Alliance Blog Reviews

Maybe you can have too much of a good thing. As the Internet allows advertisers to slice and dice large segments of desirable markets into thinner, more defined slices it also creates something that is much less desirable: smaller profits. How is that you say? How is it possible to make less on my advertising spend when I am advertising directly to the group that most needs or wants my products? Well, it’s simple supply and demand. While you are targeting a much more defined market you are not going to be alone in that quest to advertiser to just the people that will buy. Remember those pesky competitors? They want those people too because their claim is that they are better than you. Now you are going to find a price war that drives up costs for advertising and makes customer acquisition costs rise which in turn hurt the bottom line. So maybe there is too much of a good thing after all. MediaPost tells about a study performed by the MIT School of Management that has looked at this in detail Professor Alessandro Bonatti, working with Yale University economics professor Dirk Bergemann on this research, says “… newspapers have a very limited ability to target audiences… specialized magazines can do better… Google has a very good ability to target who’s browsing each page… (though) online advertising has the potential to drive out traditional advertising, it does not necessarily follow that online advertisers will make more money… ” Bonatti continues, “…as technology keeps improving, more and more web sites can sell very narrow products to very specialized audiences… with lots of people targeting the same audience the profits to be made through specialized advertising become more and more spread out… instead of competing for one large pool… you will have price war in each targeted segment as the slice gets more and more narrow.” Bonatti concludes that, “… the better the technology, the lower the profits for advertisers… “ Not the news that advertisers want to hear but it sure is music to the ears of the niche ad networks that attract these more narrowly defined groups. Advertising price war? We’re in! Woo-hoo! Different verticals are responding more rapidly and it also is dependent on just how far CPM’s fell during this downturn / recession / economic morass. Real estate is seeing an increase in CPM’s jumping 17% from Q2 to Q3 of last year while foodies are driving that category up almost 91% in the same period. Here is a chart from Adify Vertical Gauge for you to gloss over and wonder what it really means. So be careful what you wish for advertisers. Sure it’s great to advertise as close to the buyer as you can but you’re not the only one with that strategy. Let’s hope you are the one with the deeper pockets at least.

Read more here:
For Ads the More Targeted May Mean Less Profitable

If you’ve always dreamed of being published, but just didn’t have the time to finish a novel/novella/short story, Twitter may be your big chance at fame, fortune, and a spot on Oprah. Okay, okay, only fame. And only a little. For writers who like a challenge, there are a number of Twitter-based ezines that publish short (and I do mean short) stories. Some call them “Twisters,” others micro- or nano-fiction, and others simply “one heck of a challenge.” You’ve only got 140 characters to tell a complete story that leaves your readers nodding their heads with a sense of fulfillment. If this sounds like your cup of java, there are several venues where you can submit your tales for consideration. Some even pay big bucks (up to $1.50), so what are you waiting for? Twitter-fiction markets: Thaumatrope – @Thaumatrope If you can write a science fiction, fantasy, or horror story that fits in a Twitter box, send your submissions to these folks. Pays $1.20. Tweet the Meat – @TweetTheMeat This publisher of horror/weird/speculative fiction wants “fear in 140 characters or less.” Thanks to their weekly themes, there’s plenty to inspire you. Pays $1. Nanoism – @Nanoism Submit your thoughtful, literary nano-fiction to these folks. They’ll accept all genres but particularly want “stories that move us with their writing, stories that stay with us longer than the few seconds it takes to read them.” Pays $1 for one-tweet stories and up to $5 for serials. @Microcosms This publisher’s first “issue” isn’t scheduled to appear until April, but you can send in your submissions of science fiction, fantasy, and horror now. Pays $1. Know of other markets for Twitter stories? Share them in the comments! © 2008 TwiTip Twitter Tips . Flex Your Literary Fast-Twitch Muscles Writing Twitter-Sized Stories

Read the original:
Flex Your Literary Fast-Twitch Muscles Writing Twitter-Sized Stories

Any business can benefit from email advertising, but only when they do it properly. You need to make sure that you take the time to check out all of the different options that you have so that you can market your business effectively. If email marketing is in your plans, you will need to avoid being lumped with the thousands of junk emails that people get on a regular basis.

Marketing through email is not as effective as it once was, and many businesses are using other methods to get their message out there. It’s only one tool that you have, and since anyone can send out a spam email these days, it is starting to dwindle in popularity.

If you use it well, email advertising can still be an effective means of getting your point across. You should take the time to check out email campaigns and see which ones best suit your marketing needs. Another tip is to use headlines and titles that are catchy so that people can see your messages and not erase them.

If you’re struggling on your own, consider working with a professional marketing company. You will get better results because you’re working with people who have experience. It doesn’t matter what business you’re in, because marketing services help everyone.

You can use email advertising to connect on a more personal level and talk to people about what matters most. You can tell them whatever you want, and do it in a one-on-one format that allows people to feel more appreciated and important to your business. Make sure that you use this tool well to get the most from it.

