Apple Valuation dips below 400 Billion Dollars Shock!

Apple's market cap has dropped below 400 Billion usd, Shock! 
That's right....Billion.

Or at least, that's how it's being reported - as a shocker.

This week's decline in share value comes after a court judge has cut back, by 450 million usd, their award against Samsung for copyright infringement of 1 billion usd. 

Other uncertainty about profit margins on products (notably in China) and a lack of innovation, has reduced the market cap from 650 Billion in September (when the new Iphone 5 launch was impending).

It's still a staggering, unbelievable, valuation.

Google is worth a mere 270 Billion and Microsoft, only a tiny 230 Billion. So Apple is still way, way ahead.

And the ongoing coverage of CEO Tim Cook is generally pretty negative. It seems that if Apple sneezes, commentators get a cold, because their talk of Apple ("in decline", "losing confidence") seems to be deliberate for a company so strong.

And we know Apple is sitting on a pile of cash (which in turn, becomes a criticism that "Apple doesn't know what to do next with its cash").

It seems to me that few can ever get their head around Apple being without Steve Jobs. He seems to have been so pivotal, that his death has really damaged the company even still.

Always an issue for companies that are inexorably linked to people. When something happens to the person, it reflects entirely on the company. But he left it strong and so it is.

Talk of Apple's demise are unfounded. 
Worse than that, with a 400 Billion valuation.... they're silly.

Online TV and Movie Content. It's killing Television. It's killing Cinema. It could kill Advertising because it's ad-free.

Internet-only film businesses, have really declared war on Television. Netflix have invested 100 million usd in the remake of the British series, 'House of cards' with Kevin Spacey, as you'll probably know. 

A 26 episode series that's not on Television.

Rather too, than asking people to wait week-by-week for each episode, it was all released at the same time to subscribers. Viewers could then schedule it as required, as it suited them - something which kills the rigidness of TV schedules.

Indeed they produced 6 trailers. Each one targeting the particular demographic of the Netflix subscriber. So female subscribers got the weepy trailer, young males the fight scenes - another thing you can't do on traditional TV.

Online content is also not beholden to advertisers...rather, is driven by subscriptions and subscribers on fixed monthly rates.

Consequently programme viewership fluctuations, is not the issue anymore for online broadcasters - another gaping hole in the way TV works and is funded. Netflix, with nearly 30 million subscribers, just needs to keep attracting those subscribers to stay or join the service, nothing more. Whereas, TV stations have to keep reaching out to audiences, to get them to watch, to generate Ads, when we know, through second screen viewing, their audiences are shrinking. No, Collapsing.

Netflix has already commissioned another feature, a horror called 'Hemlock Grove' and because they're not advertising dependent, they need to simply feature on quality broadcasting. 

But online broadcasters will force change too. Voice control is the future too, for Netflix rather than "gesture control" being considered by other online broadcasters (like the Xbox function). So you simply "call out" your movie and up it comes and online will eventually create too many features that will just force TV stations to close because they simply haven't the technology to match.

Online broadcasting is affecting traditional movie-making too and not just TV.

Profits in the traditional movie business are down. Between 2004-2011, the big 5 studios profits were down -40%. Time Warner for example, in generating 12 billion usd in 2012 from film, generated 14 billion usd from TV/Online. And that balance is quickly shifting away from traditional movie-making towards content making that has subscribers attached such as cable/online.

Fees to cable/subscriber channels are estimated to be in the US, about 32 billion usd a year and growing +7% annually. And it's this steady income that content makers want to chase, rather than traditional TV dependent on advertising swings and thereby, focused on shows being popular (or not). Cinema revenue for film is equally volatile with "hits" and "misses". Content makers want broadcasters with steady income.

Film Theatre/Cinema attendance is not a growth business with too many distractions, such as Netflix, at home on multiple devices. 

DVD/Blue Ray sales are obviously down too, about -46% in the past 6 years. DVD Pirating in Russia and China has become an issue too nevermind general illegal downloads. Actor and Director salaries are being cut, as are the number of projects. 

It is the likes of Netflix that has been the lifeline for Hollywood, with big talent like Spacey/Hoffman/Jeff Daniels moving away from movies into online content. 

Equally too, Netflix and Amazon's Love film are competing for broadcast rights against traditional broadcasters and have the cash war chests, to win. It's estimated that Netflix spent 5 billion usd in 2012 acquiring content.

