YouTube launch in depth analysis. Another move into the TV Ratings game as they move to become a TV broadcaster.

In a further step towards full broadcasting, YouTube has launched a suite of analytical tools.

They usefully, put a stronger emphasis on engagement of the viewer, concerning themselves with length of views. And we know, from recent Forrester research, that longer video versions are getting higher views (the average length of a YouTube video is 2 minutes 1 second).

You'll be able to see a detailed breakdown of click-thru rates and close rates for their annotations. You'll also be able to compare trends and patterns with two different metrics. Some design changes too making it all easier to follow.

These advanced measuring tools, allow publishers on YouTube to create better, more relevant video and allow advertisers the opportunity to better measure engagement. In a way, they're moving into the ratings system which we know from television.

The TV rating system (TVR) is largely based on old fashioned concepts, internet ratings are accurate and true (being based on actual views and actual clicks). The internet has a great advantage over other media as being very measurable in a quick way. YouTube, by putting these in place, is a clear indicator of its desire to become taken as a more serious broadcaster and media.

And I agree too.

YouTube has the opportunity to be recognised as the biggest global broadcaster and streaming the recent presidential debate live, is proof of that.

It's a great platform that can deliver great content.
And I've been saying it for years.

Facebook launch, Facebook Gifts. Buy a friend chocolates or a Teddy Bear with Facebook! A brand loses its way for short term money.

Facebook is really trying to raise its revenue.

If you're on Facebook, you know they'll alert you to your friends Birthdays so that you might wish them a happy day. Now with Facebook Gifts, you'll be able to buy them a gift straight from the page! (And Facebook will get a cut).

It will also include other event alerts - new job, anniversary, weddings, baby born and so on. Their focus is of course, on mobile, as they try many ways to monetise their mobile activity. Crass and cheap? I think so.

They'll also sell you digital cards, chocolates, teddy bears and have developed 100 retail partners. They include Starbucks ("give a gift of a free latte!" Jesus...), which itself has started selling newspapers in store thereby losing its coolness and Facebook Gifts are bound to affect sales on the likes of Amazon or Ebay. The person on Facebook who gets a gift will know straight away that it's on the way too.

It also means Facebook get more data (like credit cards) which they can use elsewhere and it will generate good margin in a gift business that's estimated at about 40 billion usd in the USA alone.

BUT - I do think there's a balance between brand values and revenue. As I've said, I think Starbucks are walking that line badly and I think Facebook now, is doing the same. Short term gain, long term loss.

It's making Facebook look less like a free, honest Social Media and more like a shop. Is this what happens when you lose your soul after an IPO? When financial pressures override brand values? And corporate accountants take over? It's an OMG moment.

Already it's becoming a bit uncool.
This will make it colder.

Forrester advertising online research just published. Massive growth and massive uptake on video. Video will represent 76% of all display advertising within 2 years!

There's a lot of research nonsense out there on digital advertising. All of it should be taken with a pinch but generally, it's useful in identifying a trend. The numbers might be overestimated, but the general trend is probably true.

if you're told it's growing by 60%, it's probably 30% - but it's definitely growing.

Forrester however, is one of the more reliable sources and have just announced their forecasts - and it's looking good.

US online Ad display will reach just under 13 billion usd this year and it will grow by 17% per annum. About 5 billion of that will be shared between Google and Facebook. CPM's will nearly double to 7 dollars at the cost of offline media which will continue to decline. However, a CPM rate of 7 dollars is low and being brought down by low-cost online media. Competition.

Rich media and video ads are by far, the most preferred formats in the US with static images (banners) declining rapidly at a -45% each year. Text based formats are still growing but according to Forrester, will be overtaken by video ads in 2014. Good news.

European digital display ad growth is slower than the US at 6 billion usd and growing by 13%. European companies are much slower Internet adopters than their US counterparts and generally more, "conservative".

They estimate in Europe, rich media/video ads will account for a massive 76% of all display advertising in 2 years. People are prepared to watch more long-format video growing at a rate of 32% over 18% for short form. While youtube is the king of short form, it seems that video is becoming more watchable as the quality improves.

In general this is encouraging.

There's no doubt you're seeing sizeable shifts towards online advertising display, quicker than we thougth and that video is the answer. Although CPM's remain low, the volume will compensate for that.

VOD. If you haven't got it, call.

BBC launch Iplayer Radio. Radio owners need to be aware and beware.

BBC, possibly the most regarded broadcaster in the world, launched its TV iplayer in 2007 allowing users access to its archived/live content and during the summer, it was used nearly 200 million times. Although, 90% of its listeners, watch live at the moment.

Year-on-year, the BBC iplayer requests have increased by a massive 56% on mobile and 300% on tablet. Oh ye of little faith in online broadcasting.

Now they've launched Iplayer Radio, by way of an App, allowing access to their network of 57 stations, live and on demand, across all devices. Mobile alone represents about 18% of its access but peaking at particular shows, to 30%. A massive audience and this allows users to easily switch between stations and therefore, retaining the audience.

Although state owned, BBC is free to air and more and more people are prepared to listen to global radio stations through streaming devices at home. Our house on Sundays, small example as that is, wakes to 'Radio Paradise' an American online station and 'Jones College Radio' from Texas, in Dublin. And of course, local radio has a key role but needs to get online in a serious way.

