Social Media is going niche. Nextdoor raises another 60 million on top of the 40 million it has. Lovely idea.

The future of Social networking is niche.

By that I mean, that people will not just want broad Social Media networks where 'one size fits all' but rather networks that are full of like minded people. People interested in the same sports or same team; the same artists or bands; the same hobbies or interests.

Of course niche means smaller. So your reach for such a social media site is to a narrower base of people - but in global terms, that can still be in the millions. 

For example a Social network dedicated to Soccer or American Football or U2 or Baking (on which Pinterest was largely built by the way). 

Nextdoor, is one of those and to prove it, they've just raised 60 million usd, having previously raised 40 million usd. Their slogan is, 'Your neighbourhood online'. It's Social Media for neighbours.

It's on the go for two years.

Nextdoor is a Social network for neighbourhoods. A chance to meet people who live near you online and perhaps offer them local services like babysitting, or just to engender goodwill. Perhaps just looking out for a neighbour or alerting them to things that are going on. Helping to create community.

Most of us don't know our extended neighbours and Nextdoor helps us to do that or at least, those of us that want to. It also allows local trade, never a bad thing, to generally make our lifestyles better.

Nextdoor as yet, doesn't generate revenue but clearly as the network develops, revenue opportunities such as local advertising or local trading, will. 

Not a bad idea at all.
Social Media is becoming niche.

Google powers on. They know how to make money.

Google powers on.

A +23% rise in revenue for its Internet business, in Quarter 3 to 10.8 billion usd, (all revenue was nearly 15 billion usd) boosted the stock to circa 1,000 usd, a new record.

Although their average cost-per-click rate went into further decline, it was well offset by the high jump in volume.

Basically, Google is suffering from lower margin but a rapid increase in volume. The total amount of paid "clicks" is up +26% year on year (yoy).

Yahoo on the other hand, reported a drop in revenue the same week so it's likely that Google's growth is both organic and that it's taking market share from competitors. It's also enhancing its cashflow position as well as better Ad revenues up +17% yoy.

Motorola, which they own, showed a growing loss in Q3 of 248m usd and it's a continuing bad loss when compared to previous years. A 24% increase of a loss yoy. So still problems there.

But these are strong, effective, healthy results at Google. It also shows the company has adapted well across all devices, notably mobile (40% of YouTube traffic is now mobile), and particularly for their 'Adwords' product.

To be fair, Google is the best Search product in the market and continues to retain customer loyalty and has become intuitive. It is also well-run with a good employee profile and practices.

Their brand strength and cash warchest, is continuing to make things difficult for their competitors. 

In time, they might consider to acquire them and be done with it. 

Social Media profiling and the Ad targeting that's needed. One size doesn't fit all.

Business Insider has produced a really interesting report as part of their BI Intelligence work about the general profile of Social Media sites.

It's not exactly shocking but, it allows us to consider the different profiles of each site rather than consider them all, just as "Social Media". As Social Media develops, it's clearly going to become more niche.

More sites targeting specific interests rather than how it all started as "catch all" sites. They each have a different audience with different beliefs that we need to understand better.

This should be of real interest to brands and advertising.

Here is the broad analysis extract from the Business Insider website;

*Facebook still skews young, but the 45- to 54-year-old age bracket has seen 45% growth since year-end 2012. Among U.S. Internet users, 73% with incomes above $75,000 are on Facebook (compared to 17% who are on Twitter). Eight-six percent of Facebook's users are outside the U.S.

Instagram: Sixty-eight percent of Instagram's users are women.

Twitter has a surprisingly young user population for a large social network — 27% of 18 to 29-year-olds in the U.S. use Twitter, compared to only 16% of people in their thirties and forties. 

LinkedIn is international and skews toward male users. 

Google+ is the most male-oriented of the major social networks. It's 70% male.

Pinterest is dominated by tablet users. And, according to Nielsen data, 84% of U.S. Pinterest users are women.

Tumblr is strong with teens and young adults interested in self-expression, but only 8% of U.S. Internet users with incomes above $75,000 use Tumblr.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/a-primer-on-social-media-demographics-2013-9#ixzz2i5OZE81m

The Facebook profile data (young but broadening) comes as no surprise.

