cost

US consumers purchase $55 million worth of 3D TVs and Blu-ray players, despite the glasses

Source: http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/25/us-consumers-purchase-55-million-worth-of-3d-tvs-and-blu-ray-pl/

It’s early days yet, but NPD claims that revenue from US sales of 3D TVs and standalone 3D-capable Blu-ray players has exceeded $55 million in the first three months of availability. Mind you, this steady growth comes despite the absence of some major players. While that number might sound big, it’s tiny in comparison to the total number of TVs sold each month in the US and, according to our friend Ross Rubin, executive director of industry analysis at NPD, sales are expected to remain small throughout 2010. Regarding those much maligned 3D glasses, only 10% of those surveyed by NPD cited “looking silly” as a main concern. Instead, the biggest concern was not having enough glasses on hand for everyone looking at the set. A concern driven by cost, undoubtedly, and a dearth of survey participants from New York’s trendy Lower East Side.

Disclaimer: NPD’s Ross Rubin is a contributor to Engadget.

Continue reading US consumers purchase $55 million worth of 3D TVs and Blu-ray players, despite the glasses

US consumers purchase $55 million worth of 3D TVs and Blu-ray players, despite the glasses originally appeared on Engadget on Fri, 25 Jun 2010 06:58:00 EDT. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | | Email this | Comments

Tags: 3d glasses, absence, analysis, availability, blu ray players, Blu-ray, comparison, concern, consumers, Continue, Contributor, cost, D TVs, dearth, director, Disclaimer, East Side, EDT, email, Engadget, everyone, executive director, first three months, Fri, friend, friend ross, glassesUS, growth, hand, industry, Jun, lower east side, month, nbsp, New York, NPD, number, Permalink, pl, reading, revenue, Ross Rubin, Source, standalone, standalone 3d, survey, survey participants, tvs, US, use, worth

Friday, June 25th, 2010 news No Comments

Made-Up Word Advertising — “Retina Display” — is how Apple Launches New Products

A made-up word “retina display” had every major blog and news outlet scrambling to help explain what it was. Nearly 1.1 Million search results in 19 hours. It was covered on every evening news; look closely at the thousands of related news articles, etc. And all the major, powerful sites like Gizmodo, MacRumors, Engadget, etc. covered the event. Similarly 1.2 million search results on the “one more thing” feature — video calling on the iPhone called FaceTime. All entirely free primetime coverage — talk about the tens of millions of impressions achieved with NO media cost — they can definitely used the money saved to ensure Steve Job’s next keynote will have sufficient WiFi bandwidth for all those live blogging the event.

Look at the following graph of relative search volume. The spike in search volume for All-You-Can-Jet (in red) is about 4X higher than the orange line (Footlongs). And the blue line for “retina display” is 8X. Consider the cost of the paid TV media campaign supporting Subway’s Footlongs compared to the cost savings of the social media launch of JetBlue’s All-You-Can-Jet Pass and the no cost media for Apple.

Of course, not all companies will achieve the same mass coverage, but the techniques for product launches can be the same. Footlongs is an expensive paid media campaign by Subway and note how low the orange line is compared to the TWO no-cost launches.

And one more graph that shows Drobo plus 2 social media success stories — Groupon and FourSquare that even blow away Apple’s retina display — all for FREE.

Other notable examples of using made-up word advertising include JetBlue’s All-you-Can-Jet Pass and Subway’s Footlongs. Further details about JetBlue’s launch of the All-You-Can-Jet Pass is here – http://go-digital.net/blog/2009/08/jetblue-all-you-can-jet-pass/

Earlier unfiltered results on Google within 10 hours of launch — there are 3.9 Million results which will be de-duped overnight.

Day 1 Stats – page 1 position 3 in 44.6 million results

Tags: 1 million, 2-way video call, advertising, All, All-you, All-You-Can-Jet, apple, bandwidth, blog, blogging, blow, Campaign, Can, can jet, cost, course, coverage, day, display, Drobo, Engadget, evening, event, face time, facetime, feature, footlongs, FourSquare, FREE, Gizmodo, google, graph, groupon, impressions, iPhone, iphone 4, iphone4, Jet, jetblue, keynote, launch, line, liveblogging, MacRumors, made-up word, made-up word advertising, made-up word marketing, madeup word, mass, media campaign, Million, money, nbsp, news, news articles, news outlet, no media cost, note, Orange, orange line, outlet, Pass, primetime, Product, product launches, related news, relative search, retina, retina display, retinal display, search, search volume, spike, Steve Job, Steve Jobs keynote, Subway, subway footlongs, success, talk, tens, thing, tv media, video, video calling, volume, WiFi, word, X Consider, You

Tuesday, June 8th, 2010 Branding, integrated marketing 1 Comment

Inbound Marketing Costs Less than Outbound Marketing; Growing in Importance too

Source: http://www.marketingcharts.com/direct/inbound-marketing-costs-less-12762

Marketers who spend more than 50% of their lead generation budget on inbound marketing channels report a significantly lower cost per sales lead than those who spend 50% or more their budgets on outbound marketing channels, according to the “State of Inbound Marketing Report” [pdf] from internet marketing firm Hubspot.

