Event Date Location

Mobile Insider Summit

08/17/2014 - 08/20/2014 LAKE TAHOE CA

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


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

CMOs say digital will transform budgets


Over three-quarters (78%) of global marketing executives expect digital and mobile technology to transform corporate marketing over the next five years, a new survey has shown.

However, the poll of nearly 600 senior executives in 11 countries by Accenture Interactive, the management consultancy, also found 79% think their organisation will not be a fully digital operation over the same period.

Furthermore, more than one-third expect 75% of their marketing budgets to comprise spending on digital, and 41% expect their spending on digital marketing to increase by more than 5% within the next year.

With digital marketing accepted by so many marketers as likely to transform the industry, Accenture advised companies to adapt to the new environment or risk being left on the sidelines.

To improve the customer experience – only 62% of respondents believe their organisation currently achieves this – Accenture recommended marketers increase their links with the C-suite and to focus marketing campaigns on desired outcomes rather than on sales.

It also urged them to devise campaigns that improve customer engagement and to develop an “ongoing dialogue”, or a relationship that it said should cover “the whole spectrum of sales, service, retention and loyalty”.

“As marketing executives are increasingly embracing digital, they can be catalysts to help their company take advantage of the wider digital opportunity and protect against broader digital threats,” said Brian Whipple, senior managing director at Accenture Interactive.

To help drive the digital transformation of their organisations, he said marketers should extend their vision beyond traditional boundaries.

“The opportunities, as well as the potential and real threats, are all about the customer, the brand, the interface with the customer and how the customer is empowered,” he said.

Microsoft goof confirms Surface Mini

IDG News Service

Microsoft has inadvertently confirmed that it had a smaller Surface tablet ready to release when it unveiled the larger Surface Pro 3 last month.

Eagle-eyed observers today pointed out that the Surface Mini, a long-rumored small tablet, was referenced several times in the Surface Pro 3 User Guide, which is available online.

Microsoft started selling some models of the Surface Pro 3 in retail today, and began delivering devices that customers had pre-ordered since the May 20 introduction.

The Surface Mini was featured most predominantly in the user guide’s discussion of the Surface Pen, a writing and sketching tool that comes with the Surface Pro 3, and apparently would have accompanied the smaller tablet, too. Mentions of OneNote, Microsoft’s note-taking app, were scattered throughout the guide, including the sections where the Surface Mini was mentioned.

“Click the top button [of the Surface Pen] to open OneNote, even if your Surface is locked,” the guide stated. “Bluetooth technology links your Surface Pen to your Surface Mini or Surface Pro 3, so when you click the button, your Surface responds instantly [emphasis added].”

That matches what some reported prior to Microsoft’s May 20 event: The Surface Mini, those reports claimed, would be pitched as a note-taking device, and released in time for the back-to-school sales season.

The Surface Mini was assumed to be a 7-in. or 8-in. tablet akin to the Surface 2, the second-generation of the Surface RT, a tablet powered by Windows RT, the tablet-only operating system that features colorful tiles and boasts a new ecosystem of apps.

The day before the Surface event, Computerworld reported that Microsoft would not unveil the Surface Mini. Later accounts elsewhere claimed that the device was pulled from the presentation — and thus release — at the last minute as executives feared that the Mini wasn’t sufficiently different from lower-priced rivals to do well in the market.

Microsoft’s skittishness may have stemmed from memories of the $900 million write-off it took in mid-2013 to account for lackluster sales and overstocked inventories of the original Surface RT tablet.

It’s possible that Microsoft will eventually launch a smaller Surface, perhaps even the built-but-not-sold Surface Mini, but the company has not publicly confirmed the tablet’s existence, much less a timeline for its release.

Click to see more

Design is more important than technology


It happens every time Apple makes an announcement: “Where’s the really big difference,” shout the haters from the rooftops. “Where’s the innovation?

Well, here’s the thing: When it comes to technology, “innovation” doesn’t mean what you think it means. Almost none of the technology we come to rely on every day for transportation, productivity, and entertainment, is actually a brand new invention. And very much of what we refer to as “innovation” is mainly a product of good design — the smart application of existing technologies to make life better for users.