Instagram users are 68% women is a surprise because it basically started as a photographic nerd site that has developed into general photo sharing. Why that should be more women users, seems to reflect that women like to share their pics more (aka Facebook). So perhaps that's just a trend or reflects the scourge of selfies. 

Twitter is younger largely, because younger people are early adopters and they are the SMS generation but again, it's broadening. More older people and business see the benefits of tweeting. 

LinkedIn being more international and male, reflects their business ethos and positioning as a place to connect businesspeople. So that's fairly obvious.

Google+ being more male is unfathomable. Google+ I mean is unfathomable. It has members who don't know they are (like me) and a manner of connecting up your Social Media that no one understands but that seems to screw up everything else. So really, anything to do with Google Circles is beyond me.

Pinterest users are female and that is no surprise either (84%) as the site has been dominated by Fashion, Cooking and more female activities. But being dominated by tablets usage, is. So perhaps more women are using Tablets like Ipads and traditionally better at keeping, taking and sharing pics than blokes?

Tumblr is micro blogging, so perhaps teens and younger adults are more prepared to show and share their feelings to the world and perhaps they have more time to do so. Although my experience of blogging, is that it's an older profession. But Tumblr as a brand, is very cool in the blogosphere so that too could be the attraction.

What of course that means, and excuse me for stating the obvious, but different Social Media networks reach out to different demographics for different reasons. Hardly earth shattering but often not understood. And it's more crucial than it sounds.

Ad Campaigns tend for example, to be one creative treatment pushed out everywhere. Where in fact, it would be far more effective to have different, more relevant copy, for each platform. 

The Ad on Pinterest for example, should talk more to women and possibly featuring high end visuals. Whereas the Ad on LinkedIn should have a business slant.

But we don't do that. We use Ad networks to push it all out uniformly because we see it as all being "impressions" or as all being just Ads for the "samey Social Media" when it's not. Or shouldn't be.

Like traditional Media, different newspapers reach different audiences. Online is no different. When Streamabout do video for example, it may be that a video needs a different edit or a different take, depending on what site it's being shown on. Rather than the same video for everyone. The same thing applies here.

And it's a sign that Digital Advertising and Marketing, is maturing when we start to see coarse data like this. Because we're moving from trying to keep up with what's out there, to understanding what they do.

Exactly as traditional media started.

So we just need to understand it all better to do it better as the fog of an all-embracing Social Media lifts.

Instagram to roll out Ads. Enjoy it whilst it's Ad free.

Instagram, the photo/video sharing site, is officially to start rolling out Ads in the US slowly. Video Ads are to come mid 2014 whilst at the moment, Instagram is "ad free".

Instagram is the site where you can use some very cool filters on your pics that makes them look beautiful.....and they work. Owned by Facebook (acquired 2012 for nearly a billion usd), with a guesstimate of 150 million active users, the "Ads" will largely be quality brand photos placed in your feed, whether you follow them or not. But they won't be 'banners'.

However, Instagram are indicating that you'll have some control over what you Ads you see. So they have concerns about the disruption that advertising can cause, especially on a quality site like this. A lot of brands do have already a great presence on Instagram with high followers. Notably fashion brands such as Burberry.

The contextual relevance of Ads is key and in order to deliver effectively on that, data will become key. When signing up for Instagram, that data is fairly basic so that could become the issue for targeting unless they cross-correlate with Facebook usage.

Without the ability to 'click thru' too, it's likely Instagram will just be selling impressions. 

Celebs have already actively made sponsored posts for brands such as Nike, without Instagram earning a cent. Although such posts are now required to feature a disclaimer if they're commercial.

Instagram needs to become a stand-alone business and "monetize" (hate that word) its users. Advertising is one way to do that. However, it will be interesting to watch how they strike that balance between annoying people and generating revenue.

Their owner Facebook, is not exactly strapped for cash, so they'll go at it slowly as they've said, with experiment after experiment until they get it right. If not, they may risk their business.  

More likely is that they'll get it right and it'll be a good model for other sites too. 

Yoko Ono is 80 and wants more gun control. So she Tweets Lennon's bloody glasses. Scary stuff.

