Events
Event Date Location

Social Media Insider Summit

08/20/2014 - 08/23/2014 LAKE TAHOE CA

iMedia Agency Summit (Malaysia)

08/25/2014 - 08/27/2014 Kota Kinabalu Malaysia

The 6th annual Mobile World

08/28/2014 Seoul

iMedia Brand Summit (Australia)

09/01/2014 - 09/03/2014 Gold Coast Australia

iMedia Brand Summit (India)

09/03/2014 - 09/05/2014 Adao Waddo, Salcette India

Data+: Analyze, Predict, Monetize

09/07/2014 - 09/09/2014 Phoenix AZ

iMedia Brand Summit: Marketing in an Always-On World

09/07/2014 - 09/10/2014 Coronado CA

Content Marketing World

09/08/2014 - 09/11/2014 Cleveland OH

Video Insider Summit

09/14/2014 - 09/17/2014 Montauk NY

Ad Age Digital Conference San Francisco

09/16/2014 San Francisco CA

digital-media

Tech Marketing Guide to B2B

News, video, events, blogs about Social Media Marketing for high tech business-to-business from IDG Knowledge Hub.

Tech Marketing Guide to B2B

News, video, events, ideas and blogs about Advertising and Marketing for high tech business-to-business from IDG Knowledge Hub.

Tech Marketing Guide to B2B

News, video, events, ideas and blogs about Lead Generation Marketing for high tech business-to-business from IDG Knowledge Hub.

Tech Marketing Guide to B2B

News, video, events, blogs about Mobile Marketing for high tech business-to-business from IDG Knowledge Hub.

Tech Marketer's Guide to B2B

News, video, events, blogs about Technology Business and Marketing for high tech business-to-business from IDG Knowledge Hub.

Subscribe To Latest Posts
Subscribe

6 reasons to reconsider time spent with media when considering ad placement

INMA

Time spent with media seems to be the hot topic based on the number of times I have been shown this chart of Internet trends, created by Mary Meeker of Kleiner Perkins Caufield Byers. The chart details the amount of time spent with a medium compared with ad dollars spent in the United States.

People argue that newspapers get too many advertising dollars for time spent with that particular medium. This is one statistic from one source. It is one piece of the puzzle – like only considering hair colour when looking at the overall population.

  1. Consider how strange it is to look at time spent. If we analysed most people’s days in terms of time spent, the conclusion would be that we love working and sleeping. Both activities are a necessity for most people, but not how they would choose to spend their time.
  2. What we spend most of our time doing does not necessarily represent a good opportunity for advertising. If we spend most of our time working and sleeping, logic would argue that these are the biggest ad opportunities in our lives. However, they are not. In both cases, we are generally unavailable during these hours as we are consumed by other tasks.
  3. The time-spent argument does not peel away the content and get at time spent with ads – and this is what the advertisers really want to know. This information would be more revealing.

    People spend hours watching television each week, but do they fast-forward through or record the show and, therefore, not watch the ads? Time spent with ads on television might be close to zero for some people.

    What about advertisement engagement with radio programming? Do people change channels when ads come on?

  4. Do users want ads? In many cases – NO! The user would be happy to avoid them or not have them at all. When reading the newspaper, both print and Web users tell us they want ads.

    Newspapers provide local advertising information that, in many cases, is not readily available anywhere else. And let’s not forget about the deals and offers the medium highlights, as well.

  5. Engagement must be a factor. “Lean-in” media are those that users give their full attention to, such as newspapers and their corresponding Web sites.

    “Lean-back” media allow the user to do other things at the same time. For example, outdoor ads can been seen during a drive, when the radio is also on, and there is a discussion in the car with the other occupants. This does not allow for full engagement.

  6. It is also essential to consider a user’s frame of mind. If users are rushed and focused on something else, ads that they encounter may be fleeting, if they’re seen at all. Other media are used in a relaxed state of mind when users would be open to messages, with time to explore ideas and ads.

    Newspaper readers on all devices are looking for interesting content and ads provide this, too.

Time spent should not be viewed in isolation, and it may not even be the best criteria when determining where to place ad dollars. It is easy to track and present, so it is used as shorthand “proof” but it misses other key factors.

Think about the whole situation when considering time spent with media. Don’t judge based simply on the colour of our hair.

Brands ‘not ready’ for digital era

Warc

Many brands are still “not ready for the digital era” as their marketing departments lack the skillsets necessary to thrive in the connected age, a leading executive has argued.

Speaking at the 2014 Association of National Advertisers (ANA) Digital & Social Media Conference, Bob Liodice, the organisation’s president/ceo, asserted that technology was a “critical enabler” for brands.

