Meth Coffee

Could they not come up with another name? Will people actually buy this coffee simply because it has the word “meth” in its name? I found this via Agenda Inc., in a post titled “First Cocaine energy drink, now Meth Coffee.” That about sums it up – what in the world is going on with the marketing industry!

If you’re just trying it for the first time, don’t throw back five cups like regular coffee. Ease into it. Have a little. Feel the rush, the euphoria, the smooth-edged high. Then go for more, if you want. Yeah, get into it. Make a dance up…program in assembly language…write your first novel…plot to overrule the planet.

Of course, as the About page points out:

CONTAINS NO ACTUAL METHAMPHETAMINES, I.E., CRANK, GLASS, SPEED, CRYSTAL, BATU, SHABU, MABU, CRACKHOO, ETC. PRODUCT NOT WARRANTED TO CURE ECZEMA, EDEMA, ACNE, CONSTIPATION, TOURETTE’S, OR GUM DISEASE.

Thanks for clearing that up. For a second there I thought I could actually get coffee with meth in it!

What’s next, the XTC Hamburger?!

Read: Meth Coffee

Digitizing Billboards

Something I have always wondered about is why billboards are not digital. I mean, it seems pretty archaic to have a bunch of guys go around the city to change the vinyl advertisements all the time. Not only that, but if the billboards were digital, they could be animated and time sensitive!

According to the Chicago Tribune (via AdJab), digital billboards are on the rise:

Digital billboards, which resemble ballpark jumbo video displays but scroll through several static ads each minute, are helping to draw advertisers back to the outdoor medium, as one of the world’s oldest forms of marketing is undergoing a renaissance.

The Tribune article points out that the initial investment for the digital billboards can be quite expensive, but so can the resulting revenue.

In the AdJab post, author Chris Thilk points out that “attracting the eyeballs of someone cruising at 65 miles an hour to a flashing and moving sign” is probably not such a good idea. I don’t know if it would really be that big a problem though. There’s a number of big TV screens around Edmonton, and I don’t recall hearing about them causing any accidents. Besides, lots of cities already have “moving” billboards – those ones that alternate between three different ads.

I say, bring on the digital billboards!

Read: Chicago Tribune

Google tests Audio Ads for radio…but why?

Google started testing their radio advertising service, dubbed Google Audio Ads, today. It’s one of the hottest topics in the blogosphere right now. We have known about it for a long time, and it sounds really great (in terms of the technology), but I still don’t get it. Let me explain.

Given this:

The radio industry won’t want to hear this. Advertising dollars are shifting online faster than analysts anticipated. In fact, advertisers will soon spend as much money on the Internet as they do on the airwaves, according to a newly released eMarketer study.

Why this?

Google Inc. has started testing a long-awaited radio advertising service…[that] will help sell advertising on more than 700 radio stations in more than 200 U.S. metropolitan markets. Google hopes to eventually sign up more than 5,000 stations, according to documents shown potential advertisers.

I can think of two potential reasons:

Google wants to ease the transition for traditional advertisers looking to move online.
I don’t know how good an argument this is, given that so many companies are already advertising online. It does make a certain amount of sense though.
It’s not about radio at all. This is really Google’ first baby step towards rich media advertising on the web.
Obviously, this is the reasoning that I prefer. Bring on audio ads for podcasting!

I suppose another alternative would be that Google feels there is still enough money to be made in radio advertising that it’s worth trying. My gut feeling though is that Google Audio Ads are destined for something far beyond just radio.

Podcasting Metrics: Complete Downloads & More

Podcasting consultant Jason Van Orden has been writing an interesting series of blog posts on podcasting metrics. In part 4 of the series, Jason tackles the issue of measuring complete downloads, and says that he doesn’t think measuring complete downloads is “absolutely necessary” and that something “more sophisticated and qualitative” is needed in addition to download numbers.

