while

Retail Guru Walter Loeb Says JCPenney Is ‘Sliding Further Into Oblivion’ (JCP)

Source: http://www.businessinsider.com/walter-loeb-jcpenney-2012-10

black hole

Walter Loeb, a retail consultant and former senior retail analyst at Morgan Stanley, is very worried about JCPenney.

Loeb writes in a column at Forbes entitled “JCPenney slides Further into Oblivion” that he visited the JCPenney store in the Manhattan Mall to see things firsthand.

While he liked the aesthetic changes put in place by CEO Ron Johnson, he was depressed by the lack of customers.

He believes that there are “few reasons for customers to return unless they are given some unusual incentives.” After all, the construction of the new shops is going to take a while, and stores will remain disrupted throughout.

Here’s his bottom line. From Forbes:

My initial hope was that sales would level off in 2013; I now feel that at the end of fiscal 2013 the company may only have sales of $12 Billion, a loss of $5 Billion from the high point of fiscal 2011. It will however be a different store with good opportunity for growth once the whole transformation is completed. It should appeal to a more aspirational shopper.

My conclusion is that the company is becoming irrelevant to investors and a liability for manufacturers since they will have to justify discount prices to other customers unless J.C.Penney carries old styles or exclusive models. Right now the company has been driving away its core customers but has yet to capture a new one as the decline in revenues clearly demonstrates.

NOW SEE: www.businessinsider.com/huge-photos-of-jcpenneys-brand-new-concept-shops-2012-7“>Huge Photos Of JCPenney’s New Concept Shops >

Please follow Retail on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

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

Thursday, October 4th, 2012 news No Comments

Source: http://gizmodo.com/5947614/the-canadian-government-accidentally-ran-a-bunch-of-ads-on-the-pirate-bay

The Canadian Government Accidentally Ran a Bunch of Ads on the Pirate Bay The Pirate Bay tends to be a website that national governments aren’t particularly fond of. That being the case, it’d be surprising if a national government ran ads on the site, advertising an Economic Action Plan, right? Canada did that, but not on purpose.

Banner ads for Canada’s Department of Finance’s Economic Action Plan started showing up on the site a few days ago, right next to ads for finding a Chinese bride, as shown by an image from the Ottawa Citizen. The ads were removed quickly, and the Department of Finance is blaming ad networks that were included in their media buy, specifically Yahoo!.

Yahoo! is in turn pointing a finger at Sympatico:

We have confirmed that Yahoo! was not responsible for the EAP ad showing up on The Pirate Bay. We have been able to trace the ad to Sympatico who were responsible for this ad’s appearance on the site, and they have been notified of the issue so they can take the appropriate actions.

Regardless of whose fault it actually was, the fact remains that for a while, the Pirate Bay had the pleasure of running a few government-purchased ads, and is enjoying the irony. According to TorrentFreak they’re even considering covering the site with unsolicited ads for the plan, for kicks. Though only the first run paid in real money, a second one would probably pay pretty well in smirks. [TorrentFreak via CNET]

Image by Arkadia/Shutterstock

The Canadian Government Accidentally Ran a Bunch of Ads on the Pirate Bay

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

Sunday, September 30th, 2012 Uncategorized No Comments

JCPenney’s New Concept Shops Are Killing It, And Here’s Proof (JCP)

Source: http://www.businessinsider.com/jcpenneys-new-shops-succeeding-2012-9

JC Penney

JCPenney CEO and former Apple retail chief Ron Johnson has been constantly criticized for his performance thus far in the turnaround attempt of the ailing retailer, but now, he’s got some very good news.

JCPenney’s new shops inside the department stores are rocking 20 percent higher comps than the rest of the store.

“Shops are working,” said Johnson.

What’s he most impressed with?

The Levi’s shop is his pride and joy — the one with the denim bar. It’s getting double digit comps in mens. 

“Both are doing well above what we planned,” said Johnson.

Johnson also focused on Sephora, a shop that JCPenney has actually had for a while now. He says that Sephora continues to comp in year six. In the future, he’s planning on slightly larger Sephora stores. Izod and Liz Claiborne are also doing great, said Johnson.

The in-house jcp brand is a bit more complicated. The women’s shop is doing well, said Johnson, but the mens is behind. He said that the “colors might be a bit advanced,” since JCPenney’s offering a lot of vibrant colors like purple and orange.

