Blogger Andrew Trench recently presented a theory on the threshold of when Internet penetration starts to matter, writing:
Social networks have also been given plenty of credit for the revolution unfolding in Egypt.
So I went and had a look at the numbers over on www.internetworldstats.com to see what they could tell us about these two scenarios. Well, fascinatingly, both Egypt and Tunisia have seen a massive growth in internet users and internet penetration over the last 10 years.
Both have now got internet penetration of over 20% and in Tunisia's case it was as high as 34%.While it is clearly simplistic to over-state this factor and there must be many more drivers contributing to such a rapid political uprising, it is obviously a factor as evidenced by the Egyptian regime pulling the plug on the country's internet access to try and block the rising tide of revolt.
My back-of-napkin theory is this: that a rapid increase in internet penetration in a repressive regime does play an important role as it provides an unfettered channel of communication allowing disaffected citizens to share views - and more importantly - to rapidly organise and mobilise.
If Egypt and Tunisia are valid case studies, it looks like internet penetration of around 20% is the mark.
Geopolitics & Macroeconomics adds:
Internet penetration: Social networking sites were critical to sustaining the momentum in the recent protests. The internet penetration in Egypt is 16%. In Libya, it is a meagre 5% [1]. The unrest in Libya has thus far remained concentrated in regions that are geographically distant from the seat of ‘real' power (see more on this below). The dependence of momentum on internet communication is far greater in Libya than in Egypt where protests began in Cairo itself.
Taking the conversation to Pakistan, Sabene Saigol writes, on BrandRepublic:
Perhaps one reason for this is that we're still not that used to communicating via the ‘net - maybe we need greater broadband and internet penetration. Personally I think it is more to do with culture - while Pakistani internet users are savvy to using social media to connect with friends, I feel they have not yet ‘crossed over' to seeing SM as a means for professional communications - or even wider social communications that go beyond their immediate circle. Yes, there are no doubt savvy people - both within marketing and tech circles, and outside - however, these people are likely a tiny proportion of the total number of ‘net and social media users.
Surface Encounters
NFL draft 2011: No NFLPA event on first or second night of draft
The NFLPA will not stage an alternate event head-to-head versus the NFL on the first night of the draft, instead opting for a three-day celebration that will not interfere with the televised airing of the selection process on April 28 and 29.
Surface Encounters
New York Yankee <b>News</b>: Granderson, Chavez, Joe West and Barry Bonds <b>...</b>
All the Yankee news you need. ... News links: Feliciano, Romulo, Chavez and the Canseco twins. Mar 2011 by Travis G - 51 comments. Around SB Nation. Game Thread #-1: Brewers @ Padres. Mar 2011 from Brew Crew Ball - 4 comments ...
Surface Encounters
Radioactive trench water not confirmed to have overflowed: agency <b>...</b>
Radioactive water that has been filling up underground trenches connected to the crippled reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant has not been confirmed to have overflowed, the government's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency ...
Surface Encounters
Dirty Percent
Tuesday, 1 March 2011
It’s not hard to make the case that Apple’s new in-app subscription system offers numerous benefits to users, developers, and publishers. But whatever those benefits, they stem from the mere existence of these new subscription APIs. What’s controversial is the size of Apple’s cut: 30 percent.
No one is arguing that Apple shouldn’t get some cut of in-app purchases that go through iTunes. And, if Apple were taking a substantially smaller cut, there would be substantially fewer people objecting to Apple’s rules (that subscription-based publishing apps must use the system; that they can’t link to their external sign-up web page from within the app; and that they must offer in-app subscribers the same prices available outside the app).
The reasonable arguments against Apple’s policies seem to be:
Apple should be taking less, perhaps far less, than 30 percent.
Apple should not require subscription-based apps to use the in-app subscription APIs. If it’s a good deal for publishers, they’ll choose to use the system on their own.
Apple should not require price-matching from subscription offers outside the app. Publishers should be allowed to charge iOS users more money to cover Apple’s cut.
Apple should consider business models that simply can’t afford a 70/30 revenue split.
Let’s consider these in reverse order.