In terms of 'connected devices' such as smartphones, games consoles, laptops, ipads and so on, Americans own 2.6 of them in each household. So the "theatrical window" of holding back online movie release is now becoming defunct to allow movies access this online market. 'Arbitrage' with Richard Gere, was released everywhere at once and understood to have made 3 times the money because it had a massive global audience at once.

But movie makers don't like it (because they'll lose the cinema premium) and theatre owners don't like it either.

So digital programme/content provision is winning time and time again meaning traditional movie makers will switch (as will talent) into creating online content. It also means traditional TV stations are getting more and more stuffed.

They're being outbid for content; they're losing audiences; they're losing money (180m+ euro a year in Ireland for RTE) every year; their content is poor; and their model has a doubtful future. 

Even their anchor product - news - is being covered better and quicker (much quicker) by national newspapers online.

This game is over.

Mixed fortunes at daily deal sites LivingSocial and Groupon. CEO resigns and his letter is here. Both companies were stars....once.

Bizarre changes in fortune at Daily Deal sites LivingSocial and the original, Groupon, all on the same day.

LivingSocial announced today that it has raised 110 million usd in funding from largely, its original investors - so that sounds more like a "cash call" which might indicate difficulties at LivingSocial if it is. 

A memo from CEO Tim O'Shaugnessy (some Irish connection there I would think...) said it was to "build our reserves". And building they need given a loss of 650 million usd in 2012 up from a loss of 499 million the previous year. Over a billion usd in losses in two years.

It cut its staff by 10% (400) at the time with reports in December that it was "running dangerously low of cash". With losses like that, it's not sustainable.

On the other side, Groupon, the 4 year old, daily-deal-market-maker, fired its co-founder Andrew Mason who was also CEO (that's him above with the cat). It came just 24 hours after reporting bad numbers again for Q1 bring a 25% drop in share value. Now down -75% since it floated which 'Forbes' magazine calls 'The Groupon Disgrace' and said "talk about a CEO who no longer has any credibility with investors". Strong stuff.

Mashable posted his staff resignation letter which actually, I liked.

(This is for Groupon employees, but I’m posting it publicly since it will leak anyway)

People of Groupon,

After four and a half intense and wonderful years as CEO of Groupon, I’ve decided that I’d like to spend more time with my family. Just kidding – I was fired today. If you’re wondering why… you haven’t been paying attention. From controversial metrics in our S1 to our material weakness to two quarters of missing our own expectations and a stock price that’s hovering around one quarter of our listing price, the events of the last year and a half speak for themselves. As CEO, I am accountable.

You are doing amazing things at Groupon, and you deserve the outside world to give you a second chance. I’m getting in the way of that. A fresh CEO earns you that chance. The board is aligned behind the strategy we’ve shared over the last few months, and I’ve never seen you working together more effectively as a global company – it’s time to give Groupon a relief valve from the public noise.

For those who are concerned about me, please don’t be – I love Groupon, and I’m terribly proud of what we’ve created. I’m OK with having failed at this part of the journey. If Groupon was Battletoads, it would be like I made it all the way to the Terra Tubes without dying on my first ever play through. I am so lucky to have had the opportunity to take the company this far with all of you. I’ll now take some time to decompress (FYI I’m looking for a good fat camp to lose my Groupon 40, if anyone has a suggestion), and then maybe I’ll figure out how to channel this experience into something productive.

If there’s one piece of wisdom that this simple pilgrim would like to impart upon you: have the courage to start with the customer. My biggest regrets are the moments that I let a lack of data override my intuition on what’s best for our customers. This leadership change gives you some breathing room to break bad habits and deliver sustainable customer happiness – don’t waste the opportunity!

I will miss you terribly.

Love,

Andrew

Groupon was the worst performing stock in the US market in 2012. Shares trade below 3 usd now, from when they floated at 20 usd. 11 billion of value has been wiped out. Groupon had turned down an offer of 6 billion usd some years ago from Google. And you might remember the accounting controversy at the time of the IPO.

What interests me in both of these stories is that you'd expect, in a recession, deal sites to be doing well. After all, it's in a recession that people want a deal and all the PR was, that this was what was happening. When clearly it's not and especially not for the segment leader, Groupon.

So I'm surprised. 

But then again there could be a more simple explanation. The market is good but these two companies were lousy. It could just be that, although that would surprise me.....

It seems that's what Forbes thinks who undoubtedly contributed to Andrew Mason's demise because they're such an influential magazine. Mind you, they seem to have forgotten that at the time before the IPO they were influential too calling Groupon, "the fastest growing company, ever".