But exploiting the opportunities currently available – from formulating one-to-one conversations to driving innovation and pursuing purpose-driven branding – will require a significant shift in skillsets.

“We need to build skills,” Liodice said. (For more, including insights from senior marketers from Unilever, Ford and more, read Warc’s exclusive report: ANA’s Liodice outlines challenges (and opportunities) for the digital age.)

At present, he continued, the majority of organisations do not have the requisite talent in place to move ahead at the desired speed.

“Survey after survey suggests that we’re not ready for the digital era,” Liodice said.

“We found, in one survey, that only 25% of marketers said that they have the skillset necessary to be able to take advantage of the opportunities that are now afforded to them.”

Taking the next step, he reported, would demand a transition in mindset away from the existing marketing model towards a genuinely integrated approach.

“We essentially need to make a change from digital marketing to marketing in a digital age,” the ANA’s president/ceo asserted.

Marc Pritchard, Procter & Gamble’s global brand building officer, has put forward a similar theory, as he reflected that traditional ideas of digital marketing were almost “dead”.

Liodice drew attention to other marketers who had elaborated on such themes, like Joe Tripodi, evp/chief marketing and commercial officer at soft drinks giant Coca-Cola, who has called on brands to “embrace the values of millennials”.

Antonio Lucio, global chief brand officer at financial services group Visa, has further asserted that millennials are the most “equipped” to drive change, adding that “digital natives will rule the world”.

Yusuf Medhi, chief marketing and strategy officer for the XBOX games console at Microsoft, has equally encouraged marketers to “consume new technology – use it, spend time with it and learn from people it has benefitted”.

Ready or Not, the Internet of Things Is Coming

eMarketer

Think the net neutrality debate is all about streaming videos? Think again. It’s actually much more than that: It’s about streaming your life. Internet connectivity might seem ubiquitous today, between the use of PCs, mobile devices, and smart TVs, but there are major swaths of daily life that aren’t connected yet that soon will become so, such as homes and cars, according to a new eMarketer report, “Key Digital Trends for Midyear 2014: The Internet of Things, Net Neutrality, and Why Marketers Need to Care.”

176056 Ready or Not, the Internet of Things Is Coming

Connecting all the unconnected devices, machines and systems will involve vast numbers of new internet-enabled objects and large sums of money. In a relatively untapped market with seemingly limitless potential, forecasts tend toward the sky-high:

  • International Data Corporation predicts the worldwide market for “internet of things” (IoT) solutions will grow from $1.9 trillion in 2013 to $7.1 trillion in 2020.
  • MarketsandMarkets gives the IoT market a more conservative—but still lofty—valuation of $1.029 trillion in 2013, increasing to $1.423 trillion by 2020.
  • Gartner forecasts 26 billion connected objects worldwide by 2020 (a figure that does not include PCs, smartphones and tablets).
  • IDATE projects 80 billion internet-connected things in 2020, up from 15 billion in 2012. This figure does include PCs, TVs and smart devices, but the vast majority (85%) will be objects like car tires or shipping pallets that may communicate with the web via an intermediate device. Devices that communicate directly, such as PCs, TVs and mobile phones, will make up 11% of the total in 2020.
  • Cisco Systems predicts 50 billion things will be connected by 2022, yielding $19 trillion in new revenues ($14.4 trillion of which will accrue to private-sector corporations).

“There’s no doubt the world is moving toward a more connected future, but the speed with which consumers and enterprises make the transition to the internet of things is still to be determined,” said Noah Elkin, executive editor at eMarketer. “The timing of adoption will determine just how much money and how many things are involved.”

What businesses need to know about Touch ID and iOS 8

CITEworld

Apple introduced Touch ID along with the iPhone 5s and iOS 7 last fall. At launch, the technology was limited to two purposes – acting as a shortcut for a user’s passcode to unlock the device, and acting as an alternative to a user’s Apple ID and password when making purchases from Apple’s iTunes Store, App Store, and iBookstore.

With iOS 8, Apple is expanding the capabilities of Touch ID significantly by giving developers the APIs needed to use Touch ID as an authentication/authorization method in third-party apps. This is a powerful expansion of the technology, and one that could be applied to a wide range of different types of apps.

It’s easy to see the value of Touch ID in mobile commerce apps, as well as in mobile banking apps - PayPal was one of the first companies to express an interest in integrating Touch ID into its app and services. Password managers like 1Password from Agilebits are also prime uses for the technology. Apps that store confidential or sensitive information — like health and medical apps — can also benefit from integrating Touch ID.