Apple Should Consider Business Models That Can’t Afford a 70/30 Revenue Split
Apple doesn’t give a damn about companies with business models that can’t afford a 70/30 split. Apple’s running a competitive business; competition is cold and hard. And who exactly can’t afford a 70/30 split? Middlemen. It’s not that Apple is opposed to middlemen — it’s that Apple wants to be the middleman. It’s difficult to expect them to be sympathetic to the plights of other middlemen.
Some of these apps and services that are left out might be ones that iOS users enjoy, though. This is the leading argument for how this new policy will in fact hurt users, and, as a result, Apple itself: it’ll drive good apps off the platform. Frequently mentioned examples: Netflix and Kindle. For all we know, though, Netflix may well be fine with this policy. Apple would only get a 30 percent cut of new subscriptions that go through the Netflix iOS app, and that might be a bounty Netflix can live with in exchange for more subscribers. Keep in mind, too, that Netflix and Apple seemingly get along well enough that Netflix is built into the Apple TV system software.
Kindle, and e-book platforms in general, are a different case. For one thing, Kindle doesn’t use subscriptions. Kindle offers purchases. Presumably, given Apple’s rejection of Sony’s e-book platform app last month, Apple is going to insist on the same rules for in-app purchases through apps like Kindle as they do for in-app subscriptions. If so, something’s got to give. The “agency model” through which e-books are sold requires the bookseller to give the publisher 70 percent of the sale price. So if the publisher gets 70 and Apple gets 30, that leaves a big fat nothing for Amazon, or Barnes & Noble, or Kobo, or anyone else selling books through native iOS apps — other than iBooks, of course.
But leaving aside the revenue split, there are technical limitations as well. The existing in-app purchasing system in iOS has a technical limit of 3,500 catalog items. I.e. any single app can offer no more than 3,500 items for in-app purchase. Amazon has hundreds of thousands of Kindle titles.
Something’s got to give here. I don’t know what, but there must be more news on this front coming soon. I don’t believe Apple wants to chase competing e-book platforms off the App Store.
Apple Should Not Require Price Matching
Why not allow developers and publishers to set their own prices for in-app subscriptions? One reason: Apple wants its customers to get the best price — and, to know that they’re getting the best price whenever they buy a subscription through an app. It’s a confidence in the brand thing: with Apple’s rules, users know they’re getting the best price, they know they’ll be able to unsubscribe easily, and they know their privacy is protected.
Credit card companies insist on similar rules: retailers pay a processing fee for every credit card transaction, but the credit card companies insist that these fees not be passed on to the customer. Customers pay the same price as they would if they used cash — which encourages them to use their credit card liberally. (Going further, many charge cards offer cash back on each purchase — they can do this because the cash-back percentage refunded to the customer is less than the transaction processing fee paid by the retailer.)
So the same-price rule is good for the user, and good for Apple. But Matt Drance argues that Apple could dissipate much of this subscription controversy by waiving this rule:
The requirement that IAP content be offered “at the same price
or less than it is offered outside the app,” combined with the
70/30 split, means developers must make less money off of iOS by
definition. They can’t price their IAP content higher to offset
the commission, nor can they price their own retail content lower.If I am interpreting this correctly, I can’t bring myself to see
it as reasonable. […] I think a great deal of this drama could
go away if Apple dropped section 11.13 while keeping section
11.14: Your prices on your store are your business; just don’t
be a jerk and advertise the difference all over ours.
And I agree with him. Yes, the same-price rule is good for users and for Apple, but waiving this rule wouldn’t be particularly bad for users or for Apple, either — and it would give publishers some freedom to experiment.
I suspect one reason Apple won’t budge is that their competitors — like Amazon — insist on best-price matching.
Apple Should Not Require Apps to Offer In-App Subscriptions
I’m sympathetic to this argument, too. “If you don’t like our terms, don’t use our subscription system.” But it has occurred to me that this entire in-app subscription debate mirrors the debate surrounding the App Store itself back in 2008 — that 30 percent was too large a cut for Apple to take, that it shouldn’t be mandatory, etc. The same way many developers wanted (and still want) a way to sell native iOS apps on their own, outside the App Store, many publishers now want a way to sell subscriptions on their own, outside the App Store.
