The Wall Street Journal
"Facebook Taps Time Warner Executive From Time Warner"
By Geoffrey A. Fowler
A few weeks ago, Facebook announced that it would partner with Time Warner to offer movies on the site for a price around $3. It is still working out the details; but right now, the site is offering "The Dark Knight."
With this latest announcement, Facebook has created a new position and has hired Mark D'Arcy from Time Warner Inc.'s Global Media Group to fill the position. In May, Mark will begin working to increase the appeal of Facebook's advertisement offerings. Facebook wants businesses to incorporate the social-networking site in their marketing campaigns, so Mark and his team will work together to formulate new promotion ideas that will help make these businesses more aware of the benefits for working with Facebook. He wants to show these advertisers how to use the power of Facebook in such a way that tells a story for advertisers and their brands. Facebook wants to add value to the audience and stay away from advertisements that get in the way or annoy customers.
As of right now, the team is looking at ways for advertisers to use Facebook users' profile content like birthdays and photos as a way to be more interactive. Another goal of Mark D'Arcy is to work with the music, television, and film industries to better their experience and relationship with the social-networking site. Facebook representatives say that marketing is more engaging and effective when it is social by design. They know that Mark D'Arcy was the experience and personality to help further Facebook and the brands and agencies that advertise on the site.
In theory, I think this is a great idea. Facebook is a social-networking site that keeps users surfing the content for hours everyday. This new position will create a sense of unity and offer a common location or "point person," which will take the advertising section of this site to the next level. In reality, I don't know how effective it will be. The company is taking steps in the right direction to further its name and the experience, but the question is this: will consumers play their part in this process? Do viewers use the site for specific reasons like communicating with friends? Is there a way to advertise that really catches users' eyes and makes them subconsciously choose to purchase the product or utilize the service?
It definitely helps the cause by addressing the annoying advertisements that "jump" off the page by getting in the way of the site's actual content. From personal experience, this technique definitely puts a bad taste in my mouth and slows down my Internet experience. Facebook promises to create an advertisement system that is positive for everyone involved. I also think it was a wise choice to hire someone who comes from Time Warner. This helps the communication process and transitional period run smoothly since Facebook and Time Warner are working together on another new venture by offering movies on Facebook.
At this point, who knows what will really happen in the next few months and years for Facebook. Will a new social media empire arise, or will Facebook capture the dominate our time and relationships for many generations to come?
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Friday, March 25, 2011
The Real [Diet] Thing
The Wall Street Journal
"Diet Coke Wins Battle in Cola Wars"
By Mike Esterl
Ever since I can remember, there has always been that question, "Coke or Pepsi?" Just like one's allegiance to a particular sports team, each has a preference when quenching thirst with a nice "cola" or "soda" or "pop." Well as of last week, the Coke empire reigns as Diet Coke takes the number two spot leaving Pepsi with the bronze.
Usually, people talk about Coke versus Pepsi, but now could it be Coke versus Diet Coke? The annual report that was released just a few days ago shows that Diet Coke has stepped up into the running. For carbonated beverages as a whole, the market share is decreasing. I guess more and more people are taking parting with their "pop" for a healthier alternative. Because of this, the cola companies are competing even more for the market that still stands.
This is the first time that Coke and Pepsi have not been #1 and #2 or vice-versa. Beverage Digest, the publication that released this information, says that the signs for this change in standings were very clear. They say this directly relates to marketing strategies.
PepsiCo launched a new marketing strategy in 2010. It did not use spots during the Super Bowl last year, which was seen a taking a big risk. Instead, the company started its "Refresh Project." This is an online marketing project but is also an "online charitable-giving program" that served as a hub for giving $20 million "for refreshing ideas that change the world." The company stands behind the project, saying it will boost the company in the long run, for there were 87 million votes casts on the "Refresh Project" site.
On the other hand, Coca-Cola was increased its television marketing portfolio through its return to the Super Bowl madness. It has made an appearance during the last five Super Bowl games after being away from the big game for nine years. It has also pitched Diet Coke ads during the Academy Awards. These two were great moves for Coca-Cola, for the Super Bowl and the Academy Awards bring in the record viewer numbers each year.
While continuing the online tactics, Pepsi is going to be making a return to the TV screen with the premier of "The X Factor," Simon Cowell's new singing competition show. This show will be competing against "American Idol," who claims Coca-Cola as sponsor. Also, even though the original Pepsi did not appear during last year's or this year's Super Bowl, PepsiCo did run a spot during this year's big game for Pepsi Max. This new drink is competing against Coca-Cola's Coke Zero. From what I can see by watching friends, Coke Zero beats Pepsi Max every time.
