We certainly live in exciting times. With the downward spiral of newspapers comes opportunity online. Per the Financial Times, Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. is in discussions with Microsoft to delist their news sites from Google. Microsoft owns rival search engine Bing.
This could change the landscape for the way newspapers monetize their sites. If the search engines pay them to index their content, this could breath new life into a dying media.
Consumers still want news, this is an interesting way to solve the funding problem. What's even more intriguing is the giants on one side lining up against Google.
As Google downplays the importance of generating revenue with news content, it's obvious they still need to be the primary search tool overall to continue to dominate in the pay-per-click arena.
The lesson is the ad world continues to turn... and evolve. How fun!
Monday, November 23, 2009
Monday, November 16, 2009
Why Block Google?
I'm very curious about Murdoch's business model of having readers pay for online content. The New York Times tried this a few years ago with their Time Select product. They decided to open their entire site for free to generate more search engine traffic. Now, Murdoch is threatening to not make pages available to Google, so they won't get search engine traffic. Really??
I understand that their visitors would then have more value to advertisers. It's like comparing a cost-per-point from a news program to Springer. The type of audience matters.
Yet search is one of the ways the Internet is interactive. An inactive reader is great for branding... maybe. Right now, it's still difficult the measure the results of branded display campaigns.
The good news about half in the US would pay for content, according to the NYTimes. That's a much higher number than I would expect. Yet, people only want to pay $3 per month.
We're in for an interesting road ahead, as the business models for newspapers evolves. It reminds me of the early days of cable TV, when the mindset was customers did not want to pay for TV.
I understand that their visitors would then have more value to advertisers. It's like comparing a cost-per-point from a news program to Springer. The type of audience matters.
Yet search is one of the ways the Internet is interactive. An inactive reader is great for branding... maybe. Right now, it's still difficult the measure the results of branded display campaigns.
The good news about half in the US would pay for content, according to the NYTimes. That's a much higher number than I would expect. Yet, people only want to pay $3 per month.
We're in for an interesting road ahead, as the business models for newspapers evolves. It reminds me of the early days of cable TV, when the mindset was customers did not want to pay for TV.
Monday, November 9, 2009
What Do You Need From A Car Dealer?
My entire career has been in advertising, specifically automotive advertising. The landscape has changed dramatically in this time period. TV and newspaper were the dominant media and that has certainly changed.
I'm presenting a workshop next week on Social Media for the local Milwaukee area dealers through their association (ADAMM - Automobile Dealer Association of Mega Milwaukee).
Obviously, Social Media is about listening and engaging before you transact. Yet, Razorfish's latest research shows customers sign up for brands to get a special offer. On Twitter, 44% follow for specials and it's 37% on Facebook/MySpace. What they fail to mention is about 60% don't sign up for that reason. It's still important to build a relationship before you ask for something in return. It's not an "all or nothing" situation.
What I'd like to know is what you'd like to see on a car dealer's social media sites? I have plenty of ideas (outtakes from TV ads, info about the product, "how to" videos, etc.), but would like your input.
Please e-mail me (mallemon@me.com) me or send me a message (@mallemon) on Twitter.
I'm presenting a workshop next week on Social Media for the local Milwaukee area dealers through their association (ADAMM - Automobile Dealer Association of Mega Milwaukee).
Obviously, Social Media is about listening and engaging before you transact. Yet, Razorfish's latest research shows customers sign up for brands to get a special offer. On Twitter, 44% follow for specials and it's 37% on Facebook/MySpace. What they fail to mention is about 60% don't sign up for that reason. It's still important to build a relationship before you ask for something in return. It's not an "all or nothing" situation.
What I'd like to know is what you'd like to see on a car dealer's social media sites? I have plenty of ideas (outtakes from TV ads, info about the product, "how to" videos, etc.), but would like your input.
Please e-mail me (mallemon@me.com) me or send me a message (@mallemon) on Twitter.
Monday, November 2, 2009
Guilty Pleasure
The NYT reports the ad world once feared DVR's is now embracing them. The concern was viewers would fast forward through ads, the advertisers would see less results and ad revenues would decline. I remember discussing this with local TV salespeople a few years ago and their response was, "viewers now watch more TV and they'll watch an ad for a product they're interested in." It must have been a "Spots & Dots" article, because they all quoted the same rhetoric.
Fast forward a few years and the reports seem to mirror this viewpoint.
What's frightening is I got a DVR in '04 and now watch more TV than ever. Before my DVR, I really only had one program I watched regularly. And my friends knew not to call during that one hour a week. Now, I'm following several shows. I don't think I could have gotten addicted to "24" without a DVR. When I find a new show that's been on a few seasons, having a DVR allows me to find older episodes. The DVR has become an enabler for me to watch too much TV.
I think back to the first year I lived in Milwaukee and didn't even have cable. Or the Internet (it was '94). I even subscribed to the local paper.
My new love of TV has been my guilty pleasure. At least I'm not alone.
Fast forward a few years and the reports seem to mirror this viewpoint.
What's frightening is I got a DVR in '04 and now watch more TV than ever. Before my DVR, I really only had one program I watched regularly. And my friends knew not to call during that one hour a week. Now, I'm following several shows. I don't think I could have gotten addicted to "24" without a DVR. When I find a new show that's been on a few seasons, having a DVR allows me to find older episodes. The DVR has become an enabler for me to watch too much TV.
I think back to the first year I lived in Milwaukee and didn't even have cable. Or the Internet (it was '94). I even subscribed to the local paper.
My new love of TV has been my guilty pleasure. At least I'm not alone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