The fact is, the App Store is an all-or-nothing affair. You play by Apple’s rules or you stick to web apps through Mobile Safari. This alternative is no different for periodical publishers than it was (and remains) for app developers in general. A lot of these demands boil down to a desire for more autonomy for native iOS app developers. Apple has never shown any interest in that.
There’s one striking difference between the subscription controversy today and the App Store controversy in 2008: with subscriptions, Apple is taking away the ability to do something that they previously allowed. There was never a supported way to install native apps for iOS before the App Store. Subscriptions sold outside the App Store, on the other hand, were allowed until last month.
Apple Should Be Taking Less, Possibly Far Less, Than 30 Percent
Another difference between the App Store itself and in-app subscriptions is that with apps, Apple hosts and serves the downloads. Apple covers the bandwidth, even for gargantuan gigabyte-or-larger 99-cent games. The OS handles installation.
With in-app subscriptions (and purchases), however, the app developer is responsible for hosting the content, and for writing the code to download, store, and manage it. So — one reasonable argument goes — given that Apple is doing less for subscription content than it does for apps (or for music and movies purchased through iTunes), Apple should take less of the money.
Taken further, the argument boils down to this: that for in-app subscriptions and purchases, Apple is serving only as a payment processer — and thus, a reasonable fee for transactions would be in the small single digits — 3, 4, maybe 5 percent, say. More or less something along the lines of what PayPal charges.
Apple, I think it’s clear, doesn’t see it this way. Apple sees the entire App Store, along with all native iOS apps, as an upscale, premium software store: owned, controlled, and managed like a physical shopping mall. Brick and mortar retailers don’t settle for a single-digit cut of retail prices; neither does the App Store.
Seth Godin argues that Apple’s 30 percent cut is too big to allow publishers to profit:
Except Apple has announced that they want to tax each subscription
made via the iPad at 30%. Yes, it’s a tax, because what it does is
dramatically decrease the incremental revenue from each
subscriber. An intelligent publisher only has two choices: raise
the price (punishing the reader and further cutting down
readership) or make it free and hope for mass (see my point above
about the infinite newsstand). When you make it free, it’s all
about the ads, and if you don’t reach tens or hundreds of
thousands of subscribers, you’ll fail.
Godin’s logic strikes me as questionable. For one thing, he freely switches between a newsstand metaphor (arguing, perhaps accurately, that the App Store is too large for publishers to gain attention from potential readers in the first place — you won’t read what you never notice) and the economics of subscriptions. But subscribers are the opposite of newsstand readers. Newsstand readers are buying a single copy, often on impulse. Subscribers are readers who are already hooked, and who know what they want. Put another way, the size of Apple’s cut of subscription revenue — whether it were higher or lower — has no bearing on the “attention at the newsstand” problem.
Second, the problem facing traditional publishers today is that circulation is falling. Newsstand sales and subscriptions are falling, under pressure from free-of-charge websites and other forms of digital content. The idea with Apple’s 70-30 revenue split is that developers and publishers can make it up in volume — that people aren’t just somewhat more willing to pay for content through iTunes than other online content stores, they are far more willing. The idea is that Apple has cracked a nut no one else1 has — they’ve created an ecosystem where hundreds of millions of people are willing to pay for digital content. Thus, potentially, publishers won’t just make more money keeping only 70 percent of subscription fees generated through iOS apps than they are now with 96 percent (or whatever they’re left with after payment processing fees) of subscription fees they’re selling on their own — they stand to make a lot more money.
I’m not guaranteeing or even predicting that it’s going to work out that way. I’m just saying that’s Apple’s proposition.
Godin’s assumption is that iOS in-app subscriptions won’t significantly increase the number of subscribers. If he’s right about that, then he’s right that Apple’s 30 percent cut will prove too expensive for publishers. But Apple’s bet is that in-app subscriptions can dramatically increase the number of subscribers. Consider the app landscape. Apple’s 30 percent cut didn’t drive the price of paid apps up — the nature of the App Store drove prices down. It’s a volume game.
The App Store itself proves that Apple might be right. Like with app sales, in-app subscriptions won’t work for every publication. But it could work for many. It really is possible to make it up in volume.
