Compete

The Social Makeup of Social Media: Income Breakdown

Source: http://blog.compete.com/2012/12/20/the-social-makeup-of-social-media-income-breakdown/

Out of sheer curiosity, we here at Compete used our demographic data to craft a mini-infographic showing the income breakdown across 6 of the top social sites. The US Browser Population is lined beneath each data-set for further comparison and context.

Of these properties, LinkedIn shows the most notable emphasis towards a specific demographic, individuals earning 60k and above. Pinterest shows a slightly higher representation among higher income demographics and Tumblr shows the same slight skew towards less affluent demographics.

Facebook and Google+ show even representation between all demographics, probably a result of how pervasive they are across the social-scape.

Make sure to leave your comments below!

The Social Makeup of Social Media - Income

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

Friday, December 28th, 2012 news No Comments

Facebook Fatigue vs LinkedIn Lift

Facebook Monthly Unique Visitors and Pageviews are down. Interestingly, the use of Facebook dropped over the holidays, implying that many people use it at the office and during work.

Source: Compete
Facebook Unique Users and Pageviews
Inline image 1
Inline image 2
LinkedIn Unique Users and Pageviews
Inline image 3
Inline image 4

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

Wednesday, February 22nd, 2012 analytics, news No Comments

Target Realizes There Are Only Two Ways To Compete With The Internet (TGT)

Source: http://www.businessinsider.com/target-realizes-there-are-only-two-ways-to-compete-with-the-internet-2012-1


Target

Target is sick and tired of customers who browse its stores and then go and buy products for cheaper prices from online retailers.

To reduce so-called “showrooming,” Target has asked its vendors to adopt one of two practices, according to the WSJ:

Last week, in an urgent letter to vendors, the Minneapolis-based chain suggested that suppliers create special products that would set it apart from competitors and shield it from the price comparisons that have become so easy for shoppers to perform on their computers and smartphones.

Where special products aren’t possible, Target asked the suppliers to help it match rivals’ prices. It also said it might create a subscription service that would give shoppers a discount on regularly purchased merchandise.

Target’s troubles with showrooming are shared by brick and mortar stores everywhere. Unfortunately small retailers may not have the clout to demand special products (see: Missoni) or help in price matching — and price matching without support from the supplier can be a losing proposition.

Don’t miss: See how big retails stores are spread across America >

Please follow War Room on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

See Also:




drag2share – drag and drop RSS news items on your email contacts to share (click SEE DEMO)

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

Monday, January 23rd, 2012 news No Comments

Compete Holiday Insights

Source: http://blog.compete.com/2011/11/04/compete-holiday-insights%e2%84%a2-2011/

With Halloween behind us, retailers are now full swing into the Holiday shopping season.  And consumers aren’t too far behind.  By the end of October, a little more than half of consumers surveyed said that they have begun their Holiday shopping.  In fact, 1 out of 10 consumers have completed at least half of their expected Holiday shopping.

Toys and games, electronics, and gift cards were popular gift items to purchase last week.  And while 1 in 3 consumers bought books the week end Oct 16, only 14 percent purchased books last week.  Santa was in a part mood last week, as can be seen by the jump in event ticket purchases.

Overall spend increased, probably do to the increase in higher ticket value items.  The average consumer spent $190 dollar online and $264 dollars in-stores on Holiday gift and items.  At this point in the season, consumers are still favoring in-store purchasing.

And where are consumers spending all of those in-store dollars?  Walmart, Best Buy, and Kohl’s were the most popular retailers to shop at last week.  Macy’s saw a large jump in foot traffic, probably due to their Party & Holiday Home sale.

Compete Holiday Insights™ will be your source for tracking consumers’ online and offline holiday shopping, so stay tuned for more posts like this in the coming weeks.


drag2share – drag and drop RSS news items on your email contacts to share (click SEE DEMO)

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

Wednesday, November 9th, 2011 news No Comments

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

facebook-yahoo-google-2-year

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.

search-share-jan-2010


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

Tuesday, February 23rd, 2010 digital No Comments

Facebook is going down – pageviews, average stay, pages per visit – why?

From the Compete charts below, it is clear that Facebook is seeing a decline in pageviews, average stay, and pages per visit.  But why?

I know that I have reduced the time I spend on Facebook and I have also reduced the number of messages and other social actions as well.  And I have deleted virtually all of my personal and family photos and will not upload any more. These may be the first signs of a waning of Facebook due to a number of factors.

I can’t get my stuff back out

For example, Facebook has stated that it will not participate in OpenSocial because they do not want people to be able to export their content, conversations, photos, etc, out of Facebook and use on another social network. I am concerned that I will not be able to retrieve or back up content which I believe is mine. I like to have control over my family photos, conversations with friends, etc. I am willing to accept as a “cost” of using the Facebook system the fact that they know who my friends are.  But I am less willing or unwilling to continue putting my content where I cannot get it back, in its entirety.  (Google Docs, for example, just launched a feature where you can back up everything back out of Google Docs into Microsoft Office formats).

Ads in the stream, erosion of trust

A second issue mentioned in a previous post is the increase in advertising on Facebook and also the more unscrupulous practice of injecting ads “into the stream” — ads masquerading as status updates. These are harmful to the overall trust built up in the community and I have un-friended quite a few people whose accounts were clearly used to promote events, products, etc.