Audrey Hepburn. She died in 1993 but she's back. Making one of the best commercials you'll ever see. Ever. Have a look here.

She may have died in 1993 but she's still making stunning commercials, beautiful Ads. Audrey Hepburn.

Chocolate Bar Galaxy (Mars), have taken footage from her film 'Roman Holiday' (1953 for which she won an Oscar) and starred with Gregory Peck. 

It wasn't her first film, but the role that made her and she got it after Elizabeth Taylor turned it down. In fact Peck got the role after Cary Grant turned it down too!

But they've created a new storyline for the commercial, on Italy's Amalfi Coast. Famous for a fairly breathtaking and a pretty hairy drive, the 'Amalfi Drive'.

Her family have agreed for her image to be used and just how stunning it is. Iconic. Watch and enjoy.

They've also picked a gem of a track - 'Moon River' - and in digitally restoring the footage, have added new life to it, new HD tones and it's truly magnificent to watch. 

Moon River was written for her and performed by her, in 'Breakfast at Tiffanys' (1961). Written by Henry Mancini, it was made famous by Andy Williams.

Of course it's not the first time footage has been restored for commercials,not by a long shot. That's not to take away from this imaginative, creative, stunning work.

The Griff Rhys Jones Holsten commercial (A Holsten for my Holster) stands out in my mind and the Steve Martin/Carl Reiner movie, 'Dead men don't wear plaid' is based around this very idea. You'll see 3 clips at the end and if you've time, have a look too, they're worth it.

But this one for Galaxy, is done well, really well. 

AMV BBDO London are the Agency and deserve the plaudits here.

So too, does it make the case for Video. Just look what you can do.

Only criticism is the endline about having silk not cotton which is just a pity. A real chance here to say something lovely, missed. 

But don't let that get in the way one bit. In fact I'm sorry I said it, because if you want to see that rare example of classic advertising in today's dross, this is it. BBH in their heyday would have loved to have done this.

It's just a classic in every sense and Audrey Hepburn looks so stunning, adorable. It will sell chocolate, of that, have no doubt.

(And while you're here...have a look....)

Is real advertising coming back?

Oscar night. Twitter night. 82,000 TPM's (that's 'Tweets per minute'). Oscars first ever online broadcast.

This was the first year the entire Oscar Awards show was broadcast online. 

Funny when I say that, because everyone goes, really? They expect it to have been done before which in turn shows that we need to remember just how new this digital age is.

The "Red Carpet" part of the show generated 2.1 million tweets with Jennifer Aniston's dress (in case you were wondering) the clear winner. Another 6.8 million tweets were generated during the show so an extraordinary amount of engagement on Twitter alone. It seems that viewers were more interested in the winners rather than the pre-fashion interview preview. Interesting.

The music numbers didn't disappoint with 'Skyfall' generating a lot of tweets according to Mashable. As they say, over 82,000 tpm's. TPM? Tweets per minute (I didn't know it either until tonight). Jennifer Lawrence's fall? 71,600 tpm. Anne Hathaway? 64,000 tpm.

That's per minute.......

Adele, who sings "Skyfall", is of course a big Social Media player anyway and maximises it. 

Of course Mo (that's Michelle Obama to you and me), announced the winner (as introduced by Jack Nicholson) of the Best Film (Argo) live from The White House and then tweeted this creating another Twitter stir; 

FLOTUS 

✔ @FLOTUS

It was a thrill to announce the #Oscars2013 best picture winner from the@WhiteHouse! Congratulations Argo! -mo

5:00 AM - 25 Feb 13

But generally this shows the interactivity between online and TV to full impact. It shows that online broadcasting is now a "standard" and that tweeting about content is pretty much old-fashioned, it is so popular and expected. The role of Social Media has now become as natural as email.

And big shows, like The Oscars, can really swing it into action.

Just a stunning night of glamour, celebrity and tweets. 

Google to launch new Music streaming service. This giant is awakening.

Google really seem to have their heads up especially with the oncoming onslaught of glasses and their move into retail. It's almost like there's a new energy a Google, a new momentum?

According to the front page of this weekend's Financial Times, they're about to launch a music streaming service and The FT know because of the discussions taking place with big music labels. It will therefore compete with Deezer and Spotify.

Although there's an irony here because music labels didn't like google as they saw Search engines facilitating, music piracy.

