drag2share: Android Users: Google Has ALL Your Wi-Fi Passwords (GOOG)


Computerworld’s Michael Horowitz shares some news that will do little to alleviate worries about Google’s privacy policy:

If an Android device (phone or tablet) has ever logged on to a particular Wi-Fi network, then Google probably knows the Wi-Fi password. Considering how many Android devices there are, it is likely that Google can access most Wi-Fi passwords worldwide.

Some back-of-the-envelope math points us to the estimate that 748 million Android phones will ship this year. That’s phones alone – Android tablets add to that figure.

With this many of its own devices in the wild, it becomes easy to see that Google has access to all order of Wi-Fi passwords.

This is all possible because of a feature that lets you back up and save your data to Google’s servers. This includes the obvious, like backing up your phone book and calendar, but it also snags your Wi-Fi passwords in the process. The feature is presented as a good thing, and by and large it is – if you lose a phone and need to replace it, all your data is backed up thanks to Google. No obnoxious re-entering of all your friends’ and family’s phone numbers, no need to scrounge up the passwords for your various Wi-Fi networks.

If the privacy implications of this outweigh the convenience, you can opt out by unchecking the appropriate box in your settings. Horowitz offers the following instructions on how to navigate to the appropriate dialogue:

  • In A ndroid 2.3.4, go to Settings, then Privacy. On an HTC device, the option that gives Google your Wi-Fi password is “Back up my settings”. On a Samsung device, the option is called “Back up my data”. The only description is “Back up current settings and application data”. No mention is made of Wi-Fi passwords.
  • In Android 4.2, go to Settings, then “Backup and reset”. The option is called “Back up my data”. The description says “Back up application data, Wi-Fi passwords, and other settings to Google servers”.

It’s also worth noting that like all personal data stored in Google, humans aren’t looking at your Wi-Fi passwords. This tool is simply a convenient feature for Android users who don’t want to keep re-entering their passwords.

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

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

Friday, September 13th, 2013 news No Comments

We Love Facebook Because It Tricks Us Into Thinking We’re Doing Something Important [Science]


Study: We Love Facebook Because It Tricks Us Into Thinking We're Doing Something ImportantWhen you’re perusing your Facebook account, your brain might be fooling you into thinking you’re doing something incredibly creative and productive that will improve your life. If only that were true!

Scientists in Milan and at M.I.T. examined the various physiological states of 30 people using Facebook compared to when they were relaxing looking at natural panoramas or taking a math test. They measured physical and psychological responses including breathing rate, brain activation, and pupil dilation, and found that only while looking at Facebook (not while looking at nature pics or doing math), the study subjects were transported into a “core flow state,” which is that thing that people often call, simply, flow. It’s what you might experience when you’re practicing an instrument, or if you’re writing and feeling like everything is just, well, flowing. Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi describes it wonderfully in this TED talk.

We already know Facebook is harder to resist than cigarettes and alcohol. So it’s not all that surprising that Facebook is enjoyable. Cocaine is enjoyable! But like an addictive drug, the results suggest the social network might have a sinister effect: Facebook makes you think you’re being productive when really you’re probably just telling everyone how delicious your lunch was and discovering that your best friend’s cousin’s baby just ate squash.

That’s why perhaps it’s important to keep in mind what Harvard’s Daniel Gulati said: over time, Facebook is making us miserable. Everyone is a shiny happy person on Facebook. Very few people share their insecurities, misgivings, evenings spent alone in the fetal position. And if you experience any of that you might feel very much alone if your visiting Facebook often. In which case maybe consider playing your favorite instrument, hanging out with your kids, working on that novel, or doing something else that leads to actual flow. [Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking]

Image: Shutterstock/PressureUA

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

Tuesday, February 7th, 2012 Uncategorized No Comments

Will Groupon Thrive Or Tank In Q4? This Chart Holds The Key (GRPN)


groupon girl

Groupon’s Q4 2011 couldn’t be more crucial: Will it see the revenue bump it needs from holiday shoppers to justify its business model? Or will sales collapse following CEO Andrew Mason’s promised pullback on marketing and customer acquisition spending?

