mfioretti: advertising*

Bookmarks on this page are managed by an admin user.

48 bookmark(s) - Sort by: Date ↓ / Title / Voting / - Bookmarks from other users for this tag

  1. the advertiser has little or no control, as long as they distribute ads through eyeball-chasing adtech.

    But they do have control if they go back to sponsoring publications directly. As I suggest in Let’s get some things straight about publishing and advertising, we need a word, a symbol or a hashtag that says an ad is not tracking-based adtech. There I suggest #SafeAd.

    Programmatic at best can only blacklist a site like Breitbart, and program that blacklist into one or more of the thousands of systems that might aim an ad (and many may be in the supply chain between advertiser, agency and publication). But that’s not going to fix the problem. Advertisers need to fire adtech. Simple as that. This is what AdAge, the ANA, Sleeping Giants and everybody else who wants to save advertising’s ass should be urging.

    Adtech is a cancer on advertisers, publishers, and everybody it tracks.
    https://medium.com/@dsearls/an-easy-f...roken-advertising-system-2aa5a59a5cc5
    Voting 0
  2. Ultimately, as a community tool, el paquete serves to inform and connect members of the community in ways the official channels haven’t ideologically or practically acknowledged need connecting. In a sense, the network is facilitating an exchange, not of ideas, which Cubans have always had, but opportunities, which have traditionally been limited.

    The paquete is more than a big dump of media. It’s a system, an economy, and maybe even a mental model for understanding how Cuba operates, in spite of, or as a result of, the otherwise antiquated media economy, with state-controlled broadcast and print networks. It serves to entertain, educate, and inform the Cuban people of what’s happening on and off the island in a way that’s unique to their cultural situation.

    The next time I head back to Cuba I’m going to try to patronize as many paquete advertisers as possible, as not just as a way of getting at the Cuba that’s behind the tourism curtain, but as a show of solidarity with their resources encouraging this emerging cultural ecosystem.
    https://withintent.uncorkedstudios.co...ete-cubas-social-network-2fa6c99660ee
    Voting 0
  3. We covet diamonds in America for a simple reason: the company that stands to profit from diamond sales decided that we should. De Beers’ marketing campaign single handedly made diamond rings the measure of one’s success in America. Despite its complete lack of inherent value, the company manufactured an image of diamonds as a status symbol. And to keep the price of diamonds high, despite the abundance of new diamond finds, De Beers executed the most effective monopoly of the 20th century. Okay, we get it De Beers, you guys are really good at business!

    The purpose of this post was to point out that diamond engagement rings are a lie - they’re an invention of Madison Avenue and De Beers. This post has completely glossed over the sheer amount of human suffering that we’ve caused by believing this lie: conflict diamonds funding wars, supporting apartheid for decades with our money, and pillaging the earth to find shiny carbon. And while we’re on the subject, why is it that women need to be asked and presented with a ring in order to get married? Why can’t they ask and do the presenting?
    http://www.businessinsider.com/why-di...facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer&r=US
    Voting 0
  4. every person I dealt with at Ford was great. I have no complaints about the people. And their product looks great too. The problem is that Ford and Chevy both have a business model (too many features, not enough trucks) that makes that nearly impossible, even if the customer and the salesperson are 100% motivated to make it happen. There are simply too many options available, and there are few people – even at the dealership – who can explain the tradeoffs for each of them. So customers either accept the bait-and-switch or they don’t buy a truck, like me.

    Speaking of bait-and-switch, I’m in Maui at The Westin Ka'anapali Ocean Resort Villas. This is my first real vacation in three years.

    Here’s what they call “ocean view.” The image is somewhat distorted, so you can’t tell I’m overlooking an active construction site.
    image

    I learned after arriving that I should have asked for “Beachfront” not “ocean view.” But the beachfront homes are not available because they are owned privately. So upgrading wasn’t an option.

    I also learned that “room service” only operates until 8:30 PM, which is exactly the time I am not in my room. And there was no menu in the room.

    I also learned that this is what The Westin calls a two-bedroom “suite.” It’s two regular rooms with some sitting space connected by a door. Here’s one of them.
    image

    Obviously I’m not suffering. I’m just saying the resort bait-and-switched me. I pointed that out to them in direct language, and they later offered a $150 credit. I accepted. The other hotels were booked.