There is some talk, although a lot of doubt, that this may be a prelude to BBC launching a music download service too with the likes of 'Spotify'. Techcrunch have said it's denied and I'd trust that.

The app itself has some nice features - in particular a channel selector along the lines of the big old radio knobs which my Dad used to tune into 'Hilversum' (immortalised by Van Morrison), and foreign stations on an old wireless. A kick back that's nice. 

It also has an alarm to alert you to shows and an 'in depth' button that allows you go further into the content (archived shows for example). They're also offering "two way" conversions with the studio and redesigned homepages for each station. 

Radio owners need to be aware of this online competition and get into the space quickly. A lot of them "are there".... but simply.... because they think they should, rather than must. What's needed is a spirited attempt to gain audiences online over mobile Apps. Perhaps even an opportunity to come at this together rather than compete and giving audiences choices locally, on one App. Heresy or clever thinking?

Simple development of archive content, on demand music and features (like an alarm clock or trendy design) coupled with an Advertising campaign to promote their App, will pay dividends.

Their concern is that it might "bastardise" their existing offline listenership as the audience moves online. It won't, it will increase them - and anyway, a listener is a listener is a listener. Take them where you find them.

Because above all, if they do nothing, they're now in a hugely competitive space. As Zep says, "there's a lady whose sure, all that glitters is gold...."

Mercedes launch major online campaign in this weekend's X Factor. A big brand with a big budget buys into Social Media.

Last night saw Mercedes, putting millions into an online ad campaign, as much as they would with a traditional campaign in order to launch their new A class. The first big brand to do so.

In an attempt to attract in younger drivers to the brand research suggests the average Mercedes driver is seen as being 45+), it is the world's first video TV advertising campaign where the plot of the commercial is decided on Twitter (on hashtag youdrive). About 10m use Twitter in the UK alone.

The 60 second commercial went out on 'X Factor last night' which was about a rapper's attempt to reach a secret gig in a 'cat and mouse' way. Viewers were then invited to vote as to what the rapper should do next, by tweeting.

The votes were then counted instantly (as happens on Xfactor finals anyway) with the conclusion/winning commercial airing in tonight's show. It's a good attempt to re-position the age factor for Mercedes. Xfactor is the key Saturday night programme with an audience of nearly 9m and very much not the typical market for Mercedes.

Clearly too, the whole activity will be discussed on Social Media and thereby furthering the campaign. Plus it was supported by full page press ads under the slogan, "be a part of the experience" and a headline, "For the first time during tonight's X Factor, a TV Commercial you drive".

Nice idea too. Simple enough, but significant in the cross-over between traditional and social media. Important too, to see big brands dive into the space like Mercedes which will draw other car manufacturers into doing something similar.

So few brands have still yet to get their heads around the web.

Look at what Mercedes are doing and see how easy it is to be clever.
And because this type of activity is only starting, any brand who gets involved, will get the attention before the deluge.

It's a real case of first up, best dressed.

Obama Romney. There's no doubt who won on Social Media. A walk over.

Oh dear, President Obama didn't look himself last night and so say Twitterers. It was broadcast live on YouTube for the first time.

An analysis of Tweets by Crimson Hexagon reliably, showed that 10.3m Tweets during the debate, set a new record, with 26% saying Obama looked "rusty".

16% were in support of the President, 22% for Romney (with only 12% disagreeing with him). In plain English that's actually a landslide for Romney.

The moderator, ex US marine Jim Lehrer (a well experienced debate corespondent) was badly criticised for not keeping control and 14% of the Tweets were just jokes.

A post-event poll by CNN gave victory to Romney 2:1. Topsy, a Social Media aggregator, showed that Romney tweets spiked 2.5 times more than Obama.

So if you want to use Social Media as a guide, there's no doubt that public opinion was with Romney. And I concur.

Having no bias and having sat up until 330am, there was little doubt in my mind who was the winner (and I've worked on political campaigns in Ireland so I've a little experience of this). He was confident, thoroughly well briefed and almost presidential. Obama looked a tired, beaten old man with an almost "couldn't care less" demeanour.

And yet, Obama is one of the greatest orators.

It seemed to me (and it's one of the old tricks) that Obama was told not to fight, look confident and casual. In other words, don't try too hard because you're a winner. In keeping a stance like that, it often looks like you're in control but can sometimes just look so casual that it's like you're not bothered. "I am the President and I've nothing to fear" so the strategy goes. It makes the other candidate fight and possibly, trip up.

But this backfired.

Clinton was the master of the "I'm in control" stance.
And if you're interested in American politics, buy Robert Caro's just published new book on Lyndon Johnson - a truly wonderful piece of work as was his previous. It's just terrific. The video on this blog is worth a listen to get a sense of the real Johnson. A really remarkable fellow.

Anyway, Obama is in trouble.
So expect one thing - a different fighting stance next debate.
He'll come out charged up and attack Romney. 

Watch it and smile.

Social Media is the place to meet and date. 95.8% of us, say we use it already. So get that profile pic updated now.

No longer do you need to go to the bar, the solicitors office or the annual accountants festival to meet someone new, because Social Media is the place to be. According to a new survey in Mashable, 95.8% (you often wonder about the .8%...probably a short person) of people say they most often meet people online through Social Media.

Dating sites, Apps, all play a role and it shows the huge potential for online dating businesses. Nearly 21% of people surveyed said they met "more than 100" others online - not a bad day at the office.

