Bonacci told me.
“That’s how a lot of bands get paid or get their music out there. That’s how a lot of people hear a song for the first time. I feel like commercials are taking the place of commercial radio.” And to get on a commercial, it sure helps to be signed to a label with a nice licensing department.
Of course, there are different types of record labels. A major label, such as EMI, has a lot more money to throw around and can make more promises, but contracts with majors can end up with artists further in the hole due to these deep pockets. As Bonacci told me, “There’s more risk. There’s more fuel to propel you forward up front, but that’s no guarantee.” That same fuel could blow up in your face. We’ve seen how bands who don’t hit it big can end up “owing” their major label hundreds of thousands of dollars, after all.
Indie labels (true indie labels, not boutiques under the umbrella of a major) have less resources and therefore will give bands less to recoup. Indies also will often offer the artist a chance to interact with top brass, something that is almost never done at a major. Indies are presumably owned by passionate music fans rather than gigantic multinational holding companies, which is important when a band needs to know that a label is 100% behind them, according to RRR’s Bonacci.
And signing to an indie instantly connects you to that labels fans, Bonacci says. “Nobody really cares about Sony records or Universal. You don’t seek out stuff that’s being released on Universal as a fan. Independent labels, be it Domino or SubPop or whatever, those labels have fans.”
Indie labels seem to have a better chance of adapting and surviving in tumultuous times. Since for the most part they’re private companies with few employees, they’re able to make drastic changes in their business models much more quickly than major labels. But that doesn’t mean they’ll all survive; famed indie label Touch and Go closed down last year, and in addition to repping bands such as TV on the Radio, Ted Leo and the Pharmacists, !!! and Blonde Redhead, they also handled distribution for other venerable indies such as Drag City, Kill Rock Stars, Jade Tree and Merge. It was a huge blow to the indie label scene.
Getting a Cut of Everything
The way labels are moving to stay alive is by becoming involved in the places that bands still make money, such as touring and merchandising. Traditionally, labels only made money off records sold, while any profits made from t-shirts or posters sold on the road went to the band. After all, if the label just owns the master recordings, it can only make money off the sale of said recordings, not any ancillary profits that come from things like touring.
But now some labels are pushing what are called 360 deals, which involve them in virtually everything an artist does. One of the most famous 360 deals was EMI’s 2002 deal with Robbie Williams, which was worth a whopping £80 million, giving EMI a piece of basically everything that Williams touched. That didn’t go so well, with Williams threatening to withhold albums from the label and trying to get out of his contract. But last week, according to UK trade paper Music Week, Williams’ manager Tim Clark publicly came out in support of the embattled label, saying, “My own view is Citigroup would be mad at this stage not to keep EMI on as a going concern. It just would be bonkers.”
In any case, 360 deals and general diversification are what big labels such as EMI are looking to move into, according to Billboard’s Glenn Peoples. “They’re definitely diversifying and they’re actually getting into agencies, artist management, concert promotion. There’s really no area that the four majors are not pursuing right now.”
These deals make the most sense for huge acts with lots of opportunities for branding and licensing. You’ve seen it in action here on Giz, in fact, with Dr. Dre’s Beats headphones and Lady Gaga’s new Creative Director “job” at Polaroid. Both those acts are signed to Interscope, a sub-label of Universal that’s clearly pushing artists towards these new revenue streams. But many smaller acts are still reluctant to give a label a slice of the entire pie with such a wide-reaching deal.
The fact of the matter is that bands do still need someone working for them, 360 deal or not. For some bands, just having a small team of a dedicated manager, publicist and lawyer who can handle the nitty-gritty of online sales, tour organization, merchandising and marketing will be enough for them. But many can still benefit from the huge networks that labels have with their contacts in every facet of the industry. Sure, you can print your own t-shirts, but a label with contacts with clothing manufacturers, stores and distributors can make that process a lot easier. And just how much of this work do you want to do yourself?