The Wall Street Journal reports that gross billings at the company rose just 1.5 percent from September to October, and not 22 percent as previously estimated.

Has the company reached a plateau before falling of a cliff? Or is it merely taking a pre-Thanksgiving breather before continuing its climb up the Christmas sales ladder?

The company could go either way. Until recently, the company has been dependent on a cash float (and the money it raised in its IPO, of course) to stay in business. Groupon generally makes a loss each quarter. It funds its operations by taking revenues from customers’ credit cards immediately and then delaying for 30 days or so the share of those sales it owes to the merchants who made the offers. As long as there is a greater amount of new money coming in than old money owed, Groupon continues to function.

But what happens if Groupon enters a period in which its revenues decline? At most companies that isn’t too problematic — management can cut expenses to remain profitable. But at Groupon the company’s marketing and customer acquisition expenses are closely related to its revenues. It is not at all clear whether Groupon’s revenues will continue to rise if Mason cuts costs. ! Here’s a chart showing Groupon’s net revenues plotted against its total operating expenses:


As you can see, in Q3 Mason pulled back on expenses (the green line) in hopes of seeing a profit, but revenue growth (the red line) began to lose steam. The WSJ report suggests it hasn’t regained momentum since, but the October sales period doesn’t include the Christmas run-up.

In Q4, this chart is all you will need to understand whether Groupon can mature into a business that isn’t funded by stock sales. If Mason can get the red line above the green line, or if he can keep the red line moving upward, then he should be congratulated.

If he cannot, then the company — and its investors — will need to do some serious thinking about whether their daily deal business model is viable or not.

SEE ALSO: Groupon Allegedly Hacked Merchant’s Email To Alter Contract

Please follow Advertising 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, December 12th, 2011 news No Comments

Here’s The Math Formula For Structuring A Groupon Deal That Doesn’t Lose Money (GRPN)


groupon cupcake girl

We’ve all heard the nightmare stories about Groupon merchants who lost tons of money because they were suddenly overwhelmed with thousands of customers whom they were forced to serve at a loss: The British bakery that made 102,000 cupcakes. The Irish hairdressers whose customer base now consists entirely of people who only want their hair cut a discount. The Portland cafe that lost $8,000 because the owner failed to cap the number of deals she offered.

It’s not just Groupon, of course. There are loads of other daily deal sites — Living Social, Thrillist, Google Offers, etc — but they all present merchants with the same problem: The conflict between offering below-cost deals to customers in hopes of attracting long-term “regulars” and structuring a deal so that you can still make a profit. The math can be tricky because merchants have to account for two different sets of discounts: The discount to the customer and share of the payment taken by the daily deal site for publicizing the offer.

Now TheDealMix, a site that aggregates daily deals into an impressively complicated map of your neighborhood, has produced an infographic that can help businesses calculate daily deal offers so th! at they won’t accidentally go bankrupt.

And, yes, The DealMix has presented its formulas in the form of cupcakes — particularly useful given the number of bakery-related Groupon disasters that have made the headlines.

The formulas include:

Offer Price – Cost of Goods > $0

Average Customer Spend – Value of Offer + Price > Cost of Goods

See the rest of the story at Business Insider

Please follow Advertising on Twitter and Facebook.

See Also:

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

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

Monday, December 12th, 2011 news No Comments

How Major Labels Cook the Books with Digital Downloads [Digital Downloads]


Tim Quirk was the singer of punk-pop outfit Too Much Joy, signed by Warner Bros. in 1990. Now he’s an executive at an online music service, giving him insight on digital sales data and just how labels fudge their numbers.

