Ma i regaz sono ancora vivi ?
Vivono in eterno
Alisa U Zemlji Chuda
art blog(derogatory)
Game of Thrones Daily

tannertan36
Mike Driver
almost home
Claire Keane

titsay
will byers stan first human second
No title available
No title available

JBB: An Artblog!
todays bird
RMH

shark vs the universe
Cosmic Funnies

★
sheepfilms
Stranger Things
styofa doing anything

seen from Malaysia
seen from Syria

seen from United Kingdom

seen from Brazil
seen from China

seen from Russia

seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
@napoleones
Ma i regaz sono ancora vivi ?
Vivono in eterno
The Daily Cartoon by Paul Noth: http://nyr.kr/1bdqZtT
SNEAKERS, SPEKTRE SUNGLASSES, CLOTHING: FREE SHIPPING IN ITALY UNTIL 2ND NOVEMBER
Currently working here, have a look!
In order to create a successful new company, you have to find an idea that has escaped the attention of the major Internet companies. But how many ideas like that are left? Internet is not a young growth forest anymore. There are giant redwoods. They have large canopies. Not much grows in the canopy. Fortunately the forest is expanding, overrunning traditional industries. Entrepreneurs can still build big businesses on the outskirts.
David Sacks, co-founder of PayPal and founder of both Geni & Yammer encourages entrepreneurs to stay away from the big tech firms (such as Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Apple) because they are hard to compete with. Entrepreneurs need “think bigger” and take on industries that are not immediately sexy but solve bigger problems. They need to focus on reinventing education, healthcare, energy and even less noble industries such as television, telephony and financial services.
Source: Mark Suster blog
(via connected-marketing)
Bravery in the 21st century by McCann Erickson
August at the seaside
I'm currently staying in Cervia, spending my summer holidays. For those who don't know where Cervia is, is a nice city overlooked onto the sea, with a long tradition of wealth in the 70s 80s and mid 90s, that in the last 5 years has seen its gradual decline.
This decline forced the commerciant to use different strategies in order to survive, the most resounding I've stepped into are completely opposite and brought a series of thoughts and considerations aiming to understand which one could be the most sensible. Not profitable. That is a huge difference.
1: A place where the youth usually stop by to drink from 6 p.m. to late night reduced prices of almost the 50% during the week days.
2: A small grocery store, with brands of low/middle quality, raised prices indiscriminately, for example a 6 pack of water cost 4,00 €.
I understand that the two example are not fit to be compared, but the price-raising strategy is something that i never thought of in this crisis context, maybe because I a priori excluded the successfulness of it.
But the evidence proves that I may be wrong: in the pub mentioned in the point 1, I noticed an important decrease in customers, while the grocery store is pretty much all the time full of customers, even though it is near an important italian retailer that base its strategy on low prices.
What is happening?
"The need originate the idea, and the idea drive the action."
"The need originate the idea, and the idea drive the action."
I'm currently reading Steinbeck's "the grapes of wrath" and chapter 14 (a 2-paged chapter) impressed me a lot.
It actually hit me when I read the sentence above, in the end of two pages of socialist reasoning about the condition of farmers in the 30's in mid-USA, forced to leave the properties and migrate to west to survive. The socialist argument strikes the power of "us" contrasting to the weakness of the "I" and, in the end, exhort riot, and the sentence makes its own sense.
I always kept my political and social position away from socialism, but I easilly embody the survival meaning of the sentence as an answer to the '29 crisis; so I read this chapter again to clear my head about it, and I found that sentence very inspiring, moving away from the socialist meaning that it has in the book, and considering it as a reminder of something that may be taken for granted, but it is actually not.
Beside the analysis of market gaps and what the trends say you must invest, what should drive the efforts of enterpreneur and young professionals is the "need".
The need is an opportunity, an opportunity to grow skills in order to satisfy that need, and even find other people willing to pay to solve the problem that you once had, or the need may bring you to know who could solve your problem and grow business relations, and so on.
I am not saying anything new, we all need something, it is hard to have the wit and the ambition to exploit the need, especially for a personal growth, which could easily become a business skill and who knows.. Maybe it's not the answer to the global crisis, but Steinbeck is categorical in saying that, especially during crisis, we have to stay cleverly active.
Google Fiber could be the future! Too bad, I guess in Europe we will not see it soon.
Social media strategy: reaching target or chasing the large public?
Social media marketing seems more focused on increasing followers or likes instead of reaching the target, and, what is more important, the quality of the audience seems a little underrated.
Managing a couple of pages on facebook, I kept different behaviour: with one I tried to increase the bowl of users, careless about the user's profile, with the other I tried to catch those who may be actually interested in the content; the topic of the two pages also helped me through this process, the first page is about music videos, keeping a particular attention on design, which may interest a large public of music passionate and, the smaller one, of videomakers and designers; the second is the facebook page of this blog, and of course I talk to a little niche and it's not suitable to a large spamming strategy, in my opinion.
The first page is now counting about 300 likes, most of them are friends of who is managing the site, and the page is currently affected with low virality, lower than 1% and currently about 3% of engaged user, out of a reach of 50%, even though people are not interacting through the facebook page, most of the traffic come from links from facebook.
The second page is about 40 likes conquered among those who may be interested in the topic I am writing, such as old class mates and university friends, and hardly some professional of the sector, like other blogs owners and professors; due to the low bowl of users, facebook insight may suffer a little over-rating in percentage, so I try to convert numbers into words. The reach is still about 50% (this is due to the reach restriction adopted by facebook to launch its promoted post), virality is still low and it is basically based on the users commenting and their feed. In this case the traffic on the blog is quite indipendent from the facebook page.
