Posts tagged as:

Media

Emarketer offered an interesting stat yesterday, showing changes in media consumption over the last 12 months. Money quote:

“US adults now spend more time with their mobile phones than with print magazines and newspapers combined, at 1 hour and 5 minutes vs. just 44 minutes.”

The graph is pretty telling, too:

Average time spent on major media by US adults

Overall media consumption is up (fallout from the continuing challenges in the economy, maybe?), but radio and print have declined with most of those declines heading to TV, internet and mobile.

That’s not to say you shouldn’t use those media channels. But if you’re thinking about using the declining media channels, make damn sure your customers actually still use them too (and I wouldn’t base that on what they used to do).


Are you getting enough value out of your small business website? Want to make sure your business makes the most of the local, mobile, social web? thinks helps you understand how to grow your business via the web, every day. Get more than just news. Get understanding. Add thinks to your feed reader today.

Or subscribe via email.

And while you’re at it, don’t forget to follow Tim on Twitter.

Tim Peter & Associates helps companies from startups to the Fortune 500 use the web to reach more customers, more effectively every day. Take a look and see how we can help you.

{ 0 comments }

Improve your advertising image courtesy of Paraflyer on FlickrThere are very few businesses these days that don’t engage with Google. Whether you use them for advertising, applications or analytics, it’s likely you rely upon Google somewhere along the way for your sales and marketing. I have frequently suggested ways you can learn tasks like SEO directly from Google. But, based on the lower-than-expected sales of its Nexus One phone, Chris Matyszczyk on Cnet just asked, really, what does Google know about advertising?:

“If it doesn’t want to sell too many Nexus Ones, why is Google following me around the Web all the time? Might I offer a small thought? Is it possible that Google isn’t very good at advertising?

I know you’ll tell me I must have been at the dessert wine. This, after all, is the company that makes 97 percent of its vast, infernal profits from advertising.

Please, please, put down the baseball bat and take a seat. Have some dessert wine yourself. Google makes its money not from advertising that creates demand but from advertising that directs demand. It does it brilliantly. It has used its brain power to extraordinary effect. But it’s a very rational brain power.

Creating demand for many products, though, isn’t rational. It never was. And, until we finally reach the robot phase of our development, it never will be.” (Emphasis mine)

I take no sides in this fight, largely because I believe there are no sides. Chris may be right. It’s entirely possible that Google is really bad at developing cool advertising – hence the anemic sales for the Nexus One. But it’s equally possible that Google developed a product that no one wants or, more likely, is using a network no one wants. Or both.

I have no doubt Apple’s creative advertising for it’s iPods (white-earbud adorned silhouettes against candy-colored backgrounds) and iPhones (“there’s an app for that”) played a role in the success of its products. But I suspect the product played an even bigger role. Ironically, I just referenced Harry Beckwith’s story about the importance of fixing the product before fixing the advertising the other day. It’s a lesson Apple seems to have learned and that Google may still be dealing with.

All this still begs the most important question: assuming your product isn’t the problem, how do you know if your advertising is any good? Well, never fear, Big Thinker, I feel like we’ve got an answer to that one and it’s built around these 4 items:

  1. Objectives – All marketing is built around having the right objectives. If you don’t know what exactly you’re trying to accomplish, how can you do the right things to get there? Hint: make sure you align your objectives with your customers’ interests. It’s tough to reach the former without the latter.
  2. Measures – Once you know what you’re trying to do, you’ve got to think through how you’re going to measure your success. Measures can range from very simple (i.e., counting coupons) to highly sophisticated (e.g., regression analysis of sales over marketing spend). Don’t get too hung up on the details. Just make sure you’re following best practices for your metrics and you’ll be in good shape.
  3. Message – Now that you know what you want to do and how you’re going to measure your success, you have to tell your customer what it is you want them to do. Again, don’t overthink it. Focus on the basics.
  4. Medium – Finally, choose channels that your customers use. Paid search is one, sure. Email, snail mail, display and print all work, too. Just look at how to segment each so you can be sure you know which one works best for your customers.

As you move forward with these activities, it also makes sense to look at which sales channels work best for you. But start by looking at your marketing advertising. You may find you’re better at it than you think. And, just maybe, you’ll be better at it than Google.