Average Cost Per Lead $200 Less
The average cost per lead by inbound marketing-dominated firms in 2010 is $134. This is $198, or 60%, less than the $332 average cost per lead at outbound marketing-dominated firms. This percentage differential has remained consistent from a 61% higher average lead generation expense reported by outbound-marketing-dominated firms in 2009.

3 of 4 Major Inbound Channels Cost Less
When asked to rank each lead generation category as “below average cost,” “near average cost,” or “above average cost,” businesses consistently ranked inbound marketing channels as having lower cost than outbound channels. Only PPC (pay-per-click search) had overall cost rankings comparable to those given outbound channels.

Social media and blogs had the highest “below average cost” rankings for both 2009 and 2010 (55% as a combined category in 2009 and 63% separately in 2010).

Trade shows, with their requirements for travel and expenses, as well as space rental and booth setup/removal for companies who exhibit, had the worst cost rankings in 2009 and 2010. In 2009, 55% of companies said trade show costs were above average and only 18% said they were below average. These figures improved moderately in 2010 (48% and 22%, respectively), but still left trade shows as clearly the least cost-effective marketing channel.

Inbound Marketing Grows in Importance
Inbound marketing is continuing to grow in importance at the expense of outbound marketing, according to other findings from the State of Inbound Marketing Report.

As a percentage of the overall lead generation budget, inbound marketing expanded slightly from 2009 to 2010 (38% to 39%), while outbound marketing contracted more significantly (29% to 24%). The net effect is that the gap widened from inbound marketing, which had a 9% greater share of the overall marketing budget than outbound marketing in 2009, to a 15% greater share in 2010. Roughly one-third of the lead generation budget is considered “not classified.”

Tags: average, blogs, booth, booth setup, budget, budgets, category, channel, Channels, cost, cost effective marketing, differential, effect, exhibit, expense, firm, Gap, generation, Hubspot, importance, Inbound, inbound marketing, Internet, internet marketing, lead, lead generation, Major, marketers, marketing, marketing channel, marketing channels, marketing mix, one-third, outbound, outbound marketing, overall lead, pdf, Per Lead, percentage, PPC, removal, rental, report, report pdf, search, setup, share, show, space, State, Trade, trade show, trade shows, travel, whil

Sunday, May 2nd, 2010 Uncategorized 2 Comments

like the iPod touch, only bigger (updated)

Source: http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/30/ipads-trailing-costs-like-the-ipod-touch-only-bigger/

Whether or not you think the iPad is in and of itself a worthy purchase, let’s not forget the investment doesn’t end at the retail counter or online shopping cart. Two little newsbits have popped up to serve as a helpful reminder to just that effect. The first comes way of verbiage from the iPad end-user licensing agreement dug up by MacRumors; in a nutshell, it suggests that while iPad OS 4.x updates will be provided gratis, subsequent releases (5.x, 6.x, and so on) could be offered at a premium, à la how iPod touch handles firmware. This is far from a confirmation, but it’s well within Apple’s right to do so. The second bit is derived by The Consumerist by way a supposed leaked app store video. Comparing the prices of iPad-optimized software with the iPhone equivalents showed quite a hefty uptick in consumer cost — e.g., $4.99 Flight Control HD vs. $0.99 Flight Control. The pool of eight apps seen in the video would cost $53 in all to purchase, while the same set for the iPhone is $27. That screen real estate don’t come cheap, y’know — that is, should the prices seen prove legit. At this point we can’t confirm, and more than likely, we won’t know for sure until the eleventh hour.

