Daily non news Stories of Interest Category

Last Call, 2009: Here Are 6 Posts from The Wpromoter That Help Put the Year In Perspective

Wednesday, December 30th, 2009

2009 was a lot of things, but one thing is wasn’t? Boring. As we’ve said before, A LOT happened this year, and the bloggers here at Wpromote worked hard to keep up. We hope we succeeded in providing you a valuable and entertaining mix of content.

As we approach the beginning of a new decade, let’s take a look at six posts from The Wpromoter that highlight some of the most important online news from 2009.

  • The Google Witchhunt

Calling it a ‘witchhunt’ is probably extreme, but let’s face it - everyone had a reason to sue Google this year. Whether Google is at fault is not for us to decide - we’ll let the courts handle that. Get an overview of some of Google’s battles from Michael Block, Wpromote’s VP of Client Services and resident PPC expert, in “Tues News: 6/30 (Google vs. Everyone Edition).”

  • The Quest for Better ROI

A recession year in terms of spending on advertising, everyone was looking for ways to increase ROI. The beauty of online marketing tends to be accountability, but another huge benefit is the ability to make nominal tweaks and notice relatively instant results. Check out this roundup from Wpromote’s President and CEO, Mike Mothner, called “8 Things You Aren’t Doing That Will Boost Your SEM Results.”

  • The Twitter Phenomenon

Twitter made it cool to ‘do you’ in 2009. If you’re still unsure what all the fuss is about or simply want a better understanding of the microblogging service that took the world by storm, check out my post, “Tweeting to Transparency: 4 Reasons to Be Who You Are in 2009.”

  • The Viral Marketing Explosion

It’s effective, powerful, and ‘cool.’ It has that ‘everybody’s doing it and so should we’ cache to it. But viral marketing is not a paint-by-the-numbers tactic, and poorly executed viral campaigns can cause a brand more harm than good. Get some tips from Jesse Bouman, Wpromote’s Viral Marketing and Social Media Manager, in his informative post, “3 Common Viral Marketing Mistakes and How to Avoid Them.”

  • The Broadband vs. Broadcast Battle

Another big development this year was the growing popularity of online video and the effect it had on consumer viewing habits and the broadcasting industry as a whole. Get an overview of the way online video is changing the TV game in my post, “Hulu Desktop App Challenges Cable Networks.”

We hope you enjoyed this recap. Here’s to more great content, and lots of success in 2010! Happy New Year!

Horror Flick Goes Viral…Why Marketing ‘Paranormal Activity’ via Social Media Made Sense

Monday, October 12th, 2009
Courtesy of Slashfilm.com

Courtesy of Slashfilm.com

You couldn’t follow the same strategy if you were marketing Titanic. You would be hard-pressed to find the same success at the box office if you were marketing the latest Disney tent pole release. But for a low-budget horror flick like Paranormal Activity, relying heavily on social media marketing was a smart move. After grossing $500,000 in one weekend of midnight screenings in 12 select markets, the studio has expanded to a regular distribution schedule in 46 markets and 170 theaters, and executives at Paramount/DreamWorks are sitting pretty.

According to an article in the online edition of today’s Advertising Age, the film cost a mere $15,000 to make and originally caught the attention of Steven Spielberg at last year’s Slamdance Film Festival who then took it to Paramount/DreamWorks with the intent to remake the movie into a major blockbuster. But the studio had different ideas.

Turning the film into a big budget hit would have likely taken away from its appeal to the younger, web-savvy set. Now, after a marketing campaign that relied heavily on Internet users and social media platforms like Eventful, Twitter, and Facebook, the film, which few people had heard of just a month ago, is now showing potential to become of the most profitable films all year.

I can attest to the fact that I only found out about Paranormal Activity yesterday, after seeing friends post about it on Twitter and Facebook, and from the looks of things, it sounds like I am one of many ‘social media’ success stories. However, it wasn’t simply social media that helped make this movie a viral success; the movie itself was based on a concept that lent itself beautifully to viral promotion. It had shock value, and inspired controversy.