And if a 70-30 split for in-app subscription revenue doesn’t work, the price will come down. That’s how capitalism works. You choose a price and see how it goes. I’ll admit — when the App Store launched in 2008, I thought Apple’s 70-30 split was skewed too heavily in Apple’s favor. Not that it was wrong in any moral sense, but that it was wrong in a purely economic sense: that it might be more than developers would be willing to bear. Apple, clearly, has a better sense about what prices the market will bear than I (and, likely, you) do.
Competition vs. Anti-Competition
One last argument I’ve seen regarding these in-app subscription rules is that it’s further evidence of anti-competitive behavior from Apple. That makes sense only if you consider iOS to be the entire field of play. Apple, though, is competing at a higher level. They’re competing between platforms: iOS vs. Kindle/Amazon vs. Android/Google vs. Microsoft, and in some ways, vs. the free web. Why should publishers make an app rather than just a mobile web site? For happier customers and more money.
Sony has a platform for e-books. Amazon has a platform for e-books. Barnes & Noble has a platform for e-books. Apple has a platform for e-books. But Apple is the only one which allows its competitors to have apps on its devices. And Apple is the anti-competitive one? I’m no lawyer, but if the iTunes Music store hasn’t yet been deemed a monopoly with Apple selling 70+ percent of digital music players, then I doubt the App Store will be deemed a monopoly for a market where Apple has never been — and, according to market share trends, may never be — the top-selling smartphone maker, let alone own a majority of the market, let alone own more than a single-digit sliver of the phone market as a whole. As for ruthless profiteering, consider that Amazon, with their e-book publishing, originally took the fat end of a 70-30 revenue split with authors.
One question I’ve been asked by several DF readers who object to Apple’s new in-app subscription and purchasing policies goes like this: What if Microsoft did this with Windows, and, say, tried to require Apple to pay them 30 percent for every purchase made through iTunes on Windows? To that, I say: good luck with that. Microsoft couldn’t make such a change by fiat. The whole premise of Windows (and other personal computer systems) is that it is open to third-party software. Apple couldn’t just flip a switch and make Mac OS X a controlled app console system like iOS — they had to introduce the Mac App Store as an alternative to traditional software installation. If Microsoft introduced something similar to the Mac App Store for Windows, Apple would simply eschew it. If Microsoft were to mandate an iOS App Store-like total control policy for all Windows software, they’d have a revolt in their user base that would make Vista look like a success.
iOS isn’t and never was an open computer system. It’s a closed, controlled console system — more akin to Playstation or Wii or Xbox than to Mac OS X or Windows. It is, in Apple’s view, a privilege to have a native iOS app.
This is what galls some: Apple is doing this because they can, and no other company is in a position to do it. This is not a fear that in-app subscriptions will fail because Apple’s 30 percent slice is too high, but rather that in-app subscriptions will succeed despite Apple’s (in their minds) egregious profiteering. I.e. that charging what the market will bear is somehow unscrupulous. To the charge that Apple Inc. is a for-profit corporation run by staunch capitalists, I say, “Duh”.
If it works, Apple’s 30-percent take of in-app subscriptions will prove as objectionable in the long run as the App Store itself: not very.
For Apple, the mobile market is a cash cow. The company’s iPhone and iPad are proving to be the top mobile companions for people around the globe. Apple has sold over 100 million iPhones. Its iPad sales have hit 15 million. The company understands the mobile market and it knows how to capitalize on it.
But what about the living room? It has the Apple TV, sure, and the Mac mini is often times connected to an HDTV, but what else has Apple done to push the envelope in the living room? It still hasn’t launched the long-rumored television we keep hearing about, and it seems that offering a game console — a hope for many Apple fans over the past few years — won’t happen.
I fully realize that Apple can’t be everything to every customer. It delivers computers, smartphones, tablets, personal media players, two operating systems, wireless routers, and much more. But I also realize that Apple is an entertainment company. It’s about trying to give people more opportunity to enjoy their lives through technology. And it would only make sense if it doubled down on the living room.
Let’s turn our attention to the Apple TV for a minute.
