something

iPad on Sale today – only 24% will buy, 76% will wait and see

My hypothesis is that after the Mac faithful have bought one, sales will plateau. The iPad, while super-cool, will fall in between the cracks in terms of satisfying a unique use-case. The iPhone and a full fledged computer (or even a netbook for $299) will book end what people need.

See below for an Engadget poll that shows 24% will buy, but about 76% likely to hold off for more data or for something else.

ipad-poll.gif

It gets worse — 3:45 pm EST

iPad-purchase-poll

More data from Gizmodo — 3:51 pm EST – 23% purchased

gizmodo-poll-ipad-purchase

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

Friday, March 12th, 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

Apple, Android, and RIM winners in 2009 smartphone growth, Nokia and Symbian still dominate

Source: http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/23/gartner-apple-android-and-rim-winners-in-2009-smartphone-os-g/

Gartner just released its annual numbers for worldwide mobile phone sales to end users in the year known as two thousand nine. Looking at smartphone OS market share alone, Gartner shows the iPhone OS, Android, and RIM making the biggest gains (up 6.2%, 3.4%, and 3.3% from 2008, respectively) at the expense of Windows Mobile (down 3.1%) and Symbian (down 5.5%). Although Gartner says that Symbian “has become uncompetitive in recent years,” (ouch) it concedes that market share is still strong especially for Nokia; something backed up by Nokia’s Q4 financials and reported quarterly smartphone growth of 5%. Regarding total handsets of all classifications sold, Nokia continues to dominate with 36.4% of all sales to end users (a 2.2% loss from 2008) while Samsung and LG continue to climb at the expense of Motorola (dropping from 7.6% to 4.5% of worldwide sales in 2009) and Sony Ericsson. See that table after the break or hit up the source for the full report.

Continue reading Gartner: Apple, Android, and RIM winners in 2009 smartphone growth, Nokia and Symbian still dominate

Gartner: Apple, Android, and RIM winners in 2009 smartphone growth, Nokia and Symbian still dominate originally appeared on Engadget on Tue, 23 Feb 2010 05:05:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink @ruskin147  |  sourceGartner  | Email this | Comments

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

Tuesday, February 23rd, 2010 Uncategorized No Comments

WTF Is Google Doing? [Google]

Source: http://feeds.gawker.com/~r/gizmodo/full/~3/hPdshh1OwAQ/google-shopper-visual-search-app-officially-confuses-me-wtf-is-google-doing

I don’t understand Google Shopper. Not because the function—searching for books, CDs, DVDs and more by using the cover art or barcode—is confusing. But because they already have a visual search app built into new Android phones, Goggles.

Goggles does the same thing: You take a picture of something, like a book cover, and it searches for it. I get that Shopper is slightly different, with more of a direct Amazon-competitive slant, since you can bookmark products to buy them later (presumably through Google Checkout).

But why not just integrate that into Goggles? Why the hell does this separate other product exist? Like Fake Steve says, WTF is going on over there? Android and Chrome OS? Wave and Buzz? (Okay, Buzz and Wave aren’t an entirely fair comparison, though try explaining them to a normal person.) Now Goggles and Shopper? Am I just missing something? [Google]

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

Friday, February 19th, 2010 Uncategorized No Comments

Source: http://feeds.gawker.com/~r/gizmodo/full/~3/MJm1kyfrSFM/why-the-ipad-will-crush-netbooks-and-ebook-readers

Now that we’ve seen the iPad in the light of day, there’s a lot of chatter about what it can’t do. But Apple is now a massive threat to netbooks and ebook readers. Here’s why:

Generally speaking, the iPad’s goal is not to replace your netbook, assuming you own and love one. It’s not about replacing your Kindle either, assuming you cashed in for that as well. We have reviewed plenty of both, and know there’s plenty to like. If you derive pleasure out of using either, then Apple might have a hard time convincing you to switch to the iPad. But for the millions of people who aren’t on either bandwagon, yet have the money and interest in a “third” device between the phone and the computer, the iPad will have greater appeal.