Who knows what will happen this year between these two soda companies, but we know billions will be spent to reach the consumers. For now, Coca-Cola is classic. It's the real thing.
"Diet Coke Wins Battle in Cola Wars"
By Mike Esterl
Ever since I can remember, there has always been that question, "Coke or Pepsi?" Just like one's allegiance to a particular sports team, each has a preference when quenching thirst with a nice "cola" or "soda" or "pop." Well as of last week, the Coke empire reigns as Diet Coke takes the number two spot leaving Pepsi with the bronze.
Usually, people talk about Coke versus Pepsi, but now could it be Coke versus Diet Coke? The annual report that was released just a few days ago shows that Diet Coke has stepped up into the running. For carbonated beverages as a whole, the market share is decreasing. I guess more and more people are taking parting with their "pop" for a healthier alternative. Because of this, the cola companies are competing even more for the market that still stands.
This is the first time that Coke and Pepsi have not been #1 and #2 or vice-versa. Beverage Digest, the publication that released this information, says that the signs for this change in standings were very clear. They say this directly relates to marketing strategies.
PepsiCo launched a new marketing strategy in 2010. It did not use spots during the Super Bowl last year, which was seen a taking a big risk. Instead, the company started its "Refresh Project." This is an online marketing project but is also an "online charitable-giving program" that served as a hub for giving $20 million "for refreshing ideas that change the world." The company stands behind the project, saying it will boost the company in the long run, for there were 87 million votes casts on the "Refresh Project" site.
On the other hand, Coca-Cola was increased its television marketing portfolio through its return to the Super Bowl madness. It has made an appearance during the last five Super Bowl games after being away from the big game for nine years. It has also pitched Diet Coke ads during the Academy Awards. These two were great moves for Coca-Cola, for the Super Bowl and the Academy Awards bring in the record viewer numbers each year.
While continuing the online tactics, Pepsi is going to be making a return to the TV screen with the premier of "The X Factor," Simon Cowell's new singing competition show. This show will be competing against "American Idol," who claims Coca-Cola as sponsor. Also, even though the original Pepsi did not appear during last year's or this year's Super Bowl, PepsiCo did run a spot during this year's big game for Pepsi Max. This new drink is competing against Coca-Cola's Coke Zero. From what I can see by watching friends, Coke Zero beats Pepsi Max every time.
Who knows what will happen this year between these two soda companies, but we know billions will be spent to reach the consumers. For now, Coca-Cola is classic. It's the real thing.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Facebook's Domination
The Wall Street Journal
“Warner to Offer Movies Through Facebook”
By Steven Russolillo
Tuesday, Warner Brothers announced that its recent partnership with Facebook. This partnership will allow Facebook users to stream movies while on the website for three dollars or 30 Facebook credits for a 48 hour time slot. The two companies are still working out the future plans; but so far, “The Dark Knight” is available to users. More movie titles will be available in the next few months. The article states that users will have full use of the site while the movie is playing; one will be able to post comments and status updates. Being in the initial stages, this is only available to consumers in the United States.
This new addition to Facebook puts the social-networking site in competition with Netflix and the many other companies who are quickly jumping into this new media market. Currently, Netflix is falling due to the new competition. Netflix’s shares were down 4.9% on Tuesday. Finally, the article lists the recent doings of Amazon.com, Apple Inc., Google Inc., and Hulu LLC. Amazon has released a subscription based movie and television package. Nothing specific is stated for the other three companies cited above. News Corp. who is part owner of Hulu also owns The Wall Street Journal.
First off, I am kind of surprised that Facebook picked “The Dark Knight,” but I understand that its fan page has the most “likes.” This movie is a great movie for the start, but my initial idea for this project would be to offer a hot button newly released movie. I also find it interesting to see how Netflix is slowing down and decreasing. With new competition, Netflix will have to act fast. I do not have a favorite with this new idea of Internet movie buying. To me, I’d like to stay with iTunes movies or the good ole Blockbuster. As a side note, it’s been hard to watch the situation that Blockbuster is undertaking these days, but it is all because of this emerging market for Internet movies. I also wonder why Facebook is reacting to the curve. Why aren’t they setting the curve?
All in all, this is a fascinating conversation to have to people about the future of movies and movie rentals. The Internet is taking over our lives, but how much of a good thing does it take to make it a bad thing? Why are we becoming so reliant on the Internet? Will we forever hand the power to computer programmers from now until the end?