Prior to its announcement in September, rumors were running rampant over what the former “hobby” would offer. Folks thought it would deliver gaming, interface with DVRs, include Apple’s App Store, and much more. They thought it would be a sizable update over its predecessor.
Instead, Apple offered a stripped-down alternative.
The second-generation Apple TV comes with the ability for users to stream Netflix content. It has Flickr and Internet radio. And it allows users to stream their music over their home network to their televisions. It offers movies and television shows, as well, but most would agree that it’s slim pickings for now.
At that event in September, Steve Jobs said that Apple’s research showed customers didn’t want everything a company could pile into a device. They simply want the ability to consume the content they enjoy without the fuss that might come along with something like Google TV-based devices.
But by delivering the bare minimum, Apple did itself no favors. The company took the easy way out and pretended like it no longer views the living room as a hobby. The only issue is, the Apple TV is still a hobby. It’s a device that lacks all the functionality we’ve come to expect from Apple — a company that typically prides itself on offering the best value for the cash. And at least so far, it leaves me wanting more.
So, what am I looking for? I want to see Apple improve the Apple TV by bringing its App Store to the platform. I’d also like to see some kind of gaming component come to the device, either through the App Store or as part of a more-capable platform.
And perhaps most importantly, I’d like to see Apple think beyond its set-top box and deliver products that try something new. I’m not sold on the possibility of Apple offering a groundbreaking television, but if it can surprise me, I’m all for it.
Simply put, I’m looking for Apple to be Apple. Right now, it’s just like every other company in the living room; it’s content to have a presence but not dominate.
That needs to end.
No single company can stake claim to the living room right now. Steve Jobs just needs to take advantage of that void and do something special.
But first, he needs to take the living room — and its revenue potential — seriously.
Surface Encounters
Surface Encounters
The Found Animals Foundation is an LA-based non-profit devoted to saving the lives of animals and solving the problem of animal overpopulation. Founded by Dr. Gary Michelson, a billionaire entrepreneur with a lifelong love of animals, Found Animals blends compassion with innovation and business sense. The organization does everything from working with local shelters to finding homes for strays to offering multi-million dollar incentives for research on animal sterilization.
The foundation will be opening its first ever "Adopt and Shop" retail space next month, so we caught up with Aimee Gilbreath, Executive Director of Found Animals, to find out a little bit more about the foundation, its goals, and LA's newest "pet shop."
HP: What is Found Animals most committed to?
AG: Our mission at Found Animals is to minimize the number of pets killed in animal shelters. We believe that our society, in the 21st century, can do far better than killing 4 million animals each year at a cost to taxpayers of over $2 billion annually. We look for innovative, entrepreneurial approaches to solving this problem. Over the past three years we have built a world class team of business and science professionals and launched programs that include sterilization, microchipping, owner support, adoption and more. Found Animals considers Los Angeles our test market for programs with plans to export successful ideas.
HP: What is the one thing you are most proud of that Found Animals has been able to accomplish?
AG: I’m most proud of our accomplishments with the Michelson Prize and Grant program. It’s our own version of the X-Prize and offers $25 million in prize money for creating a low cost non-surgical sterilant for use in cats and dogs. In addition, we are offering up to $50 million in grant funding to help researchers develop a prize winning technology. Sterilization is one of the best tools we have in our arsenal to reduce the number of unwanted pets that crowd the shelter system and overwhelm available resources. Unfortunately, current surgical spay/neuter approaches are expensive and often difficult to access for the pets and people who need them most. A “doggie Depo Provera” or “Kitty Norplant” type of product would revolutionize how we manage the pet population.
We created the program from scratch and its world class. Our Director of Scientific Research, Dr. Shirley Johnston, is world renowned in small animal reproduction and our Scientific Advisory Board is comprised of experts in many fields. Our program staff has created a fantastic grant process and we do outreach to scientists worldwide. So far we’ve received over 140 grant applications and a dozen projects have been approved for funding totaling over $5 million.
What’s affecting me, my clients and other small-business owners this week.