This is a Tweet from Yoko Ono and what makes it pretty scary is that they are the exact glasses that John Lennon was wearing when he shot outside the Dakota Apartments in NYC (where I saw for myself). That's his blood on the lens.

Scary too that Lennon was only 40, Yoko is now 80 and that he was shot 33 years ago. Yoko has 3.7 m followers on Twitter and she did this Tweet to enter the conversation on gun control. Pretty effectively I think.

Over 31,000 people die in the US every year from shootings. John + Yoko had always been involved in issues like this - the song Give Peace a Chance of course, symbolises that. So there's no doubting she wants more gun control and is using her celebrity with a controversial image to get it out there.

New Ad Agency launches. Brief them on Twitter, response in 24 hours, 999 dollars on PayPal. Dear oh dear.

A network of Ad Agency creatives in New York have just launched the fastest creative turnaround ever. Using Twitter briefs (that is, 140 characters of a brief, refreshing in itself), they'll respond with ideas (tag lines, communication platforms, stunts etc).

Claiming to be "the fastest Agency in the world" they say clients can say goodbye to "powerpoint decks, long lunches, meetings, to-and-fro emails, inaudible conference calls - I'm with that 100%, consumer focus groups" and so on. 

http://worldsfastestagency.com/ only seek 999 usd paid by 'PayPal' which I assume, you pay in advance. So goodbye too to billing/invoice queries and I assume, goodbye to any problems with the ideas seeing as you'll have paid for them.....

Founded by a 'Floyd Hayes', they're claiming clients including brands such as Unilever, Mini, Levis, HSBC, Vodafone and other blue-chip corporates. Also claiming to be "in short, I develop ideas to sell your stuff" which really does cut to the chase....

And if you look at the Video above, you'll see Floyd is pretty proud of himself. 

Of course, what this all does is further commoditises the work of Ad Agencies - rightly or wrongly - but one lesson that's clear in my experience is that good ideas require one thing. Time.

The longer you have, the better the idea or ideas. And it really is as simple as that. Good ideas rarely, come quickly and certainly in 24 hours, you'll not have something outstanding. Because with any idea, you need time to kick it around.

I can deliver an advertising concept in a minute, but how good will it be? (yeah, yeah, most will say I didn't deliver a good one in 20 years so okay then).

However, being the "fastest" Agency is a positioning which Agency's in the main, lack (they all appear "samey"). Or being the 999 dollar Agency is another positioning. And it grabs the headlines on the likes of 'Mashable' and Advertising publications. 

Fundamentally though, it damages the business of the Ad Agency and demystifies what they do. Floyd would say I'm sure, no bad thing and you know what, he might be right....even if this is a stunt in itself, pure and simple.

What it does point to is the need for big Agencies to stand up for themselves and explain clearly how and what their contribution is in the digital age rather, as they're prone to do, dismissing it. Or they'll keep getting hammered and hammered into a positioning as well-dressed money men with nothing to add.

Or else, Floyd will be rubbing his hands.

The Underground Library. Turning the NYC Subway into a Library for all.

I'm big into books.

And what I like about digital books and ebooks is that they've actually brought in more readers. Like Itunes have delivered more music sales.

And at the time, you'll remember that it was thought that ebooks would kill reading and itunes would kill music, when exactly the opposite has happened. The web has been the saviour of the music business as it turns out.

Ebooks have also allowed virtual libraries where you "rent" a book (exactly as you do in a traditional library) and then after a time, it's deleted from your device. 

So the idea of students to make the New York Subway into a virtual library, is a cool one. After all, it's exactly the time when people want to read in transit. Through Ads in the trains, which look like bookshelves, they list a series of book titles, "best sellers". When a user scans the title with their smartphone.....

.....they get the first 10 pages for free as a sample. just enough to read on that commute.

Then they're reminded that the rest of the book is available for free, at the New York Public Library complete with GPS map as to how to get there.

Lovely, lovely idea, called 'The Underground Library'.
Still in concept phase, it deserves to be heard. And read. 

Amazing Cinema Advertising and Experience. Disruptive marketing for homelessness.

Smashing piece of work in Cinemas in Germany.

Simple idea - all the best ones are - which got cinema goers to experience for a moment, what it's like to be homeless.