1 – Shock value

The buzz created by a shocking concept makes it well-suited to viral promotion, which is based around buzz and sharing of ideas, and being a story about ghosts, Paranormal Activity is inherently shocking. Shocking concepts involve ideas or stories that grip people’s consciousness and brand certain ideas or questions in their mind. Shocking concepts inspire people to dig deeper into the idea and learn more about it, whether by researching online, asking friends, or in the case of Paranormal Activity, seeing a film.

2 – Controversy

A controversial concept is similar to a shocking one, but an idea that is controversial takes the buzz further and begs the question, “is it real?”, stirring up even more conversation. While a shocking concept will generate interest, a controversial buzz will help sustain conversations by bringing a new element of debate to the discussions Being a ghost story, Paranormal Activity is controversial at its core. While Paramount’s marketing arm avoided spinning the film as a true story a la Blair Witch and focused instead on promoting the viewer experience, the sheer nature of a ghost story raises questions about the validity of paranormal activity, adding fuel to an already raging fire.

The upshot? While viral and social media marketing is a cost-effective and powerful way to market your product or service, whether it be a new phone or a movie, studying Paramount’s marketing strategy for Paranormal Activity should clue you in to some key factors that contribute to a viral campaign’s success, the most important being that the concept itself is viral.

You can learn more about the film by following @TweetYourScream on Twitter visiting the Paranormal Activity Facebook page, and if you want to learn more about how the film went viral, read the AdAge article. If you have questions on viral and social media marketing, please email viral@wpromote.com.

Do you think there are other films that could have benefited from a viral marketing campaign? Can you identify a marketing campaign that failed simply because the content wasn’t viral? Post your thoughts below!

How AT&T Ruined My Vacation

Tuesday, September 22nd, 2009
Another AT&T story. Another disgruntled customer.

Another AT&T story. Another disgruntled customer.

It’s almost assumed that big companies inherently have terrible customer service, but I take offense to the notion that big companies can’t treat their customers with respect. The bottom line is that great customer service is great for business and that is especially true in a down economy.

For companies big and small, mistakes happen; that’s life. It is how you react to those mistakes that defines the company as good or bad. This is a tale of my horrific experience with a company with whom I have been a loyal customer for over 7 years — AT&T Wireless.

On to the story…

I took two trips out of the country in August: one to Canada and another to Peru. In anticipation of these trips and aware of the dangers of international data and voice charges, I decided to be prepared before leaving the US. I logged on to my AT&T Wireless account and added on an international roaming plan for 50mb of data and headed off to my trips very proud of myself for having such foresight.

With four days left in Peru, I was concerned that I might have exceeded my limit. I called AT&T service to inquire about my data usage. They let me know that I was, in fact, over my 50mb limit but that I would be fine if I changed to the 200mb plan (for $200). I took their advice, upgraded, and a few days after my return to the States, logged on again and removed the feature from my account since I had no more international trips planned.

Two weeks later, while I was in Chicago, my phone stopped working. There was neither warning nor explanation; it just stopped working. Clients, family and friends were receiving a disconnection message when they tried to contact me. I called AT&T after realizing that it wasn’t a hardware error with the iPhone and, after an hour on the phone with them, they put together that they turned off my phone due to a “high unbilled balance.” In other words, something had gone wrong with the international data charges. Before I even received a bill for what turned out to be a $1,100 error and had knowledge of the mistake, AT&T decided to turn off my phone. I inquired how this could possibly happen without notification and how I had conceivably done anything wrong to warrant this. They let me know that I had been sent an automated message about thirty minutes before the phone was turned off.

Nice.