Signs of interest are, people constantly commenting on your Facebook pic and updates, with a good tweet, a new way to get the ball rolling. To tweet is sweet (I just made that up but you get the idea).

In one way it makes sense because the people you're connected to probably share similar interests which is why you connected in the first place. So the field is narrowed down. Your profile pic is the most important hook (which knocks me out) and then location, interests and your friends. 

50% of the people also said they'd meet up offline when they get online interest - worrying issue for kids. 28% wait a week before going on a date and happily, 7% only wait a day!

Users also use Social Media to connect with people they know offline in the hope of developing a crush. So I'm now disconnecting from Mark Zuckerberg in case he gets the wrong idea.

But definitely Social Media is the place where it's at to meet up. 
And a dating online site can prove to be a fruitful business with results like these at nearly 96% of people prepared to "date" online.

Tread carefully my friends.

YouTube to broadcast Obama/Romney debates LIVE. Going to hurt the TV audience in a big way. And it's only the start.

It's getting nearer and nearer, the US Presidential race.

Three presidential debates between Romney and Obama and the vice-presidential debate, will be broadcast, live, on YouTube for the very first time. The first ever debate between candidates was Kennedy/Nixon in 1960 and it cost Nixon the election.

You'll be able to watch Obama/Romney on a laptop, tablet or even your phone (Iphone users who recently upgraded to IOS 6 will have to download the youtube app in the app store). But how cool is that.

They're also going to be available worldwide so without restriction on IP addresses. They're taking the feed from ABC News and of course, the full debates will remain on YouTube for viewing later.

A Spanish language version will be available and some YouTube partners will be discussing the debates online live, just after. Indeed, they'll be integrating Social Media throughout.

October 11, 16 and 22nd is when they're on the web and of course, the election is November 6. 

The significance of this is the fact that YouTube is entering live streaming broadcasting news, "as it happens". Something we've all being saying (http://streamabout.blogspot.ie/2012/03/youtube-is-new-tv-keep-calm-people.html) and it will show where the real global audience is - on Social Media. These broadcast viewerships, will wipe the floor of traditional TV and cost them dearly on audience. You'd expect the audience to be circa 80 million so it will be interesting to see what slice youtube takes.

It's the start of online live broadcasting.
And the start of the dominance of YouTube as a broadcaster.

There's no doubt, this will be something special and a landmark in the world of TV.

Here's where you'll find them YouTube Elections Hub (http://tinyurl.com/94h8db7) 

Google launches web catalogues. A simple idea into a massive business.

Google 'catalogs' (as in catalogue) launched in 2011 as an App for Android and Ipad, is now coming to the web.

It's just a great idea, straight out of the old world, but where catalogue readers can easily click the offer, look at it in more detail and of course, buy direct from the retailer. An interactive catalogue.

Now I know, it's hardly ground breaking, and not exactly the "new Facebook", but terrifically effective and taking something that's so long being part of marketing, into the digital age.

It's also just in time for Christmas and Microsoft have recently launched a similar product in partnership with 'glimpse catalogs'. 

It's all part of Google trying to enhance the shopping element/experience of its brand. A nicely designed catalogue on ipad for example, is a pleasurable way to shop and browse plus with the power of Google search, online brands will want to be featured because the catalogue will be easy to find.

The design will allow you to mark products as "favourites" so as to return to them later or indeed, to share them on Social Media. It will also give you store locations, in case you want to visit in person.

Google will then earn revenue on a per sale basis or perhaps, per click because sometimes the sale will take place off-line.

Yet again a simple idea comes of age.
And there's lots of these old world ideas, that can be easily integrated into digital. It just needs a bit of thinking.

FinderCodes. A clever idea using QR codes that tracks your possessions. A real winner of an idea.

Here's a winner if ever I saw it - Findercodes.

For a while, I tried to get involved in a GPS tracking/locating business, especially aimed at real time tracking of children for parents. It didn't happen -largely because of the need and cost to manufacture - but there's certainly a business there.

People lose things all the time and mostly, they are of little value to anyone except the owner. Leave something on the bus, lose a dog/camera/phone, a scarf, a jacket and so on. Findercodes now solves that issue.

Using QR codes attached by way of a sticker, key ring or ironed on, they contain all of the owner's details and are easily scanned into a smartphone. If they don't have a smartphone, they can enter the code manually and it will tell them who owns the item and how to contact them. The pet market alone is huge.

It does require of course, someone to scan the item but largely people will and certainly organisations (airport managers, air lines, bus companies and so on) will.

You can also add a reward to the QR code if you wish, so the reward is seen when it's scanned.

Findercodes are a very simple idea that has lots of applications -such as for books in a library - and costing only 25 usd for 5 tags, it makes sense. Findercodes is going to be a standard and uses QR codes cleverly. QR codes are something we almost wrote off.

There's plenty of software out there and technology.
It's now a matter not of inventing more, but rather, cleverly applying what we've got.

Instagram overtakes Twitter on mobile! Is Twitter starting to stutter?

Instagram, remember? The Facebook 1 billion usd acquisition earlier this year, that had us scratching our heads? well, they've just exceeded Twitter for daily active users on mobile. Zuckerberg must be smiling.