Business and productivity apps, especially those designed to provide secure access to a company’s corporate resources and cloud services, are also areas where Touch ID could be implemented. That raises questions for IT leaders in many organizations to ask themselves:

  • Is it a good idea to build Touch ID into our internal apps?
  • Should we allow, encourage, or support Touch ID in apps from cloud storage and collaboration vendors?
  • Are there reasons to avoid Touch ID, either in enterprise or third-party apps?

Given that it seems almost certain that Apple will expand the well-received TouchID to any additional iOS devices launching later this year, these aren’t hypothetical questions. They’re questions that organizations will likely face as soon as Apple releases iOS 8 this fall.

Touch ID and the Secure Enclave

At a hardware level, Touch ID includes two primary components: Touch ID Sensor, the fingerprint scanner built into the device’s home button, and the Secure Enclave, a coprocessor that is integrated into Apple’s A7 chip. The Secure Enclave is connected to the Touch ID Sensor and is responsible for processing fingerprint scans. Each Secure Enclave has a unique identity (UID) provisioned during the A7′s fabrication process that cannot be accessed by other iOS components, and that is unknown even to Apple.

Touch ID is actually just one function of the Secure Enclave. Additional functions like cryptographic protection for data protection key management were identified in the iOS Security Guide that Apple released in February. Additional details were discussed during the Keychain and Authentication with Touch ID session at Apple’s Worldwide Developers Conference last month, which can be streamedfrom Apple’s developer site (and a PDF of the presentation slides from the session is also available). Going forward, it seems clear that the Secure Enclave will be a key part of iOS security functions, beyond merely handling fingerprint identification.

It’s also worth mentioning that although the Touch ID Sensor is currently only available on the iPhone 5s, the additional functionality of the Secure Enclave is built into any iOS device with an A7 chip, which currently includes the iPad Air, iPad mini with Retina Display in addition to the iPhone 5c, opening the door for more security features down the line.

Touch ID and a user’s passcode

Apple hasn’t envisioned Touch ID as a standalone biometric authentication system (or part of a multi-factor authentication solution). That means that it isn’t a replacement for a passcode. An iPhone 5s user must supply a passcode to enable Touch ID and once enabled, Touch ID is effectively a shortcut or pointer to a passcode.

The value that Touch ID offers is that it boasts the benefits of a complex passcode without the hassle of typing it dozens or hundreds of times a day – it makes a complex passcode easier to use.

Continue reading

Report: Samsung and Google Butt Heads Over Smartwatches

Mashable

Are Google and Samsung fighting over Tizen’s role in wearables? According to a new report, the answer is yes.

According to The Information, Google CEO Larry Page met with Samsung Vice Chairman Jay Y. Lee at the Allen & Co. conference in Sun Valley. The purpose of the meeting? To discuss Samsung’s plans for wearables.

Evidently, the meeting wasn’t a success. The report reveals Page was unhappy to hear that Samsung still plans to focus most of its wearable efforts on its own Tizen operating system rather than giving more support to Android Wear.

Although Samsung has made a smartwatch that runs Android Wear — the Gear Live — the bulk of its smartwatch efforts are focused on Tizen.

Google and Samsung have a decidedly complicated relationship. Samsung is the most successful Android OEM by a large margin. As a result, Samsung wants to be able to differentiate and customize its experience. Sometimes, however, things go too far. In January, Samsung agreed totone down the extent to which it customizes Android’s user interface. Still, that hasn’t stopped Samsung from creating its own app store and doing its part to maintain the Galaxy branding.

With wearables, the situation becomes even more complex, because Samsung is essentially selling two competing devices. The Gear 2 smartwatch runs Samsung’s own software and works only with Galaxy smartphones. The Gear Live, on the other hand, has to follow Google’s rules and will work with any Android 4.3 or higher device — even if it’s made by someone other than Samsung.

The wearable market — especially the smartwatch part of it — is still new enough to allow Samsung to support both platforms. Assuming the smartwatch truly does go mainstream, however, Samsung may have to choose a platform and commit to it. For Google, the question then becomes, what does it need to do to keep its most important partner committed, without ceding control of its platform.

Click here to see more

A walk through the future where everything is connected

CITEworld

Attending a conference on the “Internet of things” is like walking through a bizarro mosaic of the future.

Conferences tend to center on a well-defined market, topic, or large company, and that theme is reflected back in some cohesive fashion by each company in attendance.

“The internet of things”, “smart devices” or “connected devices” (my preferred term), or broad subsets like “wearables” by nature implies just about everything.