From part 4b of the series:

Scott Bourne and Tim Bourquin provided interesting and relevant responses. They both emphasize that podcasters have a responsibility not to let advertisers hold podcasting to a higher standard than other media (i.e. magazines and newspaper) that can’t measure complete content/ad consumption.

I have to respectfully disagree.

The way that magazines, television, radio, and other media sell advertising is flawed. Everything is based on assumptions (circulation numbers in the case of magazines, random sampling in the case of TV and radio). Don’t think for a second that advertisers are happy about this system – I’m sure they’d love to know exactly how many people watched or heard or read their advertisement. Why do you think everyone loves AdSense? Cold, hard numbers. The problem with magazines, TV, and radio is that the technology to accomplish this is prohibitively complex and expensive.

Podcasting doesn’t suffer from this problem. Measuring exactly how many people have downloaded an episode is relatively straightforward and inexpensive, and while not 100% accurate, it is fairly close. I think the strategy that Scott and Tim suggest would be bad for podcasting. As the saying goes – you’re only as strong as your weakest link. Podcasting needs to be stronger than other media.

A Better Strategy

I think podcasters who wish to generate advertising revenue should provide as much data as possible, even beyond complete downloads if such data is available (more on this in a second). There are a number of reasons for doing so:

There would be less waste, as advertisers could spend money only on podcasts that generate views or listens of their ad.
More data could also allow advertisers to more appropriately target their ad, making it more effective, enjoyable, and useful.
In the long run, advertisers would move more dollars away from media that uses flawed assumptions to media that provides useful data. That is, podcasting’s piece of the advertising pie will grow.
The valuation of a particular podcast will be much more realistic.

I am sure some podcasters are bristling at my suggestion. They think that if they have to provide actual numbers, they can’t make as much as if they sold ads based on assumptions like the other media do. This idea is wrong too. Providing more data will allow advertisers to spend targeted dollars. Unlike general advertisements, an advertiser will pay much more for the ability to target an ad. The podcaster may actually end up making more money!

Podcasting’s enemy (if we need to have one) is not the advertisers as Scott and Tim suggest, it’s the other media. Give the advertisers what they want, and podcasting will prevail.

Beyond Complete Downloads

I think complete downloads are quite important. We are putting the finishing touches on a big update to Podcast Spot, and one of the new features we have added is complete downloads. We parse the request logs for you automatically, so you’ll see the number of complete downloads for each episode, usually within two hours of the download. Right now these numbers are best effort, meaning that we aren’t yet at 100% accuracy. We’ll continue to work on it though.

As I mentioned above, podcasters should strive to provide as much data as possible to advertisers. There are the obvious things like complete downloads, page views, geolocation stats, demographics, etc. There are also the less obvious things. What if you could determine if someone actually listened to or watched your entire episode, or if they skipped parts of the episode? That kind of information would be extremely valuable.

These are the types of metrics that podcasters should strive to measure. Podcasters don’t have a responsibility to hold podcasting to the low standards of other media, they have a responsibility to set the bar higher and higher.

What's a Yahoo! to do?

Almost every day now I read something about Yahoo! and its “problems” and/or “options”. Those are in quotes because it seems people are very divided on Yahoo! – some think it’s in trouble, others don’t. I’ve been a Yahoo! user since the days of the grey page-background, and if you count sites like Flickr and del.icio.us, I’m still a pretty active user. Allow me to put on my Yahoo! pundit hat for a moment.

I guess Yahoo!’s main problem is Google. Now that there’s a search-media company consistently outperforming Yahoo!, it makes them look old and stagnant. It’s actually pretty unfair, because let’s be honest, no one has the kind of growth that Google does. Yahoo! actually does pretty well in terms of search traffic, advertising dollars, and all that other stuff, but where they seem to be lacking is in respect.

So what’s a Yahoo! to do? Here are the most commonly suggested strategies I have come across:

Replace CEO Terry Semel
This suggestion is actually fairly new, and if you read Eric Jackson’s open letter to Yahoo!’s founders, it starts to make sense. Seems to me this is a relatively short-term fix though.