Saturday, March 5, 2011
Part 2: [Well, Maybe Not Toyota]
The Wall Street Journal
"S&P Downgrades Toyota Bond Rating"
By: William Sposato
While all of the six major auto companies showed increases in sales this February, one still has something to worry about. Just days after the good news was delivered, Toyota was knocked off the "high horse" as ratings agency Standard & Poor's lowers Toyota's "long-term corporate credit and senior unsecured-debt ratings." The agency says this is a result of "weak profitability." This just another blow to the auto group, for they are still recovering from the world-wide vehicle recall that occurred almost a year ago. The article continues to timeline Toyota's most recent ratings: from 1985 to now, the auto company has dropped from AAA to AA+ to AA and now to AA-. In further reasoning for the lowered ratings, Standard & Poor's says that they do not see Toyota's profitability increasing at a high enough rate compared to competitors. Also, they cite the increasing prices of raw materials and gasoline as well as the strong yen as being additional issues for Toyota.
Thankfully the writer is not one-sided and gives representatives from Toyota the opportunity to speak about the situation too. Toyota's plan to is cater needs to the customers and implement technology that will reduce the response time concerning customer complaint from months to days. Toyota believes that an increase in customer likability will help S&P raise the ratings. Even though they have taken this hit, Toyota is still seen as more credit-worthy than Honda and Nissan. They have ratings of A+ and BBB+ respectively. Because of all this, Toyota is in the midst of a massive public relations overhaul to raise its standings with everyone. Rankers think that it won't be until 2012 when an major jump is seen because of last year's massive recall.
My first question is this: Why did the writer not define the terms on which S&P rates auto companies? Just days before this article was published, Toyota was cited with having a big percentage jump in auto sales. Shouldn't this jump mean that their likability and profitability had increased too? After reading both of these articles, it seems to me that the two are not talking about the same thing. Credit profitability and sales profitability must mean two different things. Also, it was shocking to me that Toyota's ranking has continued to decrease for many years now. In high school, all of my friends drove Toyota's Camry, Avalon, or 4Runner. I do not understand how this can be true when Toyota appeared to be so popular despite the massive recall. I guess I should be looking at a more global perspective rather than a Southern teenagers perspective. Nonetheless, the issue should have been addressed in a more in depth fashion in this article. Writers should not assume that every reader is going to know about the companies and rankings that are discussed. Ultimately, I hope that Toyota can see a turn of events sooner rather than later.
"S&P Downgrades Toyota Bond Rating"
By: William Sposato
While all of the six major auto companies showed increases in sales this February, one still has something to worry about. Just days after the good news was delivered, Toyota was knocked off the "high horse" as ratings agency Standard & Poor's lowers Toyota's "long-term corporate credit and senior unsecured-debt ratings." The agency says this is a result of "weak profitability." This just another blow to the auto group, for they are still recovering from the world-wide vehicle recall that occurred almost a year ago. The article continues to timeline Toyota's most recent ratings: from 1985 to now, the auto company has dropped from AAA to AA+ to AA and now to AA-. In further reasoning for the lowered ratings, Standard & Poor's says that they do not see Toyota's profitability increasing at a high enough rate compared to competitors. Also, they cite the increasing prices of raw materials and gasoline as well as the strong yen as being additional issues for Toyota.
Thankfully the writer is not one-sided and gives representatives from Toyota the opportunity to speak about the situation too. Toyota's plan to is cater needs to the customers and implement technology that will reduce the response time concerning customer complaint from months to days. Toyota believes that an increase in customer likability will help S&P raise the ratings. Even though they have taken this hit, Toyota is still seen as more credit-worthy than Honda and Nissan. They have ratings of A+ and BBB+ respectively. Because of all this, Toyota is in the midst of a massive public relations overhaul to raise its standings with everyone. Rankers think that it won't be until 2012 when an major jump is seen because of last year's massive recall.
My first question is this: Why did the writer not define the terms on which S&P rates auto companies? Just days before this article was published, Toyota was cited with having a big percentage jump in auto sales. Shouldn't this jump mean that their likability and profitability had increased too? After reading both of these articles, it seems to me that the two are not talking about the same thing. Credit profitability and sales profitability must mean two different things. Also, it was shocking to me that Toyota's ranking has continued to decrease for many years now. In high school, all of my friends drove Toyota's Camry, Avalon, or 4Runner. I do not understand how this can be true when Toyota appeared to be so popular despite the massive recall. I guess I should be looking at a more global perspective rather than a Southern teenagers perspective. Nonetheless, the issue should have been addressed in a more in depth fashion in this article. Writers should not assume that every reader is going to know about the companies and rankings that are discussed. Ultimately, I hope that Toyota can see a turn of events sooner rather than later.
