Dear Webmaster,
As the Site operator of UKSERP.com, I would like to invite you to exchange links with us.
The entire week we will conduct a unique link exchange that will focus on real links with real traffic from real sites with real content!
Why Trade links with us?
A. Totally free of charge.
B. We have an extremely high Alexa Traffic Rank compared to other online SEO websites.
C. We occupy Google's top positions for various topics.
D. We are content rich and proud of it!
I would like to keep this link exchange as relevant as possible to your site(s) as well,
this is why I'm offering a variety of inner pages you can link to and remember,
sites sending good related links will receive the same treatment in terms of quality and relevance.
Please let me know what type of link exchanges is optional for noches-barcelona.blogspot.com. I can offer you:
Three-way/In-direct Exchanges
Links from related sites within content
High PR and/or Content Backlinks
Any other suggestion you might have...
It all ends up with what you've got to offer. We promise a free, fair and honest exchange with each of our participants.
Lauren Crawford - UKSERP.com
martes, 14 de mayo de 2013
viernes, 10 de mayo de 2013
Baekdal Plus (2 сообщения)
 Baekdal PlusStrategic insight and analysis for people in the media industry http://www.baekdal.com рекомендовать друзьям >> |
- CPA, CPM, CPC ... WTF? - (by @baekdal)
Advertising was simple back in the good old days. We had no way to measure it, and newspapers and magazines grossly exaggerated their circulation numbers. Do anyone really believe when a magazine, with a circulation of 150,000, claims that each issue is read by seven people on average, given them a total reach of one million?
Yeah, right...
Or as Mel Karmazin, president of Viacom said:
You buy a commercial in the Super Bowl, you're going to pay two and one-half million dollars for the spot. I have no idea if it's going to work. You pay your money, you take your chances.
Today, of course, we live in a very different world. Not only do we now have far more (and better) sources to choose from, we also have far more advanced advertising models that can both be targeted and measured in extraordinary detail.
But the advertising world is still trying to play the game of hide and seek.
Google recently came out with a study telling us that 'Users are up to 21 times more likely to click on viewable ads'.
When you read a result like that, your brain should immediately go into hyper-alert mode. How can people click on ads that they don't see?
Of course, when you then dig into the numbers, you quickly realize that this study is not really about viewable vs unviewable ads. Rather they are measuring what percentage of the ads that are visible on the screen, and for how long an ad is visible.
And when you measure that, we find that the more of an ad that people can see, and the longer it is visible on the screen, the higher the click-through rate is -- and that is not surprising. It's really common sense.
We also learn (which is nothing new for people in the industry) that the definition of a viewable ad is "at least 50% on screen for one second or longer" ...as defined by the Interactive Advertising Bureau.
On one hand this is great, as it's far better than the highly misleading impression count that we had before.
But on the other hand, it's still not good enough. If I, as a brand, pay for advertising, I expect to get what I'm paying for. And I'm *not* paying to have only half my ad displayed for about a second. I'm paying to have my full ad displayed for a long enough time that people actually have a chance to decide upon it.
We are moving in the right direction, and Google is one of the few who are showing the way forward. But we still have a very long way to go before the world of advertising delivers what it sells.
It's interesting to see how big the difference is between view rates, but we are focusing on the wrong problem. I don't care that viewable ads (50% visible for 1+ sec.) are 21 times better than non-viewable ads. I want my ads to be 100% visible for long enough that people see them.
At this point you are probably thinking, "I know, we should just drop CPM based advertising and instead focus on CPA or CPC based advertising" (CPA is when you only pay when people act and CPC when they click, regardless of how many times it is displayed).
But there is a problem with this kind of thinking. Think of it in terms of call-to-actions.
The purpose of any type of advertising is to make people aware of what you do and translate that into a sale. And we also know that, for every obstacle you put in people's way, you lose a substantial percentage of that sale.
You want your path to sale to be as direct and as effective as possible, and that means using the right type of advertising for the right type of sale.
For instance, if you are the WWF and you are running a campaign to save the BlueFin Tuna, putting up a CPM based ad asking people to do something, maybe tomorrow, isn't going to work. Instead, you need to do a CPA based ad (actions) where you ask people to "Call to donate", paying only for the number of calls people make.
CPM (views), or CPC (clicks) is not very useful in this case.