THE QUAKE IN JAPAN, A GOOFBALL IN VENEZUELA Japanese earthquake damage is estimated at $310 billion and could be the costliest natural disaster ever. Japanese exports suffer. Kate Rogers of Fox revisits how to protect your business from catastrophe. “Small-business owners can determine if they should be seeking disaster coverage by weighing their investment in the business itself, among other factors. If the business is the sole form of income, the risk is much greater than if it is a hobby or part-time project.” Elsewhere around the world, the war industry gets a boost in Libya. And Hugo Chávez of Venezuela says capitalism may have destroyed life on Mars.
REAL ESTATE FALLS, JOBS RISE Mark Thoma says commodity prices are increasing because of world demand. A small-business owner in Georgia is trying not to pass on the cost of high gas prices. Detroit’s population declines 25 percent. Existing-home sales fall to the lowest on record. Meredith Whitney, an investment adviser, says, “Unless the government comes out with a 50-year mortgage, this market is in trouble longer term.” Gallup’s job-creation index is the highest since September 2008. Durable goods orders fall.
ANNE HATHAWAY AND WARREN BUFFETT The Fed earns $79 billion and predicts that the recovery is taking hold. Nonetheless, one of its officials warns that the United States is approaching insolvency. Meanwhile, Warren E. Buffett predicts growth but some think his company’s stock is buoyed by Anne Hathaway. Household balances sheets continue to improve. Scott Grannis says “the Philadelphia Fed Business Outlook Survey came in very strong. It hasn’t been this strong since the economic boom times of the early 1980s. It’s very difficult to ignore the mounting evidence of a strong economic recovery.” Architect billings increased slightly in February.
DEFICIT THRILLS The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget is thrilled to see 64 senators calling for comprehensive deficit reduction. But Stan Collender, a budget expert, isn’t thrilled at all: “Does a letter that is so vanilla that it could have been written at any time over the past 40 years really indicate any movement on the current budget debate?” James Pethokoukis of Reuters says he thinks President Obama’s budget is wildly dangerous.
A NEW DEFINITION OF SMALL BUSINESS Timothy F. Geithner says that American small businesses need greater access to capital to spur innovation. The Small Business Administration, facing even more cuts, is for the first time in more than 25 years proposing to change the way it defines small businesses. JPMorgan Chase says it will cease its debit card rewards program because of new legislation that would restrict fees. Missouri gets $27 million in incentives for small-business growth. The Small Business Savings Account Act makes its way through Congress.
TAKING CREDIT The health care legislation celebrates its first anniversary and Ezra Klein defends it by saying, “Is it a perfect piece of legislation? Not even close. Will everything work as expected? Almost certainly not. But for all its flaws, it’s a good law. And it’s worth trying.” Many small businesses are still not taking advantage of the health care tax credit.
TECHNOLOGY UPGRADES A Google project manager pitches cloud computing: “Web-based software is much less costly for buyers than traditional software, and programmers can be so much more innovative, that it’s worthwhile for an entrepreneur to say, O.K., let’s start from scratch.” Paul Mah, an information technology expert, gives us eight reasons to upgrade to Internet Explorer 9. Firefox 4 is released. Microsoft jumps to second in video search and introduces a new PC tool for small business. Netflix suffers an outage. BlackBerry’s tablet is scheduled to arrive in April. AT&T buys T-Mobile but not for the reason you think. And boy. has computer technology come a long way in 10 years.
THE GROWING APPS MARKET Information Week reports that 38 percent of small- and medium-size businesses depend on mobile apps. Amazon introduces an Android app store, and Apple is not pleased. Minda Zetlin of Inc. asks if you should make a tablet app for your business: “The answer is likely a yes if one, your product or service is one where having tablet access could benefit customers; and two, your customers are the type who use tablets.” Just in time: a flood of royal wedding apps.
SPEAKING OF THE BIG WEDDING General Electric releases a much-needed William and Kate refrigerator. Jack Daniels introduces a new product — perhaps to help us forget the royal wedding. Danny Wong gives us three winning ideas to consider. A dating site features a new single man every day. Score plans an e-business learning Web site for small business. Small Business Television is rebranding itself and has introduced a new Web site. Small Business Opportunities magazine is doing the same. A small business introduces its first electric car. Sales of e-books have doubled. The group buying industry is projected to grow to $2.7 billion this year.
