In the Wired article, Chris Anderson states that "[f]rom the consumer's perspective... there is a huge difference between cheap and free....The psychology of "free" is powerful." This immediately made me think of those yellow coupons that H-E-B puts in the aisles next to products. The ones that say something like "buy a bag of salad and get a free bottle of salad dressing" coupons. I've definitely fallen victim to these coupons and bought those products just to get the free item, when in reality I don't need either item. So I definitely agree with Anderson that "free" is extremely persuasive.
Anderson goes on to explain free in terms of digital economics, which made me think of our society's addiction to social media. All major social media sites are free to use, but would we be so consumed with social media if we had to pay to use these channels? If that were the case, we would essentially be paying to talk to people, including our friends and family. We would be paying for digital affirmations via likes, favorites and retweets. We'd be paying to have virtual social interactions.
We allow ourselves to hop on these free channels for the price of our data. In a Huffington Post article, contributor Dragos Bratasanu writes "Facebook is free. But Facebook’s valuation is at more than $230 Billion. How can something that valuable be free? It’s simple. You think you are the Facebook user but in fact you are the Facebook product. The company sells you: your data and the advertising that you see."
Advertising has always been a major source of revenue for media companies, from television ads to print ads in newspapers. so the general public can reap the "free." But when that advertising is targeted and knows your personal preferences, personal searches and personal behaviors, is the persuasive power of free still alluring?
Showing posts with label ndulay. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ndulay. Show all posts
Monday, April 11, 2016
Wednesday, April 6, 2016
Brands Are People Too
In reading "Why Mobile Is the Future of Advertising and Marketing," the author makes several good points about how brands can better leverage their mobile advertising tactics and strategies. However, the author failed to mention the most important thing about brand advertising nowadays. Regardless of the media channel or disruptive technology being used, brands can only really succeed in their marketing strategies when they have a clear, appropriate and well-thought-out brand personality.
Maybe I'm a little biased as a PR major, but advertisements, both print and digital, rarely have an affect on me since I know all to well the motives and strategies behind them. The brands that do make me pay attention are the ones that interact with their consumers as if they're a person. They have a distinct personality and are personable in their advertising. They talk with consumers instead of at them. With so much media clutter constantly bombarding our screens, its the brands who make those connections at the human level who can successfully break through.
Last summer, AdWeek published an article called "10 Brands Doing an Amazing Job on Social Media." The common aspect among these brands in their strategy lies in the fact that they understand who they are as a company and how to personify that into a person-like profile online in order to connect with their primary target market. Successful brands have been doing this for ages. The platform or technology used to advertise a brand does not matter unless the content and context of the message resonate with the consumer.
Maybe I'm a little biased as a PR major, but advertisements, both print and digital, rarely have an affect on me since I know all to well the motives and strategies behind them. The brands that do make me pay attention are the ones that interact with their consumers as if they're a person. They have a distinct personality and are personable in their advertising. They talk with consumers instead of at them. With so much media clutter constantly bombarding our screens, its the brands who make those connections at the human level who can successfully break through.
Last summer, AdWeek published an article called "10 Brands Doing an Amazing Job on Social Media." The common aspect among these brands in their strategy lies in the fact that they understand who they are as a company and how to personify that into a person-like profile online in order to connect with their primary target market. Successful brands have been doing this for ages. The platform or technology used to advertise a brand does not matter unless the content and context of the message resonate with the consumer.
Monday, March 28, 2016
The Convenience Revolution
Robert Capps wrote an article in The Wired entitled "The Good Enough Revolution: When Cheap and Simple Is Just Fine" where he discusses that with the advances in technology, quality and features are sacrificed for the ease of use, continuous availability and low price. I think his title's choice of words degrades the advantages and improvements this "revolution" has brought.
Our society is constantly looking for ways to make our lives easier and more convenient. Capps talks about the use of digital cameras as one of his "good enough" examples. Even now, digital cameras are declining as smartphone cameras have dominated as our main tool of picture-taking. It's not that smartphone pictures are "good enough." They may not provide the resolution and clarity of a DSLR camera, but they get the job done when you need to capture the moment instantly. Instead of carrying a camera with you, taking it out of your bag, making sure it's charged, etc., a smartphone does the same job with less hassle. Technology is not making things "good enough;" it's simply making things more convenient and easy to use to save time and do more.
I will counter that although we seek more convenient methods, there are also those who prefer the traditional methods and are willing to forgo price and simplicity, especially for things of high importance to us. People invest in photographers with digital cameras for important events like weddings. Companies buy several copies of newspapers or magazines when their business is distinguishably featured for an important reason. People still buy their favorite DVDs or book in analog version because of the importance in plays in their lives. For the everyday things convenience will win, but its the perceived value that motivates people not to settle for the convenient way.
In the below TED talk by Kevin Kelly, he discusses the evolution of the idea of technology, tracing it back to early civilization. He says, "And so, what technology gives us, over the long term, over the sort of extended evolution -- from the beginning of time, through the invention of the plants and animals, and the evolution of life, the evolution of brains -- what that is constantly giving us is increasing differences: It's increasing diversity, it's increasing options, it's increasing choices, opportunities, possibilities and freedoms. That's what we get from technology all the time." The new technology of Capps' Good Enough Revolution simply provides more options for people to go about their daily lives.
Wednesday, March 23, 2016
Tablets Can't Solve Standardized Test Questions
In The New York Times article "No Child Left Untableted" by Carlo Rotella, he discusses both the pros and cons for educational tablet use in classes. The argument that intrigued me the most was towards the end of the article when he says, "Still, if everyone agrees that good teachers make all the difference, wouldn’t it make more sense to devote our resources to strengthening the teaching profession with better recruitment, training, support and pay?"
There is no doubt that teachers are some of the most dedicated, influential members of our society. They directly shape the minds and social skills of future generations for at least 16 years of their lives, yet they are some of the most overworked, underpaid and unappreciated employees. How many times have we as college students made snide remarks or heard comments that "being an education major is easy?" How many teachers have we had growing up that we could see the passion and determination they put into their professions, especially on their personal time or using personal resources? While the American education system is quite flawed with its focus on standardized test scores and plug and chug memorization, teachers have the potential to revolutionize the education system given the appropriate compensation and resources, which does not need to include tablets or technology in general.
In the article, Rotella describes some counterarguments that tablets in education make an impact on students if teachers are able to use them in a way that balances both traditional and digital teaching methods. I understand the need for personalized learning instead of cookie-cutter lesson plans that every student is expected to understand at the same pace. I understand the challenge of engaging students in learning and that the excitement and resources provided by tablets can help make education more engaging for students who are already so engaged in technology outside of school. I understand that using tablets is also more economical and timely than using textbooks, software and educational kits that become outdated in a matter of years. However, at the end of the day I believe that it's the tried and true face-to-face human interactions that are the key to captivating students to actively participate and take initiative in their education.
Looking back on my own education, I don't remember the format of how I learned in school, such as primarily relying on textbooks, using computer games, doing hands-on activities, etc. What I do remember are the teachers who made a personal investment in my learning, my well-being and my future. They didn't need a tablet to help me understand a concept beyond straight memorization for a test. They didn't need a tablet to get me excited to go to class. They didn't need instantaneous quizzes and results to personalize my learning experience. It was their teaching styles, ability to relate to the entire class, and availability and approachability inside and outside of the classroom that engaged me in my education and voluntary participation to do well in school.
In a recent article from The Guardian, the author discusses the results of a research study that identify a few key traits of successful teachers, including empathy, resilience and adaptability. The training, recognition and development of teachers is what the education industry needs to invest in. Tablets and other technology can be great tools that teachers can integrate into their lesson plans, but they are not the end-all-be-all solution to an improved education system.
There is no doubt that teachers are some of the most dedicated, influential members of our society. They directly shape the minds and social skills of future generations for at least 16 years of their lives, yet they are some of the most overworked, underpaid and unappreciated employees. How many times have we as college students made snide remarks or heard comments that "being an education major is easy?" How many teachers have we had growing up that we could see the passion and determination they put into their professions, especially on their personal time or using personal resources? While the American education system is quite flawed with its focus on standardized test scores and plug and chug memorization, teachers have the potential to revolutionize the education system given the appropriate compensation and resources, which does not need to include tablets or technology in general.