Despite the difference in users, the engagement of the two audiences is basically the same, little people liking and only a few commenting the posts; I am aware that the different nature of the pages could harden the comparison: cool-hunting, unlike information and opinion, with posts that try to encourage discussion, do not raise a large number of voices.
Stated that target is preferred to loads of fans, are large numbers useless? Those buying followers on twitter, those inviting all of their friends to like a page why are they doing it?
The only answers I can find are: bring results to bosses, gain reputation and credibility.
My idea is still that a good product/page/brand will spread by itself, but there has to be a threshold value that sings the beginning of virality between the target, and that sings the transit from an a recreational page to a credible page with good reputation.
Those values may differ from segment to segment, and the values for viralization, credibility e good reputation, with some certainty, I can say that are different.
If my supposition are good, as soon as I reach the values, I'll update you.
Let's help TV and let TV help us.
I was scrolling through my tumblr dashboard and I noticed that many bloggers were blogging in realtime during the broadcasting of the latest episode of Breaking Bad, in addition I recalled an article about how in America some show are starting to implement the broadcasting with 2.0 interaction through tablets.
Some hints of what is slowly happening are in the increasingly interaction of shows with the audience through twitter, boosting engagement and widening the entertainment giving, hopefully, a new life to television.
What effect could this have on advertising?
I start: maybe synchronizing and expanding ads from tv to tablet in order to reach engagement, by offering discounts or promotions to those who see the ads on tablet; this could also bring to a bigger retention to the channel, avoiding zapping on advertising breaks, so more people could actually watch ads.. and so on, there could be loads of possible ways to turn this in economic value.
This could be what tv needs to remain competitive on the media market, now it's up to them the choice between remaining short-sighted or exploiting sitouations.
What are Facebook ads used for?
Interesting research from Ad Age.
Is resuming, what I meant with the last article: keep focusing on the objective.
IMHO the purpose of communication
It's been a while since I started writing this blog, and, browsing through my past articles, I noticed that I never took a position towards social marketing. First I say that it may be the key to success, then I state the exact opposite, too many inputs, ads are ignored, and so on.
As a natural consequence I'd like to stand on one side, but do I really need to?
Stated that Facebook is not going to solve any of your "decrease in sales" issue, YouTube advertising is the most annoying thing on the web, twitter is hard to manage and it's at the mercy of complaints and users attacking the brand for the thrill of it. What there is left?
Advertising on general media, on the other hand, is obsolete and expensive, and with low reaching potential.
Drawing inspiration from Machiavelli's quote "the end justifies the means", I may re-consider my positions and finally understand that maybe, social and general media could be useful in order to reach the "end".
So, what is this "end" that is supposed to explain the various communication tools?
Beside reputation, knowledge, loyalty, what it really matters is word of mouth, which is a consequence of the intangible result named before and a cause for engagement, maybe not the engagement social networks are trying to sell to us, but the real one, the one that starts in a face to face relation, and that may really increase your sales for good, and produce good attitude towards your brand.
In the end, medias do not have to be used for their own sake, but they have to be exploited in order to create words of mouth.
Do you agree or I'm missing something?
the hidden power of smiling
There is no better way to start your friday!
The mom effect. Apparently, women who follow brands on social media are more vocal and interactive when they become moms. Is this because they are grappling with a lot of buying criteria they never had to think about before? Safety and health issues predominate, I would guess. Carriers, car seats, furniture — all present significant new issues regarding form factors, ease of use, and of course value. This survey doesn’t say, but I’m guessing these are first-time moms. Who has time after the second… or third? via The Ripple Effect of Following a Brand on Social Media - eMarketer
Is crowd-funding becoming a threat?
The many of you who thinks crowdfunding is a great way to finance project, are meeting my approval. The ones that still don't know what crowdfunding is, you better watch wikipedia, but if you don't have time to do so, crowdfunding is the practice to submit your project on a site on which people may donate money in order to make your project come true.
Today I happen to know that Kickstarter, a famous crowd funding website, has financed the publication of more comics than Marvel and DC in the last semester.
Before this news, I didn't really get the size of this way to raise money, and besides the strategy in order to raise more money, which can be interesting to analyse in depth, also with your help, I want to know if this is becoming something that larger firms may worry about.
From the economic point of view, I think that big enterprises have nothing to fear, they could, instead, take advantages in terms of recruiting and safety of investements: the more projects start the more firms can tell the successful ones from the unsuccessful and discover the skills of the team/person behind that project, without wasting time in interviews and reducing the risk tied to investing on ideas that have to be financed from the beginning, and investing on project that may be unsuccessful.
From the reputational point of view I guess that in the editorial and publishing field it may have negative repercussions in the image that the public perceive: the lack of interest in new talents may be index of lack of innovation. Most of all, being cleared and lead by the de-specialized public in choices, has surely a bad outcome, since the big firm ore the ones who are supposed to drive the audience, or from another point of view, this could be misinterpreted as a bad audience knowledge.
What do you think? There are other pros and cons?