I got something in the mail last week I’d been wanting for years: a Too Much Joy royalty statement from Warner Brothers that finally included our digital earnings. Though our catalog has been out of print physically since the late-1990s, the three albums we released on Giant/WB have been available digitally for about five years. Yet the royalty statements I received every six months kept insisting we had zero income, and our unrecouped balance ($395,277.18!)* stubbornly remained the same.

Now, I don’t ever expect that unrecouped balance to turn into a positive number, but since the band had been seeing thousands of dollars in digital royalties each year from IODA for the four indie albums we control ourselves, I figured five years’ worth of digital income from our far more popular major label albums would at least make a small dent in the figure. Our IODA royalties during that time had totaled about $12,000 – not a princely sum, but enough to suggest that the total haul over the same period from our major label material should be at least that much, if not two to five times more. Even with the band receiving only a percentage of the major label take, getting our unrecouped balance below $375,000 seemed reasonable, and knocking it closer to -$350,000 wasn’t out of the question.

So I was naively excited when I opened the envelope. And my answer was right there on the first page. In five years, our three albums earned us a grand total of… $62.47.

What the fuck?

I mean, w! e all kn ow that major labels are supposed to be venal masters of hiding money from artists, but they’re also supposed to be good at it, right? This figure wasn’t insulting because it was so small, it was insulting because it was so stupid.

Why It Was So Stupid

Here’s the thing: I work at Rhapsody. I know what we pay Warner Bros. for every stream and download, and I can look up exactly how many plays and downloads we’ve paid them for each TMJ tune that Warner controls. Moreover, Warner Bros. knows this, as my gig at Rhapsody is the only reason I was able to get them to add my digital royalties to my statement in the first place. For years I’d been pestering the label, but I hadn’t gotten anywhere till I was on a panel with a reasonably big wig in Warner Music Group’s business affairs team about a year ago

The panel took place at a legal conference, and focused on digital music and the crisis facing the record industry**. As you do at these things, the other panelists and I gathered for breakfast a couple hours before our session began, to discuss what topics we should address. Peter Jenner, who manages Billy Bragg and has been a needed gadfly for many years at events like these, wanted to discuss the little-understood fact that digital music services frequently pay labels advances in the tens of millions of dollars for access to their catalogs, and it’s unclear how (or if) that money is ever shared with artists.

I agreed that was a big issue, but said I had more immediate and mundane concerns, such as the fact that Warner wouldn’t even report my band’s iTunes sales to me.

The business affairs guy (who I am calling “the business affairs guy” rather than naming because he did me a favor by finally getting the digital royalties added to my statement, and I am grateful for that and don’t want this to sound like I’m attacking him personally, even though it’s abo! ut to se em like I am) said that it was complicated connecting Warner’s digital royalty payments to their existing accounting mechanisms, and that since my band was unrecouped they had “to take care of R.E.M. and the Red Hot Chili Peppers first.”

That kind of pissed me off. On the one hand, yeah, my band’s unrecouped and is unlikely ever to reach the point where Warner actually has to cut us a royalty check. On the other hand, though, they are contractually obligated to report what revenue they receive in our name, and, having helped build a database that tracks how much Rhapsody owes whom for what music gets played, I’m well aware of what is and isn’t complicated about doing so. It’s not something you have to build over and over again for each artist. It’s something you build once. It takes a while, and it can be expensive, and sometimes you make honest mistakes, but it’s not rocket science. Hell, it’s not even algebra! It’s just simple math.

I knew that each online service was reporting every download, and every play, for every track, to thousands of labels (more labels, I’m guessing, than Warner has artists to report to). And I also knew that IODA was able to tell me exactly how much money my band earned the previous month from Amazon ($11.05), Verizon (74 cents), Nokia (11 cents), MySpace (4 sad cents) and many more. I didn’t understand why Warner wasn’t reporting similar information back to my band – and if they weren’t doing it for Too Much Joy, I assumed they weren’t doing it for other artists.

To his credit, the business affairs guy told me he understood my point, and promised he’d pursue the matter internally on my behalf – which he did. It just took 13 months to get the results, which were (predictably, perhaps) ridiculous.