So I was an hour into this process and, of course, my phone dropped the call to customer support. Awesome! More bars in more places, huh? More like more advertising about more bars in more places. I called back and got somebody different who was unable to connect me with the original person working on the issue because “we don’t have individual extensions here, but I’d be glad to help.” That’s a bit ironic for a telecommunications corporation, isn’t it? Regardless, now I was back to square one. Two full hours later, we were nearing the end of resolving the issue, however, the team that issues credits to the wronged customers of AT&T had already gone home for the day. The journey continued to the next day…

While I eventually got the bill straightened out and my phone reactivated, there was no compensation for my three hours of lost time nor for my day with a disconnected phone which resulted in an unknown number of missed calls. When I asked them if there was anything–anything at all–that I should have done differently throughout this process, their response was underwhelming. I had been aware, proactive and communicative from start to finish and they responded that that although I did nothing wrong, I shouldn’t use their online system to add or delete features in the future.

In the end, I can’t help but feel that:

• The only reason I am still with AT&T is because of my contract and their exclusive deal with the iPhone. That sucks.
• People at companies like AT&T are not empowered to actually solve problems resulting in a major bottleneck in the customer experience.
• As a company, AT&T undervalues treating their clients with respect. Instead, AT&T relies on contracts, exclusivity of hardware and advertising to circumvent the problem. This is a flawed philosophy. Turn your customers into fans of your service and they will repay you many times over in loyalty and word of mouth.

Mistakes happen and I can forgive that. What is harder to forgive is the way that AT&T dealt with the mistake. Bending over backwards to earn back trust and satisfaction is the least that a company can do when a mistake ends up costing a client time and money through no fault of their own. Instead of being met with customer service representatives eager to fix a situation that AT&T had broken, I was given company lines, boilerplate responses and little overall effort to help me out. Eventually, the proper charges were assessed and service was returned, however, I believe that this only occurred because, I had taken copious notes about my phone activity in anticipation of a potential debacle of this nature. It just goes to show that AT&T’s reputation for poor customer service preceded it. In this case, its reputation was quite deserved.

AT&T has a long way to go when it comes to doing right by their customers. Even if they can get away with it now, they won’t be able to sustain such poor service forever.

The (Not So) Romantic Side of Search

Wednesday, August 19th, 2009
Image courtesy of memeticians.com

Image courtesy of memeticians.com

Whether victims of a Blackberry addiction, iPhone obsession, or Facebook mobile habit, we all know someone who can’t seem to put down their cell/iPhone/PDA/whatever it is. Some accept this behavior as part of Gen-Y technophile culture, but not every offender falls into the Generation Y demographic.

Some feel the aforementioned behavior suggests an underlying anxiety which may or may not be triggered by certain social situations. Some say those tethered to their mobile, Internet-enabled devices are simply doing so out of habit, and others simply deem them rude. In any case, it is hard to deny we have a problem. We’ve all become so attached to our technology, we find it difficult to let go, even in the midst of human-to-human contact, even in the presence of someone we love.

Now scientists are suggesting there may be more to our compulsion to stay connected than meets the eye. Turns out dopamine, the natural chemical found in human brains often referenced to explain the rush of energy and goal-oriented behavior we experience when in love, plays a large role in our constant drive to seek and share information, and activities like Google searching, texting, twittering, and updating our Facebook status fire up the same reward center in the brain activated when we fall in love.

More on dopamine

Image courtesy of scienceblogs.com

Image courtesy of scienceblogs.com

Dopamine itself is responsible for reward-seeking behaviors: it stimulates the pleasure centers in the brain and causes us to continually seek behaviors that provide that pleasure. From activities like eating that the brain classifies as necessary for human survival to abstract activities like information seeking (i.e. Google searching) and superfluous ones like social networking, the spectrum of behaviors humans engage in to chase the proverbial high is wide. Some behaviors are necessary, some are exciting, and some are dangerous (or annoying) - but when the pleasure center in the brain classifies them as ‘equal,’ it becomes important for us to help our brain draw the line.

For more on the way our brains are hardwired to search and share and how chemicals affect our behavior, check out “Seeking,” an amazing article on Slate.com that delves deep into the subject.