360 deals don’t make sense for all bands; Ra Ra Riot manager Roth isn’t sold on them. “A lot of labels are also now branching into management because the manager is involved with everything going on with a band. Labels will try to be like a full-service company to a band, but I don’t think it’ll be very popular.” He worries that bands will be setting themselves up to be taken advantage of even more by labels if they give up merchandising and touring profits to them. Having an independent team working for a band and playing middleman between them in the label makes sure there’s someone deeply involved in “business stuff” that still has their best interests at heart.
And it makes sense that a manager would be wary of labels moving into their territory, but there’s still a distinction between label and manager with these deals. “For example, a new artist signed to a multi-rights deal may use the major label’s merchandise company and e-commerce division in addition to its publishing and recorded music companies,” Peoples says. “In the past, a manager could pick and choose which merch, e-commerce, publishing and record companies it wanted to work with. Now they’re more likely to be under the same umbrella.”
Sometimes, a band’s management team can replace what a label does entirely. Just yesterday, OK Go announced it was splitting with EMI, whom they didn’t have the greatest relationship with, to strike out on their own with a new company called Paracadute. Paracadute is basically OK Go’s own team to handle management, promotion and distribution of their records. “The things that a major has to offer above and beyond anybody else are the things that OK Go really didn’t need so much,” Peoples says. “And that’s radio promotion and access to brick and mortar retail. If you’re going to create nearly all of your consumer awareness through cheaply made YouTube videos, you don’t need this big promotional and distribution system behind you.”
But not all bands can do what OK Go has done. The digital world looks a lot more accessible when only viewed through the lens of rock acts. “If you’re an R&B act, if you’re a straight up pop act, a country act, you’re going to need radio and you’re going to need brick and mortar retail, and that’s not going to change anytime soon. Things are changing definitely for alternative rock, rock and indie, but some genres sell a lot better in digital than other genres.”
But clearly, the money that’s to be made in music is no longer just in album sales. And bands seem to be presented with a choice: they can either allow labels to become more involved in everything that they do, and give up money that used to go exclusively to them in the process, or strike out on their own. Either way, they’ll entering a landscape where getting their song on Gossip Girl for 40 seconds is more important than any amount of FM radio play, where getting a music video posted to Stereogum is more important than getting it on MTV and where you make more money touring behind an album than selling that same album.
And in order to prove to artists that signing with a label is a better idea than going out on your own, they’ll need to make big changes; bigger than they’ve made so far. “It might be how an addict ends up turning his life around,” Peoples says. “He’s gotta hit rock bottom. And I dunno if the record industry has hit rock bottom yet, but maybe that’s what’ll need to happen for there to be really big change.”
But at the end of the day, the saving grace of record labels might be a lot more basic than who gets what percentage of merchandise or who deals with distribution. The big question is this: do bands really want to try to make it completely on their own? As Bonacci says, “I don’t necessarily want to have all that nitty-gritty stuff to worry about. I’d rather just worry about making music. I don’t want to worry about numbers or distribution or marketing or publicity or anything like that. That sounds like a desk job. I used to have a desk job, that’s why I’m playing music. Now look at me. I sleep on couches.”
Tags: addition, alarming rate, Art, band, Barsuk, bittorrent, brunt, business, capital, chance, Citi, CitiGroup, company, death, debt, division, doing business, Domino, Drag City, EMI, equity, firm, fm radio, fuel, gas, Group, home, hyperbole, indie, Indies, investment, Jade Tree, Josh Roth, label, Labels, last decade, losing battles, LOSS, lot, lots of money, lousy time, Major, making lots of money, management, master recordings, Milo Bonacci, money, month, movie, music, music business, music industry, music sales, Nada Surf, NY, parent, physical copies, plan, pop acts, possibility, radio, record, record label profits, record labels, restructuring, revenue, Riot, Rock Stars, Seattle, sony, Syracuse, Ted Leo, Terra Firma, thousands of dollars, time, Times, tmpPost, Universal, Warner, waste, way, year, YouTube
Source: http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=124023&nid=112103

“Kimberly-Clark’s Kleenex brand is offering an at-home version of a product that people take for granted in public restrooms: disposable hand towels. The new Kleenex Hand Towels are intended to address consumers’ growing concern with hand hygiene.