250 Million iPods Earlier…

When the first iPod came out, its goal was not to grab the customers who Creative and Archos were fighting over, with their dueling 6GB “jukeboxes.” It was to grab everyone else. I remember listening to arguments about why Archos had a better device than Creative or even Apple. Lot of good that early-adopter love got them in the long run. The pocket media player market exploded, with Apple eating over half the pie consistently for almost a decade.

When the iPhone came out, BlackBerry users were like, “No flippin’ way.” And guess what, those people still buy BlackBerries. (And why shouldn’t they? Today’s BlackBerry is still great, and hardly distinguishable from the BB of 2007.) The point is, the iPhone wasn’t designed to win the hearts and minds of people who already knew their way around a smartphone. It came to convince people walking around with Samsung and LG flip phones that there was more to life. And it worked.

iPhones now account for more than half of AT&T’s phone sales. You can bet that WinMo, Palm and BB combined weren’t doing that kind of share pre-iPhone. Globally, the smartphone business grew from a niche thing for people in suits to being a 180-million unit per year business, says Gartner, eclipsing the entire notebook business—about 20% of which, I might add, are netbooks. The iPhone isn’t the sole driver of this growth, of course, but its popularity has opened many new doors for the category. Just ask anyone in the business of developing/marketing/selling Droids or Palm Pres.

You could say, “Those were Apple’s successes, what about their failures?” In the second age of Steve Jobs, there aren’t a whole lot. Apple TV is the standout—quite possibly because Apple discovered, after releasing the product, that there wasn’t a big enough market for it, or any of its competitors. Apple TV may be crowded out by connected Blu-ray players, home-theater PCs and HD video players, but Apple TV’s niche is, to this day, almost frustratingly unique.

So how do you know if a market exists? You ask the “other” Steve, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer.

It’s Business Time

There’s a famous Ballmerism, one he’s even said to me, that goes something like, “A business isn’t worth entering unless the sales potential is 50 million units or more.” 50 million. That’s why Ballmer is happy to go into the portable media player business and the game console business, but laughs about ebook readers. Microsoft may not sell 50 million Zunes, but it’s worth being a contender.

You can bet Apple thinks this way. You can easily argue that, despite its sheen of innovation, Apple is far more conservative than Microsoft. Apple TV is a bit of an anomaly, but with no major hardware refreshes and a few small-minded software updates, you can hardly accuse Apple of throwing good money after bad. Presumably Apple TV was a learning experience for Jobs & Co., one they’re not likely to repeat.

With that in mind, let’s look particularly at netbooks and ebook readers.

Like Notebooks, Only Littler

Netbooks are cooking, but it’s well known they’re cooking because notebooks are not. A netbook was originally conceived as something miraculously small and simple, running Linux with a warm fuzzy interface that dear old gran could use to bone up on pinochle before Friday’s showdown with the Rosenfelds. But instead of growing outward to this new audience (always with the grandmothers, it seems), it grew inward, cannibalizing real PC sales.

The Linux fell away, mostly because it was ill-conceived, and these simply became tiny, cheap, limited-function Windows PCs. They may have been a 40-million-unit business last year, according to DisplaySearch, but they only got cheaper, and the rest of the business was so depressed nobody was happy. (And just ask Ballmer how much he makes on those XP licenses, or even the “low-powered OS” that is Windows 7 Starter.)

Point is, nerds may love their netbooks, but the market that the netbook originally set out to reach is too far away, running farther away and screaming louder with every blog post about what chipset and graphics processor a netbook is rumored to have, or whether or not it is, indeed, a netbook at all. Clearly the audience is cheap geeks, and while that may be a good market to be in (just read Giz comments), it’s definitively not Steve Jobs’ market.

Easy on the Eyes

Now, about that Kindle. Best ebook reader out there. Every time we say that, we say it with a wink. We totally respect the Kindle (and I for one have hopes for Nook once it pulls itself out of the firmware mess it’s in), but we think e-ink is a limited medium.