Cinema goers sat in a cinema, were given an old blanket and the air conditioning was turned down, getting colder and colder. As it was, they watched a promo Ad/documentary by homeless people, about what it's like to feel cold. Even colder than the shivering audience.

It's disruptive, guerrilla advertising and of course, they were asked at the end to make a donation including by text and QR code. Which they did. So would you.

Experiential marketing call it, but effective advertising it is. Not only in creating funds on the night but by bringing home to people an experience that they wouldn't normally.

Watch the video and think how easy it was.
Big ideas don't have to cost big money.

Facebook pushes News through news feeds re-launch today. Newspapers take heart. This is your future too.

Facebook has gone through another re-design just as elaborate as the "timeline" changes in 2011.

It has overhauled its "news feed" interestingly, with Zuckerberg calling it "a personalised newspaper" not just with text but with imagery. It features blogger images, mobile consistency and multiple feeds.

This is a radical departure. The focus on news stories is more visual, images are much larger (taking 50% of the feed) and more centre positioned with an 'Instagram' feel. Of course, the key here is the ability to 'share' news.

More feeds, and more control of those feeds gives users more options, which you chose to 'follow'. Could be a news feed from family, from friends, about music and so on. Niche news that you want.

Being heavily mobile enabled too, is a good answer to criticisms of Facebook. 

The continuing journey for Facebook into online news is interesting and another competitor to traditional news orgs. But the fundamental issue around news, the fundamental issue around 'citizen journalism' is trust. You have to trust the source and are these Facebook feeds trustworthy? Not always.

News is pure gold as a content commodity. It draws people in and it retains them. The people in Pole position to provide trusted news are newspapers. And they'll get there with a little belief in themselves and with a mindset change that realises, their newspaper futures are online.

The biggest asset newspapers have, is not on a printing press, it's their websites. And it'll take time for Press men to get their heads around that, but get that, they will.

Do not despair oh ye of little faith.

Why you'll see good Video content coming off YouTube. Low Advertising cpm rates.

Now there is no greater fan of Google's YouTube (bought for over 1.6 billion usd in 2006) than yours truly.

It has, and is, a fantastic platform for Video and a great resource used by publishers and public alike. It has actually allowed and fostered freedom of expression and especially in countries where there's no other free media outlet. 

However YouTube is, and wants, to move into the TV arena and I've always said that YouTube will be the biggest global TV player when it gets structure.

However, that's the problem - structure.

In particular, what will make YouTube a broadcaster, is good content as it moves more and more into that broadcasting space. Attracting good content is now the issue as it tries to shift from what's called its "experimental" stage.

Content makers get paid by YouTube from Advertising and a lot are unhappy about the revenue they're generating.

Firstly, the problem is supply and demand. Simply as YouTube has more and more and more Video by the second (literally), the amount of Ad money to share around is less and less. Too much supply outpacing Advertiser demands. 

Secondly, and the bigger issue, is Ad rates.

YouTube's "cut" on ad rates is too high. At the moment it's circa 45% but that leaves content providers with a cpm (cost-per-thousand-views) of about 2 Dollars. Which in turn means that if your Video is watched 1 million times (very high), you generate 2,000 Dollars (very low). If you generate a thousand views (which is more likely and considered "good"), you make 2 Dollars.

Most of those quality video makers aren't happy with that revenue and with other Video sharing sites like Vimeo, are looking at those options especially when it's about quality content. 

The likelihood therefore, is that you'll see good content disappearing from YouTube unless they re-consider their rates. And that's a pity because, as I said, they're pioneers but Video makers have to eat too.

If it remains as a site offering cat and dog videos, it will never be the TV type broadcaster it aspires to be. And it will leave room for other video sharing sites to fill the void.

The Video market is maturing.

Online Valentines Night Promotions. A word of warning before you do them....nobody might be listening.

Before brands push out their Valentine's online campaigns, they'd better remember that mums on Social Media actually don't want to spend it socially, but rather offline.

The 'SocialMums' Survey of last year showed that Mums actually want a personal connection and not an online one with 57% opting for a romantic night out rather than an Ipad (28%) or Kindle Fire (12%). Only 2% wanted lingerie.

These are very active Facebookers, Tweeters and Pinteresters whom actually don't want the love brand messages and would rather switch off. They would like to wish their friends a "Happy Valentines" but that's about it. Then shut down their machines. 