The product is on sale now with a retail price of about $3 for a box of 60 towels, per the company.
The Kleenex Hand Towels come in box packaging, with pop-up delivery. The product is intended to complement bathroom décor and space limitations — i.e., it can go on a towel bar or countertop.
Kleenex Hand Towels performed well in preliminary testing with consumers, the company says: Approximately two-thirds said they would use Kleenex Hand Towels as a substitute for cloth towels, and more than 90% reacted favorably to how the product and package design looked in their bathrooms.”
They used FOCUS GROUPS! And 2/3 said they would use! But think about it: $3 a box versus cloth towels I already have at home. At home, I don’t use disposable hand towels and at home I am not concerned about “hand hygiene” as I am in a public bathroom.
Tags: amp, bar, bathroom, bathrooms, box, box packaging, brand, Clark, cloth, cloth towels, company, concern, consumers, countertop, décor, delivery, design, disposable hand towels, focus, focus groups, GROUPS, growing concern, hand, hand hygiene, home, hygiene, Kimberly, kimberly clark, Kleenex, nid, package, packaging, price, Product, public bathroom, retail price, sale, Source, space, space limitations, substitute, TESTING, towel, towel bar, Towels, two thirds, version
Source: http://feeds.gawker.com/~r/gizmodo/full/~3/fCC_TUnak8c/research-and-development-apple-vs-microsoft-vs-sony
The core of any long-standing technology company is research and development. Here’s how Apple, Microsoft and Sony’s last decade of spending stack up.
Note that the first graph shows research and development as a percentage of revenue (to scale the spending by company, since revenues differ so greatly). This next graphic can help you conceptualize the revenue and R&D gap:

A Few Interesting Notes:
• Now, Microsoft spends about 17% of their revenue on R&D. Sony spends about 8%. Apple spends less than 4%.
• If you were to break down the amount of R&D that goes purely to physical (non-software) products sold by Apple and Sony, Sony would spend about $11.5 million per product while Apple would spend about $78.5 million per product. (Of course, that’s rolling the cost OS X and iPhone OS development into Macs and the iPhone, which could be seen as inflating their per product spending.)
• Microsoft just spends a lot of money in R&D, period—about $9 billion last year in generalized research (that often doesn’t lead to specific products). In terms of percentage growth over the last decade, Apple’s R&D has grown the most (nearly quadrupled) while Sony’s has grown the least (not quite doubled).
In light of these bare numbers, is it any surprise that Sony is struggling the most to capture the hearts and minds of a public hungry for gadgets?
Sources:
Apple
Apple Public Relations
Apple Investor Relations
Apple Insider 2004
Apple Insider 2005
Apple Insider 2006
Apple Insider 2008
Mac Observer
Microsoft
Microsoft Investor Relations
Sony
Sony Investor Relations
Research by David Chaid
Tags: amount, amp, apple, Apple Apple Public, Apple Insider, Apple Investor, apple investor relations, apple microsoft, apple public relations, bull, chaid, company, conceptualize, Core, cost, course, D. Sony, David Chaid, decade, development, Gap, gawker, graph, growth, hearts and minds, iPhone, last decade, light, lot, Mac Observer, Macs, mdash, microsoft, microsoft investor relations, microsoft microsoft, money, os development, percentage, percentage growth, period, Product, research, revenue, software products, sony, Source, specific products, spending, surprise, technology, technology company, tmpPost, year
Source: http://feeds.gawker.com/~r/lifehacker/full/~3/EPIG2PU6xqU/what-do-you-buy-online-vs-in-stores
Online advertising company Permuto pulled data from the U.S. Census Bureau into a nice infographic comparing people’s purchasing habits in-store vs. online, and it got us wondering: What do you buy online vs. in stores?
(Click the image above for a closer look.)