Its functionality is ideal for a very specific task—simulating printed words on paper—and for that I have always sung its praise. The Kindle is ideal for delivering and serving up those kinds of books, and as a voracious reader of those kinds of books, I am grateful for its existence. But there are other kinds of books of which I am a consumer: Cookbooks, children’s books and comic books. (Notice, they all end in “book.”) The Kindle can’t do any of those categories well at all, because they are highly graphical. E-ink’s slow-refreshing, difficult-to-resize grayscale images are pretty much hideous. No big deal for the compleat Dickens, but too feeble to take on my dog-eared, saffron-stained Best-Ever Curry Cookbook.

So, e-ink’s known weaknesses aside, let’s talk again about Ballmer’s favorite number, 50 million. Guess how many Kindles are estimated to have been sold ever since the very first one launched? 2.5 million. Nobody knows for sure because Amazon won’t release the actual figures. Guess how many ebook readers are supposedly going to sell this year, according to Forrester? Roughly 6 million. In a year. Compare that to 21 million iPods sold last quarter, along with 9 million iPhones.

I am not suggesting that the iPod or iPhone is a worthwhile replacement for reading, but I am saying that, for better or worse, there are probably at least 2.5 million iPod or iPhone users who read books on those devices.

Are you starting to see the larger picture here? I am not trying to convince you to buy an Apple iPad, I am trying to explain to you why you probably will anyway. As the Kindle fights just to differentiate itself while drowning in a milk-white e-ink sea of God-awful knockoffs, you’ll see that color screen shining in the distance.

Sure the iPad may not be as easy on the eyes as a Kindle. But you will be able to read in bed without an additional light source. You will be able to read things online without banging your head against a wall to get to the right page. And, once the publishers get their acts together, you will be able to enjoy comics, cookbooks, and children’s books, with colorful images. Even before you set them into motion, dancing around the screen, they’ll look way better than they would on e-ink. (I haven’t even mentioned magazines, but once that biz figures out what to do with this thing, they will make it work, because they need color screens, preferably touchscreens.)

Tide Rollin’ In

So we have this new device, carefully planned by a company with a unique ability to reach new markets. And we have two types of products that have effectively failed to reach those markets. And you’re going to bet on the failures? The iPad has shortcomings, but they only betray Apple’s caution, just like what happened with iPhone No. 1. Now every 15-year-old kid asks for an iPhone, and the ones that don’t get them get iPod Touches.

We can sit here in our geeky little dorkosphere arguing about it all day, but as much as Apple clearly enjoys our participation, the people Jobs wants to sell this to don’t read our rants. They can’t even understand them. My step-mother refuses to touch computers, but nowadays checks email, reads newspapers and plays Solitaire on an iPod Touch, after basically picking it up by accident one day. That’s a future iPad user if I ever saw one.

Jobs doesn’t care about the netbook business, or the ebook business. He’s just aiming for the same people they were aiming at. The difference is, he’s going to reach them. And the fight will be with whoever enters into the tablet business with him. Paging Mr. Ballmer…

PS – If I’ve gotten to the end of this lengthy piece without telling you much about the iPad at all, it’s because other Giz staffers have already done such a handsome job of that already. If you missed out, here are the best four links to get you up to speed:

Apple iPad: Everything You Need To Know

Apple iPad First Hands On

Apple iPad Just Tried to Assassinate Laptops

8 Things That Suck About Apple iPad

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

Thursday, January 28th, 2010 Uncategorized No Comments

The Damning Data [Nexus One]

Source: http://feeds.gawker.com/~r/gizmodo/full/~3/BrVXM_LnhYs/the-nexus-ones-3g-problem-pt-ii-the-damning-data

Google’s Nexus One support forums have been flooded with anecdotes about the phone’s poor 3G connectivity, so one user decided to follow up with some reasonably scientific tests. The conclusion? The Nexus One is kind of terrible at basic cellphonery!

The test was simple and limited, consisting of one dude, user WV, wandering in and out of his house, recording signal strength as measured in dBm and ASU with Android’s built-in metering app. Assuming the Nexus One is supposed to work like a normal cellphones—that is, it connects to 3G networks when they’re available and EDGE only when they’re not—something’s wrong.

