|
martes, 9 de agosto de 2022
I want to collaborate with you!!
jueves, 13 de agosto de 2020
Backlink?
Hi,
I came across your article here http://noches-barcelona.blogspot.com/2012/09/baekdalcom-2_26.html and found it to be insightful and well done.
I'm reaching out to you today because we wrote a few articles on marketing and SEO such as small business marketing ideas, social media marketing ideas, brand marketing, and What is SEO
We love to support business owners with valuable information and I think your users would find our articles to be educational. We would really appreciate it if you could link to one of our articles above.
In exchange and as a thank you for linking to one of our articles, we would be happy to offer you a guest post on our blog or a non-reciprocal backlink.
Please let me know if that's something you would like or if you have any questions!
miércoles, 25 de septiembre de 2013
Baekdal Plus - Blackberry Lost the Consumer Market - (by @baekdal)
 Baekdal PlusStrategic insight and analysis for people in the media industry http://www.baekdal.com рекомендовать друзьям >> |
- Blackberry Lost the Consumer Market - (by @baekdal)
Blackberry has hit rock bottom. Operating revenue is down 50%. It loses almost one billion dollars per quarter. It has more than a billion worth of unsold inventory. It's quarterly sale of smartphones dropped to only 3.7 million units (down from 6.8 million). In comparison, Apple sold 9 million just last weekend.
It has announced it will cut 40% (4,500 employees) of it's workforce, and plan to cut of expenditure by 50%.
At the same time, a Canadian insurance company have signed a letter of intent to take Blackberry private, in an effort to lure suckers to come up with a better offer.
BlackBerry's unusual move to put together a loosely structured deal was motivated by its rapidly deteriorating business, several people close to the situation said. By publicizing a deal with a starting price, the company's hope is that will lure rival offers for part or all of BlackBerry
None of this sounds promising for the future of Blackberry.
So what will Blackberry do now? Well, the same thing all big tech companies do when they get in trouble. First, they have announced that they will stop selling smartphones to the consumer market and instead "refocus on enterprise and prosumer market, offering end-to-end solutions, including hardware, software and services."
It's the same old story. When Microsoft started to struggle to find other revenue streams in an increasingly mobile world, people started suggesting it should just refocus on Office and enterprises. Microsoft, luckily, hasn't done that.
When Kodak faced bankruptcy, they too hoped that they their digital printing services for enterprises would save them.
But forget about Microsoft, Kodak and Blackberry for a moment, and just look at the pattern. When tech companies fail, they all refocus on enterprises.
Why is that?
Well, isn't it obvious? It's because enterprises are even more out of date than these failing tech companies.
When the rest of the world starting going mobile, most enterprises started looking at VOIP landline solutions.
When video conferences became a big deal, most enterprises thought it meant buying Cisco's hideously expensive telepresence solutions. Systems which involves a TV in a meeting room ... and not Hangout or Skype on any device, anywhere.
When mobile email became critical, they though it meant buying another Lotus Domino server and combine it with a Blackberry messaging server ... and not Google Apps at $5 per month.
When they needed to start a web shop, they turned to hideously complex and expensive solutions that don't even give them the same features than what you can get with Shopify. But it's integrated, they say. Not realizing that the same integration is actually removing the human element and making the shops feel more like empty supermarkets then a place to be inspired.
This is the enterprise world. So it's not surprising that Blackberry have decided to refocus on that market. It's just like home. And they might even succeed.
Personally, I think it's a shame that we now have one less player in the smartphone consumer space. We need the competition.
But I also think that Blackberry failed not because of its phones, but because of its alliance with enterprise IT. Every single time people had to use a Blackberry, they were reminded by the archaic and cumbersome world of enterprise IT departments.
Instead, people choose to buy an iPhone or a new Android because they are refreshingly free of all that nonsense.
Переслать
| rss2email.ru |
| rss2email.ru | отписаться: http://www.rss2email.ru/unsubscribe.asp?c=31069&u=180536&r=773736329 управление подпиской: http://www.rss2email.ru/manage.asp партнерская программа: http://partner.rss2email.ru/?pid=1 |
sábado, 21 de septiembre de 2013
Baekdal Plus - Reuters Next = Reuters Past - (by @baekdal)
| Baekdal Plus Strategic insight and analysis for people in the media industry http://www.baekdal.com рекомендовать друзьям >> |
- Reuters Next = Reuters Past - (by @baekdal)
Reuters have cancelled their ambitious project called 'Reuters Next'. And what a sad decision that is. The purpose of Reuters Next was simple. Change Reuters from being a B2B news company who produced wire news to sell to other newspapers and turn it into a direct news services connecting them directly with you and me (the reader).