According to the Census Bureau’s data, the old brick and mortar stores are still responsible for the majority of sales in most of the categories, save for a few notable categories, including books, clothing, and electronics. Since Lifehacker readers are a more tech-savvy crowd than most of the public, we’d guess you tend more toward the buy online crowd. Are you more of a virtual shopper, or do you still prefer to touch and feel before you buy? It certainly varies depending on what you’re buying, so tell us about it in the comments.
Tags: advertising, advertising company, brick, brick and mortar, brick and mortar stores, Bureau, census bureau, click, closer look, clothing, company, crowd, gawker, Image, including books, infographic, Lifehacker, look, majority, mortar, online, Permuto, public, Shopper, Source, tmpPost, u s census bureau, U.S. Census, virtual shopper
Source: http://feeds.gawker.com/~r/gizmodo/full/~3/9IJFaADoLr0/apple-the-iphone-company
Apple watchers can now see how truly huge the company’s iPhone business has become, thanks to a new accounting method the company started using this past quarter.
In less than three years, the iPhone has grown to become Apple’s biggest business—up from zero.
Specifically, during Apple’s December quarter, the company reported $5.6 billion of iPhone-related revenue, up 90% year-over-year. That edged out the Mac business ($4.5 billion) and iPod business ($3.4 billion) for the second quarter in a row and the third time ever. It was the first time the iPhone has beat the Mac and iPod businesses by more than $1 billion each.
And this despite Apple missing Wall Street’s expectations for iPhone sales, thanks to increased competition from Google Android and other smartphones.
Why the new visibility? During the quarter, Apple started taking advantage of new accounting rules that lets it report the vast majority of revenue from iPhones and Apple TV devices immediately. Previously, it had to spread the revenue over 24 months to account for free software updates it would offer those customers.
Tags: 1 billion, accounting, advantage, android, apple, apple tv, business, company, competition, December, free software updates, gawker, google, iPhone, iphones, iPod, less than three years, Mac, mac business, majority, mdash, method, Quarter, revenue, row, second quarter, smartphones, software, Source, third time, time, tmpPost, tv devices, visibility, Wall Street
Source: http://feeds.gawker.com/~r/gizmodo/full/~3/xZHNT92BICw/bing-could-catch-yahoo-by-the-end-of-the-year
Since Microsoft’s Bing search engine launched last summer, it has gained market share at the expense of Yahoo. If the trends stay consistent, Bing could pass Yahoo in the U.S. by the end of November.
To be sure, some (most?) of Microsoft’s gains have come with an expense: The company is buying up toolbar deals to become the default search engine for more users — less-valuable, paid traffic that Yahoo seems happy to give up. And Microsoft has spent a lot of money advertising Bing.
But there’s no doubt that Yahoo’s declining search business, long term, is bad news for the company. Especially because its deal to farm out its search technology to Bing will only generate revenue for searches conducted through Yahoo, not through Bing, even though Yahoo is selling the ads on Bing.


Tags: advertising, bad news, bing, business, company, deal, declining, default, default search engine, doubt, end, engine, expense, gawker, lot, market, market share, mdash, microsoft, money, news, no doubt, November, revenue, search, search business, search technology, share, Source, summer, technology, term, tmpPost, toolbar, traffic, U.S., Yahoo
Bing search volume continues to drop despite tons of ads and cheating — redirecting traffic from live.com, msn.com, microsoft.com, and windows search (see also – http://bit.ly/7qDBEz) .
January 13, 2010
The Nielsen Company today reported December 2009 data for the top U.S. Search Providers.
MegaView Search data – including total searches, unique searchers, search share, and all other search figures – cannot be trended with search results prior to October 2009 due to recent methodology changes.