Everything, in theory, can connect to everything else via a sensor, processor, and transmitter. That means the boundaries of a connected product and its related vertical markets are, in theory, limitless.

So as you peruse the booths, you see wireless garden sensors next to fabric with sensors literally woven in, you see defense contractor behemoth Booz Allen Hamilton talking about cloud computing solutions across the aisle from a startup shoe sensor company called Boogio (“Makes your shoes smart!”).

As I walked through the vendors and sessions at this week’s Wearable Technologies Conference in San Francisco, I tried to assemble a picture my future life flooded with all these sensors, embedded everywhere, telling me everything.

Imagine:

As I finish up a work project in my future home, Imprint Energy’s wafer-thin batteries power a wristband running atop VirtualBeam’s motion recognition software which informs me when my hands have been gesturing over my Leap Motion sensor for too long, so I need a break to avoid carpal tunnel syndrome. My future wife scans patients at the hospital with Aura’s 3D ear canal scanning system but her Emotiv electroencephalography headband scans her brainwaves and lets me know that it’s been a stressful day for her. I send our drone to go pick up tacos for dinner.

My future daughter plays in the backyard and I know she’s okay because Sensirion’s outdoor sensors tell me that the humidity and temperature are reasonable, not to mention the Leo bands around her legs tell me she’s well hydrated and her muscles are moving well (i.e. she’s running around happily) and her SunFriend wristband indicates her UV intake is still low. My future son practices the virtual drums with his Moff wristbands as he gets ready for his football game where Flextronics sensors will map his muscle motions on each tackle (good form or not?) and his i1 Biometrics mouthguard will alert me in real time when he gets a concussion and store the data in the cloud.

And that is the really the binding agent of all these seemingly random companies.

“It’s about the data!” Frank Ball, CEO of vascular imaging company Evena Medical, booms during his talk. “We’ve heard about generating data. But the money is being in the pipeline that processes that data…. We call this whole morass ‘the data hurricane’.”

Read more…

Irrelevant Digital Content Impacts B2B Vendors in US & UK

IDG Connect 0811 300x141 Irrelevant Digital Content Impacts B2B Vendors in US & UK

By Jessica Maxwell

We recently completed research that looked at how irrelevant content impacts B2B vendors’ bottom lines. We did two separate surveys that were based on technology buyers who had actively made a purchase decision in the last 12 to 18 months; one was to a US audience and one was to a UK audience.

Despite how different these two regions are, we were surprised to see that the results were extremely similar for every question we asked. Content is irrelevant in both of these markets, and no one is happy about it.

Click to continue reading

Here is an infographic view of the US and UK comparison:

irrelevant digital content impacts B2B Irrelevant Digital Content Impacts B2B Vendors in US & UK

For more blogs and research from IDG Connect, click here 

Personal Computing’s Big Three Get a Little Bigger

The New York Times

Three companies are pulling away from the pack in the PC business.

Counts of second-quarter personal computer shipments released Wednesday by two major analysis companies showed a slower-than-expected decline in PC shipments worldwide, with wealthy markets like the United States showing decent growth. But in poorer countries, alternatives such as low-cost tablets continued to affect PC sales.

The real surprise in the numbers was the relative strength of the three biggest PC makers — Lenovo, Hewlett-Packard and Dell — compared to the loss of market share by almost everyone else. Lenovo appeared to have solidified its lead as the world’s biggest PC maker, a title for which it contested with H.P. for several quarters.

One of the analysis companies, International Data Corporation, said worldwide PC shipments totaled 74.4 million units in the second quarter, a drop of 1.7 percent from the same quarter of 2013. The important United States market grew 6.9 percent, to 16.7 million units. Gartner put worldwide shipments at 75.8 million units, an increase of 0.1 percent, and United States shipments at 15.9 million units, up 7.4 percent.

Among the top five vendors, which also included Acer and Asus, global shipments rose 9.8 percent year-on-year, IDC said, while the rest of the market, made up of about 15 other computer companies, declined 18.5 percent. Gartner said companies not in the top five had a net decline in shipments of 13.8 percent.

IDC said Lenovo had 19.6 million units shipped to the world market, a rise of 15.1 percent. H.P. was second, with 13.6 million units, up 10.3 percent, and Dell was third at 10.4 million units, up 13.2 percent. Acer’s shipments fell 2.5 percent, to 6.1 million units, and Asus managed a 3.3 percent gain, to 4.6 million units.

Gartner’s percentages were much the same, though it scored an even steeper fall for Acer and a better performance for Asus. Even last quarter, according to both research companies, the companies outside the top five had 40 percent of the global PC market; now they are closer to a third. And the analysts expect them to fall further.