The sad thing is I don’t even think Warner is deliberately trying to screw TMJ and the hundreds of other also-rans and almost-weres they’ve signed over the years. The reality is more boring, but also more depressing. Like I said, they don’t actually ow! e us any money. But that’s what’s so weird about this, to me: they have the ability to tell the truth, and doing so won’t cost them anything.

They just can’t be bothered. They don’t care, because they don’t have to.

“$10,000 Is Nothing”

An interlude, here. Back in 1992, when TMJ was still a going concern and even the label thought maybe we’d join the hallowed company of recouped bands one day, Warner made a $10,000 accounting error on our statement (in their favor, naturally). When I caught this mistake, and brought it to the attention of someone with the power to correct it, he wasn’t just befuddled by my anger – he laughed at it. “$10,000 is nothing!” he chuckled.

If you’re like most people – especially people in unrecouped bands – “nothing” is not a word you ever use in conjunction with a figure like “$10,000,” but he seemed oblivious to that. “It’s a rounding error. It happens all the time. Why are you so worked up?”

These days I work for a reasonably large corporation myself, and, sadly, I understand exactly what the guy meant. When your revenues (and your expenses) are in the hundreds of millions of dollars, $10,000 mistakes are common, if undesirable.

I still think he was a jackass, though, and that sentence continues to haunt me. Because $10,000 might have been nothing to him, but it was clearly something to me. And his inability to take it seriously – to put himself in my place, just for the length of our phone call – suggested that people who care about $10,000 mistakes, and the principles of things, like, say, honoring contracts even when you don’t have to, are the real idiots.

As you may have divined by this point, I am conflicted about whether I am actually being a petty jerk by pursuing this, or whether labels just thrive on making fools like me feel like petty jerks. People in the record industry are very good at making bands believe they deserve the hundreds of thousands (or sometimes millions) of dollars labels advance th! e musici ans when they’re first signed, and even better at convincing those same musicians it’s the bands’ fault when those advances aren’t recouped (the last thing $10,000-Is-Nothing-Man yelled at me before he hung up was, “Too Much Joy never earned us shit!”*** as though that fact somehow negated their obligation to account honestly).

I don’t want to live in $10,000-Is-Nothing-Man’s world. But I do. We all do. We have no choice.

The Boring Reality

Back to my ridiculous Warner Bros. statement. As I flipped through its ten pages (seriously, it took ten pages to detail the $62.47 of income), I realized that Warner wasn’t being evil, just careless and unconcerned – an impression I confirmed a few days later when I spoke to a guy in their Royalties and Licensing department I am going to call Danny.****

I asked Danny why there were no royalties at all listed from iTunes, and he said, “Huh. There are no domestic downloads on here at all. Only streams. And it has international downloads, but no international streams. I have no idea why.” I asked Danny why the statement only seemed to list tracks from two of the three albums Warner had released – an entire album was missing. He said they could only report back what the digital services had provided to them, and the services must not have reported any activity for those other songs. When I suggested that seemed unlikely – that having every track from two albums listed by over a dozen different services, but zero tracks from a third album listed by any seemed more like an error on Warner’s side, he said he’d look into it. As I asked more questions (Why do we get paid 50% of the income from all the tracks on one album, but only 35.7143% of the income from all the tracks on another? Why did 29 plays of a track on the late, lamented MusicMatch earn a total of 63 cents when 1,016 plays of the exact same track on MySpace earned only 23 cents?) he eventually got to the heart of the matter: “We don’t normally do this for unrecouped bands,” he ! said. “B ut, I was told you’d asked.”

It’s possible I’m projecting my own insecurities onto calm, patient Danny, but I’m pretty sure the subtext of that comment was the same thing I’d heard from $10,000-Is-Nothing-Man: all these figures were pointless, and I was kind of being a jerk by wasting their time asking about them. After all, they have the Red Hot Chili Peppers to deal with, and the label actually owes those guys money.