Friday, March 4, 2011
All They Do Is Win [At Least in February]
The Wall Street Journal
"GM February Sales Surge" by John Kell
Finally, there is something to bring happiness to the car industry again. General Motors saw an increase of 46 percent in auto sales last month. This increase is a result of retail sales that were fueled by incentives as well as an upswing in the nation's economy. Also, the other five major auto makers also listed major sales increases from the previous month and the previous year. At the beginning of the month, online car-shopping websites predicted that February would be a great month of the auto industry; these percentages validate that prediction. The remainder of the article gives a very detailed break down of the brands and their cars and their performances during the month. It was quoted that having the right cars in stock, aggressive advertising strategies and a targeted consumer market was the key combination to the industry's success. It also goes on to announce that GM's achievements this month mark its strongest performance within the industry in more than a decade: it was its first annual profit since 2004 and its best yearly performance since 1999.
Finally, there are some negatives in the article. The final quarter showed the slimmest profits for GM. Nevertheless, it is still a profit, and they knew this would be the case as a result increased spending on new vehicles, decreased production of high-margin trucks and increased costs. Also, there was one auto company that saw a decrease in profits: Ford's Lincoln decreased eleven percent from last February.
This is a great article for boasting the morale of the auto industry. It shows consumers that citizens are buying cars more frequently and that General Motors is starting to turn around again. On the other hand, this article is too cluster by numbers and percentages. There is a better way to relay this information in such a way that is more relatable and understandable for readers. I know The Wall Street Journal has more of a following from business-minded people, but I still think some of the numbers lose their significance within this article. Also, if the article is titled to be about General Motors, then the writer should have given more attention to this auto company. Too much of the content revolves around the increased performance of the industry as a whole. If this were the real focus, then the writer should have titled his article something more fitting for this content. All in all, I am glad to see that the auto industry is starting to turn around and had a great month this February and am glad that someone is reporting this information to the country, but I still think that the information gathered was not presented in the best way. The writer's angle would have been better suited and probably better received if the information had been placed in a graph with a caption at the bottom. Looking at it this way, most readers would have absorbed more of the information that way because attention spans are not long enough anymore to read a bunch of numbers in paragraph formats.
"GM February Sales Surge" by John Kell
Finally, there is something to bring happiness to the car industry again. General Motors saw an increase of 46 percent in auto sales last month. This increase is a result of retail sales that were fueled by incentives as well as an upswing in the nation's economy. Also, the other five major auto makers also listed major sales increases from the previous month and the previous year. At the beginning of the month, online car-shopping websites predicted that February would be a great month of the auto industry; these percentages validate that prediction. The remainder of the article gives a very detailed break down of the brands and their cars and their performances during the month. It was quoted that having the right cars in stock, aggressive advertising strategies and a targeted consumer market was the key combination to the industry's success. It also goes on to announce that GM's achievements this month mark its strongest performance within the industry in more than a decade: it was its first annual profit since 2004 and its best yearly performance since 1999.
Finally, there are some negatives in the article. The final quarter showed the slimmest profits for GM. Nevertheless, it is still a profit, and they knew this would be the case as a result increased spending on new vehicles, decreased production of high-margin trucks and increased costs. Also, there was one auto company that saw a decrease in profits: Ford's Lincoln decreased eleven percent from last February.
This is a great article for boasting the morale of the auto industry. It shows consumers that citizens are buying cars more frequently and that General Motors is starting to turn around again. On the other hand, this article is too cluster by numbers and percentages. There is a better way to relay this information in such a way that is more relatable and understandable for readers. I know The Wall Street Journal has more of a following from business-minded people, but I still think some of the numbers lose their significance within this article. Also, if the article is titled to be about General Motors, then the writer should have given more attention to this auto company. Too much of the content revolves around the increased performance of the industry as a whole. If this were the real focus, then the writer should have titled his article something more fitting for this content. All in all, I am glad to see that the auto industry is starting to turn around and had a great month this February and am glad that someone is reporting this information to the country, but I still think that the information gathered was not presented in the best way. The writer's angle would have been better suited and probably better received if the information had been placed in a graph with a caption at the bottom. Looking at it this way, most readers would have absorbed more of the information that way because attention spans are not long enough anymore to read a bunch of numbers in paragraph formats.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)