However, if you are H&M and you are running a campaign with Beyonc for bikini outfits that people can buy via their website, you want to do a CPC (click) campaign. The action that you want people to take is for them to go to your web shop (a click).
A CPA or a CPM campaign wouldn't make much sense.
And, if you are Stride, selling chewing gum in local stores, and via gas stations, you would want to do a CPM based campaign (views). In this case, your product cannot be directly linked to or acted on online, so you want to optimize for awareness and recall rates.
Of course, if it's a social campaign, where your purpose is to get people to connect with you, we are back to a CPC campaign (a 'Like' is a click).
You have to choose the right type of campaign for the right type of product. And this also means that we have to live with the rather odd definitions that the advertising industry use
But as brands, we have to put higher demands on our advertising partners. I don't think it's acceptable to pay for an ad that people don't see. Most advertising providers don't make any promises to how an ad is viewed. They are simply counting how many times it is rendered on the page (regardless of where that is). And even the new definition of 50% viewable for one second, is not good enough.
It's better than the complete bogus advertising metrics of the past, but it's still based on a deception.
Also read: Magazines Still Try To Hide The Real Impact of Advertising.
It's the same with native or social advertising. Native advertising, where a brand posts an article in a magazine, is currently paid for per pageview (or worse, a fixed price for which you have no idea what you get).
Pageviews is a hopeless metric. It tells you nothing about how many people actually see your article, let alone read it. If there is a link, you can measure clicks. But many brands don't need the click. They need to spread the word.
Same with social ads (sponsored or promoted posts). At the moment, we don't really know what we are paying for. Promoting a post on a Facebook page (boosting) is charged per view... but we have no idea what the CPM actually is. You might pay $10 and reach 6,000 views, and the next day you pay $5 and only reach 2,000 (real example).
We are back in the old world of "I have no idea if it's going to work. You pay your money, you take your chances."
Sure, we can measure it. But if we can't use our past measurements to estimate our future, what good is it?
We are moving in the right direction, but, as a brand, be mindful of how you advertise. Demand more from the advertising providers, measure the results, and repeat.
Переслать - Measuring Results: Don't be Fooled By Math - (by @baekdal)
In my report about "Making Sense of Social Media Monitoring and Sentiment Analysis", I very briefly mentioned the problem with using averages. But a number of people commented on just that one thing as being a constant problem they have every day.
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, 3 de mayo de 2013
Baekdal Plus (2 сообщения)
| Baekdal Plus Strategic insight and analysis for people in the media industry http://www.baekdal.com рекомендовать друзьям >> |
- The Real Problem With Piracy - (by @baekdal)
Earlier this week, I mentioned on Google+ that I had discovered that all my books are now being pirated on torrent sites. And, +Visnja Zeljeznjak asked me:
What are your thoughts on your own stuff being pirated?
That is a great question. So let's talk about it.
First of all, we all know why piracy exists. It's the result of clueless publishers thinking that limiting and discriminating against their customers is a viable way to do business. We see it all the time.
For instance, if I want to watch 'Finding Forrester', I just search for "netflix finding forrester" and I immediately find what I want:
But when I then click on this, I end up on the Danish Netflix site, where Finding Forrester is not available for streaming.
How dare Columbia Pictures do this to me? This is discrimination against me as a person, simply because of where I live. I can get so pissed off about this, and unfortunately it's a growing problem.
Four years ago I created this comic to illustrate the problem:
When it comes to piracy, I feel the same way as anyone else. Piracy is a fight for freedom against those who seek to oppress our ability to do the same as anyone else.
I know this sounds a bit strong. But that's what it is. And media companies need to understand that.
However... It all went terribly wrong
As the media industry spent more and more time limiting and discriminating, via tools like DRM and organisation like the RIAA and MPAA, piracy changed from being a fight for freedom, to the new normal.
Most people I know, no longer realize why they pirate content. They do it because that's how it's always been done, and that's what all their friends are doing. Piracy today is done for the sake of piracy.
We have ended up in this terrible place where people steal other people's work, without even thinking about it.
Take my books. Yes, you have to pay for them (about $8 - or free via a subscription), but once you have done that, you can download them either as a PDF, Kindle or an ePub file.
There are no limitations for how you can use them. There is no DRM. You can use it on any device, in iBooks, Kindle, Kobo, Nook, in the browser ... anywhere. And you can copy it to as many devices as you want.