Danny may even be right. But there’s another possibility – one I don’t necessarily subscribe to, but one that could be avoided entirely by humoring pests like me. There’s a theory that labels and publishers deliberately avoid creating the transparent accounting systems today’s technology enables. Because accurately accounting to my silly little band would mean accurately accounting to the less silly bands that are recouped, and paying them more money as a result.

If that’s true (and I emphasize the if, because it’s equally possible that people everywhere, including major label accounting departments, are just dumb and lazy)*****, then there’s more than my pride and principles on the line when I ask Danny in Royalties and Licensing to answer my many questions. I don’t feel a burning need to make the Red Hot Chili Peppers any more money, but I wouldn’t mind doing my small part to get us all out of the sad world $10,000-Is-Nothing-Man inhabits.

So I will keep asking, even though I sometimes feel like a petty jerk for doing so.

* A word here about that unrecouped balance, for those uninitiated in the complex mechanics of major label accounting. While our royalty statement shows Too Much Joy in the red with Warner Bros. (now by only $395,214.71 after that $62.47 digital windfall), this doesn’t mean Warner “lost” nearly $400,000 on the band. That’s how much they spent on us, and we don’t see any royalty checks until it’s paid back, but it doesn’t get paid back out of the full price of every album sold. It gets paid back out of the band’s share of every albu! m sold, which is roughly 10% of the retail price. So, using round numbers to make the math as easy as possible to understand, let’s say Warner Bros. spent something like $450,000 total on TMJ. If Warner sold 15,000 copies of each of the three TMJ records they released at a wholesale price of $10 each, they would have earned back the $450,000. But if those records were retailing for $15, TMJ would have only paid back $67,500, and our statement would show an unrecouped balance of $382,500.

I do not share this information out of a Steve Albini-esque desire to rail against the major label system (he already wrote the definitive rant, which you can find here if you want even more figures, and enjoy having those figures bracketed with cursing and insults). I’m simply explaining why I’m not embarrassed that I “owe” Warner Bros. almost $400,000. They didn’t make a lot of money off of Too Much Joy. But they didn’t lose any, either. So whenever you hear some label flak claiming 98% of the bands they sign lose money for the company, substitute the phrase “just don’t earn enough” for the word “lose.”

** The whole conference took place at a semi-swank hotel on the island of St. Thomas, which is a funny place to gather to talk about how to save the music business, but that would be a whole different diatribe.

*** This same dynamic works in reverse – I interviewed the Butthole Surfers for Raygun magazine back in the 1990s, and Gibby Haynes described the odd feeling of visiting Capitol records’ offices and hearing, “a bunch of people go, ‘Hey, man, be cool to these guys, they’re a recouped band.’ I heard that a bunch of times.”

**** Again, I am avoiding using his real name because he returned my call promptly, and patiently answered my many questions, which is behavior I want to encourage, so I have no desire to lambaste him publicly.

***** Of course, these two possibilities are not mutually exclusive – it is also possible that labels are ! evil and avaricious AND dumb and lazy, at the same time.

Reprinted with permission from Too Much Joy.

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

Wednesday, December 2nd, 2009 digital No Comments

Net Promoter Score (NPS) – A Metrics “Sacred Cow” That Should be Slaughtered?

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; (via @jhenning and @acfou)

acfouIt’s an “it is what it is” metric (which isn’t actionable) – #netpromoterscore #netpromoter #NPS –

spiralsThought provoking Net Promoter article -Good idea to use search as an indicator of customer satisfaction

VirtualMRRT @berniemalinoff: RT @JHenning @acfou: Net Promoter Score (NPS) is synonymous with “useless”

seangibRT @glenngabe: What’s Wrong With the Net Promoter Score via @acfou on ClickZ – some interesting comments as usual w …

glenngabeWhat’s Wrong With the Net Promoter Score via @acfou on ClickZ – some interesting comments as usual w/Dr. Fou. 🙂

