You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘E-Marketing’ category.
Recently I used to believe that advertising in traditional media was being threatened by Internet; most of advertisers seemed to be hypnotized by this phenomenon. I scarcely understood how advertising on Internet worked and much less how it was going to work in the coming years once Internet took almost all the information over. I had many doubts. However, by reading what Erick Clemons wrote on his article “why advertising is failing on the Internet” I now realized that advertising is in agony not only in traditional media but also on Internet.
If people are spending much time consuming Internet instead of traditional media, how is this industry assuming such a loss? What I know is that they are offering a variety of alternatives perfectly targeted to reach determined groups. In doing so, it generates value for their clients or advertisers. But even so, traditional media are dropping in advertising revenues. Surprisingly Internet is suffering loss, too, principally due to the fact that its leaders don’t know how to build an appealing scenario in which navigators don’t reject ads. There is nothing clear in terms of advertising today.
By now, both traditional media and Internet are working together. It is a necessary symbiosis created to face the challenges of this technological revolution and to survive. Nowadays, Internet industry sells its data to traditional media. It is a mutual benefit in which each industry earns a profit, but once Internet learns how to monetize its advertising platform, it will work separately, in an independent way. Soon after, we all are going to see a carnival of pure cannibalism between them.
Since economy depends largely on trading, advertising will never play a pivotal role in it. What media should adjust to the near future is the context in which media offers its spaces. Traditional media should not procrastinate a solution any longer. What will they do when Internet only provide data just for itself? How will they offer personalized spaces without a proper demographic analysis? How are they going to compete in the face of such a variety of content? It is inevitable that traditional media does not face tough situations during the next years. While for its part, Internet must rush to design efficient advertising models.
In case Internet gets to control almost all advertising and traditional media are no longer required, it will become even stronger. Then, I will have to deal with more questions. For instance, are we going to be threatened by a virtual totalitarian regime? If so, we will be in agony.
Reading the Wisdom of Crowds I got to believe that groups are substantially more intelligent than the smartest people within them. That crowd allegedly is a force capable of accumulating a great deal of experiences and knowledge, becoming them a reliable source of information. However, the English historian Thomas Carlyle put it succinctly:”I do not believe in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance”. I tend to think he is right.
Wikipedia has become a necessary means of consultation for almost everybody, and unfortunately a dangerous necessity for those who scarcely have judgment and discernment to comprehend life. When I was a high-school student I used to read academic and scientific books, many of which are now disappearing slowly. They provided me knowledge base on scientific explorations which then were postulated and edited by cognitive authorities. Each assignment demanded much more dedication. Despite it was more complex to find information by the time, my generation could rely on it and obtain a higher education to face the world. It was that extra effort looking information up what made us more studios and disciplined. I am not smarter than others, but when I speak with an adolescent for a while, I can readily evidence some differences between my generation and theirs.
Nowadays crowds mark tendencies more easily but they will never understand how they did it. They simply follow what a stream says and that is ignorance. The stream is largely fed by amateurs. Most people no longer think and investigate, allowing other people, who have no high degree of intelligence and any academic preparation, build the base of today’s knowledge. Wikipedia, Google and other technologies worsen the situation by stimulating laziness among those who hate to go deeper. This is the copy-page culture thanks to technology. Everything is too easy and our brains now need crutch to think. On the other hand, this is also a propitious context for those who always dreamed about being editors, journalists or erudite as they are mere amateurs playing a dangerous game. I think crowds will never be wise, much less when vandalism erode the real meaning even more.
However, in terms of integration, cooperation, tolerance and respect, Wikipedia seems to be a successful episode in a world where people are growing more isolated. On the other side, Wikipedia and Google concentrate an astronomical amount of data necessary enough to know what the market wants and so anticipate the future. This is good for our benefit. Lamentably that data is not product of our intelligence but the huge server which does a truly intelligent work by taking advantage of our desires and frustrations. Wikipedia joins coordination and cooperation, but cognition demands much more debate in order to complete the James Surowiecki’s thesis.
I think each person should contribute separately according to his degree of specialization; by creating clusters in a huge variety of fields Wikipedia would be more accurate. Afterward each work made for each cluster should be debated and revised by experts. That is one way we approach an ecosystem of wisdom. Regarding vandalism I am quite negative; there will always be people interested in sabotage. Their frequent actions affect the Wikipedia’s credibility and counteract them seem to be a difficult task.
The scientific revolution of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries was not just a theoretical and methodological, but also produced substantive changes in society. However, these effects seem to pale in comparison with the changes that these new overwhelming tools are leading the world in the twenty-first century, where the scope of knowledge and ability to intervene in human life and the nature seem to have no limit. Not only do we have mobile phones, Chat, Facebook, ipods and others tools to hide us from real life but also we now have Second Life.