NOW SEE: Huge Photos Of JCPenney’s New Concept Shops >

Please follow Retail on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

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

Wednesday, September 19th, 2012 news No Comments

What Square’s Starbucks Deal Might Look Like

Source: https://intelligence.businessinsider.com/welcome

Square announced yesterday that it will handle all of Starbucks’s U.S. credit- and debit-card sales.

According to Yahoo Finance, analyst consensus for the calendar quarters ending September and December are $3.38 and $3.81 billion, respectively. This doesn’t quite align with Starbucks’ fiscal schedule, but we will assume revenue distribution is similar.

Historically, Starbucks generates about 75 percent of its revenue from the Americas. For the sake of simplicity, we’ll also assume Square is handling Starbucks’s Q3 sales even though the system probably won’t be rolled out for a while.

According to SAI’s Owen Thomas, 25 percent of its sales go through its prepaid Starbucks cards. His assumption of 50 percent credit card sales also seems fair to us.  

Additionally, Square’s annualized run rate for transaction volume has organically been growing by $1 billion every other month. Square last announced they were handling transactions at a $6 billion-a-year rate in June. If this growth rate continues, Square will handle the annual equivalent of $7 billion this month, $8 billion in October, and $9 billion in December.

Combining the expected Starbucks sales and its organic growth, Square would be handling $28.6 million of payments a day at the end of the year at an annual run rate of $10.4 billion. With a 2.75% take of transactions, it would be generating revenues of $787,000 a day—for an annual revenue run rate of $287 million.  

Square Starbucks     

Please follow BI Intelligence on Twitter.

Join the conversation about this story »

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

Wednesday, August 8th, 2012 news No Comments

Is This the Samsung Galaxy S III

Source: http://gizmodo.com/5895148/is-this-the-samsung-galaxy-s-iii

Is This the Samsung Galaxy S III?According to GSM Helpdesk Netherlands, this is Samsung’s next superphone, the Galaxy S III. The image is supposedly an official press shot, and the the timing makes some sense, since it’s about a year since we first saw a leak about the Galaxy S II.

GSM’s tipster also includes some specs that have been floating around for a while, like a 1.5GHz quad-core processor, a 4.7-inch 720p Super-AMOLED screen at 313ppi, and a 12MP camera. May 22 is mentioned as a launch date, which jibes with some recent rumors and the May 22nd date on the phone’s home screen. The phone looks really nice for the many fans of humongous phones with humongous specs. [GSM Helpdesk via BGR]

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

Wednesday, March 21st, 2012 news No Comments

Save Money On SodaStream Refills With a Hacked Paintball Canister [Video]

Source: http://gizmodo.com/5893653/sodamod-save-money-on-sodastream-refills-with-a-hacked-paintball-canister

One of the main reasons people love the SodaStream is that you save money by making your own sparkling water. Supposedly. Unfortunately, replacing those CO2 canisters is expensive. This clever hack will help you cut those costs by a huge margin.

The owner of Critical Paintball came up with SodaMod, which is a custom valve that turns the refillable CO2 canisters used to power paintball guns into the firepower in your countertop fizzy water fountain. As the video points out, SodaStream canisters use a proprietary one-way valve with non-standard threading so they’re impossible to refill without SodaStream’s help. Sending back two 14.5-ounce Carbinators for replacement costs $60. Outrageous! The cost adds up after a while and cuts into the money you’d otherwise be saving with your SodaStream.

SodaMod: Save Money On SodaStream Refills With a Hacked Paintball CanisterBy contrast, at your local sporting goods store a CO2 canister refill costs about three bucks. So it’s easy to see that cost of a $60 SodaMod plus a $15 CO2 tank pays for itself in no time. The SodaMod requires a some basic installation, but it’s certainly worth your effort. [SodaModThanks, Edgar!]

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

Thursday, March 15th, 2012 news No Comments

2.3 Million Americans Have Pulled The Plug Since 2010

Source: http://www.businessinsider.com/goodbye-cable-tv-23-million-americans-have-pulled-the-plug-since-2010-2012-2


videodrome

This chart (below) from ISI Group tells you all you need to know about the fate of cable TV in the age of the iPad: Since Q1 2010, 2.3 million people have stopped subscribing to pay TV as delivered by cable TV companies such as Cablevision, Comcast, DirecTV, Time Warner Cable, Dish, Verizon, and AT&T.