Searches represent the total number of queries conducted at the provider. Example: An estimated 6.7 billion search queries were conducted at Google Search, representing 67.3 percent of all search queries conducted during the given time period.
versus Oct 2009 numbers from hitwise

Tags: aol, Bing Search, BizRate, cannot, com, Comcast, company, company searches, December, example, google, Hitwise, January, Live, MegaView, methodology, microsoft, msn, NexTag, Nielsen, nielsen company, number, Oct, October, Pages, percent, period, provider, Providers, rank, Ranked, search, search data, search figures, search providers, search queries, search volume, Searches, share, Source, time, time period, today, traffic, U.S., Web, web search, Windows, Yahoo, Yellow, yellow pages
Source: http://feeds.gawker.com/~r/gizmodo/full/~3/wi7IRjN1PGg/the-us-is-giving-digitalization-112-percent
If you were ever curious to know how fast our lives are becoming saturated with digital technology, get a load of this graph. In 2004 we were in the kiddie pool and by 2007 we were drowning.
Citing the Census Bureau’s recent Statistical Abstract of the United States, Fast Company notes that an estimated 110 billion text messages were sent on cellphones in December 2008—more than double the previous year. Retail sales also soared from $24 billion when the decade began to $128 billion in 2007.
So where are we now? It’s probably safe to assume that the Cracken has dragged our lifeless corpse to Davy Jones’ locker. [Fast Company]


Tags: Abstract, Bureau, Cellphones, Census, census bureau, company, corpse, Cracken, Davy, davy jones locker, decade, December, digital technology, digitalization, Fast, gawker, graph, Jones, kiddie, kiddie pool, lifeless corpse, load, locker, mdash, pool, retail sales, Source, Statistical, statistical abstract, technology, text, text messages, tmpPost, United States, year
My main issues with the Net Promoter Score (NPS) is that it doesn’t tell me anything new, is based on flawed math, the number cannot stand alone, and is not actionable (does not tell marketers what to go do).
Read More about Net Promoter Score Challenges
Thanks for all the retweets!
ZebraBites@adamferrier Another one for the NPS collection; http://www.clickz.com/3635696 (via @jhenning and @acfou)
acfouIt’s an “it is what it is” metric (which isn’t actionable) – #netpromoterscore #netpromoter #NPS - http://bit.ly/6EYyc
spiralsThought provoking Net Promoter article http://www.clickz.com/3635696 -Good idea to use search as an indicator of customer satisfaction
VirtualMRRT @berniemalinoff: RT @JHenning @acfou: Net Promoter Score (NPS) is synonymous with “useless” http://tr.im/Fgv3
seangibRT @glenngabe: What’s Wrong With the Net Promoter Score http://bit.ly/84Jh2P via @acfou on ClickZ – some interesting comments as usual w …
glenngabeWhat’s Wrong With the Net Promoter Score http://bit.ly/84Jh2P via @acfou on ClickZ – some interesting comments as usual w/Dr. Fou.
MetriclyWhat’s Wrong With the Net Promoter Score - http://bit.ly/8U3VVD
christinet6dOh snap… RT @lizapost What’s the value of the Net Promoter score? According to @acfou, not much. ‘http://bit.ly/6EYyc
lizapostWhat’s the value of the Net Promoter score? According to @acfou, not much. ‘What’s Wrong With the Net Promoter Score’http://bit.ly/6EYyc
berniemalinoffRT @JHenning @acfou: Net Promoter Score (NPS) is synonymous with “useless” http://tr.im/Fgv3 || healthy debate pros/cons of #NPS
contactjrFrom @acfou: What’s wrong with the Net Promoter Score? http://bit.ly/17ahJC
Noakesi@holycow RT @jonnylongden: RT @rj_berg: Great article on some of the problems with Net Promoter Score (NPS) http://bit.ly/2h5jot#measure
acfouNet Promoter Score (NPS) like brand sentiment scores are oversimplified averages that are not actionable - http://bit.ly/6EYyc
ju2ltdRT @jonnylongden: RT @rj_berg: Great article on some of the problems with Net Promoter Score (NPS) http://bit.ly/2h5jot #measure
jonnylongdenRT @rj_berg: Great article on some of the problems with Net Promoter Score (NPS) http://bit.ly/2h5jot #measure #retail – why use this?