Since the phone is obviously finding and receiving the cellular signals just fine, but not handling them as you’d expect, randomly flipping between the two—and evidently preferring EDGE most of the time—no matter how strong its signal is. This points to a software issue, not a hardware issue. That, and this:

OK. I found “Phone Info” screen through “Any Cut”. This looks like a screen not intended for average users. It clearly has settings that should not be messed with. However, it does have a pull down menu that was set to “WCDMA Preferred”. I changed this to “WCDMA Only”. The phone reset, and never a! gain saw the f’ing “E” on the signal indicator- ALL 3G. After about 1/2 hour of speed tests (150k – 800kbps) and google satellite map downloads (all definitely faster), I switched back to “WCDMA Preferred”. Guess what? After a few minutes, I was back on EDGE, even with a good signal. Switched back to “WCDMA Only”, and 3G it remains.

This doesn’t fully solve the problem, because as WV notes, if you fall out of T-Mobile’s 3G coverage area with EDGE disabled, you’re basically boned. But anyway, yes, this appears to be a software bug. Or, if you’re feeling conspiratorial today, like WV, a software feature:

My concern is whether T-mobile is being sneaky about this and purposefully dumbing down the 3G to Edge to reduce cell frequency congestion and/or their back-end network congestion.

I’m not sure I want to draw that nexus (haw?) quite yet, since the issue was first brought to light by comparing the Nexus One’s 3G/EDGE handling to other T-Mobile 3G Android handsets, and those, despite having the same data-sucking potential as the Google Phone, haven’t been throttled in any way. While Google and T-Mobile say they’re “investigating,” the evidence keeps mounting and the question looms larger: what’s really wrong with the Nexus One’s 3G? [Google Nexus One Support Forums]


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

Monday, January 11th, 2010 Uncategorized No Comments

The Ten Commandments of Modern Marketing

The Ten Commandments of Modern Marketing

  1. Thou shalt not target customers with messages they don’t want.

  2. Thou shalt be truthful.

  3. Thou shalt respect your customers.

  4. Thou shalt make it easy for people to find you.

  5. Thou shalt be useful.

  6. Thou shalt make it easy for people to pass along.

  7. Thou shalt measure and optimize.

  8. Thou shalt listen to customers.

  9. Thou shalt remove any organizational barriers to speedy, collaborative innovation.

  10. Thou shalt not do brand-ing.

Thanks for all the retweets!

WSI_ComandixI’m not Moses, but here’s The Ten Commandments of Modern Marketing http://ow.ly/TQuh

iamdanmoriartyThis is awesome – the 10 commandments of modern marketing http://bit.ly/7l8aBw – All very true, but especially #9!

tombutlin10 Commandments of modern marketing http://bit.ly/8MNo8g by @acfou. It doesn’t get clearer than this.

SuzzicksRT @AnnaMariaVirzi: How true, @acfou! Online marketing commandment no. 5: Thou shalt be useful http://www.clickz.com/3636027

acfouThou Shalt Not Target Customers (even with #BehavioralTargeting): Ten Commandments of Modern Marketing #marketing – http://bit.ly/8U3iI6

matt_mcgowanRT @AnnaMariaVirzi: How true, @acfou! Online marketing commandment no. 5: Thou shalt be useful http://www.clickz.com/3636027

indie_preneurThe 10 commandments of modern marketing — are you playing nicely? http://www.clickz.com/3636027 /via @AnnaMariaVirzi

pedrogomezGreat read: 10 Commandments of Modern Marketing: http://bit.ly/6f3F5d

AnnaMariaVirziHow true, @acfou! Online marketing commandment no. 5: Thou shalt be useful http://www.clickz.com/3636027

horacemitchell10 commandments of modern marketing http://short.to/12npj

fonstuinstra10 Commandments of Modern Marketing – ClickZ http://ow.ly/TOgq (h/t Jan van den Bergh)

GetPushingRT @GranerCreative: 10 Commandments of Modern Marketing http://tinyurl.com/y8mahr5 #marketing

MarComNetworkRT @GranerCreative: 10 Commandments of Modern Marketing http://tinyurl.com/y8mahr5 #marketing

