Yahoo has just announced it plans to merge with Right Media Exchange at a cost of only 680 million dollars. "The acquisition of Right Media will further Yahoo!'s goal to create the industry's most open, accessible and vibrant advertising marketplace, which will help democratize the buying and selling of digitally enabled advertising," said Terry Semel, chairman and CEO of Yahoo!" By merging with Right Media, Yahoo! hopes to compete with Google as the leading search engine and information provider. The article says, "The Right Media Exchange is the industry's largest emerging online advertising exchange, and as publishers increasingly turn to exchanges to monetize their ad inventory, this acquisition will help Yahoo! establish a leading position in this large, attractive and fast growing segment of the online ad market." With this new combination Yahoo! hopes that the following will occur:
1.) Advertisers will have greater inventory and audience options from Yahoo! and other participants in this exchange, as well as increased control and visibility into the buying process.
2.) Publishers will be able to bundle their own ad inventory with Yahoo!'s inventory and the exchange's inventory - thereby boosting demand and generating the highest returns for each ad placement.
3.) Advertising networks will reap the same benefits as advertisers and publishers, and additionally, the exchange will benefit those ad networks with unique value propositions, giving them an opportunity to compete with the largest players, thanks to reduced friction and increased transparency.
4.) For Yahoo!, this more open approach will allow the company to increase liquidity, allow advertisers to more efficiently ascertain the true value of display ad inventory, and generate greater returns for Yahoo!'s own display inventory. It will give Yahoo! a new channel and inventory for excess demand and provide an opportunity to derive more value from non-premium inventory.
It will be interesting to see where Yahoo! ends up in the months to come and what kinds of new and innovative ideas we will be getting from this new merger.
Wednesday, May 2, 2007
Sunday, April 22, 2007
When Something is Free Online
I read the article entitled when something is free online. This article talked about the fact that nothing on the internet is free and it talked about the reasons why companies choose to give things away for "free." The reasons that were given by the article are:
1. For Linking.
Offers may be given for free in exchange for a link that goes back to their website. The example given was, when an author chooses to allow their publication to be viewed for free they request that a link be on the page that sends the reader back to their own page, this gives them revenue.
2. For Ad Revenue.
This is when a company gives away a free product on their page so that people come to the site and see their ads. The more people that visit the page and get the free product the more revenue is generated by people seeing the ads.
3. For Goodwill Branding/ Public Relations.
Companies will sometimes give away a product, or service for free to get media attention. This generates free publicity and gives the company the chance to be seen by a large audience of people.
4. For Contact Information.
Companies may choose to give an item away for free so that they can gain access to the persons contact information and therefore, be able to send the person more information on their product and other services.
The article also gave information about why things that are free online are not always good. Sometimes giving away something for free is bad either for the company or the individual. If either finds that the costs outweigh the benefits of offering a free product the following will happen:
1. Abondonment - the company will stop offering the free item completely.
2. Compensation - the company will request that the individual pay for the product or service after a certain time limit has been reached.
3. Cut Corners - the company will try to make up for the money lost by offering a "free" product that is of inferior quality.
1. For Linking.
Offers may be given for free in exchange for a link that goes back to their website. The example given was, when an author chooses to allow their publication to be viewed for free they request that a link be on the page that sends the reader back to their own page, this gives them revenue.
2. For Ad Revenue.
This is when a company gives away a free product on their page so that people come to the site and see their ads. The more people that visit the page and get the free product the more revenue is generated by people seeing the ads.
3. For Goodwill Branding/ Public Relations.
Companies will sometimes give away a product, or service for free to get media attention. This generates free publicity and gives the company the chance to be seen by a large audience of people.
4. For Contact Information.
Companies may choose to give an item away for free so that they can gain access to the persons contact information and therefore, be able to send the person more information on their product and other services.
The article also gave information about why things that are free online are not always good. Sometimes giving away something for free is bad either for the company or the individual. If either finds that the costs outweigh the benefits of offering a free product the following will happen:
1. Abondonment - the company will stop offering the free item completely.
2. Compensation - the company will request that the individual pay for the product or service after a certain time limit has been reached.
3. Cut Corners - the company will try to make up for the money lost by offering a "free" product that is of inferior quality.
A Silver Lining on "YourCompanySucks.com"
“There should be someone at every company whose job is to put into Google and blog search engines the name of the company or the brand, followed by the word ‘sucks,’ just to see what customers are saying.”– Jeff Jarvis, author of the blog BuzzMachine, and president and creative director of newspaper publisher Advance Publications' Internet Division, as quoted in Fortune, January 10, 2005
Almost everyone has seen or heard of a "YourCompanySucks.com" website. In these sites people just add "sucks.com" to a company name and it becomes an open forum for anyone to comment about the company. This is becoming a major issue in e-marketing for any company that has any success whatsoever. Negative information on these sites can seriously damage a firm's reputation and everyone is vulnerable. So, e-marketers need to ask themselves, "What should be done if your company is a victim of one of these "(name of company)sucks.com" sites?"
Sue
Many people's first idea is to take legal action, but there are several negative consequences that come from this. Unless the content is outright libelous or defamatory you may not even have the option to sue. Other negatives include legal fees and "fallout" if the makers of the website draw media attention. This may look bad on the company because some may see it as assuming guilt and that the information on the site is true. An easier alternative may simply be a letter from your attorney. This can often scare the creators of the site. However, they probably have a serious problem with the company if they go through the trouble of creating the site so this tactic may not be effective.
Strike a Deal
Sometimes it may be possible to buy the website from its creator. Often firms do this but then keep the site active without all the negative information and links to the companies website. However, this doesn't guarantee that the creator of the site won't just make another website under a different name.
Pay Attention
Be aware of your company's online presence and keep track of negative websites.
Take heart. There is a positive side. You’re not alone.
Your company isn't the only one being criticized in open forums on the Internet. It is just a part of living in a free society. It's likely that your closest competitor has a sucks.com site too.
Give your clients credit.
Most clients of a big company assume that somewhere in the world someone is speaking ill of you. A sucks.com site is one of many sources a client will use to generated an impression of your company. A lawsuit or online lashing that deals directly with their business are factors that would affect the company more significantly than gossip on one of these sites.
The bad sites are easily dismissed (by you and by current/prospective clients).
Many of these sites simply feature schoolyard gossip which clients don't consider credible. Unless the website has an edge on the rest, like something truly insightful or credible, many will pass it off as common knowledge. Even worse, it's probably considered knowledge with an agenda.
The good sites are educational.
This can be one of a company's most valuable resources and is unavailable with ordinary marketing techniques. It is much easier and less expensive than conducting any type of survey. This gives the marketer the ability to get inside the uncensored minds of its critics. If you use your company's sucks.com site as an opportunity to learn and grow then it's not all bad. Add this site to your favorite places and visit it regularly to get a better understanding of your company's presence on the Net. Leverage the insight of your sharpest critic and make him your strongest ally. The site won't give a balanced opinion of the firm but most of those claims probably aren't completely baseless. These are issues that likely need to be addressed.
The best way to deal with a sucks.com site varies in different industries and with different companies. However, your firm should have the resources and capabilities to resolve the issue. There are several options to choose from in doing so. If not, your company probably has bigger problems than a particular sucks.com website.
Almost everyone has seen or heard of a "YourCompanySucks.com" website. In these sites people just add "sucks.com" to a company name and it becomes an open forum for anyone to comment about the company. This is becoming a major issue in e-marketing for any company that has any success whatsoever. Negative information on these sites can seriously damage a firm's reputation and everyone is vulnerable. So, e-marketers need to ask themselves, "What should be done if your company is a victim of one of these "(name of company)sucks.com" sites?"
Sue
Many people's first idea is to take legal action, but there are several negative consequences that come from this. Unless the content is outright libelous or defamatory you may not even have the option to sue. Other negatives include legal fees and "fallout" if the makers of the website draw media attention. This may look bad on the company because some may see it as assuming guilt and that the information on the site is true. An easier alternative may simply be a letter from your attorney. This can often scare the creators of the site. However, they probably have a serious problem with the company if they go through the trouble of creating the site so this tactic may not be effective.
Strike a Deal
Sometimes it may be possible to buy the website from its creator. Often firms do this but then keep the site active without all the negative information and links to the companies website. However, this doesn't guarantee that the creator of the site won't just make another website under a different name.
Pay Attention
Be aware of your company's online presence and keep track of negative websites.
Take heart. There is a positive side. You’re not alone.
Your company isn't the only one being criticized in open forums on the Internet. It is just a part of living in a free society. It's likely that your closest competitor has a sucks.com site too.
Give your clients credit.
Most clients of a big company assume that somewhere in the world someone is speaking ill of you. A sucks.com site is one of many sources a client will use to generated an impression of your company. A lawsuit or online lashing that deals directly with their business are factors that would affect the company more significantly than gossip on one of these sites.
The bad sites are easily dismissed (by you and by current/prospective clients).
Many of these sites simply feature schoolyard gossip which clients don't consider credible. Unless the website has an edge on the rest, like something truly insightful or credible, many will pass it off as common knowledge. Even worse, it's probably considered knowledge with an agenda.
The good sites are educational.
This can be one of a company's most valuable resources and is unavailable with ordinary marketing techniques. It is much easier and less expensive than conducting any type of survey. This gives the marketer the ability to get inside the uncensored minds of its critics. If you use your company's sucks.com site as an opportunity to learn and grow then it's not all bad. Add this site to your favorite places and visit it regularly to get a better understanding of your company's presence on the Net. Leverage the insight of your sharpest critic and make him your strongest ally. The site won't give a balanced opinion of the firm but most of those claims probably aren't completely baseless. These are issues that likely need to be addressed.
The best way to deal with a sucks.com site varies in different industries and with different companies. However, your firm should have the resources and capabilities to resolve the issue. There are several options to choose from in doing so. If not, your company probably has bigger problems than a particular sucks.com website.
Sunday, April 8, 2007
The Third Wave...Web 3.0 Already?
"The Third Wave" is an article from the April 2007 issue of Entrepreneur magazine. According to the author, even if you're just getting used to Web 2.0, the next generation is approaching quickly. The next generation of web technology is referred to as the semantic web or Web 3.0. The idea behind Web 3.0 is the ability to make data on web pages and other online databases more easily understood by computers. Thus, allowing the computers to do more work on our behalf. In addition, it will make it easier to share information between software applications. "The semantic web will do for data what the web did for documents. It will make it universally searchable and sharable." said Nova Spivack who started a company that's on the cutting edge of Web 3.o. Part of the big picture of the semantic web is to revolutionize Web 2.0-style tagging. If all data was tagged in a consistent way throughout the web your computer, for example, could scan the web for updates and keep a current list of addresses for customers. Your calendar software could even communicate with your online banking to automatically make you aware of banking activities. The standard way to organize data on the semantic web is explained by the Resource Description Framework (RDF) which is comparable to Web 2.0's HTML. However, this format is expensive and hard to use at the present time. Practical application for this type of technology is with search tools, especially in regards to corporate websites. This next opportunity will be building applications for the use of semantics and in as little as two to three years the first big commercial success should appear.
Sunday, March 18, 2007
"The Big Four Get Bigger"
Many industry experts have been talking about "the de-portalization of the internet" and "death of the portal" in regards to online advertising. However, research by eMarketer.com proves that this notion is a bit premature. The portals considered the "Big Four" are Google, Yahoo, AOL, and MSN. In 2006, these four represented 57.4% of the total revenues spent on online advertising. This trend seems to be increasing and eMarketer estimates, the top portals will all increase US net ad revenues in 2007, with nearly $13 billion going to just those four sites. In the changing landscape of online advertising, companies are looking for mass-marketed brands and portals that have already been established. Three of the four portals have been around for at least 10 years and even the youngest of the four, Google, is still an established brand. When the percent increase vs. the prior year is compared however, the numbers look slightly different. The percent increase in the top two portals is getting smaller every year, but is still significantly higher than other portals. The bottom two, AOL and MSN, are still seeing annual percent increases. Therefore, the "death of the portal" isn't here quite yet and it doesn't look like it's going to happen anytime in the near future.
McDonald's and DoCoMo to jointly promote e-Marketing based on Osaifu-Keitai
The plan that McDonalds and DoCoMo have is to create joint company to manage the e-marketing promotions for the new McDonalds membership club. This club will be able to use their cell-phones as credit cards in McDonalds stores. This new membership club of McDonalds is planned to become active in October of 2007 in McDonalds stores in Japan. It will be available to members of the current membership club and McDonalds hopes that this new club will help to promote customer loyalty and offer enhanced membership services. The company will launch services using both McDonalds 1.4 billion annual customer base and DoCoMo's 52 million mobile phone subscribers. The company will be established around July 2007 and will be built with 30% of DoCoMo capital and 70% of McDonalds capital amounting to 300 million yen.
This idea sounds like it could potentially become a huge thing in America. The only problem that I see in this new partnership is the potential for a huge increase in debt. McDonalds is primarily a market of impulse buys. The idea that now consumers can purchase McDonalds even when they don't have any cash on hand, this has the potential to lead to huge bills each month and large sums of debt for frequent visitors to McDonalds. If this trend keeps up and spreads to all other areas of purchasing, it could mean an even higher increase in debt. Other than that problem I think that it will make things much easier, and alot more convenient.
This idea sounds like it could potentially become a huge thing in America. The only problem that I see in this new partnership is the potential for a huge increase in debt. McDonalds is primarily a market of impulse buys. The idea that now consumers can purchase McDonalds even when they don't have any cash on hand, this has the potential to lead to huge bills each month and large sums of debt for frequent visitors to McDonalds. If this trend keeps up and spreads to all other areas of purchasing, it could mean an even higher increase in debt. Other than that problem I think that it will make things much easier, and alot more convenient.
Anchorage Arts Group E-Venture into Success
I read the article mentioned above and spoke of the Anchorage Symphony Orchestra, and other Alaskan fine arts organizations that are using sites like Myspace.com and YouTube.com to market their upcoming shows to the public. Myspace.com is a fairly new, but very popular site for blogging and features the opportunity for fans to become “friends” with their favorite music artists and have access to everything about the band from pictures, to upcoming concert dates, to video links of behind-the-scenes footage. YouTube.com is an extremely popular site where users can upload videos and share them with everyone online. The Anchorage Symphony Orchestra decided to generate some extra attention for their show and set up a MySpace page, the marketing director for the symphony, Kristin Cosgrove, says that although the symphony doesn’t have very many friends yet, this idea has proven successful in the past and Kristin is convinced that this new way of marketing will lead to higher ticket sales in the future. Other shows that have proven this to be true is the “Frogz” touring theatre. This group started to post information about their show on Myspace and soon many people were watching the videos and talking about how excited they were about the show. The Symphony is also hoping that by advertising on sites like YouTube and Myspace they will be able to attract a younger demographic. It has been proven statistically that generations x and y show a high correlation between attendance at theatrical performances and education and income levels, but it also finds that attendance is also linked to social behavior. The symphony is hoping that by advertising on fun, young sites they will able to attract a greater number of young, social patrons.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)