summary

Source: http://gizmodo.com/5882869/even-after-shutting-down-limewire-cant-catch-a-break

LimeWire has been kaput as a file-sharing service since October but that hasn’t stopped its legal woes. Now, after settling with the RIAA to the tune of $105 million, the MPAA and a host of indie music labels have filed lawsuits against the company as well. Talk about beating a dead horse.

Six studios—Twentieth Century Fox, Viacom, Comedy Partners, Disney, Paramount Pictures, and Warner Brothers—have filed suit, citing the court’s summary judgement in the RIAA case as basis for their claims. In that case, the court concluded that LimeWire “intentionally encouraged direct infringement.” Now, the court will have to decide LimeWire’s culpability in the illicit trade of movies and TV shows as well.

In addition, a group of independent record labels are arguing that, because of the same summary judgement, that they too are owed $105 million. There’s no word yet on how much the MPAA is asking for in damages, but if its anything near what it enjoy threatening the common user with, LimeWire’s going to need to find some deeper pockets. [Hollywood Reporter via Techdirt]

Image: Pakhnyushcha / Shutterstock

Tags: addition, anything, basis, beating a dead horse, case, Century, Comedy, comedy partners, company, Court, court concluded that, culpability, Disney, fox, going, Group, hollywood reporter, horse, host, illicit trade, Image, independent record labels, indie, infringement, judgement, kaput, lawsuits, legal woes, LimeWire, mdash, MPAA, music, music labels, October, Pakhnyushcha, Paramount, paramount pictures, Pictures, pockets, record, reporter, RIAA, service, Shutterstock, suit, summary, summary judgement, talk, Techdirt, Trade, tune, Twentieth, twentieth century fox, user, Viacom, Warner, warner brothers, word

Monday, February 6th, 2012 Uncategorized No Comments

37 million iPhones, 15.43 million iPads, 5.2 million Macs, 15.4 million iPods

Source: http://www.engadget.com/2012/01/24/apple-q1-2012-iphone-ipad-ipod-mac-hardware-sales/

We touched on the numbers in our report on Apple’s Q1 earnings, but the company’s throwing out a lot of “record” figures so we thought we’d take a moment to focus on just how its hardware sales stack up. The standout number is, of course, the 37.04 million iPhones sold during the quarter, which is up 128 percent from the same quarter a year ago (and up from 17 million in the previous quarter, a jump of 117 percent). That notably puts Apple back ahead of Samsung, which sold a total of 35 million smartphones in its most recent quarter. And as if that wasn’t enough, Apple’s Tim Cook also said on the company’s earnings call that it could have sold even more if it had more supply.

iPad sales also set a new record with 15.43 million units sold during the quarter, which is a 111 percent jump from the 7.3 million sold a year ago, and a 39 percent increase from the 11.1 million moved in Q4 2011. Once again, however, iPods are the one category that continues to decline in the face of the growth of smartphones. Apple sold a total of 15.4 million iPods — over half of which were iPod touches — which represents a 21 percent decline from the 19.4 million sold a year ago. The holiday shopping season did boost sales considerably from the 6.6 million sold in the previous quarter, though.

Mac sales were also on the upswing, totaling 5.2 million units — a 26 percent increase year-over-year. Breaking things down further, that translates to 1.48 million desktops (including iMac, Mac Mini and Mac Pro), and 3.7 million laptops (including the basic MacBook, MacBook Air and MacBook Pro). As for the company’s “h! obby,” t he Apple TV, it rang up 1.4 million in sales for the quarter, and 2.8 million for the 2011 fiscal year. Fans of charts can get their fix after the break.