MetriclyWhat’s Wrong With the Net Promoter Score –

christinet6dOh snap… RT @lizapost What’s the value of the Net Promoter score? According to @acfou, not much. ‘

lizapostWhat’s the value of the Net Promoter score? According to @acfou, not much. ‘What’s Wrong With the Net Promoter Score’

berniemalinoffRT @JHenning @acfou: Net Promoter Score (NPS) is synonymous with “useless” || healthy debate pros/cons of #NPS

contactjrFrom @acfou: What’s wrong with the Net Promoter Score?

Noakesi@holycow RT @jonnylongden: RT @rj_berg: Great article on some of the problems with Net Promoter Score (NPS)

acfouNet Promoter Score (NPS) like brand sentiment scores are oversimplified averages that are not actionable –

ju2ltdRT @jonnylongden: RT @rj_berg: Great article on some of the problems with Net Promoter Score (NPS) #measure

jonnylongdenRT @rj_berg: Great article on some of the problems with Net Promoter Score (NPS) #measure #retail – why use this?

Adtraction_RAJ_What’s Wrong With the Net Promoter Score (mmm)

KarmaMediaLabs#NetPromoterScore not all it’s cracked up to be? Decide for yourself:

EricheadRT @rj_berg: Great article on some of the problems with Net Promoter Score (NPS) #measure #retail – why use this?

PeteHealyNet Promoter Score = useless; replace w/ search volume. Augustine Fou @acfou Your thoughts? #in

helena_chariRT @mrnews: #NPS ‘tells you the obvious, isn’t predictive, doesn’t answer the “So what?” question.’ (via @DavidPenn

makingcjcAn it is what it is” metric…debate on the Net Promoter score.

DannyGavinRT @EstherSteinfeld Interesting read: “What’s Wrong with the Net Promoter Score?” @acfou says, “So many things.”

ZaliciousRT @kevinertell: This is an excellent article on ClickZ: What’s Wrong With the Net Promoter Score

hellosmalldogArticle about NPS is interesting – thanks to @mjayliebs for CCing us! We’re reading it now. (via @acfou, @wimrampen)

bigmacherRT @kevinertell: This is an excellent article on ClickZ: What’s Wrong With the Net Promoter Score

DavashRT @rj_berg: Gr8 article: problems w/Net Promoter Score (#NPS) ( ) #measure [A grad of stats 101 could see all of this]

BobbleHeadGuruRT @rj_berg: Gr8 article: problems w/Net Promoter Score (#NPS) ( ) #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.”

kevinertellThis is an excellent article on ClickZ: What’s Wrong With the Net Promoter Score

rj_bergGreat article on some of the problems with Net Promoter Score (NPS) #measure #retail

mjayliebsRT @wimrampen: Net Promoter Score (NPS) is synonymous with “useless” (cc @hellosmalldog)

jestodcWhat’s Wrong With the Net Promoter Score

jonathanmendez“NPS is what I call an “it is what it is” metric — it tells you the obvious”

mrnews#NPS ‘tells you the obvious, isn’t predictive, doesn’t answer the “So what?” question.’ (via @DavidPenn1@jhenning)

DavidPenn1RT @jhenning RT @acfou: Net Promoter Score (NPS) is synonymous with “useless” Maybe we need to take it less literally?

wimrampenRT @JHenning: RT @acfou: Net Promoter Score (NPS) is synonymous with “useless”

NicoPeruzziPhDRT @JHenning: RT @acfou: Net Promoter Score (NPS) is synonymous with “useless” – the emperor has no clothes…

JHenningRT @acfou: Net Promoter Score (NPS) is synonymous with “useless” 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?

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

Friday, November 20th, 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
Send Tips:
Digital Strategy Consulting
Dr. Augustine Fou LinkedIn Bio
Digital Marketing Slideshares
The Grand Unified Theory of Marketing