The better-than-expected overall performance for PC shipments was attributed to a number of factors, including strong business demand after the discontinuation of support for an older version of Microsoft’s Windows PC operating system, and consumer interest in lower-priced laptops.

Continue reading…

What makes digital video advertising profitable? Content, context, placement

INMA

There’s gold in online video. An estimated 85% of Internet users regularly watch video. Consequently, online video ad spend is experiencing a similar upward arc.

According to a recent Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB) survey, American advertisers will spend 17% more on digital video in 2014 than they did in 2012, and the migration of ad dollars from televsion to digital video continues unabated.

This year, for the first time ever, digital video spend nearly matched TV spending.

However, to ensure digital video doesn’t become a race to the bottom of the advertising bargain barrel, publishers and video producers must align strategies around the concept of premium; that is, how best to extract the most advertising value from online video.

Consumers crave quality content, and marketers want to associate with the same. That’s no secret. But what is high quality or premium content?

Simply put, “premium” refers to professionally produced content. But there’s a catch: a professional, high-definition (HD) video that features a cat falling off a chair doesn’t qualify as premium. In other words, the actual content is also important.

Of course, Jack’s version of premium video might vary from Jill’s. But, from an advertising perspective, you can bank on the fact that content such as well-produced sports videos will routinely meet the premium standard, especially when talking about gold-standard sporting brands like the National Football League (NFL), Major League Baseball (MLB), the National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing (NASCAR) and the Professional Golfers’ Association of America (PGA).

Furthermore, I consider the “jewel events” that define these various sporting brands — the Super Bowl, World Series, Daytona 500, and the Players Championship — as super premium content.

Premium video also needs premium placement, and to understand this we need to understand viewership.

Measuring viewership in the world of TV is relatively straightforward, determined by the number of households tuned in to a show (which, of course, doesn’t account for the TV being on without an audience, or someone simply recording content for later viewing.)

The same problem exists with the Internet, due primarily to the speed at which this medium moves and connects. That’s why I consider “placement” as the new “premium element” in online video.

If, for example, the video player appears below the fold on a Web page (meaning below your viewing area on your screen) or auto-plays once a user lands on that page, we can’t sell this to advertisers as premium, even if the video shows a 6-year-old kid hitting a hole in-one at a charity golf tournament.

Summed up, premiere placement of premium video equals click-to-play, above the fold, and contextually relevant.

Read more…

Time Out On Time Spent: Digital’s Delta Is More Like Two Times TV’s

MediaPost

Here’s a surprising counter to those Mary Meeker-ish assertions that digital media doesn’t get its fair share of ad budgets, relative to the time consumers spend using media. But keep in mind that the counter-argument comes from a source that doesn’t buy into the original premise in the first place.

“While we have long quibbled with the notion that time with media should equate to [ad] spending on media, it is worth noting that by our estimates, total spending on TV advertising amounted to $63 billion in 2013. Meanwhile, total spending on digital advertising amounted to $43 billion,”  Brian Wieser wrote in a report to Wall Street investors this morning. Wieser, who is an analyst at Pivotal Research Group, and used to be the head of forecasting at Interpublic’s Magna Global unit, knows something about how and why advertisers allocate their ad budgets on media. His main point is that based on the most recent estimates from Nielsen, “digital”  is actually reaping a disproportionate share of advertising relative to consumer usage.

By Wieser’s estimate, digital ad spending currently represents 68% of TV’s total, but is generating only 35% of consumer time spent. “If time did equate to money,” he writes, “either too much is being spent on  Internet advertising or too little is being spent on TV.”

But as already noted, Wieser says he doesn’t accept that premise, and instead recommends that a “more accurate” way of thinking about ad spending is that it’s always a “function of ‘least-bad’” alternatives for a given marketer.

In this scenario, Wieser says demand for digital media is often driven by long-tail marketers — small businesses and e-commerce marketers — that view the Internet as delivering an effective ROI. Large mainstream consumer brands, by contrast, remain more focused on “engagement-based” and “awareness-based” goals that are unlikely to be surpassed by TV’s “perceived effectiveness in this regard, but also because of the relatively broader use of the medium and ease with which reach and frequency may be accomplished on TV.”

In other words, the allocation of advertising budgets is not a simple, one-size-fits-all logic. Different advertisers use their allocation of media differently, and much of the growth of digital ad spending is a function of brands that likely may not have used TV much, if at all, in the first place. The bottom line is that the sum total of all those allocations currently gives a disproportionate weight toward digital, not TV.