Advertising accounts for about 95% of google's revenue so these type of services (and glasses) changes their revenue model to being based more on consumer income. No bad thing. 

Music streaming normally allows two price options - free, but be subject to advertising or, pay, and get premium music, ad-free service. With download you get to keep the tract and this "streaming" market is worth over 1.5 billion usd a year....at the moment.

Commercial music download concepts (like Apple's itunes) is different to streaming and Google already launched a US music download store in late 2011. They also have YouTube plans for subscription music services and others (such as travel, price comparisons and so on). 

Google can easily bring these services to the Nexus tablets and their Android phones (as Apple do with Itunes on iPhone). By scrutinising consumer habits and downloads, Advertising Agencies might be well prepared to get involved with this. It could be a valuable database.

But this will give Google another string to its bow. It seems a sleeping giant is awakening....and when it does, we will feel the roar.

Best Bus Shelter ever. Simple integrated mobile marketing that really works. Great thinking.

Sorry but I love these because I know the work that goes into them and I know the thinking behind them. And it's fabulous to see that thinking rewarded when it works.

This is for Qualcomm a mobile phone Operator. 

They put up Bus Shelter Posters and had a www address on the posters, asking bus users to use their mobile to text in. Need a lift? And along comes a...well, watch it. Or in a hurry? And there's a....yeah, have a look.

It's a piece of integrated marketing. Digital mobile marketing, SMS, Bus Shelter advertising, experiential activity, viral on YouTube...it has it all at a low, low cost. And then we're talking about Qualcomm aren't we?

"We make life better on mobile" goes the copyline. And they do.

Simple things makes great advertising. 
And good ideas needn't cost.

Bit of thinking needed, nothing more.

Google Glasses. Want to see what they look like on? Video here and pretty spec-tacular all round. The future smartphone replacement.....

A Video demo of Google's Glass (Google Goggles) has just been released.

It gives a good sense as to how the glasses work and pretty spectacularly. The headset doesn't actually have a screen in front but rather a small screen in the top right and with very excellent functionality - as you can see.

Photo taking, video making, looking up answers on Google, sharing on social, weather, email and so on, is all here but interestingly, we didn't know about voice command. By saying, "OK Glass" it activates the menu hands-free and gets the glasses listening for commands. Now that is, cool.

Google have also launched a competition to get a view as to how the Glasses can be used creatively. Ideas should go to Twitter at hashtag, ifihadglass. 

Here too is the Glass website http://www.google.com/glass/start/

Pretty exceptional the whole idea, which I think anyway and it's being brilliantly executed step-by-step. 

It's going to be the "next big thing", no doubt. A potential replacement for the smartphone.

Hotmail is a gonner. It's now Outlook.com. There's money in mail.

Hotmail, the world's largest web-based email service, is no longer and is now Outlook.com

Microsoft who bought Hotmail in 1997, have had Outlook.com in beta testing for the past 7 months and now the takeover is complete. The changeover will take place gradually and users won't be forced to switch their Hotmail address to an outlook one, but new users will. So there will no disruption in service to existing users.

I have often wondered why the world's postal services brands, never got into online mail? Another example of big companies watching their business go by online? I think so.....

60 million people are using Outlook mail with 350 million using Hotmail and the new service will have many advanced features. The layout looks brighter and breezier with much more simplified tasks - so it has been designed with the user in mind.

It also allows easy interaction and integration with Social Media.

Hotmail was launched in 1996 and probably one of the first email addresses. Advertising overloaded then, the Ads have been streamlined to more direct, relevant text "google" style ads so they're less intrusive.

Generally, outlook.com is being viewed as "better" than Gmail but at the end of the day, mail is mail. However, it's interesting in that email services with large users who use it regularly daily, has not yet had the real business push? It seems to me a cool, good email brand is a winner and perhaps this is what Microsoft see too. There's no doubt too, that if me or you were asked to pay only a dollar or a euro a month for a mail service, we would.

In the case of Hotmail, that would bring in 350 million...a month. Even at 10 cents a month, it would rocket! So there's opportunity here.

But goodbye Hotmail. 
A founding Internet brand bites the dust.
As the Post Office watches it all happen.

Google to open retail stores. Just in time for Google Glasses?

Rumours abound, strong rumours, of Google opening its own high-street retail stores, starting in the US main cities this year.

As Apple know, having shops, can bring customers into contact with your brand in a real personal, helpful way. Especially when you're a Google and largely only known for Search. It's interesting too, a company moving from Web into retail stores - kind of like Amazon opening book stores - but this could be a plan just in time for Google Glass (or "Google Goggles" as most of us know them).