Adtraction_RAJ_What’s Wrong With the Net Promoter Score http://bit.ly/17ahJC (mmm)
KarmaMediaLabs#NetPromoterScore not all it’s cracked up to be? Decide for yourself: http://bit.ly/17ahJC
EricheadRT @rj_berg: Great article on some of the problems with Net Promoter Score (NPS) http://bit.ly/2h5jot #measure #retail – why use this?
PeteHealyNet Promoter Score = useless; replace w/ search volume. Augustine Fou @acfou http://www.clickz.com/3635696 Your thoughts? #in
helena_chariRT @mrnews: #NPS ‘tells you the obvious, isn’t predictive, doesn’t answer the “So what?” question.’ http://bit.ly/1DqmgD (via @DavidPenn …
makingcjcAn it is what it is” metric…debate on the Net Promoter score. http://www.clickz.com/3635696
DannyGavinRT @EstherSteinfeld Interesting read: “What’s Wrong with the Net Promoter Score?” @acfou says, “So many things.”http://bit.ly/1ojkfk
ZaliciousRT @kevinertell: This is an excellent article on ClickZ: What’s Wrong With the Net Promoter Score http://www.clickz.com/3635696
hellosmalldogArticle about NPS is interesting – thanks to @mjayliebs for CCing us! We’re reading it now. (via @acfou, @wimrampen)http://tr.im/Fgv3
bigmacherRT @kevinertell: This is an excellent article on ClickZ: What’s Wrong With the Net Promoter Score http://www.clickz.com/3635696
DavashRT @rj_berg: Gr8 article: problems w/Net Promoter Score (#NPS) (http://bit.ly/2h5jot ) #measure [A grad of stats 101 could see all of this]
BobbleHeadGuruRT @rj_berg: Gr8 article: problems w/Net Promoter Score (#NPS) (http://bit.ly/2h5jot ) #measure [A grad of stats 101 could see all of this]
EstherSteinfeldInteresting read: “What’s Wrong with the Net Promoter Score?” @acfou says, “So many things.” http://bit.ly/1ojkfk
kevinertellThis is an excellent article on ClickZ: What’s Wrong With the Net Promoter Score http://www.clickz.com/3635696
rj_bergGreat article on some of the problems with Net Promoter Score (NPS) http://bit.ly/2h5jot #measure #retail
mjayliebsRT @wimrampen: Net Promoter Score (NPS) is synonymous with “useless” http://tr.im/Fgv3 (cc @hellosmalldog)
jestodcWhat’s Wrong With the Net Promoter Score http://www.clickz.com/3635696
jonathanmendez“NPS is what I call an “it is what it is” metric — it tells you the obvious” http://bit.ly/6EYyc
mrnews#NPS ‘tells you the obvious, isn’t predictive, doesn’t answer the “So what?” question.’ http://bit.ly/1DqmgD (via @DavidPenn1@jhenning)
DavidPenn1RT @jhenning RT @acfou: Net Promoter Score (NPS) is synonymous with “useless” http://tr.im/Fgv3 Maybe we need to take it less literally?
wimrampenRT @JHenning: RT @acfou: Net Promoter Score (NPS) is synonymous with “useless” http://tr.im/Fgv3
NicoPeruzziPhDRT @JHenning: RT @acfou: Net Promoter Score (NPS) is synonymous with “useless” http://tr.im/Fgv3 – the emperor has no clothes…
JHenningRT @acfou: Net Promoter Score (NPS) is synonymous with “useless” http://tr.im/Fgv3 Builds on my criticisms with some of his own.
