Spam - Why?

Spam according to Justin Rao and David Riley is the ‘undesired on line communications’ 

How often do you receive spam? Every day? Every hour? 

Spam seems to be everywhere, on every site, every subscription. A repeat offender of spam I have noticed is EHP labs. The spam that is shared with its subscribers is described as “sales content” and “useful information” however it is just regurgitated ads that are sent multiple times a day to all users on there data base. This mass spam can be both beneficial and hurtful to a brands image. Due to EHP labs sending me relentless amounts of spam I unsubscribed from there emailing list because it was ridiculous how many emails per day I was receiving.

Twitter, according to the business insider is one of the worst at spam. Making in the top 10 for both spam and unsubscribe rate. On average Twitter sends each user 173 emails per user. This is outrageous, all those emails is just time wasted for people clearing there emails. As well Twitter had a 35% unsubscribe rate and is the only company to make the top 10 in both categories. 

This can easily reflect poorly on Twitter and for there users. This over-the-top spam gives the user a poor experience and as shown leads to unsubscribing. 

So what should Twitter do differently ?

Twitter needs to draw back on there spam, no one likes spam (not the food) and if Twitter wants to lower there unsubscribe rate, should aim for less spam that way they will stay in better connection via email etc with there existing customers. At the end of the day, spam is annoying and no one likes receiving spam. Business’s if they want to attract loyal customers need to understand this and need to get there information across in another way.

Week 10 - Why Videos go Viral

Its very interesting to see how Kevin puts into the real world that people used to have to accomplish and work hard to become famous, now people can become famous by ‘next Saturday’ due to “web video”. The notion of being able to share video with the world is both incredible and worrying at the same time. Youtube is a popular avenue to do this on. Youtube currently has 48 hrs of video uploaded every minute! That’s insane, 2 days worth of video every minute. Kevin Allocca talks about in his TED talk ‘why things go viral’ which is the million dollar question all researchers are asking right now and companies are dying to find out.

Kevin believes that 3 different aspects can make a video go viral. These are ‘taste makers’, ‘communities of participation’ and ‘unexpectedness’

Taste makers are individuals who may have a large audience who share/ like a video and decide to share with their audience. Kevin gives the example of the ‘double rainbow’ video that was viewed over 23 million times months after it had been posted. This was due to Jimmy Kimmel saying that it was ‘the funniest video he’d ever seen’ Jimmy along with many  other celebrities are key examples of taste makers.

Communities of participation is when people form different opinions and all share at similar times creating a large surge on a video.

The last and the most viewed I think by our demographic are the unexpected videos. The weird and quirky videos that are either ridiculously funny, weird and even annoying often go viral. Does everyone remember Nyan Cat? This video was viewed over 50 million times and can be seen as geeky and weird. Such a weird video gained so much traction, but why? The fact that it was so random and weird Is exactly why it went so well! People couldn’t get enough, remix’s were made, 24 hr long Nyan Cat video’s were created on a constant loop. It was simply a craze that everyone had to be apart of.

This being apart of is exactly the reason why videos go viral. People feel apart of a craze, a phenomenon when they are able to post, share and comment there friends to be able to let them know. For content creators, it has stemmed past only the professionals, anyone with a phone camera is able to make content and share it. There is no more ‘green light approval’ that needs to be given. ANYONE can create a video that goes viral.

I wonder what the next viral video will be?

Optimal search engine marketing strategy - Google

If you want your business to be successful online in the 21st century; then the aim of the game is SEO (search engine optimisation). SEO is the technique of making your business more visible in search engine e.g. Google. As said in the extract by Ravi Sen the SEO provide high rankings in terms of searches and most online sellers prefer this method in terms of generating sales. An article by Venturebeat.com explains the extent of Google and there SEO tactics. Google have invested heavily in the development of SEO technologies and employ companies such as URX, Branch and Tapstream to 'make it easier for app developers to integrate new technologies' for SEO to be more effective. Essentially what Google have done is they’ve allowed there users to be able to search app content directly from Google! Pretty good for basic users wanting more information on apps before downloading them. They’re allowing users to not have to access Google from a website but rather accessing it straight from the search options on your phone. This aim is to further people searching on there mobile devices by making it easier for them to access information. Googles main source of income is through this method of paid advertisement and companies paying more to increase there SEO, so allowing business's easier access to this will only be more beneficial to Google. The race is really against Google and Apple. Google are working with android to create a completely Google operated system; instead of going through the web; whilst Apple is gearing up with their iOS system. Only time will tell who will come out on top, or will another company that is undiscovered yet come out and blow them out of the park? If they want to do this, there SEO must be at the top!