What do you think? Do you find your Internet use bordering on compulsive? Are there any other behaviors you engage in you feel cause problems in your daily life? Are all those people tied to their iPhones a victim of circumstance or just plain rude? Tell us your thoughts below!

Big Media vs. Google - The Other Side of the Story

Thursday, May 7th, 2009
From www.timeinc.net

Image courtesy of www.timeinc.net

When big media demanded special treatment from Google in March, Internet pundits, media execs, and bloggers responded.

Some defended Google’s right to ignore the request, thinking if big media wants higher search engine rankings, they should optimize their content like the rest of the world. The general consensus from this side of the fence was “Have a more ridiculous sense of entitlement,” a sentiment originally expressed by Wpromote’s resident master of all things tech, Kevin Wallace.

Others take the opposing view and side with big media, like Forbes.com President and CEO who believes the ‘Google model is parasitic,’ and AP news who has taken on a new role as the Internet police.

The outcome of is yet to be determined. The impact on search will be substantial.

And yet, there are some out there who blame big media’s struggle to survive not on the Internet, but on the failure of journalists and media executives to do their jobs well and provide relevant content. Walter Pincus is one of those people.

In his recent essay, “Newspaper Narcissism” featured in the Columbia Journalism Review, Pincus pinpoints the industry’s search for glory as the main reason behind its decline. Pincus explains:

Editors have paid more attention to what gains them prestige among their journalistic peers than on subjects more related to the everyday lives of readers. For example, education affects everyone, yet I cannot name an outstanding American journalist on this subject. Food is an important subject, yet regular newspaper coverage of agriculture and the products we eat is almost nonexistent unless cases of food poisoning turn up. Did journalists adequately warn of the dangers of subprime mortgages? I don’t think so.

Pincus brings up some heavy points. Does anyone in big media serve the public anymore or is it all about serving their pocketbooks? And what if Google does agree to all of big media’s demands? Wouldn’t Google be perpetuating the very thing the media industry is trying to avoid?

What do you think? Would help from Google do more harm than good for the public and the state of journalism itself? Post your thoughts below.

Introducing University of the People

Monday, April 20th, 2009

Photo courtesy of treehugger.com

It’s a Monday morning at Wpromote, and it’s unbelievably hot outside. I’m grateful to be sitting in an air-conditioned office, and I empathize with anyone stuck outside, seriously.

Summer temperatures in LA have hit record-breaking highs in recent years, and despite our capacity to create technological wonders like the giant telescope, and the considerable wealth held by LA county residents, we still haven’t figured out how to keep people in the Valley cool in the summer.

Maybe we could do a food drive but instead of food people donate air conditioners, you know, ancient ones that need to be installed in a window? Just a thought.

Luckily, there are people out there using their powers (and bank accounts) for good, in LA and beyond.

Photo courtesy of alefalletti.wordpress.com

Photo courtesy of alefalletti.wordpress.com

One such fellow is named Shai Reshef, an entrepreneur and self-made millionaire who recently launched University of the People (UoP), an online university open to students who cannot afford the expense of a college education.

Headquartered in Pasadena, CA, Reshef’s brainchild is actively seeking enrollment for its first year,  scheduled to begin in September. While students will pay a minor fee to enroll, take classes, and participate in exams, the first 300 will be attending at no cost because, as Reshef explained in an interview with Nicole Marie Richardson of Inc.com, “We appreciate them taking a chance on this experimental education model.”

Regarding operations, UoP plans to operate with a mixture of paid staff and volunteer professors and IT professionals donating as little as one or two hours per week to help the cause. With start-up costs totalling around 5 million, UoP is seeking help.

Reshef has funded the 1st million himself. The other 4 million he intends to fund via online donations from concerned citizens, wealthy philanthropists, and companies looking to lend a hand.

For more information, or to make a donation, please visit UofPeople.org.

Do you think the Internet has changed philanthropy? To what cause would you donate 1 million dollars? Post your replies below.