acfouNet Promoter Score (NPS) is synonymous with “useless” (is based on bad math, is not actionable) – what say you? http://bit.ly/6EYyc
Tags: accurate indicators, acfou, acfouIt, acfouNet, adamferrier, Adtraction, Alone, Amazon, anything, apple, application, article, Augustine, berg, bergGreat, berniemalinoff, berniemalinoffRT, blog, BobbleHeadGuruRT, boots, brand, camera, cannot, CCing, challenges, chariRT, christinet, ClickZ, colleague, collection, company, customer, customer satisfaction, DannyGavinRT, DavashRT, DavidPenn, debate, debate pros, detractors, dimension, dOh, Dr. Fou, EricheadRT, EstherSteinfeld, everything, Facebook, forum, forum posts, Fou, friend, future sales, glenngabe, glenngabeWhat, gr8, grad, Great, Helena, hellosmalldogArticle, idea, indicator, industry, Insight, JHenning, jonnylongden, jonnylongdenRT, KarmaMediaLabs, kevinertell, Let, likelihood, list, lizapost, lizapostWhat, ltdRT, makingcjcAn, many things, marketers, math, measure, measurement, MetriclyWhat, metrics, mmm, Net, net promoter score, Net Promoter Score (NPS), netpromoter, NetPromoterScore, New, NPS, number, online, Paper, percent, percentage, PeteHealyNet, power, Predictive, predictive power, Product, product innovations, Promoter, promoters, pros cons, question, quick scan, quot, RAJ, Read, Read More, reading, rj berg, rt, satisfaction, scale, score, seangibRT, search, search volume, season, sentiment, service, snap, specific products, spiralsThought, stand, statuses, survey, time, use, value, VirtualMRRT, volume, Warner, way, wimrampen, word of mouth, ZaliciousRT, ZebraBites
Just as physicists and mathematicians have been searching for the grand unified theory of the universe, I have been looking for a way to tie together the disparate disciplines of marketing and advertising, a way to correlate metrics from different industries that interrelate with marketing (e.g. market research, Nielsen, etc.), a way to put all past theories in context and perspective (Michael Porter’s Five Forces, Net Promoter, etc.), and a way to explain marketing successes and failures — all in one.
My method is the scientific method – which is simply put doing experiments and making observations that either support or refute hypotheses.
A grand unified theory will also need to be able to take into account phenomena such as social networks, etc. What are the organizing principles of such; what is the value? Why now?
Using digital tools — such as search volume trends — we can start to correlate marketing spend effectiveness across different forms of media and also different advertising and marketing techniques. The example below compares eTrade and Drobo. What is most embarrassing is that eTrade, a well known brand from the first dot-com heyday, spent lots of money creating and airing TV ads which it hoped would go viral. They even paid for Superbowl ads for the last 2 years to promote the “eTrade talking babies” as you see from the 2 spikes in search volume during February of 2008 and 2009. However, when compared to Drobo (a startup company that developed a very easily upgradeable back up hard drive array), it is shocking to note that Drobo spent NOTHING on advertising and relied entirely on word of mouth and an awesome product. And their search volume is not only larger than eTrade but also sustainably larger despite zero advertising and media cost. The “totals” even suggest that the volume under the curve of Drobo is 8X (EIGHT TIMES) that of eTrade.
So if you consider that eTrade spent millions of dollars to create the TV ads and even more millions of dollars to air them on TV in order to drive interest, demand, and hopefully new customers, then Drobo can be considered to have gotten the equivalent of 8X more dollars in advertising and media – for FREE using techniques and channels other than TV advertising. So what does that say about the relative value of TV advertising compared to these other, newer techniques?

godaddy vs megan fox

Tags: account, advertising, array, brand, company, context, curve, demand, Digital String Theory, digital tools, disparate disciplines, drive, drive array, Drobo, effectiveness, EIGHT, eight times, equivalent, etrade, example, February, fox, FREE, godaddy, grand unified theory, Grand Unified Theory of Marketin, heyday, hypotheses, interest, interrelate, lots of money, market, market research, marketing, marketing spend effectiveness, marketing techniques, mathematicians, Megan, method, metrics, Michael Porter, money, mouth, Net, net promoter, Nielsen, nothing, order, perspective, phenomena, physicists, Product, Promoter, research, scientific method, search, search volume, social networks, startup, startup company, successes and failures, superbowl, superbowl ads, support, theory, theory of the universe, Times, tv ads, universe, value, volume, volume trends, way, word