Ad-effectiveness sucks

From a prior post – http://bit.ly/EhiW9 – Facebook advertising metric are absolutely abysmal. They keep trying to sell advertisers on the hundreds of billions of pageviews they throw off. But advertisers are getting smarter and more and more of them will buy ads on a cost-per-click basis (instead of CPM, cost per thousand impressions basis).  This means that the ad revenues that Facebook enjoyed from gross INefficiencies will be decimated.


facebook-pageviews

facebook-average-stay

facebook-pages-per-visit

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

Friday, October 30th, 2009 digital No Comments

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).

wolfram-alpha-search-volume-chart

wolfram-alpha-visitor-chart

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

Thursday, July 9th, 2009 digital No Comments

Bing is bigger than CNN, Digg, Twitter? Not so fast!

Compete shows that Bing’s unique users in June 09 is bigger than Twitter, CNN, and Digg.

This is not because people are voluntarily going to Bing.com.  It is because Microsoft redirected all traffic from live.com and search traffic (results pages) from msn.com to bing.com.

bing-twitter-cnn-digg-unique-visitors

This is what it looks like when a site changes domain names and redirects all rtraffic from the old site.  By next month Compete will show the same “X” for Live.com vs Bing.com

dailymakeover-makeoversolutions-unique-visitors

Already starting to see the decline of traffic from live.com which is entirely redirected to bing.com

live-search-vs-bing-unique-visitors

bing-compete

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

Thursday, July 9th, 2009 digital No Comments

the problem with online metrics – it’s estimated, approximated, or extrapolated

TechCrunch based the following post on ComScore numbers, which shows “MySpace currently has 124 million monthly unique visitors, compared to Facebook’s 276 million” in Feb 2009.

http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/03/23/facebook-hockey-sticks-while-myspace-languishes/

top10

But checking Compete and QuantCast the numbers are not just slightly different, they are way different.

Compete:  Facebook 74M; MySpace 53M in Feb 2009

QuantCast: Facebook 79M; MySpace 66M in Feb 2009

fb-vs-ms

facebook-quantc

myspace-quantc

Given the huge discrepancy, the only thing that can really be concluded is that Facebook has overtaken and is larger than MySpace now and continuing to widen the lead.

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

Tuesday, March 24th, 2009 digital No Comments

the economics of advertising sucks, but it will suck a lot more soon

it’s a simple matter of supply and demand. Let’s do a thought exercise.

1.  eMarketer forecasts that retail e-commerce will grow roughly 10% per year for the next few years. This means that the total “pie” of people spending online will only grow by an average of 10% per year. Note that sales is (or should be) the goal of advertising. So that’s why we are looking at e-commerce sales and comparing it to online advertising because both are completed in the same medium and we can eliminate cross-media uncertainties and breakdown of tracking.

e-commerce

2. online advertising is still exploding with trillions of pageviews per month, thanks to social networks which throw off ungodly numbers of pageviews when people socialize with others. The Compete chart below shows the top social networks which rely on banner advertising (impression-based advertising) to make revenues. Notice that just Facebook and Myspace alone generate 115 BILLION pageviews a month. And if you consider that Facebook shows 3 ads per page, that would be 250+ BILLION impressions per month served by Facebook alone. Furthermore, the rate at which pageviews grow is 250% – 1,000% per year, depending on the site in question.

pageviews

3. In the online medium, we have end-to-end tracking from the advertising (banner impression) through to the sale (e-commerce). The banner is served (impressions); a percent of users click on it to go to a site (click through rate – CTR); a percent of those make their way through the site and end up completing a purchase online (conversion rate). Those users who are looking for something and who are considering buying something will be online searching and researching. Those are the ones who are likely to click on banner ads, compared to others who are online to do something else, like write email, socialize with friends, etc.  And if the purchase is their ultimate end-goal (to make a purchase) we have a farily reliable indicator of the growth in not only such interest but also the completion of the task — namely, e-commerce, which grows at 10%.

4. Now, if the number of people who will click grows that 10%, but the number of advertising impressions grows at a slow 250%, the ratio of clicks to impressions drops dramatically because the denominator is growing 25X faster than the numerator. Serving more ads simply will not get the amount of e-commerce to grow significantly faster. The point of diminishing returns has been reached and passed, so incremental ad impressions are ignored and useless. The number of people who will end up buying will not increase significantly faster. And given the tough economic climate the amount of sales may actually decline before it goes up again.

5. If we generalize this back to all retail commerce, it grows at an EVEN slower pace than ecommerce. When you compare this to the dramatic increase in ad impressions and the shift from traditional channels (TV, print, radio – whose impressions and audience sizes are dwindling) to online channels (portals, news sites, social networks – whose impressions and audience sizes are skyrocketing) again the ratio of sales to available advertising drops dramatically. This is a measure of the effectiveness of advertising (sales  divided by advertising spend). It was already small — it sucked — and it will get dramatically smaller soon — it’ll suck more soon.

A way to mitigate this “sucking” is to peg advertising expenditures on a success metric which is an indicator of user intent — cost per click — versus a traditional indicator of reach and frequency — ad impressions served — which from the above is NOT an indicator of consumers’ intent to purchase.  This way, advertisers only pay when someone clicks. Those “someones” click when they are looking for something and are more likely to complete a purchase than those who don’t click.

“CPC banner advertising” anyone?

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

Sunday, March 15th, 2009 digital No Comments

Dr. Augustine Fou is Digital Consigliere to marketing executives, advising them on digital strategy and Unified Marketing(tm). Dr Fou has over 17 years of in-the-trenches, hands-on experience, which enables him to provide objective, in-depth assessments of their current marketing programs and recommendations for improving business impact and ROI using digital insights.

Augustine Fou portrait
http://twitter.com/acfou
Send Tips: tips@go-digital.net
Digital Strategy Consulting
Dr. Augustine Fou LinkedIn Bio
Digital Marketing Slideshares
The Grand Unified Theory of Marketing