    My larger point is not about Chevy, Ford, or The Westin. My point is that in an age of potentially perfect information (via the Internet) the only way big companies can sell products at a profit is through confusion and baiting-and-switching. Economics majors will already understand that to do otherwise would allow direct competition and drive down prices to non-profitability.
    http://blog.dilbert.com/post/14845523...e-bait-and-switch-confusopoly-economy
    Voting 0
  5. Even if he loses the election, Trump will have changed the brains of millions of Americans, with future consequences. It is vitally important people know the mechanisms used to transmit Big Lies and to stick them into people’s brains without their awareness. It is a form of mind control.

    People in the media have a duty to report it when the see it. But there are constraints on the media.

    Certain things have not been allowed in public political discourse in the media. Reporters and commentators are supposed to stick to what is conscious and with literal meaning. But most real political discourse makes use of unconscious thought, which shapes conscious thought via unconscious framing and commonplace conceptual metaphors. It is crucial, for the history of the country and the world, as well as the planet, that all of this be made public.

    And it is not just the media. Such responsibility rests with ordinary citizens who become aware of unconscious brain mechanisms like the ten we have just discussed. This responsibility also rests with the Democratic Party and their campaigns at all levels.

    Is the use of the public’s brain mechanisms for communication necessarily immoral? Understanding how people really think can be used to communicate truths, not Big Lies or ads for products.

    This knowledge is not just known to cognitive linguists. It is taught in Marketing courses in business schools, and the mechanisms are used in advertising, to get you to buy what advertisers are selling. We have learned to recognize ads; they are set off by themselves. Even manipulative corporate advertising with political intent (like ads for fracking) is not as dangerous as Big Lies leading to authoritarian government determining the future of our country.

    How Can Democrats Do Better?

    First, don’t think of an elephant. Remember not to repeat false conservative claims and then rebut them with the facts. Instead, go positive. Give a positive truthful framing to undermine claims to the contrary. Use the facts to support positively-framed truth. Use repetition.

    Second, start with values, not policies and facts and numbers. Say what you believe, but haven’t been saying. For example, progressive thought is built on empathy, on citizens caring about other citizens and working through our government to provide public resources for all, both businesses and individuals. Use history. That’s how America started. The public resources used by businesses were not only roads and bridges, but public education, a national bank, a patent office, courts for business cases, interstate commerce support, and of course the criminal justice system. From the beginning, the Private Depended on Public Resources, both private lives and private enterprise.
    https://georgelakoff.com/2016/07/23/understanding-trump-2
    Voting 0
  6. Quit fracking our lives to extract data that’s none of your business and that your machines misinterpret. — New Clues, #58

    That’s the blunt advice David Weinberger and I give to marketers who still make it hard to talk, sixteen years after many of them started failing to get what we meant by Markets are Conversations.

    In the world of 2001, people have become so machinelike that the most human character turns out to be a machine. That’s the essence of Kubrick’s dark prophecy: as we come to rely on computers to mediate our understanding of the world, it is our own intelligence that flattens into artificial intelligence.

    Even if our own intelligence is not yet artificialized, what’s feeding it surely is.

    In The Filter Bubble, after explaining Google’s and Facebook’s very different approaches to personalized “experience” filtration, and the assumptions behind both, Eli Pariser says both companies approximations are based on “a bad theory of you,” and come up with “pretty poor representations of who we are, in part because there is no one set of data that describes who we are.” He says the ideal of perfect personalization dumps us into what animators, puppetry and robotics engineers call the uncanny valley: a “place where something is lifelike but not convincingly alive, and it gives people the creeps.”

    Sanity requires that we line up many different personalities behind a single first person pronoun: I, me, mine. And also behind multiple identifiers. In my own case, I am Doc to most of those who know me, David to various government agencies (and most of the entities that bill me for stuff), Dave to many (but not all) family members, @dsearls to Twitter, and no name at all to the rest of the world, wherein I remain, like most of us, anonymous (literally, nameless), because that too is a civic grace. (And if you doubt that, ask any person who has lost their anonymity through the Faustian bargain called celebrity.)