As Nieman Lab wrote:
The thinking is obvious: We have all these reporters and editors (over 2,000 in Reuters' case), all around the world, and we're producing all these stories and videos and photos - can't we figure out a way to get them in front of readers and viewers without a middleman?
It was an obvious move. The old newspaper structure is crumbling, and the need for small individual papers is reduced and replaced by consumer-centric news behemoths (like the NYT and Guardian). Going direct is critical to any news organization's success in a connected world.
But it was not to be. The internal friction within Reuters proved to big.
As Politico wrote:
Reuters Next died, these sources said, because of an ugly meeting of corporate politics, a lack of direction and the realization that money is more important to Thomson Reuters than consumer-focused news.
The project was marred by a serious lack of direction, serious infighting between groups, and outside consultants and technology being relied on versus internal organization.
Not to mention that, like most change projects, it lacked overall exec backing and was only held together by a single person.
After many reorganizations and personnel changes, the tipping point came when then-Digital Editor Chrystia Freeland left Reuters and announced in July she would run for parliament in Canada.
"Losing Chrystia was the end because she was the leader" an insider said. "She was the board connection she was fighting for us, she was the one really making it happen. Without her there was no one with enough clout to fight within the company, to fight off against all these groups who didn't want us to succeed, didn't want this project to happen.
As they write: "She was fighting for us". That's only something you do when the company itself don't want change to happen.
So what will Reuters do now? Well, they will put their focus back on their old site and refocus on their core strengths.
Next is a long way from achieving either commercial viability or strategic success. In fact, I believe the existing suite of Reuters.com sites is a better starting point for where we need to go," Mr. Rashbass wrote. "Therefore, I have decided to cancel the Next project and put our efforts into enhancing and improving the existing Reuters.com sites. We will repurpose as much of the Next development work as we can for that.
I know this will feel somewhat 'Back to the Future,' but the existing Reuters.com has many strengths, which I recognize coming from the outside that perhaps people here take for granted.
In other words. He is giving in to the friction.
All of this reminds me of Kodak. Once an amazing company that was both innovative and forward thinking, but then the market changed. And while many people at Kodak saw the need for change, the internal friction was so high that they became incapable of moving.
Kodak launched several interesting projects. For instance, they were the first to implement Wi-Fi in their cameras (and what a great idea), but the friction turned all these great project into niche areas with little overall backing or vision.
This is what is happening at Reuters. They still see the need for change. They still understand that their old business model is failing. But the internal friction is preventing them from truly risking doing something new. Instead, projects like Reuters Next had to fight for it's survival, and waste all it's time on internal lobbying rather than actually getting things done.
I don't know if Reuters Next would have been a success. The concept was great, and the purpose of it was just what Reuters needed. But it also had a number of structural problems. For one, the concept of giving people a 'river of news' is not actually what people want, even though the idea of automatically creating sections by topic was brilliant (what we in the blogging world calls 'tagging'). But the real problem was that it was never given the chance to really succeed.
Reuters is a great company ... but it's behaving more and more like Kodak. And It's now also faced with the problem that the most prominent forward thinking people have left the company, leaving behind those who created the friction in the first place.
In many ways, I also think this tells the story of how I believe most newspapers will fail. We see the same pattern in most newsrooms. Their internal friction is so high that the change that they do make is limited to making iPad apps that remind you more of the old print model. And over time, just as it happened at Kodak, this friction will kill them ... one by one.
This is also why I think the future of news is going to come from somewhere else. In the shift I wrote about how our media world is merging, but in reality, what we are seeing is that the old media industry is fading out.
There are a few exceptions, of course. But the future of news won't come from the news industry. The internal friction is simply too high.
Переслать
| rss2email.ru |
| rss2email.ru | отписаться: http://www.rss2email.ru/unsubscribe.asp?c=31069&u=180536&r=773736329 управление подпиской: http://www.rss2email.ru/manage.asp партнерская программа: http://partner.rss2email.ru/?pid=1 |
jueves, 19 de septiembre de 2013
Baekdal Plus - The Future of Packaged News - (by @baekdal)
| Baekdal Plus Strategic insight and analysis for people in the media industry http://www.baekdal.com рекомендовать друзьям >> |
- The Future of Packaged News - (by @baekdal)
One of the most profound changes that is happening to the media industry is the shift from packaged news to... well... something else. So does that mean we no longer need the package? That collection of articles that we can just lean back and read at our leisure?