Instagram is the photo sharing/retouching App which by using a selection of filters, allows you to improve your pics and give them a 1950's Kodak look. That angelic looking pic of Zuckerberg above, gives you an idea. And it's hard to make Zuck look angelic.....

Ideal for Facebook as a photo sharing Social site in part.

Instagram had 7.3m daily users in August according to Comscore whilst Twitter had 6.9m. Astonishing stuff.

In March Instagram had only 880,000 users so it's growing like crazy. That's under a million to over 7 million in 5/6 months. 

The other side is that Instagram users spend more time on their site ("dwell time") than Twitter, so it makes the site more attractive to marketeers. Instagram mobile users spent over 4 hours (!) whilst Twitter users spent under 3. 

Of course too, Twitter will do much better when you look at traffic from a website rather than mobile, but clearly, mobile is key. I had thought long term, Twitter was the ideal choice for mobile but frankly, after its nonsense in switching off API's, they deserve this. It's beginning to make Twitter look a bit old.

One reason Zuckerberg gave for what seemed like a ridiculous purchase of Instagram, was to engage users more on mobile. He's proved right. This level of engagement will result in Facebook revenue on mobile - exactly what they need.

So hats off top Facebook and to Instagram.
Staggering growth when we all said...well....it made no sense.

Except me!
(No, actually me included).

Instagram shows that you can show growth when you do it well.
Twitter shows, that when you mess with Social Media, you suffer.
Indeed, Twitter is now suffering massively from continual virus attack. Be careful if you get a strange message asking you to click a link. Don't.

Twitter is starting to stutter.

Foursquare. Now launches an "always on" notification. Online privacy is becoming a big issue.

Foursquare, like all geo-location Apps, has come in for its share of criticism.
It's as much about privacy (people knowing where you are) and frankly, intrusive sharing. Foursquare is basically a way of tracking your location on a map.

There are absolutely some great geo-location Apps and in particular those that deliver coupons/deals based on your location but generally, people location proves somewhat unacceptable.

Today Foursquare went a stage further with an "always on" notification.
What it means is, that any of your friends or family, no matter where they are, "check in" to Foursquare, you receive a notification.

Even if they're not near you or indeed, if you have your notifications switched off! So a friend in Perth, goes into a bar, I get to hear about it. No problem about that, except if every time a friend goes into a bar, I'll get a lot of notifications but....it also means, they'll get notifications about me.

So when I walk into a bar, they hear about it and probably like you, I'm not too sure I'm happy about that at all. Indeed, for women, it raises huge safety concerns. 

Already people are becoming more and more concerned about privacy, notably with Facebook but geo-locators take it to another stage. A stage perhaps, too far. The other problem is that few of us every understand the t&c's when we sign in nor do we ever really read them. 

So if you're considering using these types of Apps, be careful.

They won't stop at this and for some of us, it's quite scary.

Especially now, if it's "always on".

Online privacy issues is going to become a big discussion point when people begin to realise just what they're signing up to. And anything that's deliberately hidden in the small print, is not a good thing.

Companies argue that if you're concerned about disclosing your location, you shouldn't be using the App in the first place. True. If the company clearly told you in the first place what they were doing, indeed you might not have.

The TV advertising revolution has just been born. Interactive TV Commercials have started in a serious way. The most dramatic change since Black + White.

 

 

Here it comes, the revolution in TV advertising - interactive TV Commercials. Trust me, you ain't seen nothing yet.

In the past, traditional TV broadcasters used networks (satellite, cable) that didn't allow for engagement as such. So they simply pushed out content rather than allowing consumers to push back. The technology was one-way.

The internet changed that to a point but was adopted by those same broadcasters as simply a "new way" to broadcast their programming. It was just "another medium". Netflix showed a new way to use the medium.

Now however, the advent of TV internet connected devices such as Apple TV, Playstation and lots of others coming on stream, are discovering interactive TV commercials. 

As people view TV and video content from what they call "connected devices" (internet connected) it opens up a whole new way to engage during the playing of typical TV Ads. This, my friends, will open up a whole new world of creativity and is just waiting for Agencies with the talent to do this, to open their doors. A lot of the digital agencies will already have the skills and be able now to upsell into TV commercials.

It is THE opportunity that traditional Ad Agencies should have been waiting for. An Ad Agency that opens a division for interactive TV Commercials will be first in a space where eventually ALL Commercials will be interactive.

So when you watch a TV Ad on Xbox for example, you can now engage with it. Change the ending, look at more images, sharing it on Facebook immediately, delving into the content and so on. This is the breakthrough.

Ads can now become physically engaging and directly responsive.

Brainient, (http://brainient.com/) a start-up, is one of the first groups that's starting to get to grips with it over Xbox and connected devices. An Ad for the movie, 'The Hobbit' allows users to use hand gestures to interact with it and getting extra photo galleries and full cast biogs. It's being screened in the UK at the moment, and it's relatively simple engagement but this is the start. 

The first time I've seen it in this form. Wow.

Advertisers will be able to track brand engagement, develop other content attached to their Ad and publishers/broadcasters will be able to sell these extra engagements. You won't buy media space, you'll buy interactivity.

It's also good to note that Brainient claim to be working with traditional London Ad Agencies on 30/50-ish campaigns a month so you'll see more of this. That's a growth from only 100 in total last year.

As internet connected devices profilerate too, it presents more and more opportunities for advertisers. 

