Wednesday, March 24, 2010

why internet marketing


A few weeks ago Ken Fisher wrote a popular blog post about how ad blocking software can have devastating effects to the websites that you frequently visit. Mr. Fischer describes how ad blocking software is responsible for showing false page view data to ad networks. As a result each ad is priced at a lower rate because the number of impressions are significantly smaller. The number of page views is an extremely important metric for websites that sell advertising based on a CPM price model. So it’s only understandable that Mr. Fischer and other online publishers will hold a grudge against ad blocking software.


While I can understand Mr. Fischer’s frustration I cannot sympathize. To be completely honest I use ad blocking software every day. In fact on at least one occasion add blocking software has been responsible for a pretty embarrassing moment. So you’re probably asking yourself why does someone who feels so strongly about marketing block advertisements? It’s simple really, I hate ads.


What? You hate ads? How can you write for Marketing Pilgrim and hate ads? In my opinion marketing is fundamentally organizing people around information. Interrupting people with abrupt irrelevant commands isn’t how you organize people around information. Instead speaking to them on a unique and authentic level is more effective and genuine.


Putting philosophy aside, in my opinion ads are the worst way to monetize content. Generally speaking an increase in on-page advertisements contributes to a degraded user experience. Which can lead to lower user retention levels and decreased page views. Online advertisements are also ripe with fraud and manipulation. Historically click through rates have been at around 2% for most online advertisements. All of these factors and more contribute to the extremely low return on investment.


Online ads add to a decreasing user experience by taking attention away from the site’s primary content and placing it on the ads. This is not the actions of rogue spammers, this is the fundamental method to making any substantial revenue from ads. An excellent example of this in action, is taking a look at Google’s own recommendations for ad placement in the Adsense program. Here we see Google advises users to place ads on every available white-space on the page. This is a huge contradiction for a company that was so widely praised for starting with such a clean user interface.


Most ad platforms have large potential for fraud and manipulation. This is is an issue that not many professionals in IM discuss publicly because, quite honestly, whether they are participating in the fraud or not they still stand to profit off of ad manipulation. To a great extent Google and some of the other larger ad networks have gone to great lengths to minimize the impact of this type of fraud. However, any potential for fraud creates an uneasy market place where advertisers and publishers are continually left wondering if they are being taken advantage of. Google doesn’t help matters by keeping the exact specifics of their pricing model a secret from both advertisers and publishers. What’s even more devastating about these fraud schemes is that they can manipulate entire ad markets not just the individual ads they are targeting.


We reported back in January that the average click through rate for Google Adwords is around 2%. This means that 2% of the site visitors are clicking through on the ads. Most businesses off the Internet wouldn’t be able to survive with a 2% conversion rate. The only way to make substantial revenue from ads on the Internet is to completely dominate the market and control the flow of information. *cough* Google *cough*.


Wow Joe what do you want me to do? Not make any money? Absolutely not! But I do think that more companies and content producers need to experiment with different business models that aren’t reliant on ad dollars. The mainstream media on the internet is already starting to experiment with pay walls and different premium membership options. While I generally agree with the old saying that information should be free, I do think there is substantial room to monetize parts of the web that are currently a free-for-all. For example there are many opportunities to monetize communities and forums that provide quality content and meaningful dialogue to its users. Another potential opportunity is product development. Content developers and publishers should work to create their own products aside from their content that they can offer to their regular subscribers for premium fee.


So next time you see a drop in your ad revenue don’t blame the users, blame the ads. They got you into this mess and they aren’t going to get you out!


Social Media Monitoring in Just 60-Seconds. Guaranteed!





The Academy Awards are not yet over, so I’m going to make my prediction: Inglourious Basterds will win Best Picture.


I know, I know — it’s been Hurt Locker’s awards season, and so far, Hurt Locker’s night. But that is precisely why I’m even more sure that Basterds will take the top spot.