I have seen many things in my life, but I have never seen such a thing like Second Life. I totally disagree on the isolation that this new technology will bring to our youth; little by little they will lose the humanistic conception of their lives. That will be the end of physical relationships and the outset of abundant pathological disorders. It might sound a bit stupid I know, because nowadays Second Life does not represent any treat. Indeed, it seems inoffensive. But then, SL will surely become an absorbing mechanism to disguise our fairs and frustrations, to evade our real world, to lose our subjectivity and the inhibitory break, to get us confuse and finally to feel us more lonely. Thereafter new generations will gradually disconnect from our reality and consequently its effects will be devastating for society. We will have a future leaded for people who had no real experiences, no consequences, no social life, and no time to understand the complexity of today’s world. We will live in a world where kids grew up emulating and simulating the adult behavior through screens, and trading with virtual dollars. The lack of intellectual capacity will play a pivotal role due to the fact youth is learning more about the virtual world instead of this one. We are going to need a hero like Neo to save us.
Second Life’s content and access should be debated in order to prevent youth loses into the pitfall of this game. On the other hand, there should be some controls to avoid that the virtual dollarization affects our economy. In China, for instance, are being implementing measures so that adolescents spend only three hours a day in virtual worlds. Finland included within high-school programs, some curses in order to orient students in terms of virtual worlds and its harmful effects. Surely, there are quite a few solutions to protect our economy and the new generations’ natural freedom. It is our responsibility act right now.
As many teenagers today, I spent a plenty of time collecting and listening to music much of which came from the United States. I also enjoyed watching music videos despite it was few and far between catching them on TV. Watching movies at home was extremely expensive due to the high-cost of old-generation video cassette rent. Information was also limited; I only obtained it from high-school books and traditional media. Consequently, I had no different option of going out and enjoy playing a football game, riding a bicycle, and falling in love easily. In comparison with today’s entertainment possibilities I lived in an archaic era just 20 years ago. I know it, I am getting older. To make matters worse, I barely understand new technologies.
At that time MTV did not even exist so if I wanted to watch a video from any hot singer, I had patiently to wait for the Saturdays’ musical show. Recording any video was complicated so I waited for the next show to watch it again. I remember visiting my older cousins in order to watch movies or play Pac Man with their new-brand Atari. In music stores there was room only for Michael Jackson, Madonna, Sting, or for Latin American artist such as Fito Paez or Soda Stereo. All of us, 1988 adolescents, used to listening to the same singers, watching the same movies, wearing the same clothes and reading the same boring books. Our tiny world made us an identical mass, there were no niches. Latin-American youth followed what North American culture imposed in terms of fashion and entertainment. We foolishly grew up without an identity.
No one mattered what adolescents wanted and how to get it. Traditional retail prevailed and we depended largely on hits, limiting our discernment. We could not lamentably see beyond hit borders and as a result, we are, in part, an alienate culture. That blindness extended throughout Colombian society. We were local audiences, an easy prey for traditional media and advertisers. Mainstream products and markets imposed an obtuse economic system by taking into account only geography instead of interests in order to satisfy our needs. We had no voice.
Before the Colombia Constitutional Referendum in 1991, Blockbuster, Tower Records, Mc Donals or CNN were broadly unknown for all of us. This critical shift brought free trade agreements and soon after international companies plunged into our weak market. Many local companies went bankrupt and the Colombian consumer sentiment had high expectations regarding quality and low prices from those arriving ones. The fact of the matter was that these big companies fulfilled effortlessly their promise and our surviving ones had to suit their products and prices to conquer that new market. However, despite this exceptional economic growth, people opinions were no respected and we went on being a single mass.
Until recently I observed how regular people became tastemakers and individuals. Today, there are products perfectly adapted to each niche. Finally, companies and media understood what means democratization. However, regardless of the conjunction of the long tail three forces, we could not complete any process if Colombians do not include another force: democratization of access to computers.
Nowadays my only concern is that I see a new generation physically disconnected; they easily share moments with their “virtual” friends through computers and mobile phones. Today’s youth depend increasingly on devices and circuits to establish relationships and to get fun. Entertainment sadly became an individual practice despite of its pluralism. There are also infinite shelf space to store information but young people have no longer time to consume it. The remarkable succeed of technology made them vulnerable. They have no freedom. On the other hand, my archaic generation was more integrated in a physical environment but the world of abundance did not exist and youth lived alienated. Anyway, there is no freedom. Next post I will be more positive.
Both users and developers have rights. If social media boasts to have open conversations, the adequate manner to set up rules is through consensus, getting involves everybody in this important issue. Yet we are moving forward and foreseeing some future problems, there are just a few people who start heading this necessary initiative while most people unknown what is happening about it. That is no a democratic participation.
Once people recognize and incorporate rights and duties in this wonderful ecosystem, we could avoid the metastasis of monopolies, intellectual theft, abuse of power, frustrations, lack of privacy and so on. However, I think social tools might sacrifice its essence: freedom. If we don’t have any legal support to get ahead this proposes we might lose a lot.
It is so difficult to define something about the Google’s practices. What I may evidence is fear not only from users and civil right advocates, but also from commerce, government, industry, and overall media. When there are so many sinister interests in scene, speculation convert a minor problem into a bigger. Soon after, opponents atomize and people permissibly continue their lives. So far, I can not imagine the world without Google.