GranerCreative10 Commandments of Modern Marketing http://tinyurl.com/y8mahr5 #marketing

jevedebe10 Commandments of Modern Marketing. http://tr.im/JJ1A

TemplateZonepretty solid guidelines – maybe someone should carve them into stone tablets! http://bit.ly/6f3F5d

theviragomedia10 Commandments of Modern Marketing – ClickZ http://bit.ly/7HKYGI

GreeneMarketRT @acfou: Thou Shalt Not Do Brand-ing: Ten Commandments of Modern Marketing #marketing #whatwereyouthinking – http://bit.ly/8U3iI6

MoniqueElwellexcellent reading: Augustine Fou Thou Shalt Not Do Brand-ing: Ten Commandments of Modern Marketing #marketing http://htxt.it/E3ut

PeteHealyAugustine Fou’s “10 Commandments of Modern Marketing” @acfou http://j.mp/5MWrLr #in

jessweissAll communications must be relevant, respectful, etc. @sarahebourne @andylarrimore The 10 Commandments of Modern Marketing http://ow.ly/TLCI

sarahebourneTrue! RT @andylarrimore I think I will revise these slightly to the 10 Commandments of Web Content – http://ow.ly/TI0V

blakeandwhite10 Commandments of Modern Marketing – from @ClickZ. Great list, @acfou! http://bit.ly/5MWrLr

TachmanRT @PDMAffiliates 10 Modern Marketing Commandments: http://bit.ly/5MWrLr #advertising

TdF_ConsultantsRT @berteloot: 10 Commandments of Modern Marketing http://bit.ly/6f3F5d

DecorcatsRT @berteloot: 10 Commandments of Modern Marketing http://bit.ly/6f3F5d

BrandojoRT @acfou: Thou Shalt Not Do Brand-ing: Ten Commandments of Modern Marketing #marketing #whatwereyouthinking – http://bit.ly/8U3iI6

acfouThou Shalt Not Do Brand-ing: Ten Commandments of Modern Marketing #marketing #whatwereyouthinking – http://bit.ly/8U3iI6

berteloot10 Commandments of Modern Marketing http://bit.ly/6f3F5d

pamdyerColumn: Modern marketing must focus on today’s consumers http://bit.ly/8g3EGJ 10 commandments for marketing in 2010

TaiKolenkoAn awesome article on Modern Marketing! I like the comment, “the sun is setting on the era of big “push” advertising.” http://bit.ly/5MWrLr

KFinneganThe 10 Commandments of Modern Marketing – http://bit.ly/90GhVq

DistribionDMRT @AdLocal: Reading 10 Commandments of Modern Marketing http://www.clickz.com/3636027

AnteroDiasCommandments of Modern Marketing – A list of the 10 rules every marketer should follow to meet consumer needs in 2010: http://bit.ly/5MWrLr

AdLocalReading 10 Commandments of Modern Marketing http://www.clickz.com/3636027

patriciahader#Measure and optimize on the 10 Commandments of Modern Marketing list http://bit.ly/8vQ1w6 via ClickZ

_Vanessa_V10 Commandments of Modern Marketing http://www.clickz.com/3636027

HamiltonWallaceRT @acfou: Ten Commandments to help “marketing sinners” become saints – http://bit.ly/8U3iI6

seewhatcouldbe10 Commandments of Modern Marketing – ClickZ: http://www.clickz.com/3636027 via @addthis

winsell10 Commandments of Modern Marketing – ClickZ: http://www.clickz.com/3636027 via @addthis

mnm8312Reading 10 Commandments of Modern Marketing http://www.clickz.com/3636027

andylarrimoreI think I will revise these slightly to the 10 Commandments of Web Content – http://ow.ly/TI0V