In fact, it's so open that, if you wanted to, you could unpack the ePub file and convert it into whatever other format you desire. Just open it in Calibre, and save it as whatever you want.
If you want the raw HTML (ePub is just a packaged HTML file), just rename the ePub file to zip and double click on it.
So when people start to pirate my books, they don't do it because I'm limiting them. They do it just to be annoying. This is just hooliganism.
I feel really hurt when I see that my books are being pirated. I spent months writing them. I spent months trying to figure out how give my readers the highest amount of value. There is no ethical reason for pirating them.
It's just... ouch!
It's really sad that piracy has evolved, from being a question of ethics, into a state where people can't tell the difference between right and wrong.
It's the same when Louis C.K. made his show available to everyone online, in a non-DRM format, for $5. Within seconds the torrents sites were filled with pirated copies of it.
Here we have a guy who is sticking it to the RIAA and MPAA, and as a thank you, people still pirate his content. Sure, he also makes a lot of money, but the problem is that piracy has turned into a 'new normal' for no other reason than to pirate.
I understand why people pirate a movie if the movie studio is blocking you from seeing it on Netflix. Or if they delay the release for six months in one country while all your friends can see it today in another. I fully understand that. And I do not see a problem with it.
But it's bad when people are pirating the good guys content. Those who spent time creating value for you, and giving it to you just the way you want.
There is no excuse for that.
The real problem
This leads us to the real problem with piracy today. Because people pirate just to pirate, the market is getting skewed in favor of the past.
Let me explain how this works:
Imagine that you have $200 left to spend, and you want to buy a new pair of shoes, a new iPad bag (because you feel your old one is looking a bit out-of-date), a couple of books, a movie, an XBOX game, a magazine subscription, and Will.I.am's latest album.
Clearly, you can't do that because the total sum is more than the $200 you have. So you have to make a choice. And because of piracy, this choice is suddenly very simple. You buy the physical goods, and pirate the digital ones:
Do you see how piracy skews the market? Instead of people making a decision on the value of each product, the physical products win by default, as you can always get the digital products for free.
This is a huge problem, and one that most pirates don't realize that they are causing. Pirates force us to live in the old world, where the only products worth buying are the physical ones. It's preventing the digital world from being a viable business model.
I don't mind piracy if it was equal for all. If we had 3D printers and replicators capable of pirating iPad bags and Nike Shoes, then it would be alright. Because then people would choose what to buy based on what they really like.
Media analysts (including myself) keep telling people to 'make yourself worth paying for'. And that's true. But not even Louis C.K. could convince everyone that $5 was worth paying for, while thousands of people are perfectly willing to pay $45 to go to a theater ... a place where you also have to pay for beverages, the trip on the subway, and so forth.
Piracy is keeping us in the past. It's preventing the digital world from being able to stand on its own.
We all understand why piracy exists. We all agree that many media companies are behaving idiotically by limiting and discriminating markets (and devices). We get that!
But piracy is not killing the music industry. It's killing our digital future. I don't care about the RIAA or the MPAA, or the publishing associations who are trying to prevent us from being connected.
I care about the rest of us, the digital natives. People who want to embrace the digital world 100%. People who want to give you everything they have, any way you want. And it's these people who are hurt the most by piracy,
The RIAA is never going out of business (in fact, it's growing). But the digital natives are struggling because we need your support to create a digital-only business.
My mom, for instance, runs a small knitting and tea shop. As a part of this, she creates knitting patterns that teach her customers how to create their own clothes. It takes days, sometimes weeks, to create these instructions, and she had to hire someone to test them out to make sure it's perfect. And each knitting pattern costs only $5 to buy.
But her knitting instructions are, like my books, being pirated on knitting sites. And when she confronts some of the worst offenders, they tell her that she is an idiot and that she should give them away for free.
It's just sad.
Piracy is killing the wrong people, for all the wrong reasons. It's not destroying the traditional publishers. In fact, it's helping them by keeping us in the past. Piracy is really destroying the new world of digital creators. People who want to do it right!
Think, before you pirate!
Переслать - Making Sense of Social Media Monitoring and Sentiment Analysis - (by @baekdal)
Ever since social media started to take off, so has the growing industry of social media monitoring and subsequently, the art of sentiment analysis. I have written about it several times before, for instance in 2011 when I wrote "I Would Rather Have Bacon Than Klout".
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 |
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)