Buy AOL
Apparently Yahoo! has approached Time Warner about purchasing AOL. I think this would be a good deal for Time Warner, and a not so good one for Yahoo!. It would bring the failed AOL Time Warner merger to a complete end, but it would only provide a minor increase in Yahoo’s traffic and advertising, all things considered.

Buy Facebook
This rumor has been floating around for months actually. It might bring some more eyeballs to Yahoo!, but it would do nothing to help transform or improve the company. And besides, from everything I’ve read, Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook founder) is no Caterina Fake (Flickr founder).

Merge with eBay
The two companies might seem complimentary because of their completely different focuses, but that might present a problem rather than a solution. I agree with Fortune: I think this one is unlikely, because I think integrating eBay and Yahoo! would prove extremely difficult.

Sell to Microsoft
This one is my favorite, and it has a long history too, first appearing in June. Microsoft certainly has the cash, and it turns out that the two companies are fairly well-aligned – Yahoo! has made heavy investments into IE7, is a PlaysForSure supporter, and has hooked up with Microsoft on a number of initiatives ranging from Sitemaps to Instant Messaging. According to the latest comScore data (released today), a combined Microsoft-Yahoo would have around 40% of the search market compared with Google’s 45%. Of course, there are some easy to spot problems with this deal – mainly that Microsoft has invested heavily in Live Search and adCenter already. That’s not a total deal-breaker though.

Stay the course
The people that don’t view Yahoo! as floundering like this suggestion. Sure Google is #1 for now, but it can’t stay that way forever, right? Seems like this is Yahoo!’s currently preferred course of action. If they could somehow turn around their disappointing sales and profit numbers, this one might be the best option after all.

The Microsoft option is especially appealing to me, because it would have extremely broad ramifications for the industry. It also seems somewhat unlikely, given Microsoft’s huge investments in their online properties (MSN, Live.com, etc). That said, purchasing Yahoo! would instantly make them the leader on the web, a position they have long sought after. I wouldn’t be surprised if Yahoo! ended up staying the course though, and in the end, maybe that’s better for everyone – Yahoo! included.

Update: Here is more excellent commentary on Yahoo’s current situation.

Microsoft likes municipal wi-fi too

By now you’ve probably heard about the wifi network that Google built in San Francisco with partner Earthlink. Now Microsoft wants in on the game, and has partnered with MetroFi to blanket Portland in wireless Internet bliss. The deal is more than just a “me too” reaction:

Content providers who capture the growing municipal Wi-Fi market will be in a better position to enjoy higher traffic to their sites and greater customer loyaltyand, as a result, grab a greater share of online advertising dollars, expected to reach $16 billion in the U.S. this year, according to consultancy eMarketer. “It’s a battle for eyeballs,” says Matt Rosoff, an analyst with consultancy Directions on Microsoft.

I could care less what the battle is about, as long as they keep building these networks. I have to agree with John Battelle:

All I can say is, please, keep up the competition. I’d love a chance to select from three different Wifi carriers in every major city, each of them free/advertising based.

Entire cities covered in free wireless Internet access can only lead to goodness. Bring on wireless everywhere!

Read: BusinessWeek

Edmonton Public Library "Adventure" Ads

If you live in Edmonton, and listen to the radio occasionally, you may have heard the new ads for the Edmonton Public Library. If you haven’t, fear not, because I am going to summarize them anyway:

There are two young guys trying to skateboard, when one says to the other “I am not cut out for this.” The two are then faced with a problem – what to do? One guy suggests the adventure of a lifetime with dragons and all sorts of other things. The other guy thinks hes crazy. Then the first guy says all of it is possible at the public library. And the two go on their merry way, to slay dragons in their imaginations no doubt.

Now when I heard the commercial, I couldn’t help but laugh. No one I know gets all excited about taking an “adventure” to the public library. I get what they are saying, but I can’t see it working with young people. Maybe I’m just “too cool” but I think their marketing team took the wrong approach with the latest ads.