Update: The BBC has word direct from developers that iPad apps will indeed be costlier than their iPhone / iPod touch brethren. Multiple devs are cited in the Beeb‘s article saying that their 99 cent apps will grow in price to $1.99 and $2.99 price points for the slate device [thanks, Ben].

iPad’s trailing costs: like the iPod touch, only bigger (updated) originally appeared on Engadget on Tue, 30 Mar 2010 21:07:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | post label source like the iPod touch, only bigger (updated) MacRumors, The Consumerist | Email this | Comments

Tags: agrave, agreement, app, apple, BBC, Beeb, Ben, bit, brethren, cart, confirmation, consumer, Consumerist, control, cost, counter, devs, effect, eleventh, eleventh hour, Engadget, estate, firmware, flight, flight control, hour, investment, iPad, ipads, iPhone, iPod, ipod touch, legit, licensing, licensing agreement, MacRumors, Multiple, nbsp, nutshell, online, optimized software, os 4, point, pool, premium, price, purchase, reminder, retail counter, right, screen, shopping, software, store, Touch, update, uptick, verbiage, video, way, word, worthy purchase

Wednesday, March 31st, 2010 news No Comments

Apple vs Microsoft vs Sony [Graphs]

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, David Chaid, decade, development, Gap, gawker, graph, growth, hearts and minds, Insider, Investor, iPhone, last decade, light, lot, Mac, Mac Observer, Macs, mdash, microsoft, microsoft investor relations, microsoft microsoft, money, Observer, os development, percentage, percentage growth, period, Product, public, research, revenue, software products, sony, specific products, spending, surprise, technology, technology company, year

Monday, March 8th, 2010 Uncategorized, news No Comments

The iPad Costs Apple As Little As $229.35 to Build

Source: http://feeds.gawker.com/~r/gizmodo/full/~3/s–4hn9Lyuk/the-ipad-costs-apple-as-little-as-22935-to-build

The $500 16GB, Wi-Fi only iPad costs Apple less than half that to build, according to a recent component breakdown from iSuppli. And for the 64GB 3G iPad, Apple clears nearly $500 in profit. Here’s how it breaks down:

Apple iPad Estimated Bill-of-Materials and Manufacturing Cost Analysis:
500x appleipadcostbreakdown The iPad Costs Apple As Little As $229.35 to Build This will no doubt be updated once iSuppli and others are able to do a teardown of an actual device, but those estimated profit margins are pretty stunning, particularly on the higher-end models. iSuppli also points out that the 32GB versions of the iPad only cost $30 more to make than their 16GB counterparts, yet retail for $100 more—a good indication that that’s where they expect the sweet spot to be in the market.

Goes a long way to explaining why Apple’s so willing to be flexible on the price, no?[iSuppli]

Tags: analysis, apple, Apple iPad, bill of materials, Bill-of, breakdown, Component, component breakdown, cost, counterparts, device, fi, G iPad, gawker, half, indication, iPad, iSuppli, Manufacturing, market, mdash, Models, no doubt, price, profit, profit margins, Spot, sweet spot, teardown, way, Wi

Thursday, February 11th, 2010 Uncategorized 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.

Tags: abysmal, Ad-effectiveness, advertisers, advertising, basis, billions, cannot, community, Compete, content, control, conversations, cost, cost per click, CPM, decline, Docs, entirety, erosion, everything, example, Facebook, fact, family, family photos, feature, first signs, google, impressions, increase, INefficiencies, issue, microsoft, microsoft office, mine, network, number, Office, office formats, OpenSocial, post, practice, social actions, status, status updates, stay, stream, stream erosion, stuff, system, time, trust, un-friended, upload, use, visit

Friday, October 30th, 2009 Uncategorized No Comments

Ad-supported photo books

Source: http://feeds.gawker.com/~r/lifehacker/full/~3/Xq6w7UEmbTg/hotprints-prints-free-ad+supported-photo-books

Need physical copies of some great shots, but you’re a bit too lazy to order and pay for them? HotPrints mails you free 16-page photo books, with shots pulled from Facebook, if you don’t mind some non-intrusive paper ads.

In this case, non-intrusive means the advertisements aren’t watermarked or otherwise touching your actual photos. They’re inserted between the pages, and can be pulled out, kind of like magazine subscription cards. You’d also have to be comfortable with HotPrints using “contextual” data from Facebook to target some ads at you. That means the album style you choose, the content of your profile, and region information from your Facebook account are used to target the ads, but the company claims that no identifying information is given out to its sponsoring partners. You can read more about HotPrints’ do’s and don’ts at their privacy policy.

If you’re cool with that at the cost of free, even free shipping, HotPrints’ Facebook app makes it fairly easy to pull in tagged photos of yourself or any Facebook contacts for a quickie album, with a limit of one per month. It’s a free service, requires a Facebook account (and app authorization) to use.

HotPrints [via TechCrunch]

Tags: account, Advertisements, album, app, authorization, bit, case, company, content, contextual, contextual data, cost, Facebook, free shipping, gawker, HotPrints, information, kind, limit, magazine, magazine subscription, month, page, page photo, Paper, paper ads, photo, photo books, photos, physical copies, policy, prints, privacy, profile, quickie, region, service, shipping, sponsoring partners, style, subscription, subscription cards, TechCrunch