    Third, advertising needs to return to what it does best: straightforward brand messaging that is targeted at populations, and doesn’t get personal. For help with that, start reading
    https://medium.com/@dsearls/on-market...bad-guesswork-88a84de937b0#.deu5ue16x
    Voting 0
  7. wC’s annual five-year forecast for entertainment and media released today has revised downward the growth rate for ad spending on television. Last year, PwC predicted advertising would increase 5.5 percent annually over the next five years; now PwC says that rate will slow to just 4 percent annually through 2019.

    And those are just the global figures. In the United States, TV ad spending is growing by just a little more than 3 percent annually on average. By contrast, spending jumped 5 percent between 2013 and 2014, the most recent years that PwC makes available.

    Why is this happening now? Blame streaming video services like Netlix and Amazon, which have lured TV watchers away from ad-based programming. PwC lumps these services into a category called home video revenue, which is growing quickly in the United States

    Nearly every form of entertainment and media is expected to expand over the next five years

    Mobile advertising and social gaming will see steady double-digit growth. Other media, like the global music market and magazine publishing, will grow less than a percent annually on average. The only decline will be in newspaper publishing, which will see advertising drop roughly 3 percent a year through 2019.
    People want to get together in person

    In the US, spending on live concerts and movie tickets will outpace overall consumer spending by 2.9 percent by 2019.
    Mobile ads will soon command more ad dollars than display ads

    Mobile advertising in the US overtook display Internet advertising in 2014; next year, it’ll supplant paid searches, the leading ad category. It’s expected to grow 25 percent annually for the next five years and overtake display advertising globally within five years. (That’s assuming there will be a distinction between advertising on mobile devices and Internet advertising in five years, which grows harder to fathom by the year.)
    Fewer people will pay for cable—but not that many fewer

    In 2012, 80 percent of Americans paid a subscription fee for TV shows; by 2016, that’ll fall 3 percent, to 76.9 percent. It’s a drop, but not nearly the decline you might have expected. (If, however, you live in Kenya, Indonesia or Thailand, where cable TV signals the prestige of being part of an emerging middle class, you’ll see double-digit growth in cable subscriptions for the next five years.)
    We prefer streaming our music to downloading it

    Companies make more from consumers downloading music than streaming it, but that’s expected to change. By 2017, revenue from digital streaming will overtake that from digital downloading, and it will continue to jump roughly 11 percent annually. PwC also reports that pressure is growing on the leaders in digital streaming to limit access to free tunes as music companies start to question whether the number of songs made available on ad-supported services is too high. Consumers should prepare to pay up.
    http://www.wired.com/2015/06/tv-losin...et-really-counts/?mbid=social_twitter
    Voting 0
  8. The people you quote — Baquet, Caputo — seem to be betting that the current dynamics of slow decline form the predictable future for your paper. I doubt this, and the alternate story I’d like to suggest is that print declines will become fast again by the end of the decade, bringing about the end of print (by which I mean a New York Times that does not produce a print product seven days a week) sooner than Baquet’s 40-year horizon, and possibly sooner than Caputo’s 10-year one. (Public editor note: Mr. Baquet said “no one thinks there will be a lot of print around in 40 years.” Mr. Caputo predicted that a printed Times would be around in 10 years, but did not specify seven-day-a-week production.)

    You observed that print is responsible for the majority of ad revenues at the paper, but the disproportionate importance of print is not a signal of the robustness of the medium, it is a signal that advertisers have not found a way to replace print ads with anything as effective in other media.

    Those dynamics, in miniature, characterize print as a whole — below some threshold, the decay stops being incremental and starts being systemic.
    http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/publi...ts-future-from-clay-shirky/?referrer=
    Voting 0
  9. Retargeting is another recent trend in ads. Rather than just targeting ads based on what you do on a service, sites can track the cookies left by other sites you’ve visited around the web. That means if you almost bought a flight to Hawaii on some travel site, Hawaiian Air might pay Google, Facebook, Twitter, or LinkedIn to show you an ad for a discount on that same flight in hopes that you’ll pull the trigger.

    But now, it’s not just your data being invisibly used to target ads. Your content and identity are being used as ads.