In the article, Rotella describes some counterarguments that tablets in education make an impact on students if teachers are able to use them in a way that balances both traditional and digital teaching methods. I understand the need for personalized learning instead of cookie-cutter lesson plans that every student is expected to understand at the same pace. I understand the challenge of engaging students in learning and that the excitement and resources provided by tablets can help make education more engaging for students who are already so engaged in technology outside of school. I understand that using tablets is also more economical and timely than using textbooks, software and educational kits that become outdated in a matter of years. However, at the end of the day I believe that it's the tried and true face-to-face human interactions that are the key to captivating students to actively participate and take initiative in their education.
Looking back on my own education, I don't remember the format of how I learned in school, such as primarily relying on textbooks, using computer games, doing hands-on activities, etc. What I do remember are the teachers who made a personal investment in my learning, my well-being and my future. They didn't need a tablet to help me understand a concept beyond straight memorization for a test. They didn't need a tablet to get me excited to go to class. They didn't need instantaneous quizzes and results to personalize my learning experience. It was their teaching styles, ability to relate to the entire class, and availability and approachability inside and outside of the classroom that engaged me in my education and voluntary participation to do well in school.
In a recent article from The Guardian, the author discusses the results of a research study that identify a few key traits of successful teachers, including empathy, resilience and adaptability. The training, recognition and development of teachers is what the education industry needs to invest in. Tablets and other technology can be great tools that teachers can integrate into their lesson plans, but they are not the end-all-be-all solution to an improved education system.
Wednesday, January 27, 2016
The Law of Information and Attention in Media
The two readings discuss related topics - the economics of information and the economics of attention. In the "Information Surplus in the Digital Age" chapter, information surplus is defined as "the excessive amount of information available to users even at the price of zero." If we look at the law of supply and demand, a high supply and low demand will push prices down; therefore the more information we receive (supply) and the less attention we exert (demand) will continue to push the price of information down, or in other words, continue to increase information surplus. With that in mind, how are media companies supposed to continue to grow and make profits in the future? Is there a media company out there that can find the answer? One medium in particular comes to mind - Snapchat.
Although its concept would seem to solve the attention deficit and information surplus discussed in the readings, Snapchat is not quite there and even shows signs of regression from solving this problem. The application's concept is simple: people can send up to ten seconds of a photo or video and cannot view it again once the content is opened. Ten seconds allows for us to devote enough attention without being overloaded with an excessive amount of information. However, how will Snapchat make money from this concept especially when the application is free? The answer is advertisements, which is the same reason Snapchat is moving further from decreasing the information-attention gap. Over the last year, Snapchat has added Stories and Discover Channels, two features that allow advertisers to pay for their content to be featured. Although this advertising projected a revenue of $50 million for the company in 2015, more information is saturating the application and the less attention people are devoting to it. Snapchat has fallen to information surplus and as a result the value of attention management is lost. If a trendy application like Snapchat cannot find the solution, will the problem ever be solved?
Although its concept would seem to solve the attention deficit and information surplus discussed in the readings, Snapchat is not quite there and even shows signs of regression from solving this problem. The application's concept is simple: people can send up to ten seconds of a photo or video and cannot view it again once the content is opened. Ten seconds allows for us to devote enough attention without being overloaded with an excessive amount of information. However, how will Snapchat make money from this concept especially when the application is free? The answer is advertisements, which is the same reason Snapchat is moving further from decreasing the information-attention gap. Over the last year, Snapchat has added Stories and Discover Channels, two features that allow advertisers to pay for their content to be featured. Although this advertising projected a revenue of $50 million for the company in 2015, more information is saturating the application and the less attention people are devoting to it. Snapchat has fallen to information surplus and as a result the value of attention management is lost. If a trendy application like Snapchat cannot find the solution, will the problem ever be solved?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)