Most people think Google is more benign than malignant despite such a number of opponents discrediting it. I think Google has made our lives easier in terms of access to information. Had not Google come up with Google Map, I would hardly get to any place in Washington, streets of which are a mess, in particular for those foreigners like me who are used to locating numbers instead of names such as Massachusetts Avenue or M street. What about clicking once on Google Search to get in a matter of seconds a great deal of information, instead of driving your car, parking it, going into a library, picking some books and looking up for hours to obtain what you need. That is truly frightening. When providing my personal information to Google, I get a few personalize ads instead of dozens of ads from products and services which I am not interested in. That is spooky.
When a five-year company exceeds 400,000 % its revenue growth, it is normal to expect a lot of opponents, among them small companies, traditional media, direct competitors, former employees, and so forth. As the number of users increases so rapidly, it is natural that traditional media fight for keeping those targets and advertising budgets that Google is snatching them. I understand Clickthroughs are more profitable and effective in many cases. Pay-per-click model is a new path to reach out people. So the more media better chances to target adequately; consequently, consumers more satisfied. Unfortunately, when someone creatively succeeds a bunch of people shows up to tarnish his reputation. That is the complexity of capitalism. Some critics say “whoever pays the most gets positioning or the top of the heap, that’s unfair”. No, that’s capitalism.
There is a wide spectrum of views on all this issue and I acknowledge what opponents argue is acceptable in part, but it is exaggeration as well. Were federal agents forced to scrutinize my personal information in defense of all Americans, I would not mind at all Google provide my daily routine; no one is going to die because of USA PATRIOT Act. On the other hand, when your name is displayed on Google, it should be because you have done something relevant, wrong or right, it is your business. They are not judging you, they just make it public. They are not Godgle but Google. Just be good, do not be evil! Inevitably, who agreed with technology has to sacrifice privacy. Who don’t, welcome to prehistory.
Diving into Podscasting world, I could evidence the immense value this tool represents to attract people, even more than a single Blog. Taking into consideration many Americans avoid reading, podcasting might be a more dynamic and an easier way to express us. Let’s check these numbers from Performancing.com:
-
American adults who read a newspaper each weekday in 2003: 54%
- Americans 16 and older who read at or below a 5th grade level: 20%
- U. S. Rank among 150 nations in literacy: 49th
- American adults who read novels or short stories in 2003: 45 %
- American adults who read a play in 2003: 4%
- American internet users who read blogs: 27%
- American internet users who do not know what a blog is: 62%.
In developing countries these stadistics must be worse. Consequently, I think, as communicators, we should not forget those segments.
Video and audio through its history have demostrated to be a strong vehicle to convey information. Fortunately, they are no longer dominated by big T.V and radio monopolies; podcasting showed up to democratize their use. Now, video and audio are affordable and the easiest way to draw attention. However, I think Podcasting has not been widely divulgated; most people do not know it. How will creators and promotors propagate this culture before a new tool appear?.
In my case, I used to believe podcasting came from specialized studios or powerful computers, carefully elaborated by experts. I had not realized any person could post his thoughs through video and audio unexpensively, from a single computer, in his room, to many people. Just go to http://audacity.sourceforge.net. The podscasting I had wacthed before came from enormous corporations such as BBC, National Geographic, and Mtv. Today, I understood everybody is able to use podcasting as an overwhelming mecanism to cautivate spectators.
In We the Media, Dan Gillmor mentions there are three major constituencies in a world where anyone can make the news: journalist, newsmakers and the former audience. Each one plays an important role within the process; however, developing countries have an additional component: develop a more inclusive technology platform. That is the only way to build fairer conversations.
Currently, 85 percent of Colombians have access to mobile telephony, 30 percent to Internet and 40 percent to computers, according to statistics from the Ministry of Communications. Taking this into consideration, it might ensure the impact of new technologies, which allow many-to-many communications are unknown to most Colombians. In this scenario we must primarily defend our information-access right with the same vigor we defend our liberties.
Unfortunately, big media still predominate through television, newspapers and radio, and people rely largely on them. Serious journalists have no liberties to write what they want because of violence. There are ones who are no afraid but they always come across two big monopolies taking traditional media over. On the other hand, the audience knows they should play the most important role but they are still just consumers, willing to receive abundant information. Colombians do not are heard. These aspects reduce the possibility to generate debates and conversations in order to satisfy the costumer needs, and to become corporations and governments more efficient.
Newsmakers do not have enough sources to express them broadly; there is no independent press because of its high cost. There are some young people making their own news through Internet but they are unable to reach out enough people, particularly to those who need to be more heard. Colombian newsmakers do not get much echo from them and their attempts to bring out conversations do not produce results in terms of massive conversation or diversity. Those who are ignored see journalism as lecture instead journalism as a conversation, and we can blame the government and corporations for not promoting the idea of investing in computers and Internet. That truly threatens our future.
To conclude, Colombians can not raise their voices by means of posting, sharing, debating, and complaining via Internet. Just a few of them who have access can do it, and it does not any sense to trigger conversations if the participants belong to the same social sphere.