Baekdal Plus: Read the rest of this article in Baekdal Plus
Переслать
| rss2email.ru |
| rss2email.ru | отписаться: http://www.rss2email.ru/unsubscribe.asp?c=31069&u=180536&r=773736329 управление подпиской: http://www.rss2email.ru/manage.asp партнерская программа: http://partner.rss2email.ru/?pid=1 |
jueves, 5 de septiembre de 2013
Baekdal Plus - Rethink Your Ecommerce Strategy - (by @baekdal)
| Baekdal Plus Strategic insight and analysis for people in the media industry http://www.baekdal.com рекомендовать друзьям >> |
- Rethink Your Ecommerce Strategy - (by @baekdal)
Over the past six months, I have been discussing ecommerce strategy with several brands (some in the form of strategy reviews). Ecommerce, of course, is nothing new. I have been engaged in ecommerce discussions on various levels for the past 13 years.
Baekdal Plus: Read the rest of this article in Baekdal Plus
Переслать
| rss2email.ru |
| rss2email.ru | отписаться: http://www.rss2email.ru/unsubscribe.asp?c=31069&u=180536&r=773736329 управление подпиской: http://www.rss2email.ru/manage.asp партнерская программа: http://partner.rss2email.ru/?pid=1 |
viernes, 30 de agosto de 2013
Baekdal Plus - Sources and Copyright - (by @baekdal)
| Baekdal Plus Strategic insight and analysis for people in the media industry http://www.baekdal.com рекомендовать друзьям >> |
- Sources and Copyright - (by @baekdal)
There is an interesting discussion in my country about copyright. The whole thing started after a scientist, who had been interviewed for an article, decided to republish it on his own site. The newspaper then demanded he took it down and issued a copyright fine of $2,000.
Okay, let's ignore the specific case and instead talk about the concept. Who actually owns the copyright of stories in which the contents come from someone being interviewed?
In the past, and because ordinary people had no means of publishing, we assumed that the copyright would fall upon the publication publishing it. So when a journalist interviewed a person, we assumed the newspaper owned the copyright.
But now that we live in the connected world, in which everyone can publish anything, that whole concept is up for debate.
In my country, the copyright law states:
The person creating a literary or artistic work shall have copyright therein, be it expressed in writing or in speech as a fictional or a descriptive representation, or whether it be a musical or dramatic work, cinematographic or photographic work, or a work of fine art, architecture, applied art, or expressed in some other manner.
In other words, the copyright belongs to the creator, not the mediator. And while a journalist might claim that they created the article, it was the person they interviewed who created the actual story.
Also, what is a copyright? Is it the exact construction of the sentences on a page ... or is it the contents of the interview? If it's the construction, the copyright falls to the journalist, but if it's the interview, the copyright belongs to the person being interviewed.
Also, my country's copyright law is specifically protecting against reproduction (as with the law in most other countries). What is reproduction?
Any direct or indirect, temporary or permanent reproduction, in whole or in part, by any means and in any form, shall be considered as reproduction.
In other words, if a newspaper interviews a person, what the person says belongs to him/her. So essentially, when a newspaper interview you, you are only granting them a non-exclusive right to reproduce it, but you still own what you said.
So republishing the article, in which you are interviewed on your own site, can't be a breach of the newspaper's copyright because they never owned the copyright to begin with ... or did they?
See the dilemma? The connected world isn't linear.
The issue at play here is really not about copyright. It's about the shift. It's about how limitations of the past caused us to create the assumption that the person publishing an article was also the creator. But now that everyone can publish, we start to realize just how much content that is being produced in which the actual creator is not also the publisher.
As the copyright law says: "be it expressed in writing or in speech."
And it's about what I have been saying for a long time. You need to stop being the 'bringer of news' and focus instead on being the creator of news.
What do you think?
Keep in mind, I'm not a lawyer, but it's a fascinating discussion.
(Image via MIKI Yoshihito http://goo.gl/WTU7p7 )
Переслать
| rss2email.ru |
| rss2email.ru | отписаться: http://www.rss2email.ru/unsubscribe.asp?c=31069&u=180536&r=773736329 управление подпиской: http://www.rss2email.ru/manage.asp партнерская программа: http://partner.rss2email.ru/?pid=1 |
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)