I think this is the biggest breakthrough on TV Advertising that I've seen in 25 years. The only people who'll underestimate it are traditional broadcasters protecting their patch. Because now they're going to have to change their model entirely.

Brands will devour it. 
Agencies will love it.
Consumers will get it into.

September 2012. You heard it here first.

Store cards, Coupons, Loyalty cards, all stored on your mobile? Exciting business, simple concepts. 'Gyft' gets going.

  
How many store gift cards do you have in a drawer and never used? In fact, they just go out of date. Most retailers estimate that about 20% are never redeemed, leaving a nice little profit on prepaid cards. Looks like that game is over.....

'Gyft' however, changes all that by allowing you to buy, share and redeem gift cards using your mobile and has just announced Apple "Passbook" integration. Which means buying them (or paying for them) has become much easier. More importantly, so is storing them. How cool is that?

(I blogged about better mobile payments yesterday - so if you're interested, it's the next blog below this one).

Because you can store your gift cards on your phone, it means that you can empty those plastic cards from your drawers and better still, this will warn you as they're about to expire.....Or indeed, to check your balance.They already have about 200 retailers on board but this is a very clever idea that tech was made for. It solves a problem.

Gyft is about bring the plastic card business to mobile by way of an App. 

Mobile is of course, ideal for anything associated with shopping. SnipSnap, a mobile coupon-sharing App and Belly, a loyalty card start-up, are also integrating with Apple's Passbook. SnipSnap for example, allows you to store coupons so when you visit a shop, you can see if you have any coupons for that shop on your phone. You have? use them.

Similarly with Belly, you always have your loyalty card to hand and according to Techcrunch, has been downloaded over 500,000 times. So you're in the store and you always collect your points.

The video above, will show you how to incorporate printed coupons into Passbook. But these are great ideas showing how mobile and apps can solve very simple problems,simply.

The key to them being, the development of mobile payment processing such as "Passbook". And points to Jack Dorsey being in the right place with his 'Square' mobile payments venture.

Again.

Online payments processing is changing. Out with the old, in with the new. Square gets a 3 billion valuation. It's all about time.

I was reading in the FT on Saturday (which is completely recommended as a great weekend paper along with The Sunday Telegraph) about Brad Miller, a techy in California.

He goes into a coffee shop, but the time he gets to the till to pay for his coffee, his picture has appeared on the ipad, which the coffee shop uses as a terminal. The assistant identifies him from the photo, taps the screen and he's paid. It's one new mpayment system called 'Square'.

As he leaves, a receipt drops into his iphone.

This is becoming a world without cash and a world without cards.  Called mpayments (or mccommerce) as in 'mobile payments' it extends the way we buy tickets, coffee and anything from a smartphone. Indeed, one questions the need for ATM's in the future?

Payment processing is something I do know a little about having been involved as a Director with 'Realex payments' from the start, who have been the dominant Irish payments processor for some years. However, what's going on, is an upending of the traditional payments business made possible by tablets and smartphones.

Square, one such new company of about 150 start-ups in the space, headed up by Jack Dorsey of Twitter, reached a 3 billion usd valuation this week. A fairly slick App, it's linked to a users credit card or bank account. Running constantly in the background on a smartphone, it allows facial recognition in shops and that single tap to complete the transaction.

But changing habits will take time and technology can still get better. What it is doing however, is playing traditional payment processors such as Visa, Amex, off the field and indeed, traditional processing companies. 

Paypal are seemingly trying to re-invent themselves and fit into the mobile payment revolution but I think their game is up. Definitely, their margin is up (!) as is the traditional outrageously high margins charged by Mastercard, Visa and all. They're definitely facing a low income future - whatever happens - and about time too.

They'll certainly also have new competitors in the form of these start-ups but also mobile operators, well placed to adopt these new technologies and embed them in handsets. Which is absolutely key. Own the distribution, you own the customer.

Google and Microsoft are moving in and Apple have started, albeit gently, with their 'Passbook'. The space is heating up.

Gathering payment data has also other advantages in linking it to say, coupon features, shopping suggestions or indeed, advertising - and yes, given the privacy issues. 

One thing is certain too, we're looking at a boom in mobile payments at the expense of companies who've had it too long their own way. Digital is changing this business and replacing fat companies with new, lean, smart, start-ups.

And you'll see the new folks win.
And you'll see the big boys fall.
As we've seen before.

And no harm too.

Samsung's new commercial takes on Apple. Very cool.

I have to say, I don't like Samsung and particularly following their recent court case. But hats off when you see a great marketing response to the Apple Iphone 5.

Under the headline, "the next big thing is already here", this Samsung commercial has a go at Apple fanatics - but in an uber cool way. During the commercial it points out all the product problems with the Iphone - marketing language being one, location of the new headphone jack, the new dock connector, the lack of NFC but most importantly, showing the Iphone as a phone that your parents will probably want.

And how uncool is that.

It's a classic strategy of pointing out the clear product differences and at the same time, bringing the Samsung Galaxy into coolness. A commercial that almost has the same "look and feel" as Apple and with the same brand values.

It's probably targeting long term Iphone users who maybe, are looking for a change. And there is probably a market for that. But I think more importantly, it's putting Samsung on the techy map.

The Ad Agency was '72+sunny' whom I've never heard of, but so what. It was directed by Michael Downing who simply has to have Irish roots with a name like that and whose work I do know from the terrific Shreddies "Diamond" spoofs.