The goal is clearly to try and bring young people into the library. Instead of some hokey ad about an adventure, why not highlight the aspects of the library that appeal to young people? Things like public computers, excellent study and workspaces, a Second Cup built right in (for the downtown location at least), power outlets for your laptop, and wireless Internet (do they have this?). Okay so I can’t think of as many characteristics that would appeal to young people as I thought, but I am sure they are there. Thing is, I haven’t been to the library in so long, I don’t know what they are.

Do you agree with me? What else about the library would you highlight?

Read: EPL

The 2 Biggest Problems With Web 2.0

Okay, I admit, there are far more problems with Web 2.0 than simply two, but there are two in particular that bug me. The first is the general idea that it’s okay to not have a business model from the get-go. The second is the idea that Web 2.0 will be funded almost entirely by advertising. I think both of these things are very wrong.

1. No Business Model? No Problem!
This one drives me nuts every time I see it. Dead 2.0 nailed it today when he ripped apart an interview with venture capitalist Paul Graham. In fact, I think it might be Dead 2.0’s best post yet. Anyway, I don’t understand why so many people think it’s okay to figure out a business model later. There can only be one Google, can’t there?

I’ve been to countless seminars, courses, speeches, and other events with really incredibly smart business people, and I’ve never heard any of them say it’s okay to figure out how you’re going to make money later. If we had taken that approach with Paramagnus, there’s no way we’d have made the finals of VenturePrize or won the Wes Nicol. At no point in the training sessions did we hear “make something people want first, then try to make money off it later.” Like Dead 2.0 says:

Great. I would like a flying car, and a lasergun. Also, a Web site with all the news, music, porn, and copyrighted videos I want, and it should all be free. I want that. Please build it.

I think this is the single biggest problem with Web 2.0. I look at it this way: the original bubble burst because you had lots of companies with no products (seriously, there were lots of companies who did something, but you weren’t sure what) and no revenue streams. With Web 2.0 thus far we have lots of great products, but we’re lacking in the revenue stream department.

I think both are required to be successful.

2. We’ll just sell advertising!
I don’t know when it happened, but somehow the world thinks that advertising will be the key to monetizing all of the new Web 2.0 products. Scoble said this as if it were plain fact today: “Web 2.0 is largely funded by advertising.” Maybe that’s true right now, but will it be true in the future? For some reason, I just have a gut feeling that advertising is not the key. Scoble’s right, advertising is an audience business. So what happens if your livelihood depends on advertising and your audience is dwindling? You’ll probably do some stupid, desperate things to keep the audience. That can’t be good for consumers.

I’m reading James Surowiecki’s The Wisdom of Crowds right now, and advertising in Web 2.0 reminds me of the section where he talks about plank roads. He uses it as an example of an information cascade. Basically what happened is that in the 19th century, a couple of entrepreneurs came up with the idea for a plank road, it seemed to solve all of the major transportation problems of the day. This led others to copy them, and soon there were hundreds if not thousands of these plank roads. Everyone thought plank roads would change the world! They were a panacea! The problem is that they did not last nearly as long as the original creators expected them to. Plank roads weren’t really a panacea. They simply covered up the real problems for a few years.

Is advertising the same? I mean, Google ads are great, because they are usually relevant to what I am looking for. But you can’t put them everywhere can you? Once you leave the web page, you’re screwed (unless Google comes up with some amazing new technology, which they might).

Still, I can’t help but think that advertising is the plank road of Web 2.0 – covering up the real problem (no business model) for a few years. If someone isn’t willing to pay for your service or product, is it really worth offering?

Conclusion
So there you have it, the two biggest problems with Web 2.0 according to me. I’d love to be proven wrong, but I don’t think its going to happen. To say that you’ve created something of value, you need a way to determine whether or not it has any value. Having someone pay for what you’ve created has worked for hundreds of years – why should it change now?

Commercial Free CBC?