Currently, only 41.5 million Americans watch TV on pay cable.

I’ve been arguing for a while now that Americans are on the cusp of a dramatic change in how they watch video. They’re moving to video over the internet. Traditional TV is dying, in much the same way that in the mid-2000s we all largely stopped using hardwired telephones to make calls in favor of wireless mobile cellphones.

Hardwired phones are still a big business, of course, and most households still have them. But they’re really a vestigial offshoot of whatever bundled communications package you’ve bought.

It looks like cable is about to go the same way. Although its subscriber numbers are dwindling, subscriber numbers for satellite TV and broadband phone/internet service remain relatively healthy, as the second chart (below) shows. That suggests to me that there is a growing number of households choosing a broadband package with the internet as their top priority, and a dwindling number choosing it based on TV.

Ironically, the fall has come at a time when cable is making more ad money than ever. It’s a supply-and-demand issue: It may be that cable TV’s audience is dwindling, but it’s still one of the few venues that reliably delivers millions of eyeballs all at once.

First, the cable TV chart, based on numbers from ISI Group:

cable tv

Here’s the market share situation. Note that 2011 was a threshold year, when cable slipped from having more than 50 percent of the market to less:

cable tv share

Please follow Advertising on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

See Also:



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

Wednesday, February 29th, 2012 news 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 digital No Comments

This is what happens when 99% of the inefficiencies are cut out of a system (advertising industry)

Update: Including Q3 09 numbers

Source: http://adage.com/agencynews/article?article_id=140125

While no holding company’s results are pretty these days, Interpublic Group of Cos. last week posted particularly poor numbers, swinging to a net loss of over $35 million for the first nine months of 2009 from almost $60 million in profit during the same period in 2008. IPG’s third-quarter revenue fell 18% compared to declines of 14.4% at rival Omnicom Group, 8.7% at WPP (factoring out the effect of acquisitions and currency shifts) and 5.3% at Publicis Groupe. WPP’s reported revenue, including revenue from its big Taylor Nelson Sofres acquisition, rose 16.7%. In the same quarter, net income attributable to IPG tumbled 47.3%, more than double the drop of Omnicom (down 22.5%).

wasted-ad-dollars

Google changed the game by changing the business model from paying for impressions to paying only when the advertiser gets the click.  This helped to cut out the 99% of waste and inefficiency which existed in the industry.


WPP Profit Dropped 47% in Second Quarter More Than Half of Company’s Revenue Came From Nontraditional Advertising

NEW YORK (AdAge.com) — Using words such as “severe” and “surprise” to describe the recession’s impact on its business, WPP, the world’s largest advertising conglomerate, today said its profit was down 47% for the second quarter. And WPP Chief Executive Martin Sorrell said it will be a while before marketing executives begin to spend and take chances the way they did just a few years back.

FULL ARTICLE – Source: http://adage.com/article?article_id=138673

______________________________________________________________________

In a first half earnings statement released this morning, WPP Group announced that digital and direct marketing-related services now comprise 25% of its body.

WPP Group owns labels like 24/7 Real Media, Mediaedge:cia, MediaCom, Mindshare, GroupM and Outrider.

Digital and direct garnered $1.7 billion in revenues in the first half of ‘09, with a projected annual run rate of nearly $3.5 billion total. But it is digital media and advertising that appear to be dominating the segment.

Overall, first half revenues fell 2.9% to $6.4 billion in the first half on a reported basis, MediaPost reports. Like-for-like, however, total revenues slid 8.3% against the first half of 2008.

According to WPP, traditional advertising and “media investment management” have been the hardest-hit amidst the economic downturn.

“On a constant currency basis, advertising and media investment management revenues fell by 7.5%, with like-for-like revenues down 7.8%,” it stated.

Branding and identity, healthcare and specialist communications — which includes direct, internet and interactive — were least affected.

The media conglomerate committed to prioritizing the growth of digital communications, customer insights and strong geographic markets.

Related topics: Online Advertisers, Data Updates,

Sourcehttp://www.marketingcharts.com/updates/digitaldirect-marketing-now-25-of-wpp-group-10211/?utm_campaign=rssfeed&utm_source=mc&utm_medium=textlink

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

Thursday, August 27th, 2009 digital 1 Comment

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
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