If you haven't seen them have a look. A great dig at research. Rory Sutherland presents them at a TED talk and it's just magnificent. Rory is with Ogilvy. Worth your while to view the whole talk too on youtube. Clearly Michael knows how to direct when the commercial is focused on people. 

So well done to Michael and them all at Samsung.
I don't like the brand, but you've made me think again.

Yahoo! gets nearly 8 billion for its 40% share in Alibaba. Open Sesame?

Yahoo! has sold it's 40% stake in Alibaba for 7.6 billion USD. You may never of heard of them, but Alibaba is huge. Yahoo! on the other hand, is a one-time world dominant search engine that lost its way, post-google.

After tax that's 4.3 billion usd net, of which 3.6 billion will be returned to Yahoo shareholders who, after all, have had to endure a lot of pain.

Not bad, given they bought their shareholding in 2005 for 1 billion usd.

It's the first big news following the appointment of Marissa Mayer as Yahoo CEO. And people are watching to see what she'll do with the money.

Alibaba is basically the Chinese version of Ebay with a valuation of circa 40 billion usd and a claimed, 79 million registered users. China is limited with physical internet access but as more bandwith becomes available, the site will show natural growth.

The deal has been on and been off over the last 2 years and now makes Alibaba a totally private company. It has been flagged that Alibaba will float on the stock market (IPO) within 3 years. It also allows Yahoo now to have an influx of cash and allows Mayer the freedom to purchase start-ups, part of her vision for the company. Pinterest and Foursquare are the hot rumours, but then, they always are.

It's a fairly amazing amount of money, although the deal is more complex that I've shown, in this day and age. Pointing again, to high values for online businesses. Simple ideas can bring high results.

Of course it wasn't a core business for Yahoo, which is basically in Search and under more threat now from Facebook who will be entering that market. Yahoo needs to reshape itself and venture more into Social Media to rebuild the once-great brand it was.

If this is a sign of clever thinking on behalf of Marissa Mayer, then that's a good signal for Yahoo. But it's what she does next that will really make Yahoo sink or swim.

Open sesame.
Too cheesy?

Muslim Rage. Newsweek's Twitter. Another fine mess.

Recent Muslim protests about the You Tube video (which you can see here http://streamabout.blogspot.ie/2012/09/people-are-being-killed-for-it.html) , prompted Newsweek to run a cover story "Muslim Rage: How I survived it, how we can end it" as a serious attempt to start a debate on Muslim tolerance. Or lack of it.

But an old world publication like Newsweek, showed little understanding of Social Media and invited responses on a hashtag 'muslimrage' in order to promote debate. And boy did they get a response....

"I'm having such a good hair day. No one even knows. (hash)MuslimRage". Was one.

"Lost your kid Jihad at the airport. Can't yell for him. (hash)MuslimRage". Another.

"Head & Shoulders still hasn't made a beard conditioner. (hash)MuslimRage"

Newsweek covers and hashtags are to "spark debate" said a Newsweek press release and indeed they are. It was the most trending topic in the USA on Monday with 75,000 tweets that very afternoon.

Actually too, some of it was funny. Although not intended to be, clearly, it helped "break the ice" as it turned out and some Muslims responding in a funny way too. 

Interestingly, a number of Arab sites are giving out about the image on the cover not the tweets. Ironic.

Brands like Newsweek, need to understand that once they enter Social Media and notoriously Twitter, they automatically lose control of their brand. You hand it over. 

There's no problem with that, provided you know what to expect. In this case it had the risk of making things worse, not better. And a dangerous game to play given the underlying mayhem that this issue has caused.

But it could also have given the public a chance to tell Newsweek, on Newsweeks own twitter account, why they hated the publication. It's that loss of brand control that's an issue.

The lesson here is don't venture onto Social, unless you understand what it is.
Brands need to understand that and this is an example how not to do it.
It can be lethal.

Facebook enters Search. One big competition for Google.

Facebook are about to enter Search.
And nobody is better placed to take on the might of Google.

Investors are nodding their heads too, giving it a thumbs up by rocketing the share price. Revenues from search, could well compensate Facebook's problems on mobile and give them a whole new Ad frontier. It's big business and perfect for Facebook.

At the moment, Facebook search is about finding people and frankly, a very poor effort, allowing you to find names only. So if you search a common name - John Smith - you'll end up with millions of results and no real way to refine them. So the engine is poor....at the moment.

However, clearly Facebook has great content. So imagine that perhaps you'd like to find a car/city/hotel which your friends like? Or a brand on Facebook your colleagues like? Anybody I know work for a company I'm about to join? and so on.

Using "likes" it can bring search into relevance by giving me results which like-minded people might suggest and recommend. In other words, not just a list of good restaurants, or indeed a list of 5 star restaurants, but rather, restaurants that my friends like and therefore I might too. Relevance.

Google returns about 3 billion searches a day. Facebook returns about 1 billion, without "even trying" says The Zuck.

"Search is interesting. We do on the order of 1 billion queries a day and we’re basically not even trying. Today with search the vast majority of it is people trying to find people, but there’s also a meaningful portion of queries where people are trying to find Pages, brand Pages, other business Pages — so there’s a bunch of that that actually does link to commercial behaviour, and I think there’s a big opportunity there and we just need to go do that." Mark Zuckerberg last Tuesday.

