demand

"We Are Not Prepared"

Source: http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-02/washington-war-games-simulate-crippling-cyber-attack-us

Washington insiders recently sweated out a real-time war game where a cyberattack crippled cell phone service, Internet and even electrical grids across the U.S. The unscripted, dynamic simulation allowed former White House officials and the Bipartisan Policy Center to study the problems that might arise during a real cyberattack emergency, according to Aviation Week’s Ares Defense Blog.

The Policy Center’s vice-president reports “”The general consensus of the panel today was that we are not prepared to deal with these kinds of attacks.”

The nightmarish scenario that unfolded represented a worst-case example. As former secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff noted, many cyberattacks can be stopped if individual cell phone or Internet users simply follow the best practices and use the right tools. Similarly, another participant pointed out that private Internet companies would not sit idly by as a virus ran amok.

A collapse of power across the U.S. also only took place when the simulation brought in factors such as high demand during the summer, a hurricane that had damaged power supply lines, and coordinated bombings that accompanied the cyberattack and subsequent failure of the Internet.

Still, the war game highlighted crucial issues about the government’s own reliance upon communications that might go down during a real-life scenario. One of the biggest problems was how the President ought to respond to a situation that caused damage like warfare but lacked an immediately identifiable foreign adversary. Smaller-scale cyberattacks have already complicated real-world diplomacy, such as the alleged Chinese cyberattacks on Google and other U.S. companies.

Ares Defense Blog questioned a curious missing element from the simulation, in that there was no mention of what happened to phone or Internet service in the rest of the world. Surely a nation that decided to launch cyberattacks against the U.S. would take safeguards to protect its own crucial communication services, which would possibly help U.S. officials narrow down the list of suspects.

Another question seemed more mundane but equally important — how would the government activate the National Guard with cell phone service down?

The Pentagon’s DARPA science lab recently pushed for a “Cyber Genome Program” that could trace digital fingerprints to cyberattack culprits. But identifying whether a cyber attack came from individual civilians, shadowy hacker associations or government cyber-warriors has proven tricky in the meantime.

[via Ares Defense Blog]

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

Friday, February 19th, 2010 Uncategorized No Comments

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.

movie-box-office-2


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-box-office-2-overlay

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.

movie-box-2-differentials

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

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

Wednesday, July 22nd, 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

Padma Lakshmi makes sweet-and-savory love (pics) to …

My colleagues know I have argued against advertising’s ability to do “demand generation” — create need where there was none before. Instead I have always argued that advertising solves an awareness “missing link” for demand that was already there. In other words, a user has a need. Advertising puts a new product or a product that a particular user was simply not aware of before on his radar screen. And after further research, if the product fulfills that need he buys. Advertising rarely creates NEW demand. For example, we buy 4 quarts of milk per week because we have 2 kids. No amount of milk advertising will make us buy 5 quarts, because we simply don’t need it. Or, we’ve just bought a minivan. No amount of advertising, no matter how cool the family or the kids in the ad, will make us buy another mini van. If we just locked in health insurance this year, we are likely not to buy more or to switch, just because it is such a hassle. Make up more of your own examples.

But, I have to say, Carl Jr’s ad with Padma is really really making me want their bacon, barbecue sauce burger.  Or is it just ANY bacon, barbecue sauce burger? Or wait, is there even a Carl Jr around here? hmm ….. I guess I’ll just look at the picture some more…   :-)

Source: AdFreak

Padma devours fast food, Lindsay Lohan goes retro for Fornarina and vampire ads raise the stakes

March 30, 2009

-By Tim Nudd

padma-carls-jrfast-food-xxxx-padma-carls-jr

Carl’s Jr. serves it piping hot.

When we learned in February that Padma Lakshmi was filming a commercial for Hardee’s/Carl’s Jr., it didn’t seem likely that the Top Chef host would make as big a splash as Paris Hilton did with her infamous car-wash spot for the fast-fo.od company in 2005. But Lakshmi has actually put her own impressively suggestive mark on burger advertising with the new ad, in which she makes sweet-and-savory love to a Western-bacon deluxe on the front steps of a city apartment building. Paris Hilton, please pack your knives and go.

read more….

http://www.adweek.com/aw/content_display/news/agency/e3ie96e4a3e8c042db21628ca3995645a52

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

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 Uncategorized No Comments