Continue reading Apple’s Q1 hardware sales: 37 million iPhones, 15.43 million iPads, 5.2 million Macs, 15.4 million iPods

Apple’s Q1 hardware sales: 37 million iPhones, 15.43 million iPads, 5.2 million Macs, 15.4 million iPods originally appeared on Engadget on Tue, 24 Jan 2012 17:30:00 EDT. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | source Apple, Data summary (PDF) | Email this | Comments

Tags: 6 million, AIR, apple tv, break, breaking things, Call, category, company, Continue, course, data, decline, EDT, face, Fix, half, hardware, hardware sales, holiday, holiday shopping, iMac, increase, iPad, iPhone, iphones, iPod, ipods, iPodsApple, Jan, jump, lot, mac hardware, mac mini, mac sales, MacBook, Macs, moment, number, obby, pdf, percent, Permalink, q1 earnings, q4, Quarter, reading, record, report, Samsung, season, shopping, smartphones, stack, standout, summary, supply, tim cook, Total, Tue, upswing, use, year

Tuesday, January 24th, 2012 news No Comments

The generalization that TV ads are more “helpful” than internet ads is simply false and irresponsible

In the following study published by Harris Interactive and Adweek Media, they show a chart which seemingly shows that TV ads are “most helpful” in making a purchase decision. If you were give the following list of choices — TV ads, newspaper ads, search engine ads, radio ads, banner ads, and none — and asked to select which was most helpful to your purchase decision; which would you choose? And would you choose that because it was more familiar to you (e.g. TV), seen more frequently, etc. Or is it that banner ads are generally known to be ignored (eye tracking studies show that most users know not to look at the top and right sides of a web page, knowing that banner ads typcially go there).

for new products

where the missing link is simply awareness

TV is very effective

in driving an initial burst of sales

starting pt is zero sales

so if you make people aware

some will buy

11:04 PM in the case of new products

online ads are not great

but you have to break online ads into 2 types

banner ads (push) versus search ads (pull)

search ads are not useful here

because it is a new product and people

wont know to search for it

11:05 PM banner ads may work

because they are for awareness

and they are displayed on pages where people are looking at content

but compared to TV advertising

people have accepted ads as part of the “price” of TV

on the contrary

people have always expected itnernet content to be free

and they have devloped habits to

11:06 PM avoid lokoing at top of page and right side

so banner ads are pretty damn bad at

generating awareness

because people simply dont look

so of the 3

tv ads, banner ads and search ads

tv ads are better in the case of new products where the missing link is awareness

11:07 PM when you get to more established products

the balance changes

the missing link is not awareness

the missing links are further down the funnel

e.g. consideration

modern consumers need more info

they dont just trust an advertiser

and TV ads give them too little info to be useful

11:08 PM banner ads are still ignored just as much as before

but search ads become more important

by looking at what people are searching for

yu know what part of the purch funnel they are at

and what missing link they are trying to solve

so in summary

11:09 PM making the generalization that TV ads are more effective than internet ads is simply false and irresponsible; we must take into account dozens more parameters that impact purchase

decisions

Source: http://www.marketingcharts.com/television/tv-ads-most-helpful-web-banners-most-ignored-9645/

More than one-third of Americans (37%) say that TV ads are most helpful to them in making a purchase decision, while nearly half say they ignore internet banner ads, according to (pdf) a poll from AdWeekMedia and Harris Interactive.

In terms of the helpfulness of ads in other media, newspapers rank second behind TV, with 17% reporting that newspaper ads are most helpful, while 14% say the same about internet search-engine ads:

At the other end of the spectrum, Radio ads (3%) and internet banner ads (1%) are not considered helpful by many people. The poll found also that more than one fourth (28%) of Americans say that none of these types of advertisements are helpful to them in the purchase-decision-making process.

Not surprisingly, the types of ads Americans find helpful vary by age and, slightly, by region:

50% of people ages 18-34 find TV ads most helpful.
31% of those ages 55+ say newspaper ads are most helpful.
40% of Southerners find TV ads most helpful, while only one-third (33%) of Midwesterners feel the same.

Banner Ads Most Ignored
Almost half of Americans (46%) say they ignore internet banner ads, according to the study. Much further down the list of ignored items are internet search engine ads (17% of people ignore), television ads (13%), radio ads (9%), and newspaper ads (6%):

One in ten Americans (9%) say they do not ignore any of these types of ads.

Age and regional differences:

50% of those ages 35-44 and 51% of Midwesterners say they ignore Internet banner ads compared with 43% of 18-34 year olds as well as Easterners and Southerners.
20% of Americans 18-34 years old (20%) say they ignore Internet search engine ads while 20% of those ages 55+ ignore TV ads.