In retail you can touch, see, hold, demo the product and for something so new, it could be a great sales channel for glasses. Or indeed, a new world of wearable computing which is ahead of us.

They're likely too to come at the end of the year, "coincidentally" in time for the launch of Google Glass. They could also sell Chrome computing and of course, Nexus smartphones and tablets moving perceptions of Google from software to hardware. Google also owns the Motorola handset business.

Indeed following in the footsteps of both Apple and Microsoft who have their own retail operations, this would bring the Google brand into a new arena and reaching out to new consumers. High street, high profile retail, is a great Ad for a brand. Google already has a "sort of a" retail presence in the 'Best Buy' stores.

It may not be just about money short-term, but building a real brand long-term. Shops are one good way to do that.

Dropbox floatation likely soon. Bono made more money in Facebook's float first 24 hours than a lifetime of music. He's invested in this as well.

Dropbox are in talks to go IPO shortly and it's sure to be the next high-tech flotation. Dropbox are in the cloud storage/file transfer business and typically used to share video, something which we do a lot of in Streamabout, a couple of times a day.

So if you want to send of receive a large file, Dropbox would be one answer. Mind you, we don't use it but prefer a competitive product 'Wetransfer' which honestly, we find better and quicker than 'Dropbox'. But that has nothing to do with it.

Dropbox's value is in the 4 billion usd range with 200 million users and frankly, was one of the first to get into this space. So it has benefited from 'first mover advantage'. Founded in 2007 - imagine, 6 years later it's worth 4 Billion (!) - it's one of those sites still banned in China and Ireland's own, U2's The Edge and Bono, are investors.

Mind you, both of them did well out of the Facebook float. Imagine...Bono earned more money in one day with Facebook than he has from a lifetime of music! 

Based on San Fran, Dropbox seems to be ready and ripe for a floatation, making billionaires out of its 2 founders and then other investors. File transfer and cloud storage is a good business to be in with a good future and Dropbox are at the front of that - like them or not.

It will be a good opportunity when it's announced and probably the next big high tech IPO. Which a lot of companies are opting for these days rather than staying private. It seems to be a "quick fix" get-rich scheme rather than what the business requires and early inventors/investors seem to want to "get in and get out".

Frankly having given the business all the pain a young tech start-up requires, I'm not surprised that once there is an opportunity to cash-in, they take it. An IPO is a good fast way to achieve that.

There's an App for that, but never like this...Tempo. Your Calendar and Diary just got a whole lot better.

There's an App for that......but very few Apps like this. Tempo. Currently (just launched) only available on the US App store and Itunes but keep watching.

Tempo turns your calendar into something a lot, lot, better than just a Calendar. It basically elaborates your standard diary entries using all the data that's on the web already. 

So you post a diary event at a named place, say, 'The Point Depot'. Clearly it's clever, but not too difficult, for Tempo to be able to show you your destination on Google Maps; to trigger GPS directions if you want them; to get you the phone number for the Point Depot; and to bring you to their website. Or the weather at your location or the time zone. Or the availability of car parking there or the travel time. Clever, but straightforward.

Now this stuff is already online, it's just that someone thought of linking it all together through Calendar entries. A stroke of genius, nothing less.

But that's only the start......

Tempo connects your diary entry with your own "accounts" so can drag any relevant information regarding your meeting, instantly. 

Say you're meeting me at The Point Depot - you can have a look at all relevant emails on the way; or Excel spreadsheets; or Powerpoint slides to perhaps refresh yourself from the last meeting. Or maybe check the last time we met? It's all there.

That's cool, especially when you're travelling to a meeting. Just bring your phone, it'll all be there.

It also gives LinkedIn information so before you meet me, you can see my profile. How cool is that. And you can check your flight status automatically, as you travel to the Airport.

Say too, you're looking for a Hotel or Coffee Shop to meet in nearby? No problem. It'll tell you where they are and give you directions.

Great isn't it? Really great. 
And I love the brand name.

It's just through beta testing, (there's still some scratches), but even the basic diary function has been so well designed as just a Calendar. It's worth it just for that. 

Worth it? It's free at The App store in the US today but shortly will be extended.

A new generation of software that somebody sat down and thought about. It's not a difficult App to make (bringing things together in one place is a well worn path) but to do it based on Calendar entries??? That is really smart.

http://tempo.ai/

Valentines Outdoor Advertising. Badly Art Directed Poster stops traffic.

Spotted today in Bride Street, Dublin by Sarah with the Streamabout crew as they went about their day.

Some poor, forlorn, Irishman abroad in Oz, misses a Bunny. Aaah.
Good copy beats Art Direction, every time.....

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?

North Korea's nuclear test site exposed. Unmanned Spy Drones? CIA Secret Satellites? Nah, Google Maps.

Hard to keep anything secret these days with ongoing battles over privacy on Social Media. But a nuclear test?

North Korea's efforts to keep their nuclear test location under wraps, in what was traditionally a James Bond 'cloak and dagger' affair, has been exposed.

Unmanned Army drones? CIA Secret Satellites? Nope. Google Maps. 

In fact Mashable, using Google Maps, can tell you all you need to know. Another blow to Social Media privacy....(but in a good way)....

So you want to see where it was? I'll tell you but then I'll have to kill you...it was here -

Or maybe you want a clearer picture...



Or the co-ordinates? 41.301 North 129.066 East. 

And there's lots more pictures of the Windy Mountain Road now referred to as 'Nuclear Test Road'. Since you asked, it's here in fact -



Initially it was thought this was an earthquake but in fact it was North Korea's third nuclear test since 2006, which has the world shaking a bit. Even China, its last friend in the world, isn't happy one bit.

There's even a video of the explosion on YouTube although pre-rolled with an Ad for 'Ernst and Young'. You should never miss an opportunity to pre-roll anything. I mean Ad revenue is Ad revenue. Still they might have changed the creative ("Ernst and Young's growth is exploding" or "We don't ever see black clouds". Something relevant, like the Superbowl brands..... I don't know, Ad Agencies these days.....).

And North Korea knows the value of YouTube having officially uploaded the video on top of this blog, only last week, showing a nuclear attack on New York. 

A dream sequence, set to Michael Jackson's "We are the world" played on what appears to be a 1940's xylophone, one could only think of better tracks. How about "Call me Maybe"? Everyone else is - and a fantastic opportunity to go viral, missed. What were they thinking?

And no you're right, it's too serious to be funny. 

But a country run by a 30 year old, which has its people impoverished, has to be treated with the disdain it deserves. 

Keep spying Google.
No need to worry about any right to privacy here.
In fact, hats off.

President Obama to go live Thursday on a Google Hangout.

President Obama is to live from The White House on a Google hangout this Thursday, two days after he delivers his 'State of the Union' address.

Called a 'Fireside hangout' it will also be on The White House YouTube channel and allows live questions/interaction (on the basis that you've submitted your questions in advance that is). Nearly a quarter of a million people submitted questions last time in January which was the first smaller attempt. You can also vote on questions submitted by others so the best are the ones that get through to the broadcast. And of course, it integrates with Twitter live, something Obama has used before as well as LinkedIn.

It's not the first time, a January broadcast was, but represents The President using Social Media now as a standard to communicate. The White House has also invited its big Social Media followers to hang with them on Tuesday and watch the address together. Aaahh. Still, bit of a thrill to get access to The White House.

It's brave enough too, being live streamed and expect the audience to be very big but it also shows the democratisation of the Internet. The ability to use Social Media to connect with people and spread your political message.

Ireland and the UK are far behind this - yet. 
Great opportunity for politicos.

Apple to launch SmartWatch. A Smartphone you wear on your wrist.

Rumours abound, very strong rumours, that Apple are to launch a smartwatch. Which is basically a smartphone you wear on your wrist.

Pebble are already in the market and Google have just applied for a patent.

Although it's been talked about for a while, The New York Times have confirmed it's in play and being developed with "curved" glass so it wraps around your wrist.

Wearable computing has an inevitability about it. We know of Interactive Glasses but wrist wearing is somewhat easier. The key to this too, is Siri, the voice recognition Apple software that allows a voice to read back, or dictate, email for example. So the need for a touchscreen is reduced.

Straight out of James Bond, you'll talk into your watch and ask it to things like directions or information or email. It will tell you global time, set alarms, act as a GPS tracker, and possibly, connect calls over Wfi (which the ipad mini already does without having a Sim card). 

And general cloud connectivity means all your devices are connected so the watch can act as a conduit for that. If you've a number stored on your Ipad or Phone, the watch can get it for example.