Via iloveradio.org, I came across a post on the Canadian Journalist blog which explains that a recent senate report on Canadian media is recommending an ad-free CBC:

A Senate report on Canadian media recommends that CBC-TV become a commercial-free broadcaster. The report also recommends measures to prevent private media conglomerates from dominating newspaper, radio and television audiences in a single market.

The CBC proposal would mean the federal government would have to boost the corporation’s almost $1-billion annual budget to make up for the loss of advertising revenue.

First of all, have these people not heard of the Internet? There’s your solution to one media conglomerate dominating a single market. And then more importantly – more money for the CBC?! I don’t think so.

The post also mentions that the senate committee spent more than three years travelling the country, hearing from witnesses. I find it hard to believe these people gave them the idea that CBC needs more money. Maybe more money to produce something worth watching, but certainly not to have more of the crap we currently find on CBC. Seriously, there’s sports, crappy CBC shows, and decent BBC shows.

Here’s my recommendation: keep the radio and Internet properties, and get rid of CBC television. I’ve been thinking about this for a while actually, especially since CBC lost the contract for curling (there, even a cbc.ca link!). Here is my reasoning:

I don’t think a publicly-funded organization should be allowed to compete with private companies for contracts such as curling or the NHL broadcast rights.
I don’t agree with a publicly-funded organization running a for-profit entity, like Country Canada.
There is no compelling reason for CBC Television to exist. CTV, Global, City, and the other stations are all quite capable, and often cover news and events far better than CBC does anyway.
We could probably do far more with the budget currently spent on CBC.
We could get rid of Don Cherry and those other idiots, and Ron MacLean could move to TSN!

Okay that last one isn’t really a serious reason, but it would be awesome! The only time I ever watch CBC is for the hockey, and I don’t think I’m alone.

My only other suggestion would be to make CBC Television an entirely, 100%, Canadian-content channel that is not allowed to bid on sporting broadcast rights, play Hollywood movies, etc. No budget increases either. Then we could relax the requirement that Canadian broadcasters make sure at least 30% of their content is Canadian-created, and we might actually have some competition for American networks.

However, with our media becoming increasingly global, I wonder if we need television stations like CBC. I’m of the opinion that private enterprise will do a far better job of providing local and national content in the long run anyway.

Read: Canadian Journalist

Digital Newspapers – Coming Soon?

A little over a year ago, I wrote that newspapers are one of my least favorite forms of media. To reiterate:

I hate almost everything about newspapers. I don’t like the size of the paper. I don’t like the way it makes everything black. I don’t like that every page has to be jammed full of stuff. I don’t like that the pages are not full color. I don’t like that once I find something interesting, I can’t do anything with it (like send it to a friend, or blog about it with a link, etc).

These things hold true today. So what has changed in the last year? A few things. The “magazine-newspaper” called Dose launched in some of Canada’s larger cities, and I have to admit that I like it better than a typical newspaper, probably because of the size of the pages and how they open like a book, rather than being folded horizontally. There’s lots of color and non-standard layouts too.

More interesting than that however, is that newspapers of the future, such as the one seen in “Minority Report”, are coming sooner than previously expected:

In the Tom Cruise sci-fi thriller “Minority Report,” a subway passenger scans an issue of USA Today that is a plastic video screen, thin, foldable and wireless, with constantly changing text.

The scene is no longer science fiction.

The so called “e-paper” technology is finally beginning to mature, making it feasible to employ for products like newspapers. Despite the recent advances, there is still a long way to go – there is no standard (not that we need one I guess) which means some e-paper is flexible and some is rigid, some can display full color and some cannot, some require a power source and some do not. I think it’s only a matter of time before the details are worked out however.

I eagerly await digital newspapers, and the editors of today’s publications should be excited too! The newspaper could once again be as “up-to-the-second” as TV stations, and the potential for advertising is immense – think Google AdSense, but in your dynamically updating newspaper. Digital newspapers would be better for the environment too! Let’s hope the technology advances and costs decline so that the digital newspaper will be a reality.

Read: CNET News.com

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: