The music industry’s monopolistic attitude towards music and the issues surrounding file sharing and illegal downloads is really what shot themselves in the foot when the likes of Napster burst onto the scene.  What the music execs failed to comprehend was that the people they were shaking their fist at were their target market.  It would kind of be like Brett Tabke going nuts at most of the SEO industry because people weren’t following his guide to building a great website – only to find Webcon attendences and sponsors suffered as a result.

It was basically negative PR that hurt the music industry and fueled the P2P market for years to come – even to the point that the most law abiding citizen wouldn’t think twice about downloading content illegally.  The vast sums of money paid to stars and studios vs the percevied small amount of money “just one track” or “just one album” contributes – it’s a no-brainer for most of the unwashed masses out there.

But more than fueling the flames, the music industry’s attitude towards this emerging market really held them back.  I’m sure I’m not the only person that’s thought for years that the music companies should have got in at the ground level when P2P networks started taking off and indeed, it’s verging on being ridiculous that many really only looked to adopting file downloads as a way to market in recent years.

Geoff Taylor, head of music industry body, BPI, notes in a BBC article that the industry would have been in much better shape today if it had engaged Napster, rather than fighting it.

He added that the music industry in 1999, when Napster debuted, would have struggled to create that business model because of rights issues, a lack of good copyright protection software and an inability to track downloads so that royalties were properly awarded.

The music industry took on Napster, said Mr Taylor, because the file-sharing system had no interest in developing the elements needed to turn it into a business.

Part self righteous stubborness on the side of Naptser, partly on the side of the music industry.  Things really haven’t changed that much (although I bet Napster would be a much bigger player in the market now if they had played ball).  It wasn’t that long ago a Swedish court jailed the four men behind The Pirate Bay – the largest file sharing website on the web – a landmark case because the key issue was the facilitating of distribution of copyright material, rather than the actual distribution – a technicallity that file sharers hid behind for many years.

I kept up to date with the developments of the case and I couldn’t help feeling that both sides involved were just complete wankers.   TPB held their ground and fought their corner (mostly clutching at straws) – the music firms involved did the same.  They just had more money and better lawyers (OK, and some degree of “being in the right” on their side).  I just never really felt that bothered who won.  I get the copyright issue – I really do – I get pissed off when people copy my rubbish articles lol!  And I get the “moral outrage” at the vast sums of money accumulated by the music industry.  I just have this little voice at the back of my mind that’s saying everyone involved is full of crap.  Maybe it’s just me.

The Pirate Bay was sold off and today the new owners (Global Gaming Factory) have chatted with the BBC about their plans for the site, which essentially boil down to an authorised / legitimate file sharing system where people putting files online to share (with permission) are paid for doing so.  The idea is that the P2P network can be used by the music industry to launch new material and rather than ISPs facing mass downloads of new tracks, the burden is spread across the web.  I’m not particularly tech enough to understand if there is merit to this side of the idea, but I do like the sound of it.  A legitimate company, paying big money (£4+ million) for the site and looking to create an application for the site that is innovative and importantly pulls together different “factions” of the t’internet rather than drive a wedge between them.

It kinda feels like the days of the Wild West Web – the “everyone in it for themselves” mentality - are coming to a close, as the Internet world grows up and the first glimmer of civilization appears.  I think 2008 / 2009 have been pretty important in the lifespan of the Internet.  It might not have seemed like it at the time, but I do think we look back at the “late naughties” as the point where the Internet stopped being a frivilous, chaotic thing that a lot of people didn’t really get and started being a part of life, business, education and recreation. 

Scott

Numerous reports have shown the engagement with social networking is on the increase, both in the UK and abroad, but there remain questions over whether the platform is profitable for businesses.

Nielsen’s latest figures show that Facebook and Twitter are the biggest sites, while the popularity of MySpace has dropped off, with the number of minutes spent on the channel falling by 31 per cent in April compared to the same month last year.

Overall, use of social networking sites in the US has risen by 83 per cent, with the Twitterati spending almost 300 million minutes on the site in April and Facebook users updating statuses and the like for a total of 13.9 billion minutes, making it the number one website.

Analysts recently estimated Facebook’s worth at $10 billion (£6.1 billion), although theories as to the actual value of social networking sites continue to circulate.

Jon Gibs, vice president of online media and agency insights at Nielsen, warns of the promiscuity of users when it comes to social networking.

“The one thing that is clear about social networking is that regardless of how fast a site is growing or how big it is, it can quickly fall out of favour with consumers,” he says.

“Consumers have shown that they are willing to pick up their networks and move them to another platform, seemingly at a moment’s notice,” Mr Gibs adds.

Rachel Hawkes, co-founder and editor of the Social Media Portal, said the online marketing industry is watching closely to see how social networks will go about profiting from the popularity of this trend.

“Social media and networks have as yet not been able to demonstrate a long-term, sound financial model and generate a profit. We all understand and appreciate the value and potential they hold, and are eagerly waiting to see the first true success of monetisation,” she commented.

“In order to be viable long-term, it’s vital that social networks such as Twitter develop a solid business model that brings money through the doors off its own back, outside of venture capitalists and/or selling to a media giant, which seems to be the sole business goal of many start-up social networks today,” she added.

Meanwhile, a survey by Deloitte has revealed that US companies see social networking as an important element of branding, but have also expressed concerns about the potentially negative effects of sites.

Almost a third of the firms surveyed said they see the platform as part of their operations strategy, while a smaller but still significant number said they used Web 2.0 tools to build their brand, communicate with their employees and recruit staff.

However, they highlighted the danger of the company’s reputation and brand being damaged by social networking, with almost three-quarters saying it was easy for this to happen.

“With the explosive growth of online social networks, such as Facebook and Twitter rapidly blurring the lines between professional and private lives, these virtual communities have increased the potential of reputational risk for many organisations and their brands,” said Sharon Allen, chairman of the board at Deloitte.

The Newstracker system uses web search technology to identify content from other news websites that relates to a particular BBC story….BBC News gets a constantly updating feed of stories from around 4000 different news websites. The feed is provided to us by Moreover Technologies.

An example of the feed at work can be seen on this page, where the BBC site includes links to other news sources that cover the story.  A nice mix of national and local news as well, although they do state that international and national sources are given priority over local sources.  The links are passed via Moreover using a 302 redirect (blocked via robots.txt at the Moreover side).

Scott

Advertising in social media can be like gatecrashing a party. People who use social media are much less tolerant to have their conversations interrupted by advertisers.

Apt I think you’ll agree.

Clearly, a serious lack of judgement from Habitat (who claim the mistake was made by an intern who no longer works with the firm – pretty much the same BS response that any firm caught spamming spews out to the baying masses), but it serves as a good example of why all marketeers should know their limitations and not simply jump in feet first with any old sales technique that they think will work. 

Trying to capitilise on the tragic events in Iran is clearly a stupid thing to do – moral and ethical implications aside, the logic from a marketing point of view is non existent.   Seriously, what dumbass thought that would be a good idea?  Too much time spent on Twatter and not enough in the real world methinks…perhaps the marketing team at Habitat need a new motivational poster for their wall…

“You don’t have to be crazy to work here – you have to be a talentless, narcissistic, evil c*nt with absolutely no moral centre and such distain for everyone that if there was any fairness in this world, you would just f*ck off and die.”

Or something like that.

Haven’t ranted in a while.  Feels good even though it’s dark and cold down here lol!:)

Scott

In news that could interest online marketers using media content, Google Sites came in as the top online video property in the UK, with 23.7 million viewers – a rise of 14 per cent when compared with the previous year.

YouTube.com accounted for 99 per cent of all videos viewed on Google Sites, while BBC Sites came in ranked second with 6.8 million viewers, followed by Microsoft Sites with 4.3 million viewers.

In January this year, four billion videos were viewed online in the UK, 2.5 per cent of which were watched on one of the top five broadcasters’ websites.

Most of these were viewed on BBC Sites, which took up a 54.7 per cent market share among the main five.

Figures from comScore, released earlier this month, showed that the popular social networking site Facebook became the sixth ranked online property in the world with 275 million visitors in February – a 175 per cent rise on the previous year. In Europe, the site has experienced a 314 per cent increase to around 100 million visitors.

According to comScore, Facebook also has a highly-engaged audience as the average user spends three hours every month using the site. One year ago, usage of the social networking site accounted for 1.1 percent of all minutes spent online in Europe but by February 2009 the figure had increased to 4.1 percent of all minutes.

“Facebook has very quickly taken a leading position across most of the European social networking market despite having a strong foothold in just a few European countries one year ago,” commented Mike Read, comScore managing director of Europe.

Use of social networking sites has also reportedly taken over online shopping in terms of internet visits in the UK. Hitwise figures revealed recently that 9.8 per cent of all UK internet visits went to social networking websites, in comparison to 8.6 per cent on online retail websites.

As for marketers taking advantage of the platform, Econsultancy’s UK Search Engine Marketing Benchmark Report 2009, undertaken in association with search agency Guava, revealed that 65 per cent of companies involved in a poll said they are using Facebook as part of their marketing strategy, with 49 per cent using Twitter.

Other comScore data noted that Twitter more than doubled its visitor base in the US during March, ranking as the top-gaining property in the month – something that could happen in the UK.

But what about what the consumer wants? Research from the Internet Advertising Bureau (IAB), carried out by the Opinion Matters Tickbox.net panel, revealed that 31 per cent of social networkers do not like constant requests to join groups and download applications. The study of around 2,000 internet users also showed that 28 per cent of people would be happy joining a group if they were offered exclusive content or something relevant and free.

Russell Goldsmith, digital media director at Opinion Matters, commented: “Our research for the IAB should remind marketers that, whilst it might be a cliche, it’s important to understand that when it comes to reaching your end audience within social network environments, content truly is king.”

…don’t first present me with an image of three dirty great big hippos bathing, farting and pooing in my cereal bowl!

Kk thx.

Scott

Analyst firm eMarketer has lowered its projection for the country’s internet spend for 2008 to £3.34 billion and 2009 to £3.58 billion.

The company had previously predicted in May that 2008 would see spending of £3.36 billion while this year it would hit £3.93 billion.

But the revision means that eMarketer’s predicted growth rate is half that of the May estimate.

However, Karin von Abrams, senior analyst and author of the report which contains the figures, said: “The good news is online is doing better than traditional media, which is down dramatically.”

She added: “Many forms of online advertising, such as paid search and email marketing, rank high in terms of accountability and return on investment.”

In October, comScore revealed that UK internet users are increasingly visiting blogs.

The firm said that this meant online marketers should consider blogs as part of their overall strategy.

The ASA said the advert:

“gave a misleading impression of the internet capabilities of the iPhone”.

A little bit lame IMO – probably just sour grapes from the Apple’s competitors lodging a time wasting complaint with the ASA.  Boo hoo – Apple went and brought out a pretty cool, innovative product that grabbed a decent market share while the other mobile phone manufacturers were churning out crappy facias to give their average products a competitive edge!

“Because the iPhone doesn’t support Flash or Java, you couldn’t really see the internet in its full glory,” said Olivia Campbell, a spokesperson for the ASA.

“They made a very general claim that you can see the internet in its entirety, and actually that’s not quite true – so we’ve upheld.”

Well, technically, you can’t see the Internet in its entirety via any medium can you?  Not all at once anyway!  And really, is any consumer really annoyed at the fact that Java and Flash aren’t supported on a mobile format?  I can’t say I’ve even noticed the lack of support in the time I’ve had my iPhone (since UK launch).

Personally, I think the iPhone ad is fine – it does give you access to some of the key components of the Internet in the context of what a mobile user would generally want to use it for.  Maps, email, web access and so on.  All I need – how about you?

And when it boils down to it, Safari might not support Java and Flash plugins, but how much functionality of how many web pages is lost because of this?  And how many sites implementing Java of Flash have done so with mobile users in mind?  Very few I think.  At the end of the day, anyone requiring Java or Flash support on their mobile device is going to be savvy enough to do their homework before they buy aren’t they?  It’s not like anyone is being mislead or duped into buying something that is entirely innapproriate for their needs!

It’s a damn shame to see bullshit rulings based on pointless complaints by ignorant individuals soil a cool product with a pretty slick ad campaign.

They do run a PPC campaign for the term, but with 1.1 billion competing pages, perhaps it wasn’t a great idea to include that particular step in the communication process?   The site does rank number 6 after a couple of Wikipedia entries and some other unrelated stuff.  What do you think?  Is it a good idea to tie in an ad campaign with a search result that you can’t really dominate?

I can see where prompting users to search online for a term may be a good idea – for example, brand searches (assuming you don’t have any negative PR floating around the place) – but for generic terms?  The Orange campaign isn’t as problematic as it could be – after all they aren’t prompting users to search online for “mobile phones” or any other competitive phrase (in terms of quality of the competition not the quantity).

All the same, it does open the door to competitors jumping on the bandwagon and capitalising on your campaign.

It’s a similar issue to choosing a unique domain name – you don’t want users to end up at competing sites with similar names (which is one of my main arguments against using keyword domains for high ££ campaigns – although I do appreciate that in cases the benefits can outweight the pitfalls).  It’s more of a personal preference for me – I grudge spending time and money on a campaign just for other people to come along and get a free ride!  I’m oddly principled at times!

I do like the idea of using search in different ways though – it’s good to see marketers pulling search marketing into their more traditional campaigns and I think on the whole, the I Am campaign won’t really offer Orange any problems (unless their competitors decide to plough some resources in messing with the SERPs).

I remember movie launches used to be tied in with “AOL keyword searches” which I always thought was a bad idea – popular films spawn fan sites and spam sites pretty quickly.  It’s down to how easily you can control the SERPs really – it’s not that tough to dominate the top 10 for a made up keyword if you really want to – I think marketers just need to appreciate the limitations of their control over the SERPs when the campaign is launched.

Scott