Google Adsense

Redbox Goes eBox in a Bid to Battle Netflix

Written on July 19, 2010 by admin

Filed Under: marketing

Remember when Blockbuster was king of the video rental biz? It was a brilliant concept developing at a time when studios were charging $80 for a new movie on VHS. But as DVD took over from VHS and the price point on new movies began to drop, Blockbuster found itself slipping from the top spot and now has become the Betamax of home video rentals – once loved, but now forgotten.

These days it’s Netflix who is wearing the crown with their original concept of offering all the DVDs you want for a flat rate per month (no late fees), delivered right to your mailbox. With 100,000 titles to choose from, including old movies, TV shows and indies, Netflix’s only downside is the wait and that’s where Redbox comes in.

Redbox combines the easy and usability of Netflix with the “watch it tonight” concept of Blockbuster. The DVDs are rented via one of 24,000 Redbox machines located in grocery and convenience stores all over the country. Customers swipe their debt card, choose their film then return it to the machine when they’re done. The only downside here is selection. The machines only hold a limited number of DVDs, so they carry only the newest, most popular movies available at any given time.

According to Bloomberg.com, Redbox realizes that they’re giving up a great deal of business to Netflix due to their inability to offer a wider variety of films, but now they’re prepared to do something about it. They’re going to build their own online rental business that will likely contain a streaming video component just like Netflix.

What I find ironic about this story is the fact that Redbox went into the business of instant DVD delivery in order to fill a need that Netflix couldn’t. By moving their business online, they aren’t giving the consumer anything new. And without anything new, how can they possibly hope to surpass Netflix who is already firmly entrenched in the market? Add to that Walmart, Sears and Best Buy all getting into the movie rental and streaming business and it seems like the field is already too crowded to bother.

Then there’s the problem that just because you do one thing well, doesn’t mean you can do another. Blockbuster tried regaining the top slot by adding an online component but barely took a bite out of Netflix’s business. If Redbox pours a lot of time and money into getting their online unit up and running, they’ll be taking capital away from their brick and mortar-ish business and that could spell disaster for the company as a whole.

I’m all for competition but unless Redbox has something to add to the niche that isn’t already being offered by Netflix, I say they’re better off spending their money to improve the system that’s already working for them.

What do you think? Could Redbox be the first real competition Netflix has ever had?

See more here:
Redbox Goes eBox in a Bid to Battle Netflix

How NOT to do Email Marketing: Scare Tactics

Written on October 2, 2009 by admin

Filed Under: Advertising, marketing

Toyota and their advertising agency, Saatchi & Saatchi must have thought they were onto something huge when they launched a series of emails last year. And then this week, AdAge reports, they were slapped with a lawsuit by one of their subscribers/victims. The plaintiff in this case was enrolled in the email marketing campaign when a friend decided to play a prank on her—the genesis of the Toyota/Saatchi campaign.

The emails were sent from “Sebastian Bowler.” In his emails, he told subscribers that he knew them personally, the suit alleges:

Mr. Bowler’s digital missives to Ms. Duick indicated he knew her, knew her address and was coming with his pit bull, Trigger, to stay with her to avoid the cops. In his second e-mail to her, Mr. Bowler listed his MySpace page, which is still up (although it says he last logged in June 2008). His video and pictures on MySpace “depict Mr. Bowler as a fanatical English soccer fan who enjoyed drinking alcohol to excess,” the suit says. His MySpace page also shows a photo with an arrow pointing to “me” and the caption “my mate took this photo which shows me right before the riot.”

One of the nine e-mails to Ms. Duick, the suit alleges, was a bill for $78.92 from a motel for Mr. Bowler’s one-night stay there, plus damage to a TV set and picture frame. He had listed her as a reference and told the motel to send her the bill, the complaint says. . . .

The final e-mail had a link to a video that showed Mr. Bowler driving into a drive-in movie where the film “Imbecile” was playing. The out-of-focus film shows an old man laughing continuously, revealing to Ms. Duick that “she had been punked” and all the e-mails were part of an ad campaign for the Matrix, the suit claims.

Specifically, the plaintiff is suing because she was convinced “a disturbed and aggressive” stranger was coming to her house. She was “terrified” and “slept with a machete next to her bed and she slept with mace. She could barely sleep or eat normally.”

While becoming physically ill with fear is a strong reaction, and while the case will most likely be settled out of court, the victims’ reactions seem like something Saatchi and Toyota might have at least passingly considered as they planned this campaign. What did they think they would accomplish by trying to convince people that someone involved in riots and riotous living (and some of the other “maniacs” look even scarier) had their address and expected to evade arrest at her house?