Here’s the thing: The Hurt Locker was an amazing, important film. But did I enjoy it? Of course not. It was very tough to watch, and while gripping, not exactly what you’d call a happy place. Basterds, while violent and shocking and about the Holocaust never you mind, was a damn fun movie to watch. People love that movie. They love talking about it, pulling it apart; they love the characters (Christoph Waltz! What a delightfully evil and charming villain! Shoshana, as badass a heroine as Quentin Tarantino has ever created! The Bear Jew, fetish object for niches across the Internet! Look, it’s B.J. Novak and Mike Myers! And — Brad Pitt!). Oh and Diane Kruger’s not too rough on the eyes, either.


Yes, Inglourious Basterds has had the benefit of the Harvey Weinstein marketing machine, not to mention a pretty smart ongoing campaign of marketing (hello, Rabbis, glad you enjoyed the film!). But none of that would matter if the movie wasn’t good.


Look at previous awards shows — any time there was an ensemble cast award to be won, Basterds took it handily (People’s Choice, Screen Actors Guild). It’s been nominated for the key awards — screenplay, director, picture. So has Hurt Locker, obviously; and as Jason Reitman can tell you, numerous nominations does not an actual Oscar make. But — I think that Oscar voters like to reward the movies that they like. Hold that thought for a moment.


Consider the Oscar screener. Viewed in a home theater, most likely — so on a second watch of Avatar, which is dazzling in many ways but not really in its story, a voter would likely be less impressed than, say, in a giant IMAX theater. And, as mentioned above, Hurt Locker is a great film, an important film, but — yes — a challenging film. (The same way The Messenger is an important but challenging film. Up In The Air is not a challenging film.) Inglourious Basterds, on the other hand, hits that magical sweet spot: An important film (a Holocaust film, lest we forget what the Academy just loves), but still, a damn fun one — and one that is even more fascinating on the second watch, with new details revealing themselves like the little nuggets that Tarantino seems to bury just for the extra-obsessed fan.


And — bias declared — I’m Jewish. And what can I say, Jews seems to be extra-engaged by Inglourious Basterds, for obvious reasons. (See reference to bloodthirsty, revenge-crazed rabbis above; or, just a proud Jewish papa.) If I make a joke about Jews in Hollywood I will certainly not be the first; indeed, Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin made one about Basterds just tonight (about how easy it would be for Waltz’s “Jew Hunter” in the Kodak Theater tonight). (Never mind recasting Jews as virile, badass avengers.) I’m not saying that there is bias in voting, per se — I’m saying that some movies strike a real chord. That’s how hits are made. The effect they have on us, as audience even as we’re doubling as critic, is real. If it hits the brain it’s one thing, but if it hits the gut, well, that’s quite another.


Okay, now: Let’s go back to the thought I told you to hold. Cut to the bizarro new Best Picture rules. There are ten nominees — twice as many as usual — and along with the more wild-card, pot pourri nature of the competition, there’s also equally wildcard new voting rules: You vote for your favorites according to rank. So — you can vote for the film you think ought to win, or the film you want to win, or your favorite; or for all the films you’d like to win over the one film you hate. This encourages strategic voting (see Steve Pond’s Oscar picks at The Wrap) — but also frees people up to vote for their second-favorite film second, or their guilty-pleasure film second, or their anti-Avatar film second. You see where I’m going with this. This race has officially been Avatar vs. Hurt Locker, but if there was ever a dark horse that would come up the middle, it’s Basterds.


And now, as the Oscars are almost over, Hurt Locker has kicked ass like a Bear Jew taking aim at a Nazi skull, and there are two big awards still to go: Best Director and Best Picture. Kathryn Bigelow will win Best Director, and should, for a variety of reasons (getting a picture made and overcoming the obstacles thereto is a big part of that). But with votes cast for Hurt Locker across the board, for all the big, pointed awards — well, the way is clear for Best Picture for just a little leeway. Especially when everyone else will surely vote for the other one, be it Hurt Locker or Avatar. And after all, you’re supposed to rank your favorites accordingly, right? Of course right.


It’s just a theory. At this point, no one knows except some dude in glasses a pocket protector at Price Waterhouse-Coopers. But — with minutes to go in the ceremony — I’m making the call: Inglourious Basterds will win Best Picture.


And should.




bill bartmann


Why Pirates are killing the Android Market by PACMan3000









Tuesday, March 2, 2010

personal finance money management


This is an interview with Catey Hill, author of the hot new book SHOO, Jimmy Choo as well as the Money & Business Editor for the NY DailyNews.com





1. What motivated you to pen SHOO, Jimmy Choo?



Maybe I'd watched one too many episodes of Sex & the City, but when I moved to New York, I lived it up. I got an apartment I couldn't afford in Chelsea, went out way too much and bought shoes (and a million other things!) I couldn't afford on my credit card. The result (other than one too many martini hangovers and a stuffed-to-the-brim closet?): A pile of credit card debt, no retirement fund and not even a dime in savings.

But luckily, I was promoted to become the Financial Marketing Manger for Forbes Magazine, which was a giant wake-up call ... At first, I'd be in a meeting and hear terms like Roth IRA, nod and pretend that, of course, I knew what they were talking about, and then race to my computer to Google it so I didn't later look like an idiot. Slowly but surely, I started learning more and more about finance. And the more I learned, the more I realized, I'd better do something about my not-so-sexy financial "situation."



At the same time, I started talking to other women about their finances and realized I wasn't alone when I'd felt a little confused and intimidated by money management. And the more I looked into it, the more I realized there weren't that many personal finance books for women like me - young women in their 20s and 30s - written in a voice we relate to (not a mom figure tsk tsking us, but a girl our age who did this all herself, a girl who gets that its not an option to never again buy an amazing pair of shoes or go cold-turkey on nights out). So I decided to write it. And that's how SHOO, Jimmy Choo! was born.





2. Which section of SHOO, Jimmy Choo! did you enjoy writing most?



The "Spending Style" section was my favorite part of SHOO, Jimmy Choo! to write for two reasons. First, the advice in the section was one of the first - and primary - things that turned my financial situation around. Here's why: spending is the crux of our financial life - if we spend too much money, we won't have enough to get out of debt and save. So, once I started controlling my spending using the advice in this section, it set me up to meet the rest of my financial goals.

And second, because the "Spending Style" section approaches spending in a unique, and I think critical, way. The section helps us look not only at what we buy but also WHY we buy it. A lot of books look at what we buy and help us budget, but the "why" - the motivations, root causes and patterns - of our spending is critical to helping us spend less, but often overlooked in personal finance books. Until you get to the bottom of why you spend money, you'll have so much more trouble controlling that unnecessary spending.





3. If you could give a woman in her 20s just one piece of financial advice, what would it be?



The #1 piece of advice I'd give a woman in her 20s would be to make financial goals and a plan to stick to them. A lot of us - I was one of them! - just glide through life thinking we'll worry about retirement, saving and other financial goals later, that we'll deal with our debt when we make more money, etc. We have vague goals (things like: I'll be laying on the beach at 40 with a margarita in my hand and giant nest egg in the bank; or I'll save enough so I can quit my job and write a book - my personal fave! - etc.) But we have no solid financial goals and no real steps to make them happen.




4. You've gotten incredible press coverage, what's the most interesting question you've been asked so far?



It's funny: The book is a personal finance book but I get almost as many questions about shoes as I do about money management. I often get "Why do women like shoes so much?" (Ha, I'm no expert on why all women like anything, but I always just say "because they always fit and they always look good - even after those ten extra post-holiday pounds!"). Another favorite is "Can you please tell our audience what a Jimmy Choo is." When I get to the part in my explanation about how much Jimmy Choos cost, it opens up a whole other set of questions - most of them involving "why on earth would a woman spend that much on shoes?" Once we go there, it's an entire interview about the shoes...




5. How did you personally learn about personal finance?



I learned in the trenches so to speak. I picked up the basics working at Forbes, and then just started reading every personal finance book I could get my hands on - which is how the idea for SHOO, Jimmy Choo! came about. To research for SHOO, Jimmy Choo!, I kept reading personal finance books and interviewed a bunch of financial advisors, economists and regular people about money management. I also took a job as the Money Editor for the New York Daily News online.




6. Do you think personal finance should be taught in schools - and if so, starting at what grade level?



I do think personal finance should be taught in schools probably starting in middle school and most definitely through high school. I certainly wish I'd been taught about checking and savings accounts, credit cards, student loans, auto loans and more. It could have saved me thousands of dollars, and I'm sure I wasn't any different from millions of other kids heading off to college or into the real world these days with little or no financial preparation. Since the financial choices we make early on can stick with us for decades, why don't we give kids the best shot to make the right financial choices in their lives by teaching it in school?






7. What's next for you?



I just started working on my next book - a guide to living fabulously on a budget. It's a companion guide to SHOO, Jimmy Choo!: Now that you've got your finances under control using the advice SHOO, Jimmy Choo!, the new book will show you how to keep them that way without sacrificing your sense of style.




Keep up with Catey's latest thinking by following her on Twitter at @cateyhill







When you think personal finance software, the first thing that comes to mind is probably Quicken. While Quicken has been a mainstay on Windows desktops for years, its Mac presence has been less than stellar. That changes today, with the release of Quicken Essentials for Mac. Re-built from the ground up and integrating lots of features from Mint.com, Quicken Essentials is a great addition to the Mac software space./> id="more-215383">/> Quicken has always treated the Mac platform as kind of an also-ran. Although new versions of the tool appeared yearly (at least until 2006) alongside the class='blippr-nobr'>Windowsclass="blippr-nobr">Windows variants, the Mac editions always lagged behind in features, stability and even pricing options. Quicken Essentials for Mac, previously known as Quicken Financial Life for Mac, has been promised since Macworld 2008. After two years, it’s finally here.

Rebuilding Quicken for the Mac

Quicken Essentials for Mac is a native Cocoa app. This in itself wouldn’t be that noteworthy, except that previous versions of Quicken for Mac have not been built on Cocoa (or even optimized for Intel Macs), which has meant that there were user interface quirks and behavioral differences that made Quicken feel like less of a real Mac app.

With Quicken Essentials for Mac, the interface and program have been designed to use class='blippr-nobr'>Mac OS X’sclass="blippr-nobr">Mac OS X core features and strengths. This is a really good thing, and it shows a commitment to the Mac platform. This is important because it has been nearly four years since a Quicken app was released for the Mac. QuickBooks has had more frequent updates, but for home users who want to manage their finances, this is a long time coming.

A Dose of Mint (.com)

In September, Intuit, the makers of Quicken, acquired the money management web app, Mint.com. The acquisition was controversial among some class='blippr-nobr'>Mintclass="blippr-nobr">Mint users, out of fear that Intuit would end up changing Mint into something different.

It’s still too early to assess how the acquisition has affected both product groups (Mint.com continues as a separate product), but consumers did get something out of the deal: Aaron Patzer, the founder of Mint.com, is now Intuit’s vice president and general manager of the company’s Personal Finance Group. That means that Aaron and the Mint team are now working on both Quicken and Mint.com.

I spoke with Aaron at the Future of Web Apps in Miami on Monday night, and he offered me some insight into his new role and the changes on the new Mac product.

Aaron described Quicken Essentials for Mac as “the closest thing to Mint on the desktop as you are going to get.” From a personal money management perspective, that’s really great, because it means that not only is it easier to visualize where money is going, but you can connect to more financial institutions through the program than ever before. More than 12,000 institutions are supported now, and a total of more than 18,000 is expected by the end of the year.

Categorization is also much easier in Quicken Essentials for Mac, which is again, a hat-tip to Mint.com

A Few Notes For Users

Quicken Essentials for Mac is designed for home users and while it supports basic investment tracking, it isn’t as robust as the Quicken for Windows offerings or the old Quicken Mac 2007. Better support for investments is planned for future versions of Quicken Essentials for Mac, but for right now, this isn’t really designed for users with heavy portfolios.

Because only 6% of Quicken users used the built-in Bill Pay option in Quicken, this was removed from Quicken Essentials for Mac. You can still track your bills and make sure you have the money to pay them, but you can’t pay directly from the app unless you sign up for Intuit’s Bill Pay service.

If you’re a TurboTax user, Quicken Essentials for Mac doesn’t integrate or export to TurboTax, although again, that type of support might be added to the future. If you rely on getting your Quicken info into TurboTax, you’ll need to use Quicken Mac 2007.

A Nice Start

This is a great rebirth of sorts for Quicken for Mac. After being virtually abandoned for such a long time, it’s nice that the most popular money management tool is finally back on the Mac and in style. Quicken Essentials for Mac is $69.99 and requires Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard or Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard.

Mac users — what do you think about Intuit’s new commitment to Mac? What are your favorite Mac-based financial management apps? Let us know!



follow quizzle on twitter! by QuizzleTown


rock tops granite counter tops, internet reputation management, robert shumake investor, robert shumake investor, loss mitigation course



















Monday, March 1, 2010

personal finance blog


Mac owners still have deal with a lack of proper Mac compatible versions of many popular programs, although the situation is improving. For the past few years this shortfall has included personal finance software such as Intuit's Quicken, an issue that has finally been addressed with the release of Quicken Essentials for Mac.



This new version of Quicken for Apple owners is the first version of Quicken software which has been written from the ground up for OSX, partially thanks to Intuit's purchase of Mint.com last year.



Notable improvements over the last version of Quicken for Mac (from 2007) include:

  • New Mac-like user interface

  • Connects to 12,000 banks and financial institutions

  • Better categorization using an algorithm similar to Mint.com

  • Conversion software to help you bring your data from earlier Mac versions and Windows versions of Quicken or MS Moneyeds.





While some users will be excited to have a new version of Quicken for Mac, tech pundit Walter Mossberg wasn't too hot on the new version for its lack of features that come standard in Windows versions such as Bill Pay, TurboTax integration and the ability to view or edit transactions in investment accounts.



The Unofficial Apple Weblog has the best description of Quicken Essentials for Mac's lack of power features, calling it the "iPhoto for your finances" and suggesting alternatives for users who need more advanced tools.



These are notable omissions for individuals looking for a rounded and robust personal finance tool, but as Intuit points out, this version of Quicken Essentials for Mac is just that; the essential personal finance tools.

.




Remains of the Day: Ogg vs. H.264 Videos Side-by-Side Edition





Gmail stutters, a phony version of Microsoft Security Essentials makes the rounds, Opera 10.5 beta comes to Macs, and video codecs Ogg Theora and H.264 go head to head.

(Click the image above for a closer look.)



  • Why Can't PCs Work More Like iPhones?

    NYT's Nick Bilton wishes that PCs could adopt a few of the better things about iPhones and other user-friendly mobile operating systems—just not the awful walled garden part.

  • Quicken for the Mac: Finally!

    The popular personal finance desktop application makes its way to the Mac desktop.

  • Gmail Acting Up? It's Not Just You

    Earlier today, several people experienced Gmail errors, acknowledged by their Apps Status Dashboard, so if you had Gmail bugginess this morning, you weren't alone.

  • Security Essentials 2010 Is Not Microsoft Security Essentials

    There's a fake antivirus application making the rounds on the internet called Security Essentials 2010—not to be confused with Microsoft Security Essentials, the antivirus app we like so much.

  • Ogg Theora vs. H.264: head to head comparisons

    A side-by-side comparison of two competitors for the throne of de facto web video standard reveals, unfortunately, that the free solution (Ogg) doesn't appear to stack up. [Ars Technica]

  • Opera 10.50 Beta for Mac!

    Opera 10.5 Beta is now available for Macs, and it's gooood. [Opera Blog]







Send an email to Adam Pash, the author of this post, at tips+adam@lifehacker.com.




Office in use by imjoshdotcom


http://removeripoffreports.net