Harris Interactive suggestes that these findings are important because, despite online video and the ability to use a DVR to shift live programming, TV ads remain most helpful to consumers. Conversely, while an internet strategy is essential for a comprehensive ad campaign, banner ads are only considered helpful by a few and are ignored the most, the polling fiirm said.

About the survey: The AdweekMedia/The Harris Poll was conducted online in the US from June 4-8, 2009 among 2,521 adults (ages 18+). Figures for age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, region and household income were weighted where necessary to bring them into line with their actual proportions in the population. Propensity score weighting was also used to adjust for respondents’ propensity to be online.

Tags: advertiser, advertising, Adweek, AdWeekMedia, age, awareness, balance, banner, banner ads, burst, case, chart, choices, consideration, consumers, content, decision, dont, engine, eye, eye tracking, funnel, generalization, generating, half, Harris, harris interactive, info, Interactive, Internet, itnernet, link, list, look, Media, Midwesterners, missing link, missing links, newspaper, none, one-third, online, page, part, poll, price, Product, purch, purchase, purchase decision, radio, radio ads, region, search, search ads, search engine, side, Study, summary, top, trust, tv ads, tv advertising, US, Web, web page, wont

Tuesday, July 28th, 2009 digital No Comments

Facebook advertising metrics and benchmarks

Update Jan 2014

Facebook Advertising Benchmarks CTR CPC CPM by Augustine Fou from Dr Augustine Fou

Summary

Facebook click-through rates of 0.01 – 0.05% (Facebook CTRs)

Facebook effective CPMs turned out to be $0.01 – $0.19 (Facebook eCPMs)

Facebook average CPCs ranged from $0.05 – $0.25 (Facebook CPCs)

Other social media benchmarks from my experiments (Adwords, StumbleUpon, PayPerPost / Izea) can be found here.

Comparison of click-through rates for search ads versus display ads

As a scientist, I like to run experiments. And I like to make stuff. So my team and I made a few Facebook apps that solved needs that we had (a few samples listed below) and shared them publicly on Facebook to see if they were also useful to other people too.

I beta tested some apps with a few friends by inviting them directly. Then to get it out to a larger number of people, we decided to try Facebook advertising, the much-hyped, holy grail of display advertising on one of the largest and most active social networks.

http://apps.facebook.com/netflixr/

– visual discovery, share, and queue management interface for Netflix

http://apps.facebook.com/musicsamplr/

– visual discovery and sampling interface for music (Amazon backend)

http://apps.facebook.com/phreetings/

– create and send photo or video e-cards by drag and drop (Flickr and YouTube backend)

http://apps.facebook.com/visualfriends/

– visual display of your friends (closest ones have the most recent status updates)

http://apps.facebook.com/myfavethings/

– social commerce – I’ll buy what he bought; things I have, things I want

But what I found was eye-opening to say the least. Despite the potential of social ads where the social actions of your circle of friends could make the ads more targeted, none of the anticipated positive effects were observed. Despite the promise of mass reach, there was not the corresponding attention or clicks. And despite the use of demographics-based targeting, there was no statistically significant difference between different targets nor the control sample, running during the same time period.

What we saw were click-through rates of 0.01 – 0.05% — and the 0.01% often seemed like rounding because they did not report more than 2 decimal places. As a result of these click rates the effective CPMs turned out to be $0.01 – $0.19 and average CPCs ranged from $0.05 – $0.25. I’ve been running these Facebook ads for more than 12 months; and millions of impresisons later, there is no observable improvements to CTRs and thus CPMs and CPCs. But since I set up the campaigns to only pay when there is a click (CPC basis), I can let these run indefinitely because I am getting so few clicks, it’s not even making a dent on my credit card (which I use to pay for the ads).

detail of low click through rates of facebook display ads

Ideas for Facebook

In the spirit of openness, as an advertiser who wants to continue using Facebook advertising, perhaps there are a few things they can do to improve the effectiveness of Facebook display ads.

1. reduce the number of ads per page to 1 — displaying multiple ads artificially depresses click-through rates because users can only click on 1 thing at a time, even if they liked more than one of them. Displaying 3 on a page simply increases the denominator while the numerator does not increase — in the click-through rate equation: clicks / impressions.

2. make ads sharable – in the rare instance a user views an ad, it may or may not be relevant to her, but she may know that it is relevant and timely for a friend. By making ads sharable, she can click and send to a friend, who is very likely to find it useful and valuable, especially having been sent by a friend.

3. let users opt-in to ads in specific topic categories – when users are in the market for specific things, they are more likely to subscribe to pertinent news feeds, offers, etc. related to that topic or category. By giving users more power over what they want to see, it will also give advertisers more targeted and engaged prospects to target.

4. expand search-based advertising – when users search they are looking for something and are open to discovering something they didn’t know to ask for. So ads served up in response to a search is usually a lot more effective than ads served up simply when a page is loaded (display advertising). Facebook can serve display ads based on pertinent search queries.

Earth to Facebook… anyone listening?

By Dr. Augustine Fou. Dr. Fou is Group Chief Digital Officer at Healthcare Consultancy Group a group of agencies within the Omnicom family specializing in pharma and healthcare. He helps clients develop digital marketing programs or improve the efficiency and cost-effectiveness existing campaigns via advanced analytics, social marketing, and digital strategy. You can read more of his writing on digital marketing on this blog and follow him on twitter @acfou.

Revision 6/30/2009: Facebook Click Fraud

Excerpt from TechCrunch: “Click fraud is serious business on the big search engine advertising networks because the bad guys can make serious money. Sign up for an Adsense account and put those ads on parked domain names or wherever. Then all you have to do is start clicking those ads like crazy, using bots or cheap labor.” On Facebook, “advertisers are clicking on competitor ads to drive up their costs and drive down their ROI.”

“So the bad guys just create thousands of fake Facebook accounts with a wide variety of demographic information. This sounds like a lot of work, but it’s highly automated. the going rate was just $10 per 100 accounts if you supply the unique email accounts. Once the accounts are created, they use software to fill out the varied demographic information, and that software also manages all these accounts. The fraudster then logs in to Facebook via these accounts and views the ads that are displayed. The right competitive ads come up and Bingo, the software then clicks them. Facebook rules allow an account to click any advertisement up to six times in a 24 hour period, and all those clicks are charged. All you need is a few accounts to view the ads and then click to the max.”

http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/06/26/facebook-click-fraud-101/

http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/06/21/facebook-admit-click-fraud-problem-says-fix-coming-today/

Despite click fraud, the click through rates are still incredibly low. So if you subtract all the click fraud, is ANY advertiser making ANY money from facebook advertising?

Others have found similarly dismal click through rates from Facebook advertising

Source: http://www.friendswithbenefitsbook.com/2008/04/07/facebook-ad-click-through-rates-are-really-pitiful/

Facebook Ad Click-Through Rates Are Really Pitiful

April 7, 2008 – 5:03 pm

Quite by coincidence, I’ve encountered a few statistics on Facebook’s advertising platform. I thought I’d post links to the results I’ve uncovered, in case anybody is wondering about average CTR rates for Facebook.

First up, Rod Boothby got a click-through rate of 0.01%:

This week, I ran $105 worth of Facebook Fliers. That bought me 52,500 impressions. It looks like the flier bought me about an extra 500 site visits. That’s about $0.21 per hit.

Michael Ferguson ran a bunch of Facebook ads for Kinzin:

Click-through rates are abysmal. I was running the identical ad in about 15 different regions (you need to run them as separate ads to get the stats broken out), getting just over 10M views. Our average clickthrough rate was 0.06% (that’s 1 in 1513, for those counting at home). The best we did anywhere was 0.14%.

He later reports that the conversion rate was “at a pretty reasonable clip” at about 5%. By ‘conversion’, I think he’s meaning people who actually signed up for Kinzin’s free service. All of this stuff is contextual, but if visitors had to lay down money, the conversion rate would be considerably lower.

The folks at Valleywag report similarly dismal numbers:

Media buyers — the agency people who book campaigns — report that the college social network is a truly terrible target. They’re mainly students, with low disposable income, of course; but, beyond that, the users appear to be too busy leaving messages for eachother to show much interest in advertising. Facebook’s members appear indifferent even to movie advertising aimed at their demographic. Clickthrough rates, the percentage of time users click on an ad, average 0.04% — just 400 clicks in every 1m views — according to one report seen by Valleywag.