PedroBravoNada de hacer branding y otros 9 mandamientos de marketing moderno http://www.clickz.com/3636027

davidamoore10 Commandments of Modern Marketing – ClickZ http://bit.ly/5MWrLr

shannonholatoRT @cmo4hire: Read 10 Commandments of Modern Marketing, #10 No Brand-ing :) http://www.clickz.com/3636027

everyspoon10 Commandments of Modern Marketing. Learn them. Love them. Live them. Especially #5: Thou shalt be useful. http://www.clickz.com/3636027

zapalaFZKReading 10 Commandments of Modern Marketing http://www.clickz.com/3636027

joshua_dthou shall be useful & truthful – RT @gerardodada: Reading 10 Commandments of Modern Marketing http://www.clickz.com/3636027 – all true

MMG_Works10 Commandments of Modern Marketinghttp://bit.ly/8UVG1J

gerardodadaReading 10 Commandments of Modern Marketing http://www.clickz.com/3636027 – all true

PDMAffiliates10 Modern Marketing Commandments: http://bit.ly/5MWrLr #affiliate #advertising

BizIncubationRT @mediatrustpete 10 Commandments of Modern Marketing – ClickZ: http://www.clickz.com/3636027 by @acfou chief digital officer

mediatrustpeteMust Read for Marketers : 10 Commandments of Modern Marketing – ClickZ: http://www.clickz.com/3636027 by @acfou chief digital officer

MetaResponse10 Marketing Tips; http://bit.ly/5MWrLr

shiraadattoBrilliant as always! RT @acfou Ten Commandments to help “marketing sinners” become saints – http://bit.ly/8U3iI6

raysmannaTen Commandments to help “marketing sinners” become saints RT@acfou http://bit.ly/8U3iI6

acfouTen Commandments to help “marketing sinners” become saints – http://bit.ly/8U3iI6

gmcdanielGood #marketing advice. Thanks for sharing! RT @Intouchsol: The 10 Commandments of Modern Marketing- from @ClickZ http://bit.ly/6f3F5d

ChurchChair10 Commandments of Modern Marketing – ClickZ: http://www.clickz.com/3636027 via @addthis

IntouchsolThe 10 Commandments of Modern Marketing- from @ClickZ http://bit.ly/6f3F5d

delpierreReading 10 Commandments of Modern Marketing http://www.clickz.com/3636027

AdsMitchell#Marketing | 10 Commandments of Modern Marketing http://www.clickz.com/3636027

Datadude09Reading 10 Commandments of Modern Marketing http://www.clickz.com/3636027 Nothing we don’t already know but still interesting.

debbieswiderLove this from the ClickZ crew: 10 Commandments of Modern Marketing! http://bit.ly/6f3F5d

cmo4hireRead 10 Commandments of Modern Marketing, #10 No Brand-ing :) http://www.clickz.com/3636027

CollinsCompany10 Commandments of Modern Marketing – ClickZ: http://www.clickz.com/3636027 via @addthis

susanjspauldingRT @RoyMorejon: 10 Commandments of Modern Marketing – http://zi.ma/86997a

pablorazziRT @gnewell: 10 Commandments of Modern Marketing http://bit.ly/4RC4K1

gnewell10 Commandments of Modern Marketing http://bit.ly/4RC4K1

glenngabe10 Commandments of Modern Marketing http://bit.ly/75GhEK -great post by @acfou. I found myself nodding in agreement through most of it. :)

RoyMorejon10 Commandments of Modern Marketing – http://zi.ma/86997a

acfouHappy 2010! Ten Commandments to help “marketing sinners” become saints – http://bit.ly/8U3iI6

Sharon_Higbee10 Commandments of Modern Marketing http://bit.ly/6khoUG

thenameshopnz10 Commandments of Modern Marketing – ClickZ: http://www.clickz.com/3636027 via @addthis

Spunky_PR10 Commandments of Modern Marketing: http://www.clickz.com/3636027 http://bit.ly/8B5DZ7

jenkins123110 Commandments of Modern Marketing: On the other hand Sweetriot came out of nowhere, used no paid advertising .. http://bit.ly/5yKvpX

jenkins123110 Commandments of Modern Marketing http://bit.ly/5yKvpX

Jeff_Scarpo10 Commandments of Modern Marketing http://bit.ly/5yKvpX

beeyourfriend10 Commandments of Modern Marketing – ClickZ: Some people start the new year with resolutions. I thought, why not … http://bit.ly/5hjQZJ

friendfollower10 Commandments of Modern Marketing – ClickZ: Some people start the new year with resolutions. I thought, why not … http://bit.ly/5hjQZJ