Interestingly too, the use of body heat to create energy through your wrist, is I know, already underway as too the movement of your hand which currently drives some watches anyway. Hence the archaic need to "charge your phone" in the wall socket, must soon go. It's very old fashioned (!).

Another innovation from Apple. 

Who else.

New York Times. Subscriber paywall working but Ad revenues are down. This is the line quality publishers need to walk.

The New York Times is growing its digital subscriber base although its advertising revenue is declining.

668,000 thousand digital subscribers for the group is up from 566,000 in September. Advertising revenue though is down by -8%, largely due to declines in the print versions (down -10%) whilst digital revenue is down just under -2%. But they're down.

The problem here is a trade-off between a model that makes money from a subscriber paywall versus a model that makes money from advertising. If you have paid subscribers (paywall) then you've less readers compared to when it's free. As some of the content is closed off for subscribers only, free readers move away elsewhere. Therefore the page impressions decline and consequently too, the ad revenue will fall. Charge for content and you'll have less readers and therefore, less advertising.

However, the NYT overall revenue is up +5% so the growth in subscribers revenue is more than offsetting the consequential loss in ad revenue. For now.

In return too, its shares are up +15% bringing more capital value - so people like what they're seeing.

If a paywall subscriber model is adopted by publishers like the NYT, it actually puts pressure on content. Paying readers want more up-to-date content, more services, more video, more coverage because they're now paying for it. They'll want detailed business analysis for one. Quality journalism.

So a paywall will work best in a quality title where affluent readers will be more able and more willing, to pay. It's a risk for sure but that depends too on where the paywall is placed - a combination of good free content (on the homepage for example) with subscribers getting detailed content, might be a good balance between maintaining digital Ad revenue and generating subscriptions.

If you can walk that line, it's an opportunity that The NYT is proving.

Facebook launch big video initiative to communicate to developers. Nice way for other corporates too....

Live Video works great - except when it's news as this Reporter found out. Great put-down.

Facebook needs to communicate with developers. And how are Facebook doing it? On video.

Called Developers Live Wednesday, it's now a video channel where everyone can watch and share. Using live streaming, it allows instant access to Facebook engineers and to solve problems quickly. Using pre-recorded video too, they can answer common questions in a FAQ style from Facebook staff.

Video allows easy demonstration of technology allowing you to replay and replay and replay and the site will then add to its video library. Or go back later and have another look if it's still unclear.

The first one is on Feb 19, hosted by a Facebook expert in web and mobile platforms, it's targeting gaming developers telling them things to look out for and answering questions.

Developers can request an invite on, well, Facebook https://www.facebook.com/events/426183044125307/

You can also see who's going to watch and so on. Nice, happy page it is too. And a nice development by Facebook.

Video is a great tool to communicate online and using live video can deal with issues immediately as well as, building a Video library online. And it's easy to do as well as being relatively low cost. Inviting people into your Facebook page helps the build up.

Great ideas for companies. Great for Streamabout too.
If it's good enough for Facebook......

Pope doing well on Twitter. Religion doing really well. Why? People pass positive thoughts on. Brands could learn from that.

I think it's fair to say that the Pope, leader of the 2,000 year old Catholic Church, has been a success on Social Media, notably Twitter (handle is at Pontifex).

Having over 2.5 million followers in only a few months since his first tweet on December 13, that's pretty good going. So much so, they've launched his own YouTube channel (largely to see his speeches), a 'PopeApp', Facebook page and an online news portal.

Still some way to go to catch The Dalai Lama's 9 million followers, but he was one of the first into the digital age. 

Leader of America's largest Church in Lakewood Texas, Joel Osteen is also taking to it and pretty much becoming a star. Although if you've ever heard him talk, you'll understand why - this is the greatest orator of them all. You'll see a young Joel on this blog video talking about the power of positive words (just for interest!).

Apart from the obvious, in that they're using Social Media to communicate, the real strength is that their positive messages are retweeted time and again. In other words, when Osteen says "God is with you in your hour of need", people pass it on and at a minimum of 7,000 retweets. That in turn brings more people in and so it grows, exponentially.

Good news travels fast it seems.

And there's a lesson in that I think. 

Just taking this blog as a super tiny sample, I know if I blog about something "bad" or negative (like the series I did on Tax avoidance), not only do I get criticised but my readers fall away that day. When it's something good or positive, they drive up and it's more likely to be "liked" or shared. 

People want good news, they want to smile in the dreary drudgery of daily lives. And so The Pope and others with generally uplifting words, do well on social.