Are you getting enough value out of your small business website? Want to make sure your business makes the most of the local, mobile, social web? thinks helps you understand how to grow your business via the web, every day. Get more than just news. Get understanding. Add thinks to your feed reader today.

Or subscribe via email.

And while you’re at it, don’t forget to follow Tim on Twitter.

Image credit: Paraflyer via Flickr using Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic.

Technorati Tags:
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

{ 0 comments }

Rusty lock photo courtesy of subcircle on FlickrOne of the biggest stories bouncing around the web the last week or so were comments made by Rupert Murdoch and Tom Curley – the heads of News Corp. and The Associated Press, respectively – where they discussed how much they hate “content kleptomaniacs”. Given how digital distribution of content and content aggregation has impacted traditional media and publishing businesses, it’s tough to blame Murdoch and Curley for being upset.

But some critics are doing just that. Jeff Jarvis – serious new media thinker and author of “What Would Google Do?” – labels these media titans “fools.” Jarvis promotes the notion of “the link economy” and the value search engines create by helping customers discover your content – as opposed to simply stealing it as claimed by Murdoch and Curley.

Who’s right? And does this brouhaha matter to your business?

The answers to these two questions are:

  1. It depends; and…
  2. Hell, yes!

While I’ve never been a big fan of equivocation, there is no one true answer to “who’s right?” News Corp and the Associated Press own their content. They’re free to charge for it if they see fit. The real question is whether their customers (and by extension, yours):

  1. Care enough about what they’re (you’re) publishing to find it in the first place; and,
  2. Care enough about what they’re (you’re) publishing to pay for it.

Getting people to find your content – whether you’re a blogger in Boise or The Wall Street Journal – is no small task. As you can see in the second graph of this post by Rand Fishkin, distributing your content offers enormous value in growing both your traffic and your business. And Jarvis is absolutely right when he talks about the value links provide. But where I differ with Jarvis is in this: if the Wall Street Journal – or you, for that matter – can get distributors to pay you for that content, good for you. Amazingly, there is at least one newspaper besides the Wall Street Journal who has succeeded in charging consumers for their content.

Does this mean you should charge for your content? Again, that depends. No one deposits links. We deposit profits. But there’s more than one way to get those profits. For example, Fred Wilson once listed a couple dozen business models for web media used by successful companies. So, if charging Google for distribution or consumers for reading works for The Journal, bully for them. It proves that you shouldn’t rule it out. But also, even if it works for the Journal, don’t assume it’s the only way to go.

Want more? Read our review of Jeff Jarvis’ “What Would Google Do?” Also, see our review of Chris Anderson’s “Free”, which looks at many other ways to make money on “free” content.



Are you getting enough value out of your small business website? Want to make sure your business makes the most of the local, mobile, social web? thinks helps you understand how to grow your business via the web, every day. Get more than just news. Get understanding. Add thinks to your feed reader today.

Or subscribe via email.

And while you’re at it, don’t forget to follow Tim on Twitter.

Image credit: subcircle via Flickr using Attribution 2.0 Generic.

Technorati Tags:
, , , , , , , , , , , ,

{ 0 comments }

Mike Moran on Toyota’s – and every other business’ – social media “problem”

November 27, 2007 Web 2.0

Mike Moran points out a great social media case study. The thing to note is that most companies – Toyota included, in this case – miss the point of social media’s “dangers.” The problem isn’t that customers can say anything. It’s that customers can see everything. Toyota has no issue being green, so long as [...]

Read the full article →

Fred Wilson predicts the end of Techmeme. Does this create an opportunity?

November 19, 2007 Social Media

Are social aggregators of blogs over? Fred Wilson thinks so. And generally, you won’’t go wrong listening to what he has to say. What I found disappointing, though, is that Fred seems to miss that nature hates a vacuum. While there’’s always been mainstream media, there’’s also always been an alternative press. That’’s where the [...]

Read the full article →

VibeAgent and the future of social search

November 15, 2007 Social Media

TechCrunch announced that VibeAgent launched today. Speaking as a guy working for a hotel company, it’’s pretty cool. The weight VibeAgent gives to reviews to determine search relevance is excellent, and a feature other social search engines would do well to copy, er, liberate, er, emulate. I agree with TechCrunch that they’’re swimming upstream against [...]

Read the full article →