2koolsales10 Commandments of Modern Marketing: With digital tools, devices, and channels data and feedback can be obtaine.. http://bit.ly/5yKvpX

col250401RT @sponsordiddy: 10 Commandments of Modern Marketing http://bit.ly/8uC7up

2adproshop10 Commandments of Modern Marketing: http://bit.ly/5GVRTl

EnterSuccess10 Commandments of Modern Marketing: On the other hand Sweetriot came out of nowhere, used no paid advertising of … http://bit.ly/6HLwmZ

jamieohler10 Commandments of Modern Marketing: On the other hand Sweetriot came out of nowhere, used no paid advertising of … http://bit.ly/4B39X4

marketingbot“10 Commandments of Modern Marketing” http://tinyurl.com/y8mahr5

GINFrank10 Commandments of Modern Marketing http://bit.ly/8dJM9l

HartHootonMarketing and #SocialMedia tips from Augustine Fou | RT @acfou: Ten Commandments of Modern Marketing #marketing – http://bit.ly/8U3iI6

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

Thursday, January 7th, 2010 Uncategorized No Comments

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

Source: http://feeds.gawker.com/~r/gizmodo/full/~3/jl5xTTh-ZxM/my-6247-royalty-statement-how-major-labels-cook-the-books-with-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 Uncategorized No Comments

Samsung’s SCH-W880 12 megapixel phonecamera with 3x optical zoom

Source: http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/28/samsungs-sch-w880-12-megapixel-phonecamera-with-3x-optical-zoom/

In a welcome reversal of trends, Samsung just stuffed a 3G cellphone into a 12 megapixel camera making this M8920 / SCH-W880 more of a camera than most 12 megapixel cameraphones can claim. While this presumed follow-up to Samsung’s Pixon 12 (M8910) isn’t official, the announcement looks imminent based on the leaked collateral above and the spyshots that emerged over the weekend. What’s impressive here is that extending 3x optical zoom — something carried over from the SCH-B600 — and dedicated camera controls like a mode dial, shutter and zoom, and big 3.3-inch WVGA AMOLED display. Rounding out the specs are HD (720p presumably) video, HSDPA data, WiFi, GPS, Bluetooth, microSD slot, and DMB mobile television; that latter spec making this Korea-only whenever it does launch. See her in the wild after the break.

[Via HDBlog.IT]

Continue reading Samsung’s SCH-W880 12 megapixel phonecamera with 3x optical zoom

Filed under: ,

Samsung’s SCH-W880 12 megapixel phonecamera with 3x optical zoom originally appeared on Engadget on Mon, 28 Sep 2009 08:01:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

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

Monday, September 28th, 2009 Uncategorized No Comments

RTB – real-time bidding may make ad exchanges more efficient, but it still won’t save display (ads)

in response to this mediapost article
http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=113621

While RTB will make ad exchanges even more efficient, it may not be that necessary.

RTB depends on 3 things: 1) inventory, which depends on how many people hit the page to generate an impression, 2) clicks, which depend on people clicking something, and 3) bidders, the more niche you get, the fewer bidders there will be.  Inventory does not change rapidly. Clicks take time to accumulate (to yield click rates, which are a necessary ingredient in the RTB calculation). And if there are too few bidders the price of the auction “item” won’t appreciate or depreciate much or rapidly. Because of these 3 things, making bidding real-time versus non-real-time (i.e. overnight) may not make it significantly better or move the needle much on efficiency and ROI.

And RTB will still not save “display” ads. The golden age of display was in the mid 90s when people tolerated ads when they read content. They are now trained to avoid looking at the top and right of web pages So while RTB may increase the ROI of display ads by increasing click rates from a percentage with too many zeros to count to something sligtly higher, display ads are still ignored by users and will still not generate measurable business impact for advertisers.

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

Saturday, September 19th, 2009 Uncategorized No Comments