From AllFacebook:

Fred Wilson has been updating the world about his venture in Facebook advertising over the past week. Today, Fred posted and updated screenshot of his ad campaign’s performance and it doesn’t appear to be too stellar. For one of his campaigns, out of 10,080 impressions there were only 8 clicks. The average cost-per-click for Fred was $0.08 and the average CPM was $0.06. This is a less than stellar performance. This is nothing new though.

And lastly, from a digital student marketing blog in the UK. This would seem like a natural fit for Facebook’s audience:

Our most recent campaign saw 1.4 million page impressions delivered at specific universities – and only a 0.04% clickthrough rate. Ouch.

Click-through rates seem to sit around 0.04%, which is profoundly lame if you ask me. I’m no online advertising expert–it’s not really our thing–but I’ve run a bunch of Google AdWords and other contextual advertising campaigns. We regularly get click-through rates of 3%, and I gather that’s nothing special.

Here’s my theory on Facebook: it’s a silo. People visit the Fun House of Facebook, and conceptually treat it slightly different than the rest of the web. They’re in Facebook, interacting with friends, playing games, sending messages and now chatting on IM. As such, they’re really unmotivated to leave. Who wants to leave the Fun House?

We’ve seen similar results across Facebook. It’s really difficult to drive visitors out of the app and to your own website.

Friday, May 29th, 2009 analytics, digital, display advertising, marketing, social networks 8 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.

http://twitter.com/acfou
Send Tips: tips@go-digital.net
Digital Strategy Consulting
Dr. Augustine Fou LinkedIn Bio
Digital Marketing Slideshares
The Grand Unified Theory of Marketing

Mike Moran
Mark Schaefer
Rob Petersen

go-Digital Blog on Digital Marketing

Augustine Fou's Opinions, Rants, Raves about Digital

summary

37 million iPhones, 15.43 million iPads, 5.2 million Macs, 15.4 million iPods

Digital Consigliere

Collaborators – Digital Profs

Pages

Popular Posts

Favorite Sites

Prototype Web Services

Archives

Augustine Fou's Opinions, Rants, Raves about Digital

summary

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Update Jan 2014

Summary

Facebook click-through rates of 0.01 – 0.05% (Facebook CTRs)

Facebook effective CPMs turned out to be $0.01 – $0.19 (Facebook eCPMs)

Facebook average CPCs ranged from $0.05 – $0.25 (Facebook CPCs)

Other social media benchmarks from my experiments (Adwords, StumbleUpon, PayPerPost / Izea) can be found here.

Comparison of click-through rates for search ads versus display ads

As a scientist, I like to run experiments. And I like to make stuff. So my team and I made a few Facebook apps that solved needs that we had (a few samples listed below) and shared them publicly on Facebook to see if they were also useful to other people too.

I beta tested some apps with a few friends by inviting them directly. Then to get it out to a larger number of people, we decided to try Facebook advertising, the much-hyped, holy grail of display advertising on one of the largest and most active social networks.

– visual discovery, share, and queue management interface for Netflix

– visual discovery and sampling interface for music (Amazon backend)

– create and send photo or video e-cards by drag and drop (Flickr and YouTube backend)

– visual display of your friends (closest ones have the most recent status updates)

– social commerce – I’ll buy what he bought; things I have, things I want

Ideas for Facebook

In the spirit of openness, as an advertiser who wants to continue using Facebook advertising, perhaps there are a few things they can do to improve the effectiveness of Facebook display ads.

Earth to Facebook… anyone listening?

Revision 6/30/2009: Facebook Click Fraud

http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/06/26/facebook-click-fraud-101/

http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/06/21/facebook-admit-click-fraud-problem-says-fix-coming-today/

Despite click fraud, the click through rates are still incredibly low. So if you subtract all the click fraud, is ANY advertiser making ANY money from facebook advertising?

Share this:

Digital Consigliere

Collaborators – Digital Profs

Pages

Popular Posts

Tags

Favorite Sites

Prototype Web Services

Archives