And anyway, as most of them are doing other things (like dinner), they're not going to be logged in. So it's actually a quiet night online.

Indeed, a Valentines digital brand promotion might be better focused by getting people out through dining offers, cinema nights and so on, rather than trying to interrupt their night online. Because that's what they want.

It's possibly the one time of year that Social Media will not be as effective as any other night when you think about it. Certainly targeting women and mums, might be seen as being trite rather than effective. 

It's the old Advertising adage of knowing your audience and understanding them. Valentines night campaigns, might do more harm than good, if anybody is online at all.

Will you be?

Steve Jobs gets mixed reviews in his new movie.

Well, I mean Ashton Kutcher (34) gets bad reviews because Steve Jobs is actually dead (something Apple analysts have a problem getting their head around).

The new move 'Jobs' launched Friday at The Sundance Film festival and will be in cinemas in April time. It's a biopic, starting at the start (ironically) in the 70's and goes up to the ipod launch in 2001. 

It's said to be not "always flattering" of Jobs but some say that's just Kutchers portrayal....meoww.

Seemingly it's just "passable entertainment" and few reviewers find it interesting - which surprises me because the story should be. Although, no matter what, we'll all probably go see. 

The UK Telegraph (a pretty good barometer I might add) says it's an "almighty mess".....Steve's co-founder 'Woz', is played as a clumsy, hairy geek which frankly, seems spot on? They're also pretty critical of Kutcher ("the poverty of his skills as a serious actor are on full display", "he clumsily signposts every emotion" and if that wasn't enough, "his diction is incoherent") so no Oscar there then.

But even if you're not right-wing, other papers have given it a thumbs down too including The San Fran Chronicle. The Montreal Gazette reports that Woz (Steve Wozinack) didn't like it either and in true fashion when asked did he like it, said simply 'No'. But they made a story out of it. 

He later sent out a Press Release which also simply said, "none of this shit happened". Good man Woz, he's lost none of it.

So it's not looking good. Pity.

One wonders if they will follow it up with the Apple story after Jobs and under the new influence of replacement MD, Tim Cook. A part 2, a sequel. 

But then I'm not sure I'd go to see a movie either called just...'Cook'.

It'll be out in April so we will go see then for ourselves. If you do, let me know, and I'll post your review.

There's 38 sugar cubes in a supersize Coke and so Coke are facing bans. So they do a TV Ad to respond. And it makes things worse. When Advertising backfires.

New York's Mayor, Michael Bloomberg, promised last spring that he'd ban the sales of big, supersized sugary drinks (portion control), school bans on dispensers of them and possibly increase a sales tax on them. 

He had already completed the ban on smoking and this is his new challenge - obesity.

The average American drinks 45 Gallons of soft drinks a year.....sugary sodas are the single largest source of calories in the American diet. A regular Coke has the equivalent of 27 sugar cubes in it. And the supersize Big Gulp? 38 sugar cubes. 36% of Americans are obese and are estimated to cost 147 billion usd in medical care. 

So last year, New York started an advertising campaign aimed at anti-soft drinks in a campaign to tackle obesity and diabetes. In other words, they took on Coke, whom have been described as the "seller of liquid candy". Which they are and over which there should be no dispute.

The 75 Billion usd soft drink industry, fronted by Coke, has now launched its response and industry lobbyists have taken to court to block Bloomberg's plans on the ban as well as an Ad campaign of their own. And this response will in fact, do the industry more harm than good. 

Their is a growing backlash against the company by consumers and outrage fuelled by their very own TV Commercial. It's like tobacco companies whom when faced with an Ad ban, came out to explain that cigarettes were not linked to cancer - and produced medical quacks to prove it. Coke is doing the same thing and that is really annoying people. Coke are trying to pretend that they are actually, at the forefront of doing good work on obesity. Dear, oh dear.

Frankly, I am not surprised there's a backlash. Watch this next commercial and it's just shocking where Coke is sponsoring kids breakfast clubs. Shocking and disgraceful marketing and advertising. They are going to be the authors of their own bans and demise.