Let’s go back to Apple for a moment. Contrary to what seems to be popular belief, Apple didn’t invent the personal computing market: Olivetti invented the PC with the Progamma 101 in 1965, when the Steves Wozniak and Jobs were still in school. HP, Xerox, Wang, and IBM all offered personal computer models of their own. But it was the Apple II that made computing affordable and accessible to the home.

Which is exactly the same trick that Apple pulled thirty-some-odd years later with the iPod, and later the iPhone. Apple didn’t invent the MP3 player. It didn’t invent the cell phone. It didn’t invent the touchscreen, or mobile e-mail, or that cool portrait/landscape switching that we now take for granted. What Apple did was combine these technologies in a way that had never been tried before.

The iPhone wasn’t the most technologically robust phone on the market — remember when everyone was up in arms because the first two iPhone models were only on 2G? But it was the first that presented a compelling case for how people could use a smartphone in their everyday lives.

The “innovation” was in optimizing their product to reflect the company’s very specific vision for how people should interact with technology. That vision continues through today: Even the Woz agrees that Apple is plenty innovative, even if its lack of really new products indicates a gap in inventiveness, which is a different topic.

And you see it again and again in all segments.

Uber didn’t invent cabs. It just invented a better way to call and pay for them that took advantage of the smartphone platform.

Tesla didn’t invent electric cars. It just invented a better way to manufacture them that lets them drive further, faster. (Although Tesla holds a bunch of well-deserved patents for their battery and charger technology — patents that theyopened up this week to encourage people to build on their inventions.)

Since CITEworld is an enterprise IT blog, let’s take a look at an enterprise IT company: Okta, the single sign-on cloud identity company which this week raised a hefty $75 million round of funding, today unveils a new user experience (UX).

Continue reading

Marketing to the Data Driven Customer

IDC PMS4colorversion 1 300x99 Marketing to the Data Driven Customer

By Gerry Murray

The digital native generation is bringing new expectations to brand relationships. They are mobile first, crowd sourced, and data savvy. Their first and most frequent interaction with your brand will be digital and mobile. They find out what’s cool, what’s trending, and what’s most likely to work best for them from their social networks. They don’t have emotional attachments to brands because the product is compelling or the advertising is cool. Their emotional engagement comes from unexpected insights that make them more successful. This is the new basis of customer loyalty, advocacy, and lifetime value.

Of course you still need a compelling product and cool ads (or messaging.) But once the prospect is a customer, continual engagement depends on over the top data driven insights. It’s no longer enough to just sell the hammers and saws and let the buyer go build their house. You need to monitor how they are using the hammer and saw. You need to deliver success by guiding their use of your product based on the behavior of your most successful customers. You need to leverage your position as the center of your customer universe to share best practices quickly and efficiently. The only way to do that at scale is through data.

Data Ownership vs Data Stewardship

In between the lines, you should be hearing a new philosophy with respect to customer data. Even though legally you “own” it, the data driven customer expects you to act as a data steward. You must treat their data as an asset to be used for their benefit, not just as the basis for driving revenue. Everything you provide to your customers should be designed to bring data back. Your customers should learn that the more data they provide, the more value they get in return – without negative side effects like having their data sold to an irrelevant ad network. Give to get and maintain the trust.

This has tremendous implications. Not only for marketers. Data marketing requires coordination with product development, IT, finance, fulfillment, point of sale, customer support, consulting services, sales. All these groups interact with customers and capture data on different aspects of their behavior – product usage, purchasing, problem resolution, planning, advocacy, etc. They all need to be understood to identify the most successful customers and the traits that drive their success. You can create tiers of services based on the level at which customer provide data. You can create cohorts of customers that exclude direct competitors. You can support exchanges within your customer ecosystem that enable strategic accounts to benefit from preferred peers. You can be extremely creative about how you structure your data marketing services.

The message is that in a world of shrinking product cycles, cheap knockoffs, and copycat services, data marketing is the new source of differentiation. No one else has the data you (should) have on how customers can be most successful with your products. Use it to attract and retain the best and leave the rest to your competitors.

Click to see more

US World Cup fans are digitally active


Almost one-third (31%) of American soccer fans are more likely to use multiple devices to watch games from the FIFA World Cup 2014 and almost two-thirds (64%) plan to watch at least one game online, a new survey has shown.

Based on responses from 25,000 US adults, including Spanish-speakers, consumer insights firm Experian Marketing Services expected fans to embrace World Cup broadcasts across multiple platforms.

Specifically, it found 60% were more likely to use their phone to keep up with sports coverage, 65% were more likely to stream video from a work computer and 60% were likely to use sports apps on their phones during a typical week.

Furthermore, 37% were more likely to use a digital tablet and 20% were more likely to multi-task while watching TV, the report stated.

Bill Tancer, general manager of global research at Experian, suggested this was a sign of how mainstream digital viewing is becoming among American fans, who he said didn’t care how they watched coverage, as long as it’s readily available.

He added that the tournament, which started on June 12 and lasts until July 14, will also provide good opportunities for marketers.

“The World Cup is a unique event for viewers but also for marketers because it attracts a fully engaged, globally diverse audience that loves to shop and engage with brands for an entire month,” he said.

Experian found that World Cup fans are 29% more likely to have a strong connection with brands placed in the context of TV shows, he stated, and they are also more likely to buy goods and services – unlike viewers of the Olympics.

Fans’ online search behaviour will be monitored throughout the tournament, he added, and this has already revealed that ESPN is the most popular website for updates while Cristiano Ronaldo of Portugal is the most searched player.

Separately, an infographic from Kantar Media about sports-related activity in Latin America has shown that 32% of Brazilians, who played football at some point over the past year, take part in promotions via mobile phones.

How Comments Shape Perceptions of Sites’ Quality—and Affect Traffic

The Atlantic

There’s a game I like to play sometimes. It’s called “How many Internet comments do I have to read until I lose faith in humanity?” All too often, the answer is: one comment.

From The Atlantic to Yahoo to YouTube, online comments are often ignorant, racist, sexist, threatening, or otherwise worthless. But you knew that already. There’s plenty of anti-comment sentiment on the web—some humorous, some more scholarly—and despite the hopes of media democratizers, there’s now widespread agreement that Internet comments are terrible. “Even in places with smart, thoughtful readers, the comment sections tend to be more like lists of unconnected ideas than genuine conversations,” The Atlantic‘s Rebecca Rosen wrote in 2011. Some publications, like Popular Science, have given up on comment sections all together.

A couple of weeks ago, National Journal changed its comments policy, opting to eliminate comments on most stories as a way to stem the flood of abuse that appeared on the site. Naturally the comment-section reaction to that announcement helped reinforce the reason editors said comments had to go in the first place.

For all the boycott threats and comparisons to Hitler, though… the site seems to be doing better now. If anything, user engagement has increased since the comment policy changed. Pages views per visit increased by more than 10 percent. Page views per unique visitor increased 14 percent. Return visits climbed by more than 20 percent. Visits of only a single page decreased, while visits of two pages or more increased by almost 20 percent.

What happened here?

One theory: By cutting out comments, the site is better able to draw attention to its most deserving content—the articles themselves.

This intrigued me because I found it somewhat counterintuitive. I supported removing comments not because I thought traffic would spike but because it seemed a way to better preserve civil discourse; I assumed we’d lose some rubberneckers who gathered around the train-wreck comment section, but it seemed like a worthwhile trade. Yet the fact that traffic actually improvedsuggests that sites are better off without comments—or at least better off without unmoderated ones. That’s a lesson that other news organizations are learning. As Nieman Lab wrote last month, if news organizations aren’t moderating their comment sections, they can’t really expect them to foster quality discussion.

But what about the many sites that opt for a less hands-on approach? Plenty of journalists will tell you that they not only don’t reply to commenters, but that they don’t even read the comments to begin with. An ignored comment section can’t be all that harmful, right?

To find out, I ran a quick study using respondents from Amazon’s crowdsourcing platform Mechanical Turk. I asked 100 Americans to read a snippet of a National Journal article from late April. Half of them saw the article alone. The other half saw the article along with a representative sample of actual comments (user accounts redacted) on that article. In both groups, respondents were asked to read the article—the existence of comments was never acknowledged.

Click to see more

Death to the Internet of Things


Yesterday, at Re/code’s inaugural Code Conference, Nest Labs CEO Tony Fadellused his time on stage to pontificate on his company’s recent acquisition by Google and the role of smart devices in the home. But here’s the part of Fadell’s talk that really stuck with me: 

“The Internet of Things is a term for this audience. It’s not a term for consumers. People don’t buy things, they buy an application or product for a specific purposes. So when people ask that I say ‘No, we’re not an Internet of Things company.’”

And he makes a good point. “Internet of Things” is a once-useful term that’s outstayed its welcome. It’s time to put the kibosh on the term and remember that it’s still okay to call an Internet-enabled, API-driven spade a spade. 

Nest may be the first to directly speak up against it, but in hindsight, the shift away from the term has been happening a while.

When the term “Internet of Things” was first introduced circa 1999 – around the time of the dot-com boom — it was intended to refer to the concept that machines have the potential to be better at gathering data about the physical world than humans. That meaning has mutated over the years to mean anything from better barcode scanning to fitness tracking. It was only ever intended as a concept, not a market definition. Look at CITEworld’s section by that name – it’s a concept. It’s not a product description. It’s not a business.

Cisco’s messaging has hinged on calling it the “Internet of Everything,” which serves their marketing department’s dual purposes of being catchy and not actually meaning anything. To Cisco, it seems that it’s a trend and a catch-all term, not a specific business. While it prints up its Internet of Everything posters and hones its message, Cisco is still selling routers and switches.

Meanwhile, when Samsung formally introduced its SAMI platform for crunching personal health data from multiple sources, it would have been the perfect time to start throwing around the term “Internet of Things.” Instead, even in the depths of their marketing and messaging materials seen only by the press and partners, Samsung is using the terms “smart home” and “smart car” instead. 

It makes sense that the phrase is falling out of favor — as Fadell points out, people buy specific solutions, not a “thing.” That’s why Nest sells “smart thermostats,” not “Internet of Things solutions.” Similarly, it’s why Apple is standardizing on “iBeacon” instead of “low-energy Bluetooth beacons.” To succeed, you have to sell products or platforms, not technical standards or, worse, high-level visionary concepts. It’s gotten Nest this far.

Names have power. But in a world where a watch that can take your heart rate and tell you when you’ve gotten enough exercise for the day is considered old hat, you need to demonstrate value and real-world application. “Internet of Things” is a term that was never meant to go this far and is simply past its prime as anything but a convenient catch-all.

Should publishers tweet their native ads?


Native advertising presents a Catch 22 for publishers. The more the ad resembles the editorial that surrounds it, the more effective it’s likely to be — but also the more potentially confusing to readers. In one study, more than half of respondents didn’t know what “sponsored” meant.

That dilemma is all the more amplified on social channels, which are becoming ever more important to the distribution of native ads.

“It’s a critical component of any native advertising campaign,” said Kelly Andresen, director of ad innovations and product strategy at the Washington Post. “We’ve seen an increase in brands asking to measure success by measuring social shares. Brands want to know, how are you going to promote content beyond the site?”

The result is that publishers are all over the map in how they let advertisers access their social channels — just as they vary in how they charge for native ads, who they use to create them and how they label them on their sites.

Say Media, where the edit staff are involved in creating the native ads in the first place, has no qualms about using its sites’ social accounts to promote the ads. This tweet is (discreetly) labeled sponsored, but not all tweets and posts are.

More conservative brands like Bloomberg, Vox Media and the Harvard Business Review use their social feeds to distribute native ads, but loudly demarcate tweets with the word “sponsored,” as in this Bloomberg example.

Somewhat more cautious, Time buys paid tweets and posts for native clients rather than tweeting straight from its editorial account and uses Taboola to help advertisers meet performance guarantees.

“If it comes from the editorial handle, we still have to make it clear that it’s sponsored,” said Jed Hartman, Time Inc. group publisher with oversight for Time. “If someone signs up from an editorial perspective, there’s an assumption of who they’re following and what they’re getting. We have to make sure it’s completely transparent.”

Some publishers, like The Washington Post, BuzzFeed and The Huffington Post, push out native from separate accounts that are dedicated to branded content. At the Washington Post, it’s @WPBrandStudio.

Click to read more

Re-imagining print media


Time plays funny tricks. So a question: if your business has been paper-based – in advertising or the media for instance – when was the first time you felt that print media would have to be “re-imagined?” Pretty clever if you were around when they were “imagining the internet” back in the 1950s, or when TimBle was thinking the World Wide Web in the 1980s.

For me it was the mid-1990s, for that was when the PPA created its first new-media committee under then chief executive of the Economist, Helen Alexander – and the computer on my desk became a means of communicating with the world.

I gave an interview about multi-tasking journalists with output in words and pictures as well as video. It didn’t seem to go down too well.

The business media part of PPA began re–imagining its print media about then and gradually became something else, whether face to face – conferences and seminars, exhibitions -  online, in print or all three, finding must-have data in its portfolios and developing list rental revenues. Newspapers and consumer magazines followed with broadcasters, book publishers and the rest re-imagining their print-based businesses into something else.

Now the re-imagining of print media is the focus of a major study to be unveiled later this month at a Stationers’ Company seminar entitled Vision 2020. The report is being prepared by two leading consultants who come at the question from opposite ends of the equation. Martin Glass of EMGE is a leading consultant in the world of paper and paper products. Jim Bilton, of Wesssenden Marketing and Brandlab, brings the perspective of magazines, newspapers, books and direct marketing.

The report, entitled European Digital Media Landscape to 2020, will be launched at a seminar at Stationers’ Hall on Monday 30 June. Business broadcaster Peter Day will be in the chair as the two consultants outline their report’s findings on the dramatic impact on media being experienced from changing consumer habits, as a result of mobile and social networking revolutions.

Day will then lead the discussion with three noted drivers of change – Mark Wood of Future Publishing, Paul Utting of printers Wyndehams, and Scott Barclay of paper merchants PaperlinX.

The report echoes the Future of Paper report of five years ago, which was one of the most accurate forecasters of the decline in paper usage over that time – but even then, was an underestimate of the scale of the decline.

To understand what happens over the next five years means understanding consumer habits far more than any plans newspaper, magazine and book publishers may have.

Paper use is not about to disappear any time soon

But the most important thing to understand, the report will explain, is that paper use is not about to disappear any time soon. Paper use is being re-imagined in all sorts of ways by those who still make serious money from its use. It is true that the digital media landscape is changing rapidly. The picture painted in the report does not pull its punches on how the competition and substitution of paper-based media with digital media continues.

Read more 

Mobile Web? Apps? Bundled content? Unbundled? Ask the 15-year-olds


If you want to know what the future of digital publishing is, a fair starting point would be to look at the online and mobile habits of today’s 15-year-olds.

This constantly connected population is no longer dual-screening, but triple-screening. And their primary screen of choice is mobile.

They are more connected to the Internet than ever, more willing to participate in social and sharing activities and more able to consume rich content at any time and on any device. To them, the role of a TV scheduler — someone who decides when you are allowed to watch a particular piece of content — is completely anachronistic.

The times they are a-changing. So while the future for TV schedulers might be bleak, the future for mobile content is practically sparkling.

Ten years ago, digital readers looking for content had limited options of where to find it; in fact, they really only had one choice: the desktop Web. They found their way to a Web page filled with content that linked to other Web pages filled with content.

With the experience so singular, publishers focused on building audience share with the hope that one day, the money might follow.

A couple of decades after the desktop model emerged, mobile publishing exploded. If mobile publishing were a person, it would be 7 years old and caught between the discovery ages of kindergarten and middle school: growing in confidence, but in constant need of minding.

However, even at just 7 years old, mobile is already nearing the day when it has a larger audience than desktop and routinely captures 35% to 45% of general news visits in Australia, more for breaking news.

For example, records were almost broken at the Sydney Morning Herald, Australia’s oldest metro news business, when news of the ill-fated Flight MH370 broke online March 8.

With 41% of the total digital audience reading about the missing aircraft on a mobile phone and 42% reading about it on a desktop PC, the Sydney Morning Herald is closer than ever to the mobile tipping point.

For publishers all over the world witnessing this mobile migration firsthand, it’s becoming clear that mobile publishing is altogether a completely new proposition with a lot more complexity to execute than desktop.

The growing number of different user experiences as we consume mobile content will force a staggering amount of product choices onto publishers. The mobile Web is just one way to consume content. Apps are another. If you’re asking which one is best for publishing your content, then you are asking the wrong question.

Continue reading