TWITTER’S TAX BREAKS Casey Hibbard explains how one company used social media to make $300,000 in a weekend. Robert Scoble discovers the future of work: “Just when we thought we figured out the new ’social enterprise’ market along comes Convofy.” Twitter shows San Francisco’s businesses how to save a bundle on taxes. A one-legged wrestler shows us how to become a national champ.
IT’S GOOD TO BE GREEN A woman in Canada gets a standing ovation for being green. The Manhattan Chamber of Commerce holds its green marketing event on Wednesday. The Clinton Global Initiative holds its university conference this week with a focus on entrepreneurship and a live webcast.
ADVICE FOR SXSW: HAND OUT PILLOWS The Global Entrepreneurship Congress meets in Shanghai this week. April 2 is International Pillow Fight Day. The South By Southwest conference: as seen from a bunch of social media video bloggers — which is yet another reason I won’t attend next year. American Airlines offers a big promo for California business travelers. John Jantsch wants to know the worst business advice you ever received. A third-base coach gives life advice.
SEARCHING FOR HELP WITH SEARCH An American Express survey finds that more than half of small-business owners say they need help with search-engine marketing. A video about why it’s not important to go viral goes viral. Dharmesh Shah shares a few low-cost advertising ideas for start-ups and cautions readers to “think of advertising not as a long-term traffic strategy but as a testing tool to improve your Web site and find out more about your ideal visitor.” An advertising blog discusses how to develop a relationship with the media. Lucy Thornton comes up with a few good marketing themes for April.
A 100-MILLION-MEMBER NETWORK LinkedIn officially reaches 100 million members. Seems like a good time to read the co-founder’s 10 rules for entrepreneurial success.
TRIED TALKING? Whitson Gordon of Lifehacker gives us his top 10 tricks for working while on the go. Example: “Whether it’s that old, dead iPod or the smartphone you’re already carrying with you, you probably have gigs of unused storage lying around waiting to be filled with portable apps, files and other digital travel necessities.” Melanie Brooks of Workawesome.com explains why she uses a leather day planner instead of a smartphone. Greg Schinkel warns against hiding behind our keyboards: “Before you hit ‘reply to all’ and send back a zinger to someone who maligned you, stop and go talk to the person.”
THIS WEEK’S AWARDS
BEST WAY TO GET YOUR CUSTOMERS TO LOVE YOU Ben Yoskovitz talks about the benefits of delighting your customers: “The rewards are immense. Loyal, rabid fans tweet shamelessly about how incredible you are, how valuable your Web application is and how successful your start-up will be.”
BEST WAY TO MARKET WITHOUT A BUDGET Shisha Dublin-Green explains how to market without a marketing budget: “Form an alliance: if you have a hair salon that’s mostly frequented by women with young children and elderly women, you can offer a service whereby you arrange to do their grocery shopping whilst they’re in the salon. You may decide to form an alliance with a local reputable grocer or delivery service to provide this for your customers. This could also be a way to reach out to new customers via your local grocer.”
BEST ADVICE FOR BOOTSTRAPPERS The Smart Bear says that the things money cannot buy are still the most valuable things: “Show proof of your ability to master the things money cannot buy — your ability to learn, change and improve.”
THIS WEEK’S QUESTION: How do you bring in customers without spending a lot? We do free webinars every month.
Gene Marks owns the Marks Group PC, a Bala Cynwyd, Pa., consulting firm that helps clients with customer relationship management. You can follow him on Twitter.
Surface Encounters
Q&A: How dangerous is the plutonium found at Fukushima power plant <b>...</b>
Plutonium has been detected in soil at five locations in the crippled Fukushima Daiichi atomic power plant of Tokyo Electric Power Co. The following are questions and answers regarding the potential health hazard of the highly toxic ...
Surface Encounters
Surface Encounters
Surface Encounters
Q&A: How dangerous is the plutonium found at Fukushima power plant <b>...</b>
Plutonium has been detected in soil at five locations in the crippled Fukushima Daiichi atomic power plant of Tokyo Electric Power Co. The following are questions and answers regarding the potential health hazard of the highly toxic ...
Surface Encounters
No comments:
Post a Comment