They're running a two minute Ad on national TV (top of this blog) and a 30 second approach. One commercial "coming together" shows the supposed initiatives Coke has taken to address the calorie/obesity problem. Another shows the ways you can burn off the calories - like "laughing out loud" is one, I kid you not.

Against a background of slim actors sipping Coke and healthy youngsters exercising, a voice over offers a simple explanation for the growing obesity crisis in the eyes of Coke - "If you eat and drink more calories than you burn off, then you'll gain weight" goes the Coke jingoism as a woman jogs through shot. 

Pathetic? unbelievably so and any attempt to try to position Coke as being in the vanguard of obesity is just ludicrous and won't work. Is the Ad Agency thinking at all? The idea that Coke is somehow involved in the fight against childhood diabetes, just is beyond belief, whilst at the same time, like McDonald's, uses appalling marketing tricks to target kids. Like sponsoring their breakfast clubs. Jesus. It's like tobacco companies saying that they are at the forefront of tackling cancer.

Of course, by doing all of this, it is growing its own criticism, drawing more people into the debate which weren't previously. The commercial angers people and clearly it has backfired. This commercial angered me and looking at the Breakfast Clubs and this commercial, it's about time Coke got a new marketing team or proposition. They're damaging their own brand.

As a Fellow of The Institute of Advertising, a Fellow of The Marketing Institute, a former board member of the European Ad Council (EAAA) and as a former 2 term Ad Institute President, I'd support a ban on Coke in schools, an Ad ban, a ban for larger drinks and an Advertising tax, simply because Coke are both contributing to obesity AND damaging advertising. 

When you produce advertising you have a responsibility, because it is so very powerful and with that responsibility, there are things you must not do - lines you do not cross. Coke, it seems to me, could care less. They'll do whatever it takes.

European action is already underway - France taxes these drinks, Denmark taxes saturated fats, Hungary taxes hamburgers and the UK is considering a "fat tax". 

Bloomberg says that more people are going to die from obesity than smoking and he's probably right. This is not a man to be diverted and he's prepared to take on this insidious industry, head-on. Good man. 

As for Coke? 
They're eating themselves through poor planning and crass advertising execution. 

Let them.

Microsoft under constant pressure. New commercial here, focuses on nostalgia, the Microsoft of old. Will marketing like this work?

Microsoft are under pressure. Basically they found themselves the leaders, in the wrong market - PC's - and having a dominant position didn't help as PC sales tumbled. So they've tried to re-invent themselves without a product innovator (a Gates or a Jobs) at the helm and rather have the most peculiar salesman, Crazy Steve Ballmer, instead.

Search him on this blog and you'll see the videos and you'll see what I mean. Enough said.

Their foray into Windows 8 recently doesn't seem exactly to have set the world on fire and their 'Surface Tablet' has contributed to strong revenue in the last quarter to December no doubt. But what of the future and where they're going?

They plead for their relevance today by promoting their past. In other words, use nostalgia.

"We're the brand that's always been here", "We're the brand of establishment, of trust", Remember us? That kinda' thing and in that way, hope to jolt happy memories from former Microsoft users (which we all were) into thinking, you know what...they were there at the start for me. Aaaahh. 

But it will work too. The commercial is nice and clean with viral potential as we all do a "do ya remember that!" and pass it onto our friends.

It's very brand rather than substance and targets children of the 90's. The endline, "you grew up...so did we" is a direct plea.

The final copyline "Reconnect with the new Internet Explorer" establishes trust around a thing we all knew - IE.

What it will do is to help 'trial' and get people to take another fond look at Microsoft but that has to be followed by substance - by relevant, useful product. And that's the problem. 

Advertising can get people to try a product again, but only once. The worry is, that it's exactly because Microsoft has nothing to say, that they chose this route. When you've nothing say, talk about past glories.

And they'll be found out.

Jan 24 1984. Steve Jobs launches his personal computer. The Apple Mac.

In 1982 a young Steve Jobs started developing a personal computer with a graphical user interface with 'Woz', Steve Wozinack. He is often the forgotten genius.

2 years later, The Mac was launched with a very famous, masterpiece commercial called '1984' shot by Ridley Scott (who had just completed 'Blade Runner' 2 years earlier).