Brands could learn a bit from that (as indeed, could Bloggers). Tweet well and you'll do well. Nasty, cyber bullying doesn't and is, as we know, pretty destructive which by the way, by passing it on we must take some responsibility.

So that's today's sermon.
Nice, positive words do well on Social Media.

I love you all (!)

Superbowl Power Outage. Brands really capitalised on it with Social Media. Full marks to Oreo, Jim Beam, Tide and 6 others.

Full marks to Mashable too, out quick with a great story about brands who capitalised on Superbowl Social Media without paying for the expensive commercials. And great too, because it showed brands who were literally, thinking on their feet.

You may (or may not) have been watching The Superbowl, as I was, and as it entered the third quarter, a blackout/power cut ensued. The game stopped and the stadium went into darkness. Out then popped the top Ad for Oreo on Social Media, 4 minutes after the blackout - "No power? No problem.You can still dunk in the dark". Super. And I've no idea how they got it ready so quickly.

Next up was Tide with this...

And then Jim Beam who have a brand called 'Black'.....

Other brands got in too. Calvin Klein with a video of a fairly hunky man doing press ups under the headline, "Since the lights are still out..."

PBS, the Broadcaster, (the excellent broadcaster), tweeted that viewers shouldn't worry because they had 'Downton Abbey' on instead.

Walgreens tweeted that they had candles for sale.

And Audi said they were going to send some of their LED lights to the stadium.

They were also bidding immediately (especially brands like Bud Light) for Adwords 'power outage' and 'blackout'. How brilliant that is.

Fairly great that Agencies and their Clients were that alert to capitalising on something that they couldn't have predicted. Pretty smart thinking. And good energy.

It was a touch-and-go game at the end with Baltimore's Ravens winning what has become a really fabulous spectacle. 

A magnificent night in New Orleans.

Last Nights Superbowl commercials. 3 interesting picks but you can watch them all here.

You'll see all of last nights very expensive (nearly 4m usd a throw) here by clicking/cutting+pasting this link http://www.youtube.com/user/superbowl2013ads

Gangnam style was of course the most watched YouTube video of 2012 so use it in the Superbowl makes perfect sense. Must have cost a bomb.

A couple of my other highlights though and starting with this one which uses stills rather than footage. A nice idea....

This more more bizarre as an ad campaign against Ad campaigns in The Superbowl that promote sexism and using twitter. Interesting stuff....

And this for me, the winner. Magic track, incredible cast, lovely idea....

But have a look at them all. Well worth it!

Superbowl Ads. Expensive airtime, super Ads and probably the most watched TV programme ever in The USA.

Tonight is Superbowl Sunday - just in case you've been in a cave (!) and haven't heard. What makes it exciting is ad watching. A lot of brands are now launching "teasers" in advance of the game to get you "teased" to look out for the final version. This one for Samsung (in two parts) looks terrific and titled "the next big thing". At 2 minutes, I'm guessing they'll spend about 12 million just on the one Superbowl broadcast alone. Is it worth it? Have a look but I think it's a great spot (Seth Rogen and Paul Rudd are very well known stateside). The second part is great and below.

Possibly the most expensive airtime on the planet in terms of overall cost per commercial (3.7 million usd a piece) but not per capita. Interesting for example, that Ireland's own Late Late Show is more expensive per viewer than The Superbowl. Because even though you pay 3.7 million for a Superbowl spot, you reach about 200 million people who will watch at least part of the game (mainly the 3rd and 4th quarters so end spots can be more valuable). The final Samsung commercial is going out, for example, in the 4th quarter.

Consequently based on a standard trade measure of cost-per-thousand CPT (the cost of reaching one thousand viewers) Superbowl does very well in value terms because the audience is so huge. Therefore, all spots are well sold out.

About 130 million will watch the game end-to-end and that will make it the most watched US TV programme ever. Because the content (American Football) limits it to US viewer appeal, it doesn't reach the viewing heights of sports with global appeal like Soccer. About half the planet for example, watch The World Cup Final, putting the viewer numbers in billions.

So a lot of us will watch the Ads and, as I've blogged over the last couple of days, the Ads can really make a difference as the "Dart Vader/Star Wars" spot did for VW last year. Already over 200 million viral views. 'Doritos' and recently 'Go Daddy' largely built brand recognition with their Superbowl spots as indeed did Steve Jobs choose it to launch his new Apple Mac in the 1984 Superbowl.

It's a huge night for advertising and social media nevermind, for football.