    Screenshot 2013-10-11 at 12.10.17 PMGoogle is doing it in the most respectful and responsible way. You can completely opt out of having your content used as ads. Facebook lets you opt out of being used in “social ads” that display your name next to ads, but you can’t opt out of Sponsored Stories that use your content as ads. Twitter doesn’t offer any way to opt out of your name being used in ads (though you can opt out of being shown personalized follow recommendations and retargeted ads).

    Companies have to choose between the health of their business and the freedom of their users. If they let people opt out easily, their ads will be less effective, and they’ll make less money to spend on building their products.

    So in some ways, by not opting out of being used as social ads, you’re being generous. You’re saving your friends from irrelevant ads for things they don’t care about.

    Maybe everyone should follow Google’s lead and give you the freedom to opt out of having your name, face, and activity turned into ads — even if it hurts the companies providing free services and your friends who use them. If you want to utilize the opt outs offered, go right ahead. Update: It’s your right to say you won’t have your identity leveraged and that these companies can find another way to make money. Maybe they should. »

    But before you opt out, remember, you can choose to make ads better for everyone else.
    http://techcrunch.com/2013/10/11/you-make-ads-better
    Voting 0
  10. If TheKhanly truly made out like a bandit, netting $9.35 per ad per thousand views, and if each listener stuck out all 14 ads, TheKhanly made around $175,000 in two years.

    No matter how much or little he or she generated, in all likelihood TheKhanly, who could not be reached for comment, has made far more money off Follow The Leader than a weed dealer does off an ounce of kush, or a sex worker off a common trick.

    For that matter, uploading an album to a website requires arguably less savvy and effort than dealing drugs or prostituting. TheKhanly theoretically could be making bank off the least taxing form of counterfeiting possible, appealing to a guaranteed audience of dermatologists and schoolteachers and Target clerks who only need to type “korn leader” into a search box.

    The ease of finding this material is facilitated by Google's omnipresence, bringing us back to Google's mission.

    "Look at Google's » name," Steven Levy, author of In The Plex: How Google Thinks, Works, and Shapes Our Lives, told me. "It’s a really big number. Google all along has been about operating on a scale that was tough to imagine before the internet age.”

    While Google’s early competitors like Altavista and Yahoo may have included little perks like collecting news or weather, Google has turned into an aggregator of everything from merchandise prices to metrics for linguistic trends.

    The founder of Network Awesome, Jason Forrest, considers the site’s curatorial effort an antidote to “your Buzzfeeds and Mashables, which » get paid to focus on this very lowbrow mainstream."

    The easy access to David Lynch’s television commercials, a compendium of videos from Chicago’s drill scene, and a PBS documentary on Carl Jung, for example, validates Forrest’s claim that the site uses similar mechanisms as those clickbait powerhouses to “supply a never-ending stream of inspirations.” YouTube’s complicity in this stream cannot be understated, as Network Awesome is, at the end of the day, a mechanism for comprehending the multitudes contained by the archive.

    And the very need for an entity like Network Awesome says a great deal about how YouTube is handling its librarian duties. Searching for Beyonce’s “Single Ladies” several years after it was a hit gives you the sense that YouTube is less like the Library of Congress or Alexandria and more like a hoarder’s house where the plastic plates from the Labor Day barbecue are piled on top of the good china.

    You will find the official "Single Ladies" music video, several “lyric videos” boasting audio of varying quality, smart phone videos of the song performed live, parodies, and acapella covers. Google and YouTube are perhaps not archiving entities with a mission to preserve, rather with one to hoard information simply because they can, suffering from what the late Jacques Derrida would call “archive fever.”

    having your music listened to at the same place where people stream fail videos and ‘I like turtles’, it really makes music seem like trash, just junk you click on and forget about.”

    This viewpoint might ring a bit extreme—especially if you’re in the camp that believes the ability to jump from a remix of a girl getting hit with a shovel to a Laurie Spiegel composition is somehow kind of beautiful—it does raise the question of worth as human creative energy morphs into, simply, a piece of content.
    http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-...ost-of-youtubes-library-of-everything
    Voting 0

Top of the page

First / Previous / Next / Last / Page 1 of 5 Online Bookmarks of M. Fioretti: Tags: advertising

About - Propulsed by SemanticScuttle