The betting at the moment is that Facebook Search will not be a standalone but rather incorporated better onto Facebook pages where it will live, and which makes total sense. It's an easy integration and an even easier marketing job.

In June, it already renamed its Search box from just "Search" to "Search for people, places and things", a sign of what's to come.

Facebook has a lot of work to do but it has the cash and this provides a good solution to its never ending saga of generating more revenue. It's surely a winner.

In July, Techcrunch reported that Facebook had already started to test "sponsored results" allowing advertisers access on a ppc (pay per click) basis. 

And now with Zuckerbergs comments, where as an IPO floated company he has to be real careful, we know it's coming.

Early adopters please note.
It's going to be a real opportunity for brands.

Actually when you spell check 'Zuckerberg' you get 'Knickerbockers'.
Interesting start.

Apple Iphone 5 Sells out. Two weeks waiting list. It's that old marketing trick again - create scarcity.

The use of "scarcity" as a marketing trick is one that has gone on for decades. In olden times, shop keepers would pay customers to form queues which in turn, got the attention of passing trade whom also wanted to join the queue.

A well known Irish travel agency did exactly that, each Christmas. Paid customers to queue over the Holiday, generating both PR and a sense of scarcity for their product - if it's going this quick, you'd better get one now!

Apple are the masters of this trick since they started.

The Iphone 5 launch has become the latest victim.

Seemingly, we're told, demand was just so huge, the phone sold out. You might know that the Iphone 4 sold out in 20 hours and the Iphone 4S in 22 hours. You'd think with that experience, Apple would have multiplied its stock levels for the iphone 5? But that wouldn't be the point. They have stock, they just want to create demand. 

Not a chance of getting one now we're told, it has sold out in 60 minutes, 20 times faster than the Iphone 4S so now, you've a two week wait minimum - scarcity.

I have no doubt the Iphone 5 launched well, but that was to be expected because of all the chatter. However, I don't expect anyone with a brain in their head to think the demand wasn't anticipated and this "sold out" nonsense, is something more than that. But yep, online hacks everywhere are buying into it! 

Fairly astute Techcrunch goes with the headline that this sell out shows "Apple's dominance". They should know better. It's a trick, nothing more, to show success and create what we call "pent up demand". I quote:

"I guess I shouldn’t be surprised anymore that Apple product launches somehow continue to exceed expectations, the machine reliably churning out another hit. But I am. Mostly because of how rampant the obsession is to buy the next generation of iPhone as soon as possible".

Oh dear Techcrunch.

I'll bet the next one sells out as fast too. 
Nobody, least of all me, disputes Apple's greatness and worthy of its high value. Equally there's no doubt, the Iphone 5 will be a huge success and compete properly with Samsung.

But I've no doubt too, you're seeing the oldest marketing trick in action.
Start a queue, you'll create a demand.
Job done.
And everyone falls for it - again.

People are being killed for it. Embassies being burned for it. A YouTube video. See it here.

So there you have it - people are dying for a YouTube video.

This week I seem to be blogging about censorship in the 911 anniversary week 
http://streamabout.blogspot.ie/2012/09/today-11th-anniversary-of-bravery-of.html and not the usual social media stuff - even overtaking the Iphone 5 launch (which by the way, was considered kind of underwhelming).

This is important though.

The US Ambassador to Libya was killed along with 3 other staff members; in Yemen they attacked an embassy; in Cairo they're out on the streets. Over this film.

It's spreading to Iraq and Iran.
To Bangladesh.
Muslims don't like it.
Understatement.

If you look at the YouTube video, you might go on to read the comments, fairly awful as they are. You'll note a consistent attack on "Jews" when complaining about the film. Which is just like attacking Muslims isn't it? Anybody get it?

Hilary Clinton on Sky news called the video "disgusting and reprehensible" in a pretty appalling political attempt to limit the protests, which are expected to break-out again today, after Friday's prayers. Prayers? Irony of ironies.

But the video continues to be broadcast on video sharing sites.

Putting their offices at risk and putting their staff at risk.
And nothing to do with religion, nothing to do with offence, but to do with freedom of speech. The right to express your view within the general law, which this is. Social Media allows everyone to do that, like it or not.

Google owned YouTube have left it up.
Good on them.
And so have I.

Iceland now considers online ban of porn of gambling. Vodafone considers it too.

I've blogged before about countries trying to restrict access to online and Social Media largely, for political purposes. China obviously restricts Facebook and recently, those two great bastions of democracy - Eygpt and Turkey - have done the same. http://streamabout.blogspot.ie/2012/09/india-turkey-start-to-ban-social-media.html

It follows on from Social Media playing a key role in revolutions and overturning Governments. Governments, that is, that they don't like.

Now, for different reasons, Iceland is in on the game.

Their two largest ISP's - Vodafone and Siminn - are looking to shut down porn, gambling and wait for it, "other questionable content". Would that be the Russell Brand site? Because I'd be in favour of that. But once you hear a loose statement like that - "questionable content" - you know you're in trouble.

The reason is of course, like Turkey, Eygpt and China have their reasons, to "protect" Icelandic citizens from "viruses" and "malware". Indeed. Kind of like concerned parents.

In April of course, the UK blocked sites like "pirate bay" to stop illegal downloads - to protect their citizens I guess....or is that to protect multinational companies? I'm just not sure. They are actively considering a ban on porn applying pressure on ISPs according to The Sunday Times.