Conceived by Agency Chiat Day and shown in The Superbowl break (during the 3rd quarter on January 22nd). A 900,000 usd spot which then, was huge. It clearly targeted "Big Brother" IBM and perhaps the most influential commercial ever, along with Hegarty's "Grapevine" Levi's commercial. '1984' was only aired one other time on TV so that it qualified for awards.

It borrows a lot, if you ask me....from Fritz Lang's 'Metropolis', a movie I strongly urge you to see. That's not to take away from it one bit. It did exactly what it needed to do and still is in line with the 'Think Different' concept. Individuality. And I personally think it's world class, have no doubt.

The Mac came with 128 kilobytes of Ram (it was known as the 'Mac 128' or the "thin Mac"), a floppy drive (!), a mouse, Black and White screen, and with MacPaint/MacWrite and later, MacOffice as the software. A beige case, a handle on the top to make it easy to lift and sold at 2,500 usd. It was convection cooled (rather than by a fan) because it was quieter - a Steve Jobs marketing decision. You can see him present it on Jan 24 1984, on the video at the top of the page.

And it talked! Briefly. A truly world changing day.

Happy MacBirthday.

Lance Armstrong and Nike.

The problem with celebrity endorsement in advertising is that you're banking on human frailty. It's a real quick way to get credibility and cachet for your brand but a super fast way to lose it.

Once celebs get accused of something, they're tainted goods. I was involved in a campaign for Suzuki cars for example, featuring Ronaldo at a cost of 1 million  stg. Then he was accused of rape, just as the campaign launched and we spent the week editing him out and re-shooting it. But, in some ways, the damage is done once you start announcing it.

Tiger Woods moments also cost him dearly but cost his sponsors too, like Nike, who had so much aligned themselves to him. Michael Jackson child abuse charges caused problems for Pepsi - clearly.

And yet at the time, no one was more sponsorable than Tiger Woods and Michael Jackson - both clean, home living boys it was thought.

And so too Lance Armstrong. Clean living, cancer survivor, good looking champion of 7 Tour De France. The All-American boy but now we know differently. Although I watched the Oprah interview and I have to say, I saw redemption although few did. A new honesty that will help him re-build his brand, I think.

Worse still, his featuring in a Nike commercial actually gets Lance to say "What am I on?" ....."I'm on my bike". Yep, sure, almost defying the rumours. Which of course now, makes it worse and makes it viral again to Nike's chagrin.

And that's the problem. People.

We all make mistakes, we all do things we shouldn't and when a brand puts its future in the hands of those human frailties, it takes a chance. A really high profile chance that it probably should never take. Nope, probably never.

If you're going to enter these endorsement stakes, spread the risk - by sponsoring a team rather than a person.

There's safety in numbers.

Apple's marketing conundrum in China. Answered.Brilliantly.

Only last week I blogged about Tim Cook's announcement that Apple was going to make China it's "number 1 market". However, my point was that it created a marketing conundrum. (http://streamabout.blogspot.ie/2013/01/apple-sees-china-as-their-number-one.html)

If Apple stayed premium priced (as it is) then few Chinese could afford it. If it dropped prices, then that would have a global affect on the brand as it re-positioned itself more downmarket. It suffers hugely from lower priced competition anyway in the form of Samsung who outsell the Iphone 4:1.

So it was an interesting marketing issue.

Today we have the answer. What Apple have done on its China website is to let buyers pay for products in instalments and mostly, over two years. So the price remains the same, but the payment plan is structured to be affordable. Good solution, leave it to Apple.

It's only for purchases been 48 usd and 4,800 usd and some additional fees are paid at the end, presumably to cover the cost of credit. An Iphone in China is 850 usd, well outside the average Chinese salary (averages 577 usd per month) and dreams but this way, it puts it into affordable reality.

Apple is currently the 6th biggest player in China but only starting.
This is a great solution and great marketing.

Simple yes, but then you have to think of it and implement it.
I wouldn't have.

Google are serious about developing glasses. These have real potential.

 

The growth of Glasses as a replacement for the mobile phone - or indeed, just as a new type of glasses - is stepping up a gear.