Yeah, maybe the friend got a good laugh (if s/he even got to see what was happening—I’m hoping s/he was far enough away that s/he had no idea the kind of stress she caused the plaintiff). But the recipients of the pranks obviously didn’t all agree. Even if the emails didn’t terrify most of their recipients, I can’t imagine how pretending to stick us with a bill for a wrecked hotel room would somehow associate the Toyota Matrix with a positive message in our minds.

Yeah, pranks are fun (when you’re the one pulling them, and when you get to see the reaction, not terrorize your friends for a week). And they can even sometimes be an effective marketing tool. But somehow, this doesn’t seem like the association Toyota needs to move cars.

What do you think? Should Saatchi and Toyota have thought twice about this? Or is this a good way to increase buzz and awareness around their product?

Originally posted here:
How NOT to do Email Marketing: Scare Tactics

Are Banner Ads Dying?

Written on October 2, 2009 by admin

Filed Under: Advertising, marketing

comScore reports that over the last two years, banner ads have seen a sharp decline in clicks—half as many web users click on banner ads now.

Two years ago, 32%—nearly one in three—web users clicked on banner ads; comScore’s data show that now only 16% do. And half of those clickers—one in twelve—account for 85% of the banner ad clicks.

comScore cautions, however, that the plummeting click metric may be less a sign of the dying banner ad format and more a sign that clicks aren’t the best indicator of banner ads’ effectiveness. And it’s true that banner ads may help with brand awareness—and may lead to other types of visits, including searches or type-in traffic.

According to Econsultancy, in fact, the greatest benefit from banner ads is that

display advertising still helps brand lift online — more clicks on a brand’s website, more searches on brand content. And combined with search advertising, consumers were twice as likely to make a purchase on a company’s website.

Also, Econsultancy notes, “According to ChoiceStream research, display ads can generate a 60% lift in click-through rates on search results.” And:

according to John Lowell, Starcom USA SVP and director of research and analytics: “A click means nothing, earns no revenue and creates no brand equity. Your online advertising has some goal — and it’s certainly not to generate clicks.”

But if said ads don’t generate any response, of course, it certainly seems like a waste of money to go into display.

What do you think? Are banner ads dead—or should clicks die as a metric? What’s the better monitorable alternative?

Pilgrim’s Partners: SponsoredReviews.com – Bloggers earn cash, Advertisers build buzz!

Read the original here:
Are Banner Ads Dying?

Cup of Joe: The Danger Of Being Oz

Written on September 26, 2009 by admin

Filed Under: book, marketing

Thursday marked the 70th anniversary of the film classic The Wizard of Oz. One of my favorite parts of the movie is when Dorothy discovers the true identity of the Wizard. This scene is symbolic of many political and social truths in our society.

Coincidentally, we saw this same scene play out in the Internet marketing industry this week. On Wednesday, Seth Godin, launched Brands in Public. In short the program aggregates mentions of brands from different social media sites to a single page on Godin’s Squidoo. While Godin claims that he consulted many brand managers about this idea and they all supported it, there was a barrage of criticism from folks in the Internet marketing industry. Most of the criticism drew attention to the fact that Godin himself has been a champion of transparent marketing tactics such as “permission based marketing” however, this program seeks to leverage the hard work of other brand builders with out their permission.

It appeared on Wednesday that Godin’s curtain was pulled aside and his true identity revealed. As the scarecrow might say, “You humbug!” Despite all of his high ideals and transparent philosophies, Godin is looking more like a spammer than the international marketing guru we have learned to love. Perhaps, Seth Godin’s true genius isn’t in his books or his blog, but rather in his ability to market himself as a champion of transparency while simultaneously hiding his true agenda behind his own emerald curtain.

In all fairness, Friday, Godin released details about changes that the Brands in Public program will be taking. Now, they will only create a page for a brand if the company requests it, and the company will have joint control of the page. This seems to be in direct response to the surge of criticism on Wednesday. It’s a positive turn of events, but the question that I have now: Is Godin’s curtain now permanently open? Now that we have seen Godin behind the curtain will he begin being truly transparent?

The Biggest Danger of Personal Branding

The biggest danger of personal branding is not in failing, but succeeding. To have a successful, well known personal brand means that you are held at an extremely high level of scrutiny. Your supporters and brand enthusiast will have high expectations that you must reach.

Because of this you must be careful to always be sincere and engage in an honest dialog. If you can do this successfully then when your emerald curtain is pulled aside there won’t be any surprises!

Pilgrim’s Partners: SponsoredReviews.com – Bloggers earn cash, Advertisers build buzz!

Go here to see the original:
Cup of Joe: The Danger Of Being Oz

Whiteboard Friday - The Value of In-Person Networking for SEOs

Written on September 17, 2009 by admin

Filed Under: book, marketing, seo

Posted by great scott!

Yeah, yeah, you’re a 21st Century digital boy (or girl). You’ve got 900 Facebook friends, 1,200 twitter followers, and power accounts at digg, reddit, and StumbleUpon, but does anyone actually know you?