course

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: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Monday, March 8th, 2010 Uncategorized No Comments

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]

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

Tuesday, February 23rd, 2010 Uncategorized No Comments

A new definition of “digital” – the collection of habits and expectations of modern users

By defining “digital” as not the technology, device, or channel, but rather the habits and expectations of modern users, we are able to make practical decisions about which marketing tactics, technologies, devices, and channels to use to match these users’ habits and expectations.  If you know their habit is to search, then you wouldn’t blow your whole budget on TV ads and have nothing for them to find online when they search. if you believe they expect to be able to find information from their iPhones, then you wouldn’t make your whole site high bandwidth, flashy, and Flash because they wont be able to view it at all.

Thank you all for your comments and retweets.

HamiltonWallaceA New Definition of Digital: http://bit.ly/2deV5u Article nails how “digital” is changing behavior. Listen-up marketers!

glenngabeA New Definition of ‘Digital’ http://bit.ly/2deV5u via @acfou on ClickZ

belindaangRT @randymatheson: Do we need a new definition of ‘Digital’? | ClickZ http://ow.ly/qZ4N

randymathesonDo we need a new definition of ‘Digital’? | ClickZ http://ow.ly/qZ4N

jonnylongdenRT @arkley68: Good post by @acfou – A New Definition of ‘Digital’ – http://www.clickz.com/3635052 #measure #roi

BennaPReading: the new definition of ‘digital’ from @acfou -via Clickz – excellent and informative read http://www.clickz.com/3635052

bwhigamInteresting POV – A New Definition of ‘Digital’ – http://bit.ly/2deV5u

MJinNYCRT @acfou – Branding is dead; targeting is dying; social media is not media- A new definition of digital? – http://bit.ly/TTTPC

acfouBranding is dead; targeting is dying; social media is not media – if you believe this new definition of “digital” – http://bit.ly/TTTPC

SgtWiggidyA new definition of Digital – http://bit.ly/2deV5u – Good Read!

jacqueswarrenNot so hot about his definition of digital, but this is certainly an action packed article !! http://bit.ly/2deV5u

Adtraction_RAJ_The new definition of digital – not just websites anymore. http://bit.ly/pAfEP

arkley68Good post by @acfou – A New Definition of ‘Digital’ – http://www.clickz.com/3635052 #measure #roi

MPPR755DCSRT @kathymbaird Defining ‘digital’ http://tinyurl.com/yb5f9tq I work with a ‘digital’ team I teach a ‘digital’ course. This about sums it up

jeanaandersonI just had this conversation at an interview Tues: Is Digital killing the brand? Is creative losing its pull? http://www.clickz.com/3635052

RaynaNyc‘A New Definition of Digital’ http://bit.ly/Xn2Gr Thought provoking post by @acfou (via clickz)

HeidiPatmoreRT @Jussipekka Reading A New Definition of ‘Digital’ (via @DaGood) http://www.clickz.com/3635052

kathymbairdDefining “digital” http://tinyurl.com/yb5f9tq. I work with a “digital” team. I teach a “digital” course. This about sums it up.

mktmobileA New Definition of ‘#Digital’: is not about products, it’s all about habits and expectations http://bit.ly/iTH67

fsdigitalA New Definition of ‘Digital’? : http://bit.ly/moxhd

konsultantasRT @baltix A New Definition of ‘Digital’ http://htxt.it/ZnVv

JussipekkaReading A New Definition of ‘Digital’ (via @DaGood) http://www.clickz.com/3635052

baltixA New Definition of ‘Digital’ http://htxt.it/ZnVv

sunshooter81A New Definition of ‘Digital’: Many people actively search for things online. And the moment they type i.. http://bit.ly/19irO8

DeanLandRecommended reading. Good piece from AC Fou: RT @acfou: How do you define “digital”? I define it thusly … http://bit.ly/TTTPC

acfouHow do you define “digital”? I define it thusly … http://bit.ly/TTTPC

LevickHow the new definition of “digital” is shaping marketing trends (from @acfou) http://bit.ly/Xn2Gr

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

Thursday, September 24th, 2009 Uncategorized No Comments

The Perfect Babe – Megan Fox (pics)

Megan Fox  – The Perfect Babe Product Placement

megan-fox-1 megan-fox-2 megan_fox_covers_june_2009_ellemegan-fox-babemegan-fox-pink-strapless-dress

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).

megan-fox-search

ford-search

snuggie

etrade-baby

megan-fox

transformer girl, second girl in transformers, other girl in transformers – Isabel Lucas

isabel-lucas-transformer-girl

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

Wednesday, June 24th, 2009 SEO, Uncategorized, metrics 3 Comments

CCA – cost of customer acquisition

how do we judge the relative merit and effectiveness of different types of advertising? By finding a common parameter that can be used to compare “apples to apples.” We argue that cost of customer acquisition is a great candidate for such a parameter.

For example, if television advertising cost $50 million to produce and air, and 1,000 people came to the acquisition website, and 10 people applied for and received credit cards then the CCA — cost of customer acquisition would be $5 million ($50 million / 10 people who got the credit card). Of course television advertisers would claim that the “impressions” from TV would have “branded” millions more people and they would eventually get a credit card from the company. That’s possible. But for the purposes of this exercise, if there is no absolute end-to-end tracking, we don’t count it. Because, for example, many other possible scenarios can also occur, like the person saw this ad for a credit card but ended up getting a card from a different bank, they saw and remembered the ad but they already had several credit cards from the company, etc.

With “online” we can easily see lift in search activity around the time that brand/awareness advertising is in-flight. This is one of the best indicators of interest — the person saw the TV ad, and was inspired enough to go online to do more research to inform their own purchase decision. Modern consumers will typically search and then click through. In rare instances, they will type the URL, but it is usually the domain name, not the special URL — domain_name.com/special_url — just because of pure laziness or simply because they forgot the /special_url portion.

Now let’s look at a print example: a print ad cost $5 million to produce and traffic in targeted magazines. About 1,000 people came to the website and 10 people ended up purchasing the advertised product. So the CCA is $500,000 per customer acquired.  There may be more people who saw the ad and eventually came in to buy a product. But again, there is a problem of attribution.

Now a final example from “online” marketing.  Search ads were run using Google Adwords and a $1 CPC (cost per click) was paid. Of those people who clicked through 1 in 20 purchased a product. So it took 20 clicks at $1 each to achieve 1 sale – so the cost of customer acquisition is $20.

OK, so what about prodycts not sold online? We can use a proxy which has a known conversion to sales. For example, once a coupon is printed from the website, from historic data the advertiser knows that 30% end up using the coupon – i.e. redeeming with a purchase. So, again, if we used a $1 CPC and 1 in 20 ended up printing the coupon and 30% of those “converted” to an offline sale, the CCA would be $66.67  ($20/0.30).

So to recap

Television – $5 million CCA

Print – $500,000 CCA

Paid Search – $20 CCA

Paid Search + Offline Sale – $67 CCA

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

Saturday, February 21st, 2009 digital, integrated marketing, marketing No Comments