At the CES show last week, I blogged about the introduction of Goggles that allow you to video whilst ski-ing downhill for example and live streaming it to your friends. (http://streamabout.blogspot.ie/2013/01/video-glasses-mark-2-launched-this-week.html)

And Instagram had a go at 'Instaglasses'  (http://streamabout.blogspot.ie/2012/07/instaglasses-from-instagram-this-has.html). Google's launch last year is here (http://streamabout.blogspot.ie/2012/04/google-goggles-apple-fiddles.html)

Google have just announced a big session around what they call 'Google Glass' (as distinct from what we know as "Google Googles").  They're holding a 'Glass foundry' this month, to introduce developers to the concept and to start to build the platform.

The Glasses, which they demonstrated last year, have the option to record video, get weather updates and see messages so already they've achieved a level of good sophistication. Now they're taking it further.

'Explorer Editions' of the Glasses are expected to be in people's hands next year and are currently being ordered at 1,500 usd a pair. The developers who attend the foundry event, will be able to use the glasses and the whole purpose here is for Google to get feedback.

It's early development days but this marks a real serious input by Google into developing a better product and platform because they....eh, see the light. They know there's a good business model here.

Glasses have real potential to deliver all sorts of content and to be able to do things hands-free (such as video by head movements alone). These Google versions look smart (always has been an issue) and at 1,500 usd expensive. But that's a starting price and they'll reduce in time for the mass market. The applications are enormous - Sports being one - but so many others including 'Driving glasses' that show directions, locations and geo targeted offers (possibly using 'Foursquare' for example).

And the potential to watch Movies and TV.

It's something every one of our kids will have.
I can see it now.
(sorry)

Netflix makes another content move. Deal done with Turner + Warner. This is some company.

 
Netflix is moving on with more content deals. Having the cash, allows it to compete with traditional broadcasters and win, snagging content deals that will propel it into outer space.

Netflix knows well too, that they've "got away" with poor content already and have clearly identified their content as a weakness. Something to be admired in a company.

Their positioning as a more "children" brand - insofar as they see that as being the initial hook to get subscribers - means they've a kids content focus. So now they've done a deal with Turner and Warner Brothers bringing past series of Cartoon Network and Adult Swim, starting in March.

Animation's Green Latern and TNT's Dallas will arrive in 2014. Cartoon network includes Johnny Bravo and every parent's nightmare, Ben 10. Robot Chicken and Children's Hospital are amongst many that's included - you mightn't know them, but your kids do. Very well.

The list of programmes is endless.

The Warner Brothers selection includes The West Wing, Chuck, 666 Park Avenue and Revolution. Previously Warners had said they didn't want this content streamed but seem to have succumbed to the inevitable.

Netflix has also arrived on Windows 8.

The growth of Netflix, notably in 2012, has been staggering and I don't know how many times I've blogged Netflix but it's a lot - simply, it's hard not to because this is a business that just keeps in the news. Always doing stuff.

The regrettable administration of HMV in these islands will of course give Netflix more customers and, lest we forget, we're not even at the stage where integrated TV's are omni-present in the domestic market. Imagine when they are, Netflix will rule the world.

The losers in all of this? DVD rental and traditional TV. 
The winners? all of us. 

This is a real champion of the digital world.

Google's new Chrome browser has a new focus. Voice. This could be the next wave.

The manner in which we input data - typing that is - is both tedious and old fashioned. Like touchscreen has taken over the phone, voice commands will now take over email, twitter, desktops and computing.

Apple's 'Siri' is an example of that and although cumbersome at the start (and a bit of a novelty) intelligent software allows it to recognise your voice to make it better. But all the talk is of improving voice recognition.

Now the new Google chrome browser (version 25) comes with it, a good attempt at voice commands, notably for email and web apps. On a phone or tablet, voice commands are very useful but also now on desktops.

Google's Chrome demo is about speaking to create an email so they've highlighted it as the feature.

Whilst there are software versions available to download - such as HAL and Dragon - the system is yet to be perfected so that commands are better understood. But have no doubt, it's getting much, much better and with a focus from Google and Apple, it could become the next wave.

One would think that if voice recognition worked as it might, we'd all be using it and such is the market scale that it's getting real focus. Tweeting by voice is a clear example of the need never mind email.

Voice tweeting you can already do but in a small way using brands like Shoutomatic which I've blogged about before. Wholesale voice is coming.

It could well be the next wave.