Internet of Things

JP Rangaswami makes a great point that the development of the Internet of Things and the emergence of wearable technologies will allow for 'The quality of real-time information...to take the... guesswork out of much of capacity planning and decision-making' This can be great for people across many industries such as emergency (doctors), being able to receive in real time, accurate information and being able to prescribe the best way to treat the situation is critical and even life saving. The fact that wearable technologies can also be used for design using the Internet of Things and the amount of relevant information that is easily accessible, buildings could be fully constructed via a AR (augmented reality) vision that virtual tours could be taken of a building, in full size, without even having to build it. Having this insight and power would be extremely beneficial for all professions.  The internet of things can also seem rather daunting for some though. With people having this preconceived notion that there private information will be leaked or stolen in the form of identify theft/ fraud, scares some people. Very interesting how it is believed that there will be more 'implant' technology within our society and wearable technology such as Google Glass. Many of these concepts have been thrown around the internet for the last couple of years however nothing has come to market for the general population. Google Glass had a a terrible launch, in 2013 people were expected to pay $1500 for a pair of the glasses and you had to be chosen! By the start of 2015 Google had announced that it would recall the product as it wasn’t ready not was it worth the expensive price-tag. Google felt that they were "making people pay $1500 USD to tell us how to fix this thing" However it can only drive our creativity with what is in store next and what will be the next product to make us go WOW. I am hoping that the product will have something that will help is remember more information, could come useful during exams! 

Evelyn Faye Mobile Marketing

“Want the latest in Australian Supplements? Visit evelynfaye.com.au or call 1800 630 261 for further information?”

Ever received a text like this before?

Evelyn Faye nutrition is a prime example of a company that adopts this use of mobile marketing on a national scale within Australia. Located on Bourke St in Melbournes CBD, upon purchase the staff there will ask you if you have a membership with their business and if not, will ask you if you want to become a member. This membership is great! They regularly text message you with the latest supplement deals and new products that are being released onto the market.

This connection they make is a key example of the principle of having two actors, a sender who is willing to share the information (Evelyn Faye Nutirition) as well as the receiver who is willing to listen (consumer) (Goffman,1959; Schau & Gilly, 2003) Evelyn Faye have taken a more understanding approach compared to the mass messaging tactics that larger companies use. Evelyn Faye will only contact you with your approval whilst signing up to their services, and at any time you can text back ‘OPTOUT’ to cancel the subscription. However due to their target market being regular consumers of their products, is wise of them to use these deals that are texted to them to save money on the expensive supplements.

Text message promotions for Evelyn Faye have also been beneficial as they are not simply just a text message with the promotions listed. They are a confined, easy to read text message that is very easy to read only being a sentence or two in length. They also have a ‘click through’ link that gives the consumer the power to access their website directly through text. The use of this link allows users to directly log on their personal account via the text message to see in further detail the extent of the discounts they can receive.

Blog: Viral marketing for week 4 ALS Ice bucket Challenge

Viral… it seems like this word is thrown around a lot in todays society. EVERYTHING is going “viral” but what is viral marketing…

Google designer, Anthony Cafaro says that the concept of emotions in viral marketing and wanting to “move” people and that they want to be “entertained and moved.” The viral sensation of the ALS Icebucket challenge at the end of 2014 and early 2015, saw the likings of Mark Zuckerberg (CEO of Facebook) and Bill Gates (Gates Foundation and Microsoft) and many other celebrities, pouring buckets of cold water filled with ice over there heads.

This challenge was all done for a worthy cause and was to raise awareness and funds for the ALS (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis) Foundation to allow them to further research and fund to find a cure for the disease.

Celebrities were partaking in this to ‘nominate’ other celebrities to donate and do the same. This sent a viral craze over the internet and encouraged average people to join in on the fun. The ALS fund raised over $115 million dollars over the 2014 Summer (winter in Australia) period. This was staggering and had never been done before!

Interestingly, Malcolm Gladwell talks about how any kid of social ‘epidemic’ is dependant on rare people with a “rare set of social skills” in particular “connectors.” Connectors are described as people with large followings and “link people up”. The celebrities who had partaken in the ALS ice bucket challenge are perfect examples of these ‘connectors’. Using their large followings on social media and the use of the internet, were able to put ALS in the minds of their followers and fans on a global scale.

ALS was a giant supporter of the challenge and encouraged people to partake by any means necessary. Also made for a great fail video as people were recorded dropping eski’s on people, knocking people out and many slips and falls.

Overall, even though the ALS ice bucket challenge wasn’t donated too seriously by the majority of the population, most just giving them an excuse to make a funny video, it still however raised an astronomical amount of money for the ALS Foundation as well as allowing them to put the disease on a global scale to get people thinking about it. 

Yes it was very interesting what the Kelley School of Business has said about the ‘five points about being social’ the main point which I found interesting was the ‘being active’ area which encourages businesses to constantly be posting. This failed in the case of your example ‘H&M’ which post constantly across photo sharing media. This obviously caught the better of them as they may not have been thinking too much about the consequences about the audience viewing their media. This one picture sparked controversy throughout their different media outlets and tarnished their brand. Kaplan and Haenlein talk about the need for ‘open/active conversation’ between the company and its consumers. This obviously gave the public a voice that reached H&M quickly as they took down the post and publicly apologised. Would be interesting to see what H&M has implicated into their social media teams to see if they have changed the way they post or have a committee to oversee the posts before they are released to the public to gather different opinions as to whether it could be viewed negatively.

Social Media and Organisations

Social media allows organisations to have direct access to consumers as well as giving them the opportunity to build personal relationships with their audience. This however must be done in a careful manner as the expected outcome may differ because of one simple post and have lasting effects.

The five points about being social that was defined by Kelley School of Business really highlighted the importance of planning and understanding the audience that will view your content.  I strongly agree with that as a well thought-out social media post can generate large amounts of traffic on a single post, which allows for the organisation to receive more views on the platform they are using and can assist in growing their online presence. Social media, as valuable and effective as it is can also lead to an organisations demise. Poor planning has been shown to have negative consequences and can severely damage a brands reputation. A recent example of this was involving the clothing brand H&M whereby they posted a picture that the online community deemed was racist, this eventually led to big name celebrities such as the Weeknd to publicly condemning H&M on Instagram. This had massive effects on their sales as a result of a social media influencer expressing their opinion on a contentious matter that arose as a result of not thinking about the consequences of a post.

These types of effects can be long lasting and the damage is often irreparable as there is other organisation there to fulfil the consumers’ needs. As a result, the audience that once supported the brand can become ‘haters’, people who aim to negatively affect a brand though social media posts. This is when operating a social media account can do more harm than good It is this reason why planning is imperative to ensuring social media posts have the desired outcome.

Blog 3 - Understanding consumers & communities; Digital business models

Pascal - Emmanuel Gobry defines the Freemium model as a model in which ‘ the vast majority of users of the product are free and a minority pay’ The freemium model is a new age model that has grown due to the internet. Essentially this model allows business’s to advertise as having a “free service” however the hidden implications and costs are found once having joined the website. These extra costs allow for a more immersive experience into the application whether as the free version only offers a limited ‘demo’ version. Chris Anderson describes these costs as a 99-1 ratio. In which 99% of the population uses the service for free, and the 1% pays. However the 1% covers the costs and allows them to create revenue. 

Interfaces that use this model include Spotify, Dropbox and LinkedIn. These three businesses serve a variety of different purposes: music, online cloud storage and business social media.

Some people can be put off by the fact that a service can be advertised as being free then only discovering after having joined and filling out personal information that it is in fact costly for the services they require. An example of this is said by Marcus Nelson from UserVoice who says that the conversion rate is only 5% from free users to paid. This low conversion rate, with 16,000+ subscribers means roughly 800 are paying the monthly subscription. Could this be pricing of the extra service? Could this be the hidden payment factor?

This model can be an advantage if done correctly. For example Spotify, this is an example of a business whom did this correctly. Spotify started in October 2008 and offered 2 options for the music platform. One was free unlimited music, however you were only allowed to ‘skip 5 songs a day’ so it was basically random and with advertisements, or it was a small subscription fee for unlimited music 24/7 on any device with unlimited skips and no ads. This became an instant turn for people as they figured with the small subscription fee and no ads it was worth it compared to other competition such as YouTube with slow upload times and Pandora with outdated artists and a confusing customer interface. Spotify now has 24 million total users with over 6 million paying monthly subscriptions (1 in 4 are paying!) which is incredible for their profits.