Take full advantage of email marketing. You have to be certain that your message is clear, your purpose is direct, and that your demeanor and approach are friendly. People aren’t looking for another sales pitch when they sign up for emails. They’re looking for someone that they can trust to tell them what they need to know.

Your visibility and website traffic depend on your marketing. The only way that you can become successful is by getting out there where people can see you. With millions of other sites to compete with, you have to make an impact any way that you can, including email advertising if it works for you.

To learn more about email advertising or to find your business marketing solutions, visit www.Majon.com today.

The Marketing Executives Networking Group is a group of 2000 marketing executives (10 points if you already guessed that ) at the VP level and higher. Recently, the group’s leadership asked members to name their favorite blogs by non-MENG members—and guess who was part of the top 20? Oh, I guess the title kind of gave it away, didn’t it? That’s right, Marketing Pilgrim . Seth Godin’s blog took top honors, with 59% of execs naming that as a favorite. Mashable was second with 38%. Tied for third were Chris Brogan’s Community and Social Media and Guy Kawasaki’s How to Change the World (30% each). One in five named Tom Peters’ blog , tied with Duct Tape Marketing to round out the top five (with six blogs ). The rest of the top twenty: Andy Beal’s Marketing Pilgrim Avinash Kaushik’s Occam’s Razor Ben McConnell & Jackie Huba’s Church of the Customer Brian Solis’s PR 2.0 David Armano’s Logic + Emotion David Meerman Scott’s Web Ink Now Denise Lee Yohn’s Brand as Business Bites Jeremiah Owyang’s Web Strategy John Moore’s Brand Autopsy Joseph Jaffe’s Jaffe Juice Mack Collier’s The Viral Garden Shelly Palmer’s MediaBytes Steve Hall’s AdRANTs Valeria Maltoni’s Conversation Agent What do you think? Are there any you’re surprised to see there? What do you think is missing?

The rest is here:
Marketing Pilgrim One of Top 20 Most Read Marketing Blogs

Back in November we talked about AOL’s need to trim their headcount by some 2,500 people . At the time the hope was that enough would walk away from their positions to avert the need for playing the bad guy and actually firing anyone. Well, according to All Things Digital the numbers didn’t quite add up with that plan and now AOL needs to start the proactive force reduction. Call it what you will. Here is some information from the ATD article In November, AOL CEO Tim Armstrong said he needed 2,500 “volunteers” to give up their jobs, but not enough of them got the message — only 1,100 walked away on their own. Now Armstrong is entering the second phase of his corporate slimdown, and is firing some 1,000+ employees. AOL officials say the company has begun notifying European employees of its plans to shut down many of its offices there, and has started tapping some American workers as well. The bulk of the US layoffs are slated for this Wednesday, the company says. This is a very sad story indeed. While we keep hearing forced words of hope and encouragement that “things have turned around” we get crap unemployment numbers in December and news like this from one of the industries that is supposedly “doing well”. Let’s be honest, you need to simply count your blessings if you are in a pocket of performance no matter what industry you call home and the online space is no different. To underline just how different this world is the following was noted in the article written by Peter Kafka. The company hasn’t released a breakdown of cuts by territory or by department. But I’m told that the company’s editorial/content production staff, which Armstrong and his lieutenants have been emphasizing as a priority in recent months, will not remain untouched. This just means that the outsourcing of content production is likely the way that AOL will go more and more. Pure speculation on my part but if your strategy moving forward is creating more and more content then taking away part of that internal team just means it’s likely cheaper to outsource. The full release can be found at ATD but the closing remarks are as follows. We will be offering packages to impacted employees in the U.S. that will include severance, benefits and outplacement assistance, among other things. All of our cost alignment work is about ensuring AOL’s sustainability and future success. Project Everest is the completion of phase one of AOL’s turnaround. Interesting how they name something like this as if it were a military undertaking and the curious use of a mountain’s name that few have conquered and many more have failed to climb. Pilgrim’s Partners: SponsoredReviews.com – Bloggers earn cash, Advertisers build buzz!

See the rest here:
AOL Employees to Be “Involuntarily Laid Off”

As marketing professionals, we usually have to justify ourselves to our bosses, our clients and everyone in between—especially in the less-tested, sometimes-hit-or-miss arena of social media. But now Ad Age wants accountability, too, as they ask “if you’re getting enough out of all the volunteer work you do for Biz & Ev and Mark,” or, more specifically, “Are we all just toiling mightily to make a bunch of rich nerds (Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg and his employees and investors, Twitter’s Biz Stone and Evan Williams and their employees and investors) richer, while we impoverish ourselves?” That’s both a literal and a figurative question, since using those social networks is exactly what makes their founders and investors money (well, sort of), and, as the argument goes, we’re essentially a volunteer labor force creating content for these sites—an interesting point. Meanwhile, using social networks (at all, as the argument here seems to go) means sacrificing time (true), actual interactions (possibly true but not always)—and our very souls and identities. They mean this to be a discussion on a personal level, since a central thrust of the argument is that these social networks have sacrificed so much of our privacy that we’re allowing them to steal (don’t we call that “giving” in English?) “the sole ownership of our own thoughts, emotions, personal expressions, etc.” from us (yes, if I post “I’m sad” on a social network, that means that they also own my emotion…. right….). Of course, if you’re using Twitter and Facebook as a marketer, you’re there looking for business ROI from publicity—being public. Ad Age (you know, “Advertising” Age? About . . . could it be . . . advertising ?) does acknowledge that social networks might work for these purposes, if they’re worth the sacrifice: If you’re a brand marketer, chances are good that you’re extracting real value from investing time and energy in social media (and you’re happy to have consumers volunteering their time to be your “brand ambassadors” or whatever you want to call them); good for you. (And if you’re a consumer who gets off on connecting with big brands — or just wants to interface with customer service in a forum, like Twitter, where certain marketers seem to be hyper-responsive — well, good for you too.) In general, if you’re soft-selling something — like content or an idea — that can benefit from free publicity, Facebook and Twitter are your friends. Even if, well, they’re the two-faced sort who think nothing of riffling through your handbag or backpack when you get up to go the bathroom — you know, glad-handing “friends” (those are air quotes) who are obviously using you for something, only it’s not always entirely clear what. Um . . . I hate to bring this up, but aren’t we as marketers just using our social networks as those same kind of “friends” (and possibly even the friends and fans we acquire on those social networks)—we’re just using them as the means to an end? I do agree, of course, that on a personal level, excessive use of social media can rob us of time and valuable interaction with the people we care about most. It’s good to examine our relationship with the Internet and social media on a personal level and decide whether it’s really worth the time and effort we put into it, or if we might put that time to better use. While that’s the brief summary of the argument at the conclusion of the article, the main thrust is that using social networks is such a great sacrifice of ourselves (even without a time investment) that it’s not worth it. What do you think? Do you demand ROI from personal social network use? Or are you glad that most people don’t ?

See more here:
Are You Getting Enough out of Twitter & Facebook?

For many in the online space these days the words “Facebook privacy” would be called an oxymoron. Then of course there would be the usual calling others at Facebook morons and then it would get worse from there but I digress. Michael Arrington recently interviewed the poster child for the “Privacy? What privacy?” movement, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg. Mashable’s Pete Cashmore tells us : Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg claims that if Facebook was starting out now, sharing with everybody would be the starting point, rather than with a small group of friends. Is this more about reflecting social norms or changing them to help Facebook compete with Twitter? The statement, made during a livestream of the Crunchies awards , hits on a hot button issue for Facebook: it recently notified users of privacy changes via a pop-up notification. While the message claimed that Facebook was displaying the message to give users more privacy controls, blindly clicking “next” was a way to make much of your data public. And in fact, some data like the Friends List has become more public without any settings changes by users. I honestly don’t know where I stand on all of this. I think my only real concern is just how little attention most people pay to these major shifts in social norms especially when they are moved along at rocket speed by something as pervasive and powerful as Facebook. I know that even with the new “everyone needs to see everyone else’s stuff” privacy policy at Facebook, I can go in and lock down my public profile to whatever degree I want. How many of the 350 million supposed users of the service actually know that or even care? I don’t know. I suspect not as many as should. An interesting article appeared in the Wall Street Journal today from Jaron Lanier , which is an excerpt from his new book. He is a pioneer in virtual reality technology and has some very real concerns about this new move to the “social collective” and I don’t disagree with him on much of it. Here’s a sample: Here’s one problem with digital collectivism: We shouldn’t want the whole world to take on the quality of having been designed by a committee. When you have everyone collaborate on everything, you generate a dull, average outcome in all things. You don’t get innovation. There’s a dominant dogma in the online culture of the moment that collectives make the best stuff, but it hasn’t proven to be true. The most sophisticated, influential and lucrative examples of computer code—like the page-rank algorithms in the top search engines or Adobe’s Flash— always turn out to be the results of proprietary development. Indeed, the adored iPhone came out of what many regard as the most closed, tyrannically managed software-development shop on Earth. I realize that I am mixing and matching the personal web and the business of the web. They are, however, intricately intertwined especially as we move into the future. When the generation of “open information and free stuff etc, etc” are in the business world (and a lot are already) this new “social norm” that Zuckerberg talks about so casually could very well mean the end to true innovation unless signed off by the collective. As a result that means watered down ideas in most cases. As if it’s not bad enough, the US government is showing socialist tendencies. What if the business world became that way too? Geesh, time to buy some land, make my own clothes and grow my own food. We will all be brought to the middle and the world could be very average. Of course these are just my own opinions on this but I am really no that interested in having to depend on everyone “signing off” on one my ideas before it can move forward. I am not thrilled about the idea of things like “search neutrality” that reared its ridiculous head in the recent weeks. I like privacy. I like some semblance of control. Maybe it is time to consider that plot of land and a tractor. That is of course, if it’s OK with everyone.

More:
Zuckerberg Sparks More Privacy Discussion