There are only three business models: I pay, you pay or someone else
pays. In the media distribution business this is well understood.
For example, someone has to develop an Internet-oriented qualitative
media optimization program. This sounds simple enough, but it is not.
Right now, the vast majority of media optimization algorithms are
quantitative. This means the creative content of the advertisement is
not taken into consideration when formulating a media plan. This has
worked within acceptable limits for television, but in a world where
both venue and creative need to be contextually matched, pure
quantitative optimization is not appropriate.
I like the way Shelly explains it. Ad insertion is so basic that it defies A/B testing. The web presents the opportunity for fundamental testing of creative quality. Somewhere in between boring and viral hit lies the majority of advertising. It can improve.
As in my last post, it is noteworthy that Target had almost 40 days warning from looking at the graph on the right. The blogs are advance notice when it comes to crises. In fact, they are a visual indicator that will hopefully enable you to solve problems before they get bigger.
If you aren’t currently using blogpulse to graph the online discussion, perhaps consider it. A picture really is worth a thousand words.
Target Corporation (TGT) continues to get negative
press regarding their fight with the National Federation of the Blind.
In my opinion this looks like a case study in poor public relations and
bad corporate decisions making. The results are predictable. Read on…
A quick recap. The Target site is pretty. But not accessible to a screen reader. They are asked to make it accessible. Target says
effectively "no we don’t have blind shoppers online". Blind people, who
shop online, sue Target. The request is "fix it." Target fights the
lawsuit against blind people trying to use their web site. Their
argument is "the law doesn’t require we make it accessible." And now
the voice of target has been transferred to the lawyers.
Oh ya, that is going to work. And the USA Today is running negative stories about the company and the brand.
Given my interest in public relations I posted on Target Picking on the Little Guy in September. And then followed up with a technical explanation of Target’s lack of blind accessibility
a few days later. I have also included several slides on Target in my
last four talks with IABC and PRSA chapters. It will be the highlight
of my keynote with PRSA Tulsa in three hours.
The image above is from page A2 of the USA Today Newspaper from today (Oct 26, 2006). They were kinder than most bloggers.
What should target do from a crisis communications perspective?
This leads to a great point from a conversation I had with Kinan last month. Kinan asked me "Why exactly do we have online resumes that look like paper resumes?" That doesn’t make sense, does it? While I realize we all can’t be stars like Aleksey Varner with our own videos…
"When I have a big catch, the phone rings 60 or 70 times before I get to port," he said.
cellphone is bringing new economic clout, profit and productivity to
Rajan and millions of other poor laborers in India, the world’s
fastest-growing cellphone market.
At the beginning of 2000, India
had 1.6 million cellphone subscribers; today there are 125 million —
three times the number of land lines in the country. With 6 million new
cellphone subscribers each month, industry analysts predict that in
four years nearly half of India’s 1.1 billion people will be connected
That explosive growth has meant greater access to
markets, more information about prices and new customers for tens of
millions of Indian farmers and fishermen.
This brings up several points we discuss at NetSquared such as the role of technology in social change. In this case the cell phone providers provide cell phones for one reason; profit. And that helps the fishermen. Economics are complicated. Profit is frequently the best motive for social change even if social change is an ancillary benefit.
There are three major players in the Pay-Per-Click Advertising World. They are clearly divided into religious camps on where the ads get served meaning you pretty much have to set up three different configurations to run a broad online PPC campaign. The providers are:
I posted on rebekka, the top photographer on flickr, a while back. While still a student, she has been able to monetize her skills and exposure and now is picking up paid photo gigs. Like this one for Toyota Prius (right).
Sometimes the way to monetize exposure through social software communities is the old fashioned way – get a job.
Congrats on a great campaign for Toyota!
I’d also like to point out something from reading the comments. HUNDREDS comment on rebekka’s photos. My point is that while she is an artist, and this ad is artistic, it is also commercial.
And the community on flickr is excited for her. They are supportive. This is worth noting first in how Rebekka presents the work (meaning the ethos of her posts). And secondarily in the fact that commercial brands ARE ok if done artistically and in agreement with the unwritten rules of a given site.
It also looks like Toyota is running the advertisements just regionally. Not sure I agree with them on that one. I’d at least run them in major markets in the US with a strong creative focus like NYC, LA and San Fran.
What is interesting about Social Software, blogs, wikis, rss and the like is NOT the technology; it is the people. The tech is secondary to finding ways to get the tech out of the way of the users. To give voice.
A couple of notes on the continuing evolution of social software:
This of course begs the question of how a picture I took of a llama in New Mexico got used for a global news quiz in the UK? How exactly did that happen? Did any money change hands? Is this a good thing from a PR perspective?
In order, how did it happen? Eva from the Guardian apparently searched flickr for a llama picture that was set with creative commons licensing. CC means that others can use the work for whatever typically with credit. On the web "credit" simply means a link to that person.
In the world of search engine optimization a link is a good thing. In fact a link is a form of currency on the web. No other payment changed hands. Just good karma and a link.
From a PR perspective I believe this is a good thing. I can’t prove that our company will ever generate a sale from the link. Or that anyone will ever notice. But they might. And it might result in business. And if nothing else it is cool to see the picture in use. Giving first is good PR and good Karma.
(snip) Creating personas that incorporate disabilities is a lot like creating
personas for a small business customer. People with disabilities aren’t
unlike any other person you might want to target. They have likes,
dislikes, things that make them happy and patterns of behavior and
really shouldn’t be treated differently than any other potential