Showing posts with label advertising. Show all posts
Showing posts with label advertising. Show all posts

Monday, 22 September 2008

Top 2008 brands

1901 Coca Cola calendar

Interbrand announces the 2008 best global brands, they listed the top 100. Here you can see the top 10 (i added the year):

Brand - year - 2008 brand value $ mil - country of origin

1 Coca-Cola - 1886 - 66,667 - USA
2 IBM - 1924 - 59,031 - USA
3 Microsoft - 1976 - 59,007 - USA
4 GE (General Electric) - 1878 - 53,086 - USA
5 Nokia - 1865 - 35,942 - Finland
6 Toyota - 1937 - 34,050 - Japan
7 Intel- 1969 - 31,261 - USA
8 Mc Donald's - 1940 - 31,049 - USA
9 Disney - 1923 - 29,251 - USA
10 Google - 1998 - 25,590 - USA

the first british is
27 HSBC - 1865 - 13,143 - UK
the first italian is (actually today Gucci is owned by french PPR)
45 Gucci - 1921 - 8,254 - Italy

year means the year when the name was adopted

in the press release we can read:

Coca-Cola (No.1) remains the best global brand for the eighth year in a row. Yet, a notable shift in this year’s rankings was made by IBM, which took over the No. 2 position from Microsoft (No. 3). Google also moved into the top 10 brands, at No. 10, after ranking at No. 20 in 2007.

It's possible to download the full report (pdf file, 85 pages)

The brand Google: in 10 years from nothing to number 10!! It would be interesting to know how much money the corporations spent for advertising. How much money has Coca-Cola been spending since its foundation?

Wednesday, 14 May 2008

Al Gore tours for launching italian Current TV



from the left: Carelli (director of italian Sky news), Al Gore, translator and Marc Goldman (US Current)

Few days ago (8th May 2008) Al Gore (do i have to write he was vice president of USA from 1993 to 2000 and he won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize?) was in Rome to talk about the new tv channel: italian version of Current Tv. Bloggers met Al Gore in a theatre and asked him 15 questions about the new channel (but i think that italian director Tommaso Tessarolo will have much autonomy for italian Current); i took some pictures and i listened to the "dialogue".

The italian blogosphere is full of comments about blogger's reaction to Al Gore, if you know italian language you can read the opinion of
(my friend) Antonio Pavolini
Michele Colitti
Valeria Gentile
Kay Rush
Mario Tedeschini Lalli
Vittorio Zambardino
Francesca "LaFra" Casadei
David Orban
Telemac0

I'm not going into a deep debate about the philisophy of brand-new Current Tv Italy (is the name correct?) but i have an easy complaint: not everybody (from 18 to 34 years old) can afford an annual contract with Sky Italia; less viewers, less impact on society.

The risk is that we'll have a smarter version of YouTube, as somebody already has said.
I don't know what kind of clip (or pod, like Gore said) we'll be able to see in Italy but from the blog of Foreign Policy i saw that the american version of Current has shown very interesting clips such as:
- Lost in democracy (18 minutes)
Christof Putzel travels to Bhutan to find out how young people are dealing with democracy, westernization, and other challenges to their unique national culture
- City on steroids (almost 28 minutes)
American filmmaker Adam Yamaguchi tours the little-known megacity of Chongqing, China. Growing at a rate of nearly 200,000 people per year, Chongqing is the one of the fastest growing cities on the planet and an emblem of China's rapid urbanization. The clearly overwhelmed Yamaguchi takes viewers on a quick tour of this modern boomtown from brand new yuppie apartments to factory floors
- A civil war ends? (6 minutes and half)
Short documentary on the conflict in Uganda that includes an interview with a former top Lord's Resistance Army commander who says he has no regrets about his actions

The first 2 videoclips are Current Vanguard, which means are special video not sent by "normal" users; users are only allowed to send video from 2 to 8 minutes. If italian Current will show this kind of video (which i can NOT see from the website!), i would say: two thumbs up! Anyway, doesn anyone know what's the social impact of 3 years of Current TV in USA??

Friday, 16 November 2007

IBM study: the end of advertising


The end of advertising as we know it

IBM Institute for Business Value study


Imagine an advertising world where… spending on interactive, one-to-one advertising formats surpasses traditional, one-to-many advertising vehicles, and a significant share of ad space is sold through auctions and exchanges. Advertisers know who viewed and acted on an ad, and pay based on real impact rather than estimated “impressions.” Consumers self-select which ads they watch and share preferred ads with peers. User-generated advertising is as prevalent (and appealing) as agency-created spots.

Based on IBM global surveys of more than 2,400 consumers and 80 advertising experts, we see four change drivers shifting control within the industry.

Download here complete IBM Institute for Business Value study

About the authors

Dr. Saul J. Berman, Global Strategy Leader, Media and Entertainment Industry, IBM Global Business Services

Bill Battino, Communications Sector Managing Partner, IBM Global Business Services

Louisa Shipnuck, Global Business Development Executive, IBM Media and Entertainment Industry

Andreas Neus, Managing Consultant, Communications Strategy and Change, IBM Global Business Services

Survey results

The IBM Institute for Business Value provides strategic insights and recommendations that address critical business challenges to help clients capitalize on new opportunities. The Institute is comprised of consultants around the world who conduct research and analysis in 17 industries and across five functional disciplines, including human capital management, financial management, corporate strategy, supply chain management and customer relationship management.
[...]
A new IBM online survey of consumer digital media and entertainment habits shows audiences are more in control than ever and increasingly savvy about filtering marketing messages. The global findings overwhelmingly suggest personal Internet time rivals TV time.

U.S. Highlights

* In biggest DVR market, users report extensive replay of television programming. This is resulting in ad skipping and revenue shakeup unless producers and broadcasters reinvent marketing formats and messaging:
o 24 percent have a DVR in their home, and 48 percent have used video-on-demand from a cable company or other provider
o While 33 percent report watching more television content than before the DVR, 53 percent report watching at least fifty percent on replay

* Users feel extreme regarding new forms of advertising. Marketers have to work harder than ever to understand individuals and micro-segments:
o Nearly 50 percent reported that video spots online – during, pre-rolled or as sponsorships – were the least annoying form of advertisement. Other formats tested were banner ads, pop-ups, and contextual search ads
o However, nearly the same level of consumers responded the same forms of advertising were most annoying online
o Additionally, 11 percent said they’d be willing to pay a little for ad-free viewing of video online

* U.S. users report more usage of social networking sites and user generated content than almost any other content services category:
o 45 percent use social networking sites
o 29 percent visit user generated content sites
o 24 percent use a music service such as iTunes
o 24 percent subscribe to premium television content

Europe Highlights

* In progressive mobile markets, users report content service adoption and cannibalization:
o In the U.K., 26 percent reported watching mobile video, including mobile phones and iPods
+ 73 percent reported using their phones for SMS; 16 percent reported using their mobile phones for gaming; 15 percent reported using their mobile phones for music; 15 percent reported using their mobile phones for sports, news and traffic and two percent for television shows
o For those in the U.K. who had watched mobile video, 18 percent said they reduced “normal” television by a little and another eight percent reduced “normal” television by a lot; four percent substituted television on their regular TV for use on their new device.

* For respondents in Germany who had watched mobile video, 23 percent prefer to view user generated content and 21 percent prefer video trailers or promotions

Asia Highlights

* Japan lags the U.S. and U.K. in social participation, reinforcing the need for media companies and marketers to localize by market as well as catering to individuals and micro-segments:
o When asked if they had already contributed to a social networking site, like MySpace or Xing, 9 percent of respondents from Japan reported yes, compared with 16 percent of U.S. respondents and 20 percent of U.K. respondents
o When asked if they had already contributed to video content sites, like YouTube, four percent of respondents from Japan reported yes, compared with seven percent of U.S. respondents and nine percent of U.K. respondents.

* Australia on the other hand topped all countries surveyed with 30 percent contributing to social networking sites and nine percent to video content sites

Thursday, 8 November 2007

Conversational marketing



Interesting article from The Economist:

Conversational marketing
Word of mouse
Nov 8th 2007 SAN FRANCISCO
Will Facebook, MySpace and other social-networking sites transform advertising?

DEPENDING on your age and memory, it was a week of radically new or reassuringly old developments in the advertising industry. To Mark Zuckerberg, who is 23 and the boss of Facebook, a popular social-networking website, it was the former. Standing in front of about 250 mostly middle-aged advertising executives on November 6th, he announced that Facebook was offering them a new deal. “For the last hundred years media has been pushed out to people,” he said, “but now marketers are going to be a part of the conversation.” Using his firm's new approach, he claimed, advertisers will be able to piggyback on the “social actions” of Facebook users, since “people influence people.”

Mr Zuckerberg's language was strikingly similar to that of Paul Lazarsfeld and Elihu Katz in their book “Personal Influence”, a media-studies classic from 1955. They argued that marketers do not simply broadcast messages to a passive mass audience, but rather that they target certain individuals, called “opinion leaders”. These individuals then spread, confirm or negate the messages of advertisers through their own “social relationships”, by word of mouth or personal example.

Messrs Lazarsfeld and Katz, of course, assumed that most of these conversations and their implicit marketing messages would remain inaudible. That firms might be able to eavesdrop on this chatter first became conceivable in the 1990s, with the rise of the internet. Thus the main thesis of “The Cluetrain Manifesto”, written in 1999, was that “markets are conversations” which the web can make transparent.

Mr Zuckerberg's underlying idea is therefore hardly new. But, says Randall Rothenberg, the boss of the Interactive Advertising Bureau, a trade association, the announcements this week by Facebook and its larger rival, MySpace, which has a similar ad system, could amount to a big step forward in conversational marketing. If new technologies that are explicitly based on social interactions prove effective, he thinks, they might advance web advertising to its fourth phase.

In the past decade the internet has already produced three proven advertising categories. First came “display” or “banner” ads, usually in the form of graphical boxes on web pages, now often with embedded videos. Today these account for 32% of online-advertising revenue. Next are classified ads, now 17% of the total. The bane of many small-town newspapers, these are the postings on sites such as Craigslist. The third, and now largest, category is search advertising, with 41% of the total. Proven though not invented by Google, the biggest search engine, these are the text snippets that appear next to search results for a specific keyword.

Together, these three types of online advertising are already transforming entire industries and businesses. This week IAC/InterActiveCorp, a struggling web conglomerate, said it would break itself into five separate companies, primarily so that its advertising-focused sites—including Ask.com, another search engine, and Match.com, a dating site—could be valued separately from the retailing, lending and ticketing sites. Meanwhile, antitrust watchdogs in America and Europe are scrutinising (but seem unlikely to block) the acquisition by Google of DoubleClick, a big display-ads firm, in response to fears that Google might become as dominant in that category as it is in search ads.

From the point of view of marketers, these existing types of online ads already represent breakthroughs. In search, they can now target consumers who express interest in a particular product or service by typing a keyword; they pay only when a consumer responds, by clicking on their ads. In display, they can track and measure how their ads are viewed and whether a consumer is paying attention (if he turns on the sound of a video ad, say) better than they ever could with television ads. Yet now the holy grail of observing and even participating in consumers' conversations appears within reach.

The first step for brands to socialise with consumers is to start profile pages on social networks and then accept “friend requests” from individuals. On MySpace, brands have been doing this for a while. For instance, Warner Bros, a Hollywood studio, had a MySpace page for “300”, its film about Spartan warriors. It signed up some 200,000 friends, who watched trailers, talked the film up before its release, and counted down toward its DVD release.

Facebook, from this week, also lets brands create their own pages. Coca-Cola, for instance, has a Sprite page and a “Sprite Sips” game that lets users play with a little animated character on their own pages. Facebook makes this a social act by automatically informing the player's friends, via tiny “news feed” alerts, of the fun in progress. Thus, at least in theory, a Sprite “experience” can travel through an entire group, just as Messrs Lazarsfeld and Katz once described in the offline world.

In many cases, Facebook users can also treat brands' pages like those of other friends, by adding reviews, photos or comments, say. Each of these actions might again be communicated instantly to the news feeds of their clique. Obviously this is a double-edged sword, since they can just as easily criticise a brand as praise it.

Facebook even plans to monitor and use actions beyond its own site to place them in a social context. If, for instance, a Facebook user makes a purchase at Fandango, a website that sells cinema tickets, this information again shows up on the news feeds of his friends on Facebook, who might decide to come along. If he buys a book or shirt on another site, then this implicit recommendation pops up too.

There are plenty of sceptics. Some people may find all this creepy, so Facebook will allow people to opt out of sharing their information. Another potential worry is that the analytical information passed on to advertisers may be of poor quality, because so much of what people put on their profiles is made up or out of date. Chris DeWolfe, the boss of MySpace, counters that his research shows that 98% of American MySpace users correctly report where they live. And they tend to report important changes in their lives—such as getting engaged—promptly. This presents great marketing opportunities.

Yet another problem, says Paul Martino, an entrepreneur who launched Tribe, an early social network, is that the interpersonal connections (called the “social graph”) on such networks are also of low quality. Because few people dare to dump former friends or to reject unwanted friend requests from casual acquaintances, “social graphs degenerate to noise in all cases,” he says. If he is right, social-marketing campaigns will descend into visual clutter about the banal doings of increasingly random people, rather than being the next big thing in advertising.

Monday, 5 November 2007

Less money from ad?



Almost everybody thinks that year after year advertising agencies will pay Internet world more and more money. Jeff Jarvis writes the 
opposite.

From the Guardian:

Chaos theory: advertising cash will soon decrease
Monday November 5 2007
Jeff Jarvis is a journalism professor at the City University of New York who blogs at buzzmachine.com

As the media become more dependent on advertising, so advertising becomes less dependent on the media. With the recent death of the New York Times' pay service, TimesSelect, and the rumoured razing of the Wall Street Journal's pay wall, any final hopes of readers paying for content are fading. We prophets of free content are being proven right - whether we like it or not. Advertising is all we'll have to support content and media.

And that's fine. Advertising has long paid for content and made it free. This year, ZenithOptimedia says, advertisers will spend $448bn worldwide, much of it supporting media. Online is the one medium where ad revenue continues to grow, though at a slowing rate - 19% this year, says eMedia. There's lots of money still to be had.

But, of course, there are now more media properties to fight over that money. Scarcity no longer drives the media market, as it did when advertising was limited to the time of broadcast and the space of print. Now there's always another page view. This will drive down the price of media and that could reduce total ad spending. It doesn't help that Google is commodifying media as it scoops up, according to one estimate, 40% of the online advertising market.

But the real threat to the advertising gravy train comes not from any change in media, but from a fundamental shift in the relationship between companies and customers that has been made possible by the internet. This hit me like a fist in the face when I went to Texas to interview Michael Dell for Business Week magazine, and to write the coda to my very public blog battle with the company.

Long story short: in June 2005, I blogged about my bad laptop and eventually, thousands of fellow frustrated customers gathered round, via comments, links and emails, with their complaints. The Dell response to blogs then? Look, don't touch. This came as Dell's customer-satisfaction ratings dropped, its earnings disappointed and its stock fell. That August, I returned my Dell, bought a Mac, and blogged an open letter to Michael Dell urging him to read blogs, write blogs, listen to customers' advice, and "join the conversation your customers are having without you".

The following April, Dell did join that conversation. Suddenly, technicians were contacting bloggers to solve their problems. Dell started a blog. Michael Dell opened IdeaStorm, a site where customers could tell the company what to do; as a result, Dell is now selling Linux computers and reducing the "bloatware" on new machines. They're starting wikis where customers can share what they know and extending forums where they help each other.

Dell's executives say their new problem is managing and spreading all this knowledge from customers. Its chief marketer said his new opportunity is to rely on customer-advocates to sell computers. And Michael Dell predicted a future of "co-creation of products and services" with customers.

There it is: the fist. Dell and its customers are collaborating on the creation of content, media and marketing - without content, media or marketing companies. Advertising is no one's first choice as the basis of a relationship. For marketers, it's expensive and inefficient. For customers, it's invasive and annoying. And targeted advertising is only slightly more efficient and slightly less annoying. Clearly, the direct relationship between a customer and a company is preferable. But that direct connection cuts out the middlemen - that is the media.

The Advertising Age media critic Bob Garfield dubs this the "chaos scenario", arguing that total advertising spending - which long stayed stable and merely shifted among media - will now decrease. Blogger Doc Searls contends that on the internet, "supply and demand will find each other . . . Advertising will still be part of that picture, but it won't fund the whole thing." Beth Comstock, a digital exec at NBC Universal, complains that every business pitch she hears is ad-supported. "It's just not going to be possible," she said recently. "There are not going to be enough advertising dollars in the marketplace - no matter how clever we are, no matter what the format is."

There won't be enough to support us in media in the manner to which we've become accustomed. And it's hard to imagine what other business models will come along to fund us. So we're left with the need to live within our means. To become smaller and more efficient, to find ways to serve advertisers better with more relevance and data, to fight like hell for the ad dollars that are there - and to do all this before advertisers break their media habit by doing what they should have been doing all along: building collaborative relationships with their customers.

Saturday, 27 October 2007

São Paulo: living without ads



An interesting article from canadian magazine Adbusters reminds us of "São Paulo: the first city outside of the communist world to put into effect a radical, near-complete ban on outdoor advertising. Known on one hand for being the country’s slick commercial capital and on the other for its extreme gang violence and crushing poverty, São Paulo’s “Lei Cidade Limpa” or Clean City Law was an unexpected success, owing largely to the singular determination of the city’s conservative mayor, Gilberto Kassab."

Since January 2007 every billboard, every neon sign, every bus kiosk ad and even the Goodyear blimp have been suddenly illegal.

"While it’s unclear whether this cleanup can be replicated in other cities around the world, it has so far been a success in São Paulo: surveys indicate that the measure is extremely popular with the city’s residents, with more than 70 percent approval."

Monday, 22 October 2007

Want money to read your mail?

In this article of The Times we can read about Boxbe , one of a number of newer companies giving presentations at Web 2.0 Summit, the world's largest internet conference, in San Fransisco.

The idea is easy: reading junk e-mail is boring and is a complete waste of time.
Therefore, why not pay to read it?
With Boxbe you are paid to read e-mail with advertising and if you don't interact with the service (for example, you open an e-mail box only to get cash) you are out.

Can we call it Web 2.0 ??


Saturday, 20 October 2007

Advertising banned




The italian authority for advertising decided (according to some rumours of the most important italian newspapper) 
to ban an advertising of Oliverio Toscani against anorexia.

Does the authority (NOT elected by the people) have the right to ban something?
Isn't it against the freedom of expression?
 
- -