We Are Social - Advertising 2.0 - All Comments

re: The future of advertising and agencies

Douglas Gregory — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 16:30:35 GMT

It seems as though many agencies are suffering from a crisis of identity, especially those digital agencies without a history of decades of success. Most of the advertising and marketing clients are looking for theses days (or this week) isn't in text books and has never been taught in business schools. Where was Facebook 101 or Twitter basics? Agencies, and the agents who work for them are truly playing it by ear, so who can be surprised that the directions of the agencies themselves are written in pencil?

re: Digital Outdoor

Mike Clark — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 11:31:26 GMT

How confusing - so my company offers advertising space on a network of giant screens at Horse Racing events www.theracingnetwork.co.uk are we Outdoor, Digital Outdoor, akin to Digital Poster, a form of TV or Rich Media..... I'm not sure??

re: LeWeb’08

webtalent lancaster — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 12:45:52 GMT

Wow that was a great idea and very successful event the 2008 edition of LeWeb that proofs that <a href="www.webtalentseo.com/">social media agency </a> was really good in marketing....

re: Marketing in social networks: Now for the bad news

Mark Hook — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 20:05:05 GMT

I saw a good video recently about what good (if any) Facebook will do for your business. Check it out here - http://bit.ly/zM2AG

re: The future of the social web

suhel khan — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 14:42:51 GMT

Well if we talk about Facebook Connect then its definitely a helpful application to share things with your fellow net-workers but i dont how does that solve my basic problem of multiple identities that i have created in various social networks..i want to do similar things with them as well..I am envisioning something like what www.zuula.com does, a single site where i can manage my entire web presence..I think that i will take as a step forward in the social networking arena..

re: Why do people use Twitter?

suhel khan — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 14:30:47 GMT

Its just "hear me too " attitude that's taking the fun away from Twitter. I see very few people engaged in some sort of communication...

The death of the microsite, act IV / we are social

The death of the microsite, act IV / we are social — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 17:06:05 GMT

Pingback from The death of the microsite, act IV / we are social

The death of the microsite, act IV / we are social

The death of the microsite, act IV / we are social — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 17:06:01 GMT

Pingback from The death of the microsite, act IV / we are social

The death of the microsite, act IV / we are social

The death of the microsite, act IV / we are social — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 17:05:57 GMT

Pingback from The death of the microsite, act IV / we are social

Discount viagra.

Re viagra cello. — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 19:08:05 GMT

Viagra uk.

Social media???s rise as a distinct discipline / we are social

Social media???s rise as a distinct discipline / we are social — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 15:36:52 GMT

Pingback from Social media???s rise as a distinct discipline / we are social

Hitwise show Twitters a Hit… And that’s only the website! | The Digital Brief

Hitwise show Twitters a Hit… And that’s only the website! | The Digital Brief — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 11:15:41 GMT

Pingback from Hitwise show Twitters a Hit… And that’s only the website! | The Digital Brief

re: Brands and Twitter

John Gallen — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 18:04:53 GMT

I've said it before and I'll say it again.... PEOPLE DO NOT WANT TO ENGAGE IN BRANDS - SOCIAL NETWORKS CAME FIRST AND BRANDS INVADED THEM BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE DESERTING TRADITIONAL MEDIA (at a slower pace than is claimed) !!! People may have a giggle with a brand like the new Walkers Crisps campaign but when that's done its over. No more engagement, like a social networking friend that can be dropped at the click of a button, Its over... Dumspville, population 1 = THE BRAND THAT THOUGHT IT WAS ALIVE AND WAS CAPAPBLE OF SOCIAL ACTIVITY. We've all seen The Corporation movie, and if you haven't please vacate the industry, and that told us that if the corporation (all brands lead to corporations) were human it would be locked up for psycopathic behaviour... this we cannot deny.

I really dislike using block caps, sorry 'bout that earlier. I was in a mood.

Now, really people, lets do the numbers. example No. 1 above, Burger King has 1,882 followers since it started on Nov 14th 2008. That's 1,882 over 14 weeks or 134 / week; 19 / day.... this isn't exactly a gold rush of engagement. A TV advert properly placed can drive far more to a site; click red; send a text or whatever in just 30 seconds, job done. Not, 14 weeks.

Example 2, Starbucks, just under 60,000 followers since Aug 14th 2008. Not exactly a landslide either.

Now ask, How many are actually reading? How many people are active followers? How many bad comments did the moderator stop? How are you going to measure "your brand at an emotional level"? (Hilarious that one).

Accountable? Prove it.

Say a single Twitter brand-site cost 1 employee salary to maintain... and you can be sure it's not BK minimum wage, its a social media expert type wage; a consultancy fee; a copyrighter to get it started; image consultancy on the look of it; moderator fee; and possible a final typist at the interface. And that's for starters. By the time you are done and paid the wages (so far, the medium is free), do you really think that this so called engagement is doing any worthwhile good for your brand?

At a time when the issues for brands and advertisers was how do we make things accountable there appears to be an intent to muddy the waters with wishy washy nonsense about people, wait for it.... "WANTING TO ENGAGE BRANDS !!

Let's just watch the investors throw money at these sites that have no way of making any and watch them get inflated, implode and die. Maybe even cause another dot com crash.

Good to get that off my chest :)

re: Brands and Twitter

Anil Kapoor — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 17:17:34 GMT

"human bandwidth" - parlez-vous anglais?

re: Brands and Twitter

TESS ALPS — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 16:14:18 GMT

Didn't someone say that ideally all sales would be conducted on a one-to-one basis and personalised to them? However, the point of mass marketing is that it can be a really efficient way to talk to lots of people if you can create the right umbrella for them all to stand under. There just isn't the human bandwidth available within most brand marketing departments to try and engage personally with individual consumers. Even segmenting consumers can sometimes not be worth the effort/extra cost it entails. There have been attempts to 'fake it' eg standard responses triggered by certain words but they are just cynical and backfire horribly. Clearly the exception is for high ticket-price products. No issue engaging in extended one to ones with anyone wanting to buy a yacht. But toilet tissue, beer, car insurance?