In response to another LinkedIn, question about the advantages to marketing in Second Life, I said:
"From an Internet marketing standpoint, the pros are minimal. I've dabbled in Second Life, and most of what I found was a lot of people trying to escape reality. That can be a viable target market, but most of the products for sale in Second Life are only useful IN Second Life itself. So, unless you have an entirely virtual product for use in the "game," there's no use looking into marketing opportunities in that arena. People I ran into in the game were looking to escape reality, not to go there and be bombarded with the 'same old stuff.'"
Monday, November 16, 2009
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Pester Power and Children's TV Programming
Some marketing entities, who will remain nameless, don't just present products and services to potential consumers; they ram it down customers' throats with annoying frequency. Often, the adds appear to have been placed in the wrong time slots.
It's called "pester power," and it's becoming fairly common, especially during children's TV programming. Here are some reasons it bugs me, specifically when it comes to my kids!
First of all, I have very young children (three kids under the age of 5), and everything they see on commercials, they want. They have no way to discriminate between products; it all looks fun, so they want it.
I think there should be NO commercials during programming for children. PBS does this, for the most part, but they still have sponsored shows by McDonald's and other brands, so kids still see it. At least they're on the right track, though.
Secondly, I find it annoying that advertisers use children's programming time to advertise products to parents. The other day, I saw a soap commercial during Nick Jr. I understand that parents should be watching TV with their kids; we try to at our house as much as possible, but I know that a lot of people don't have the time to do it, and it's impossible to do it 100% of the time, so then kids are left watching ads for things they don't even understand. It becomes a drain on their delicate brains as well as advertisers' dollars.
I am, by writing this, making myself into a hypocrite, though. It’s my business to market products; I AM THE ENEMY. Fortunately, my current employer sells computer networking equipment, so I don’t think we’ll be appearing during Dora the Explorer any time soon!
It's called "pester power," and it's becoming fairly common, especially during children's TV programming. Here are some reasons it bugs me, specifically when it comes to my kids!
First of all, I have very young children (three kids under the age of 5), and everything they see on commercials, they want. They have no way to discriminate between products; it all looks fun, so they want it.
I think there should be NO commercials during programming for children. PBS does this, for the most part, but they still have sponsored shows by McDonald's and other brands, so kids still see it. At least they're on the right track, though.
Secondly, I find it annoying that advertisers use children's programming time to advertise products to parents. The other day, I saw a soap commercial during Nick Jr. I understand that parents should be watching TV with their kids; we try to at our house as much as possible, but I know that a lot of people don't have the time to do it, and it's impossible to do it 100% of the time, so then kids are left watching ads for things they don't even understand. It becomes a drain on their delicate brains as well as advertisers' dollars.
I am, by writing this, making myself into a hypocrite, though. It’s my business to market products; I AM THE ENEMY. Fortunately, my current employer sells computer networking equipment, so I don’t think we’ll be appearing during Dora the Explorer any time soon!
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Hulu Takes It Back
Click the title to go to a Website Magazine article about this topic.
My wife and I are avid TV watchers, but only online; with three kids, it's the only time we have to watch our favorite shows. And yes, we've been using Hulu to watch everything in one place; the convenience of the site has been great. I've even watched some movies on there, too.
So, when I heard that the News Corp. deputy chairman, Chase Carey, announced that Hulu would start charging for viewing videos through a subscription-based service, I wanted to reach through my computer screen and throttle the person that came up with the idea. SUBSCRIPTION? Are they all mental over there at News Corp.?
At our house, we get satellite TV, but we have the family package so the kids can watch all of that. It's really the only reason we have anything at all. That's our subscription. We don't need to pay for another subscription just so we can watch our favorite programming online. Watching shows online is an added BONUS for my wife and I, so we don't feel deprived. However, if Hulu charges, we'll go somewhere else; the stations themselves will most likely still offer free viewing. Sure, it'll be less convenient, but I'm NOT going to pay for something I already pay for each month!
Does anyone else have an opinion on this? Please make a comment below!
Now that people are up in arms, Hulu and News Corp. have all but recounted Mr. Carey's words by saying that their current plan is a good one that they'll not shy away from using in the future. The spokesperson also said that any additional, subscription-based services will be IN ADDITION to their free offerings. Who knows if that's what Carey meant to say, but I'm sure that's what he'll claim.
Companies should do more research before deciding on future business plans. Without the research, any company can make a mistake like News Corp. did. Research first, everyone! It's the only way to go!
Image via CrunchBase
My wife and I are avid TV watchers, but only online; with three kids, it's the only time we have to watch our favorite shows. And yes, we've been using Hulu to watch everything in one place; the convenience of the site has been great. I've even watched some movies on there, too.
So, when I heard that the News Corp. deputy chairman, Chase Carey, announced that Hulu would start charging for viewing videos through a subscription-based service, I wanted to reach through my computer screen and throttle the person that came up with the idea. SUBSCRIPTION? Are they all mental over there at News Corp.?
At our house, we get satellite TV, but we have the family package so the kids can watch all of that. It's really the only reason we have anything at all. That's our subscription. We don't need to pay for another subscription just so we can watch our favorite programming online. Watching shows online is an added BONUS for my wife and I, so we don't feel deprived. However, if Hulu charges, we'll go somewhere else; the stations themselves will most likely still offer free viewing. Sure, it'll be less convenient, but I'm NOT going to pay for something I already pay for each month!
Does anyone else have an opinion on this? Please make a comment below!
Now that people are up in arms, Hulu and News Corp. have all but recounted Mr. Carey's words by saying that their current plan is a good one that they'll not shy away from using in the future. The spokesperson also said that any additional, subscription-based services will be IN ADDITION to their free offerings. Who knows if that's what Carey meant to say, but I'm sure that's what he'll claim.
Companies should do more research before deciding on future business plans. Without the research, any company can make a mistake like News Corp. did. Research first, everyone! It's the only way to go!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)