Worse still, they've almost introduced, as part of their 'cyber security strategy', a ban on "criminals" and "cyber bullies" online. Worrying stuff because loose definitions allow abuse. Are Scottish nationalists "cyber bullies"? 

Perhaps Vodafone and Siminn would like to return the profits they made from allowing access to porn and gambling? Nice signal of sincerity I'd have thought. And of course, this is exactly the ban that Mitt Romney wants too. Australia is also actively considering it and extending it to "terrorist sites". Hmmm, they'd be the sites the Australian government don't like. Aboriginal sites perhaps?

If a stance is going to be taken that gambling is "wrong" online, then it should proceed surely, to horse racing, football betting, and so on. Yet I don't hear calls to ban that. Why? Because this is a focus of all things online. This is an attempt to restrict online access because Governments don't like it.

They control media through licensing or judicially in the offline world. It is an outrage that in Ireland, you need a Government approved licence to broadcast a radio station. Outrageous.

Whether you like people to gamble or to look at porn is not the point. Once you allow someone else to start closing down sites, at their discretion, you are now into censorship of online. Perhaps consider closing alcohol sites because they might lead to drink driving or because you're Muslim? Or political sites that eschew revolution and anarchy? Or whatever.

I'm surprised at Vodafone particularly. Their concerns on "malware" and "viruses" seems only to apply to the good citizens of Iceland. Why not extend that concern to their global offices? Does that concern not outweight their financial gain I wonder.

You're allowing some balding, middle aged bloke, with his shoes on a big desk, in a grey suit, decide what you should and shouldn't see each morning. And that's wrong.

There's a start of censorship here, to control the media - which is more and more online. To control your voice.

As someone wise once said - I don't agree with what you're saying, I don't like what you're saying, but I'll fight to the death for your right to say it.

Personally, for example, I think the US ban on online ammo sales is probably a "good thing". But don't fall into that trap. Because someone has a different radical view than you, or you don't like their religion, or their politics, or just because they're different, don't deny them their rights - within the law. 

And this is not about that, trust me.
It's about trying to get on top, to control, Social Media.

Let people be heard.
All the people.

App downloads doubling but 89% are free. 3 Dollars looks like your maximum pricing.

The App market, largely developed and driven by Apple, continues to explode. Facebook App store and Amazon's similar offering, are coming up on the rails though with Facebook having the power to take a greater hold on the Apps market.

However, interesting fact is that it's driven by Apps that are free. 89% of them. This year they expect about 46 billion app downloads - nearly double the 2011 figure - and the price for those that do charge is circa 3 dollars (the cost of 90% of "paid for" Apps).

What all that means is that App developers need to think of other, new ways to make money than purely the cost of the download. Perhaps generating subscriptions or getting margin from purchases using the App.

Worse still, advertising.

In line with that, Google's YouTube have just launched an Iphone App in the Apple store. For the first time they're generating Advertising through pre-rolls on the App which they share (small share as it is) with the video owners. It's also going to be a better experience with "finger slide" making it easier to switch from channel to channel. They also have better sharing from Google+, email and text as well as the old reliables.

So whilst the App market remains buoyant and increasing dramatically, the lesson here is to go free and then generate money some other way. It would seem that a price point of 3 Dollars is about as high as you'll get if you decide to ask for the App to be paid for.

More and more models are being built around advertising revenues.
Which means, more and more hands in the jar.
Which means less and less money to be shared.
Which is exactly what happened in traditional media.

Advertising money is one way to run your business, your App, but increasingly it's becoming difficult. Better models, such as margin on third party sales, are well worth considering as core revenue. Or at least, have two income sources.

Forgive me for linking an Irish App developer whom I have no idea about but no harm to support because it looks imaginative http://www.apps.ie/ 

46 billion downloads.

That's a lot of cut through and imagination you'll need.

There's an App for that.

Today 11th anniversary of the bravery of NYPD officers. A fitting tribute on Social Media by the NYPD and FDNY is underway.

    
Today marks the 11th anniversary of the terrorist attacks on The World Trade Centre, Pentagon and Flight 93.

The New York Police Department are using Social Media this year, to commemorate their fallen colleagues. Or should I say, heroes.

Since Saturday, they've been tweeting the names, one an hour, of those who died from the NYPD from their official Twitter account (@nypdnews). The tweet then links back to a Facebook page where you can view the officer's photo and details. The names will then be read at a memorial service today.

It's the first time it has been done and the NYPD only decided to go online with Twitter and Facebook, earlier this year. Families of the fallen are also supporting the memorial by retweeting and feel it brings the names back to a reality. 

It's all searchable through hashtag 'neverforget' and The Fire Department are using Social through their Twitter page (@fdny) by sharing thoughts and memories.

It should also be noted that most people under 20, won't directly remember the attacks whilst this Social campaign will involve them and bring it into their memory. It's a great way to educate younger generations about 911 and also to engage them. It's a positive use of Social Media and some healing for their families to know they're not forgotten. In fact, it's hard to think of Social being used in a better way.

When you imagine the bravery of these men and women who showed no concern for their own lives, in the service of others, it's fitting that they are remembered - albeit on Twitter and Facebook.

We should not forget. 

And Social Media used in this way, will help us to remember.

John 15:13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends