WebProNews

Tag: lorem

  • Microsoft adCenter Negative Keywords Get Update

    Earlier this year, Microsoft announced an update to negative keywords in AdCenter. This would make it so that negative keywords loaded at the campaign and ad group levels would be combined to filter ad traffic. Before, negative keywords at the ad group level would override the ones at the campaign level.

    Today, that update is live.

    “If you have negative keywords applied at both the campaign and ad group levels you may experience lower traffic volume, as the negative keywords you assigned at the campaign level will now be applied in conjunction with the ad group level negatives.,” Microsoft says in a blog post. “It is highly recommended if you closely review your campaign-level negatives if you have negative keywords uploaded at both the campaign and ad group levels to make sure you aren’t blocking wanted traffic at the ad group level. There is no change to the 10k negative keyword limits at either the campaign or ad group level.”

    The company provides the following comparison for how negative keywords used to work, with how they work now. I’m not sure whey they went with such a low quality image, but that’s what they posted, so sorry.

    Negative Keyword Comparison

    The company says you should establish negative keywords in each hierarchy based on category in each hierarchy. You should also apply the common negative keywords at the campaign level, Microsoft says, so they could be shared across the lower ad group. Also, keep monitoring the Negative Conflicts Report.

    Earlier this week, Microsoft, Yahoo and AOL started offering each others’ display inventory.

  • UPS Responds To Offended UK Fans Online

    UK fans have been quite upset about the commercial that UPS is running, using the infamous 1992 Duke win over UK as an example of great “logistics”. UPS has defended its use of the commercial, defying its own customer and worker base in Kentucky.

    The objections of UK fans is based on two simple points:

    1) That game is a sore spot for UK fans because of Laettner, who displayed extremely poor sportsmanship by intentionally stomping on a Kentucky player but was not removed from the game by officials or by his coach. Had any other player made the buzzer-beating shot, UK wouldn’t have liked it, but they wouldn’t be talking about it 20 years later.

    2) UPS has aligned itself with this “example” of great “logistics”. They have heard from Kentuckians about why this is offensive. They’ve responded with blog posts and comments that show they intend to continue showing the ad.

    How this is good business is a mystery. It is understandable that underlings charged with maintaining the company’s blogs, Facebook and Twitter accounts might not be able to say much. But, why hasn’t some wiser executive ordered the ad pulled and an apology tweeted? Perhaps someone who knows that it’s better to not alienate your customers with an emotionally-charged offense than to try to argue them out of it?

    Instead, this is what UPS is telling its customers. Now, before you read this, imagine if someone from the company responded to you in this manner about a damaged package complaint or late delivery to your customer? Would that be the kind of company you would want to have handling your “logistics”?

    @UPS I will probably never use your service again after seeing your new commercial #BBN 15 hours ago via Twitter for iPhone ·  Reply ·  Retweet ·  Favorite · powered by @socialditto

    @elbacono Sorry to hear that:( We ♥ UK and #BBN. And we’re proud to call KY home to our global air hub. More on the ad: http://t.co/n2VneHIf 15 hours ago via web ·  Reply ·  Retweet ·  Favorite · powered by @socialditto

    The link they included in this tweet is to a blog by a UPS employee who says he is a UK fan. We covered the contents of that blog in this article earlier. The writer, Mark Dickens, defends UPS’ choice. He highlights that UPS has hired 33,000 people in Kentucky. He asks that UK fans be “objective” about the ad. He says that he “can’t allow [himself] to dwell on the past”. The implication is that UK fans are not objective and do dwell in the past, else they would be ok with an ad glorifying an example of poor sportsmanlike conduct so heinous that it sticks in fans’ craw 20 years on. Bad form, Mark Dickens. Bad play, UPS.

    The #BBN will have to boycott @UPS for that pathetic “logistics” commercial. I vote we ship @FedEx all day, every day. #GoBigBlue! 16 hours ago via Twitter for iPhone ·  Reply ·  Retweet ·  Favorite · powered by @socialditto

    @JuNewMoore We’re proud supporter of UK. Ad is about how teamwork + execution deliver game changing moments http://t.co/n2VneHIf 15 hours ago via web ·  Reply ·  Retweet ·  Favorite · powered by @socialditto

    Again, trying to defend the ad, redirect people to the offensive blog post excusing it.

    These twitter replies go on and on. Their responses on Facebook are just as insensitive to the reason Kentuckians are offended. Would a company like this go to, say, Japan and insist that people there just see things their way? They are choosing to ignore that this was more to fans than a game that was lost. UK has lost plenty of games, even in Elite Eights and Final Fours. It was an injustice fans felt from that particular player in that particular game, and still do.

    So, what to do? How about going up the chain a bit? Apparently, the folks in the lower offices don’t see the big picture. Should you choose to hop on the elevator and hit the top floor, here’s the key:

    Emails:

    Michael L Eskew, Former Chairman & CEO, still is on Board of Directors – [email protected]

    David Abney, Chief Operating Officer – [email protected]

    Kurt Kuehn, Chief Financial Officer – [email protected]

    Allen E Hill, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary – [email protected]

    John McDevitt, Senior Vice President, HR and Labor Relations – [email protected]

    Twitter:

    UPS general account – @UPS

    Alan Gershenhorn, Chief Sales, Marketing and Strategy Officer – @AlanGershenhorn

    Elizabeth Rasberry, Reputation Management @erasberry1

    Susasn Fletcher, Director of Social Media and Digital Communications @Brit68

    Jackie Blair, PR Supervisor @JackieCBlair

  • Washington Post Masthead On A Chinese Government Publication

    Freedom of speech — and thus, consequently, freedom to advertise — are fundamental principles of a free democracy and a thriving capitalist democracy, right? That’s what we’re told in this country from a young age. Well it turns out those freedoms are also employed by the Chinese Communist Party. In America. Namely, in The Washington Post.

    This is the source of an ethical controversy that has sprung up recently in the arena of journalism. Each month, the Post runs a paid supplement called China Watch, along with a regularly-updated website of the same name. The “paid” part gets done by the Chinese government. In return, China gets to publish articles produced by China Daily, the house organ of the Chinese government, in the Post, and using its masthead. Articles in China Watch portray China and its government in the way you might expect–that is, positively, or else with a particular diplomatic glibness. Ad copy, some call it. Others call it propaganda.

    It’s a hard boundary to find, that line between advertising and propaganda. People who don’t like being sold to are quick to label all advertising as propaganda of a kind, while free market advocates might suggest that if you pay for it, and if you make it clear that you paid for it, then even a government can simply advertise. The Washington Post says that it makes no attempt to conceal the paid nature of China Watch. Both print editions of the publication and its corresponding website bear a small disclaimer box in their top right corners. But critics of the Post’s partnership with China Daily argue that the disclaimer is not nearly as prominent on the page as the Post’s masthead at the top of the insert. While readers have technically been informed that China Watch has been paid for, critics argue that the prominence of the Post’s masthead makes a bigger statement, confusing readers who might think the Post at least officially endorses China Watch content. The web-edition of the pro-China publication is hosted under the Washington Post domain name. Moreover, the Post neglects to disclose who pays for the ads.

    (image)

    Of course, there’s no law generally requiring companies to disclose details about their advertising partners to the general public. However, things are a bit different when you’re dealing with a representative from a foreign government. The Post’s dealings with China Daily could run afoul of the Foreign Agents Registration Act, which requires that foreign agents and their activities be properly identified to the American public. Such disclosure involves more than a box in the upper-right-hand corner.

    Nor is this the only instance of dealings where The Post has been accused of serving as a mouthpiece for the Chinese government. In an editorial last month, Patrick Pexton, The Post’s own Ombudsman, lambasted the newsroom for at the very best, lazy journalism, and at the worst, kowtowing to the Chinese PR machine. Particularly at issue in the editiorial was the February 13 publication in The Post of an “interview” with Chinese Vice President Xi Jinping. It was later revealed that the “interview” was hardly an interview at all — Post reporters submitted written questions to Jinping, and in return they received a response to questions that had been modified, deleted, and added. Pexton disagreed with the newsroom’s decision to print the reponse:

      So, The Post submits written questions — already a far cry from a live face-to-face unscripted interview with journalists — and the Chinese say, thanks, but we don’t like your questions, so we’ll provide our own questions and answers. Take it or leave it.

      The Post took it. I think it should have left it.

    Of course, Pexton pointed out, this is a complicated issue. While both the printing of the interview propaganda and the lack of transparency regarding China Watch suggest the Post is soft, even misleading, in its coverage of China, The Post also does its fair share of reporting that embarrasses the Chinese government and others. It’s a difficult world to navigate, especially when dealing with China, which often withholds press visas, or grows mum around reporters asking too many uncomfortable questions.

    It’s not just The Post that faces this difficultly. China is sitting on a billion citizens, nuclear weapons, the world’s fastest-growing economy, and $1.2 trillion of U.S. debt. So it has a lot of weight to throw around with governments and major corporations, let alone media outlets. But is it right for The Post to lend its masthead and domain name to China Watch? Pexton observes:

      That’s the thing about China, whether you are The Washington Post, the U.S. government or Apple computers. There is interdependence in the relationship, and constant negotiation and compromise. The Chinese know it, and they take advantage of it.

    Right might not always come into play these days.

    Hat Tip: The Washington Free Beacon

  • UPS Commercial Is Stupid Business Move

    It was twenty years ago this month that UK fans were handed one of the greatest disappointments of our basketball-loving lives. It was the 1992 NCAA East Regional Finals. The Elite Eight. Duke vs. Kentucky. It was a battle to go to the Final Four. Coach Mike Krzyzewski vs. Coah Rick Pitino.

    UK was 12 points down in the second half and came back to tie the game with 33.6 seconds left. The game goes into overtime. After what seemed like an hour of OT play, Kentucky is up 103-102. Until… The Shot.

    You have to understand, Kentuckians don’t talk about The Shot. And, anytime we do, it is followed with a spit and a curse. In Wildcat Country, it is like the death of JFK. Every single UK fan old enough to know about that game remembers exactly where they were when it happened. I was standing in a WalMart in central Kentucky. Dozens of us were gathered around televisions in the Electronics department. The store staff had handed out popcorn. After thunderous cheering, things got really quiet, like some natural disaster had just ended and we were surveying the broken landscape.

    Wildcat fans are not sore losers about that game. What enrages us is that we feel Laettner should have been ejected for stomping on Aminu Timberlake earlier in that same game. It was a vicious, purposeful thing to do, and Laettner has admitted to waiting for his moment to do it.

    Laettner was not ejected. He was assessed a technical foul and played on. This is the key to understanding the state of mind of a UK fan when The Shot is mentioned. It’s about fairness.

    As UK fan Ben Parks points out, we got our “revenge” in 1998 against Duke with a Cameron Mills 3-pointer.

    But still, we don’t talk about it. And, the fine folks at UPS damn well should have known better.

    United Parcel Service employs lots of people in Kentucky. UPS Airlines is headquartered in Louisville. They are not ignorant of the culture in this state and the soreness that game represents. Yet, as part of their “Logistics” line of commercials, UPS saw fit to use the 20-year anniversary of the game as fodder for promoting their business.

    Notice… “That changes the game…” — Laettner hits shot, beating Kentucky — “…and that is what we do.”

    UPS is using the commercial to talk about the “logistics” of the pass to Laettner. But, they are ignoring the sensitive issue of his unsportsmanlike conduct earlier in the game. We Big Blue Nation fans respect someone who can beat us fair and square . (Ask anyone who watched the Indiana game this year.) To Kentuckians, Laettner is not a hero. He’s a cheater who ended up winning. Not a smart business plan to align yourself with that guy in Kentucky.

    “That is what we do.”

    UK fans are ticked. And, in case you haven’t heard, Kentucky is to basketball what Alabama is to football. It’s a religion here. We fired our last coach because he didn’t bleed enough blue.

    Kentucky state senator Ernie Harris graduated from Kentucky, he flew UPS planes, and he is the chairman of the Senate Transportation Committee. He is among the many Kentuckians who think the ad is in poor taste in a state that has supported and staffed UPS for years.

    The UPS Facebook page is currently playing host to a lively discussion about the commercial. A few comments from the post:

    “UPS should be supporting this community that they care so much about… Not hating on its fans!”

    “Apparently UPS is attempting to get some legislature passed in their favor – Contact your area representative and voice your outrage…Tell them NOT to pass the legislature UPS is wanting…”

    “This is the greatest ad I’ve ever seen… for FedEx.”

    “I just want to know what ad exec would actually say, “Hey, I’ve got it. Let’s do a commercial about the shot heard around the world in ’92. Oh, and let’s show it during March Madness.” UK has the biggest fan base of any other college team… What kind of results were you expecting from this, really?!”

    “Hey clueless execs, way to boost FedEX revenue. Idiots.”

    “Will never use UPS again. GO BIG BLUE!”

    “Really, how long has UPS been in Louisville KENTUCKY, your ad team must be sniffing jet fuel. Looks like my new prefered carrier is anyone but UPS.”

    “They need to pull this ad immediately and apologize for it.”

    “This guy just joined Team FedEX”

    “FedEx thanks you for this horrible commercial. GO BIG BLUE!!!”

    “It’s not the shot that pisses people off about that moment it’s the fact that Laettner stomped on the chest of Timberlake and should not have been in that game at that moment. He gets glorified for the good he did and the AWFUL gets swept under the rug. So UPS the moral of this story is you are supporting a scumbag and slapping ALL UK fans in the face!!!”

    “Perhaps UPS needs to be more aware of their Central Ky base. If they were, they would realize that we are fanatic about our Big Blue ball…and we will literally drive a few extra miles to get to a FedEx now.”

    “UPS will never get another dime from me”

    UPS has responded to the comments on its page by linking to a blog written by an employee, a UK fan, basically telling UK fans that it is in the past and that they should get over it:

    “I know our new ads will anger some UK fans, but if you truly look at that game with an objective eye, it’s hard to think of a better example of what determined people working together toward a common goal can accomplish – and that’s what UPS is all about.

    No one should think that UPS has some kind of anti-UK bias. On the contrary, UPS loves Kentucky. We love it so much we established our primary air hub in the commonwealth, which has driven the creation of 33,000 jobs with $300 million in annual payroll.”

    “Hard to think of a better example…”? How stupid is this guy? Digging the hole even deeper.

    “… driven the creation of 33,000 jobs…” In other words, we make jobs here. So, shut up.

    That is what we do.

    This approach is not working well either, judging by comments on that blog post:

    “Do you really think using this ad will boost business? I will not use UPS again. I will use Fed Ex or the U.S. mail. I’m sure you don’t care, however it will make me feel better every time the U.S. mail truck or the Fed Ex truck makes my deliveries. Hows that for logistics?”

    “I cannot imagine why UPS would think this commercial in anyway speaks to logistics! “Logic” would dictate that you have just alienated millions of Big Blue Nation fans! Your analysis, albeit from a so called UK fan point of view does not make this horrible commercial palatable! I shipped a package from Lexington today and specifically used FedEx because of this commercial ….logistics….I think not!! GO BIG BLUE!”

    The blogger responeded:

    “Thanks for your comments. Obviously everyone is entitled to their opinion, but we approached this campaign very carefully, including sharing the materials with the University of Kentucky, who approved their use.

    Personally I can’t allow myself to dwell on the past. I was inspired by the effort and teamwork displayed by “the Unforgettables” and even though the loss was painful, I look back at that moment with nothing but a deep sense of pride.

    The commercial isn’t a commentary about the players or the teams involved, or even specifically about college basketball. We’re just using this game as a metaphor about logistics and the value UPS brings to our customers.”

    Why would this company – why would ANY company – argue with its customers?! Maybe because they think of them as their workers rather than their customers? That is what we do. But, that only made things worse:

    “I am a UK grad who thought people were overreacting to the commercial…until I saw the response from UPS and from you. If the commercial wasn’t about college basketball, why did it debut on Selection Sunday and why did you ‘approach this campaign very carefully?’ UPS should just own up to the fact the powers that be KNEW there would be a negative reaction from a large fan base in the state that is home to the company’s primary air hub. Own up to the decision. Condescension doesn’t sit well on anyone, especially a large corporation in a rough economy.”

    “Here’s an idea for your next UPS ad. How about you detail the “logistics” of a major company receiving huge tax breaks from a state as an incentive to move there. Then you could show the “teamwork” required to make an ad highlighting the most heartbreaking moment in that state’s sports history. Sounds like another winner. It’s bad you wrote this post trying to justify the ad, but to do so in such a condescending manner explaining to everyone how great the play the play makes it even worse.”

    “If what you are saying is true, then use footage from another upset against UK. It isn’t the shot we remember, it is the fact that Laettner should never have been allowed to play at that point in the game. He should have been ejected. Being beat wasn’t what made the game memorable for true UK fans, it was being beat by someone with no class who was rude towards our players. You don’t literally step on the chest of another player and have class. Use footage from our Indiana game this year. Use any other footage at all but using this one particular game proves you don’t have any idea of what you are doing as a marketing expert. Know the whole story, not just part of it. Use a game that ended with class and show that you are smart enough to not turn your back on an entire state of fans.”

    Most of the debate is about whether or not Kentucky fans should “get over it” and try to understand how this all relates to “logistics”. But, the execs at UPS should really be asking themselves right now, “Is it smart, from a business perspective, to be seen as using something this emotionally sensitive to this many people to advertise in their own state? Is it wise to pair something people loathe with ‘That is what we do‘?”

    Or, maybe UPS figures we will all just shut up since they are writing checks in this state?

    Stepdad said he wasn’t using @UPS anymore because of the Duke commercial. I agree and we’ll be using @FedEx from now on! 🙂 #GoCats 18 hours ago via Echofon ·  Reply ·  Retweet ·  Favorite · powered by @socialditto

    Note FedEx’s reply…

    @jami_lauren Oh no! Check out what we shared about the commercial at our blog: http://t.co/n2VneHIf 18 hours ago via HootSuite ·  Reply ·  Retweet ·  Favorite · powered by @socialditto

    These people aren’t forgetting. If UPS doesn’t understand why, they didn’t do their research. Maybe Fed Ex will.

    Tip for UPS: Showing me a Duke v. Kentucky game in your commercial isn’t likely to make me buy your product or service. 10 hours ago via Twitter for iPhone ·  Reply ·  Retweet ·  Favorite · powered by @socialditto

    #UPS conveniently leaving out fact that laettner shouldve been ejected earlier 4 stomping timberlake http://t.co/6v50M53F 13 hours ago via HootSuite ·  Reply ·  Retweet ·  Favorite · powered by @socialditto

    The UPS commercial about the Duke shot/pass makes me want to ship Fed X #Wolfblood 12 hours ago via web ·  Reply ·  Retweet ·  Favorite · powered by @socialditto

    Proposing boycotting UPS if they keep showing that damn Duke shot. Never forget! #BBN 12 hours ago via web ·  Reply ·  Retweet ·  Favorite · powered by @socialditto

    @ups your new commercial with the the shot from Duke/UK game is horrible. Way to lose customers from an entire state. 11 hours ago via TwitBird ·  Reply ·  Retweet ·  Favorite · powered by @socialditto

    Dear #UPS – every time I see Duke, Coach K, or Laettner in your ads I become more determined to use FedEx for all my packages. #DukeSucks 10 hours ago via web ·  Reply ·  Retweet ·  Favorite · powered by @socialditto

    That marketing person for UPS should be FIRED!!! Don’t they know how HUGE #BBN is and how much we hate DUKE!! #UKlovesFEDEX 10 hours ago via Twitter for Android ·  Reply ·  Retweet ·  Favorite · powered by @socialditto

  • Kate Upton’s Zoo York Commercial Is Too Hot For MTV, Adult Swim [Video]

    Last month, model and Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue covergirl Kate Upton blew up the twitterfeed when she filmed the hottest hamburger advertisement ever for Carl’s Jr. and Hardee’s. Now she has a new steamy commercial coming out, this time for skateboard and clothing company Zoo York, and this one’s so racy that MTV and Adult Swim won’t run it.

    Thats right: MTV and Adult Swim won’t touch it. Now that’s risqué.

    Here’s the rundown (though you won’t find it nearly as interesting as the video below): Upton runs through New York’s Tompkin’s Square Park in a sports bra. She gets ogled by a pair of profane, lascivious talking cockroaches, who sit on a dumpster and play with skateboarding-themed innuendo. But why am I still typing? Here’s the video, which is most definitely Not Safe For Work:

    MTV and the Adult Swim Network have refused the ad, but it is still scheduled to run on other networks starting in April. The profanity will be bleeped out, but Upton will still be hot.

    [Hat Tip, Business Insider]

  • Microsoft, Yahoo, AOL Ad Deal Goes Into Effect

    In November, Microsoft, Yahoo and AOL announced an ad partnership, which the trio said would benefit advertisers, agencies and publishers by providing “more efficient access to premium online ad inventory”. The agreements among the companies would enable the ad networks operated by each other to offer the others’ premium non-reserved online display inventory to their respective ad customers (in the U.S.)

    Today, that all goes into effect.

    “Starting this week, the Microsoft Media Network, AOL’s Advertising.com and Yahoo! Network Plus are leveraging real-time bidding (RTB) to offer advertising opportunities across all three networks’ premium, non-reserved, owned and operated display inventory,” says Microsoft’s Daniel Sheinberg. “This means that the Microsoft Media Network now provides marketers with flexible access to an even larger pool of high-quality inventory, and additional audience reach, beyond our own premium assets. For our advertiser and agency customers, we will continue to provide the high-quality audience they expect, and now we will be able to deliver at greater scale, and with greater ease.”

    “This milestone for the Microsoft Media Network is enabled by the advanced technology and capabilities of our Microsoft Advertising Exchange, which we launched in March of 2011,” he continues. “Over the past year, we have been extremely pleased with the Exchange’s performance and the way it’s helped our customers efficiently access and utilize our inventory to build powerful solutions. We’ve seen rapid growth of the Exchange, which is now available in 15 markets globally and continues to ramp.”

    “We’re thrilled to partner with Microsoft and AOL and bring to market what we believe will be a more efficient, effective and more effortless way to access true premium inventory and formats,” said Ross Levinsohn, Yahoo! EVP of the Americas, when the partnership was announced four months ago.

    Yahoo and AOL actually have an agreement without Microsoft that extends to Canada.

  • Google Improves Malware Detection For Ads

    Google Improves Malware Detection For Ads

    Google put out a big blog post on Wednesday about its efforts to clean up ads in terms of malware. The company says bad ads are on the decline thanks to said efforts, which include spending millions of dollars building technical architecture and machine learning models to keep malware away from Google ads before they’re served in the first place.

    Here’s a video Google included on how it makes ads better:

    The following list is comprised of things Google says it has improved in its detection systems:

    • Improved “query watch” for counterfeit ads: While anyone can report counterfeit ads, we’ve widened our proactive monitoring of sensitive keywords and queries related to counterfeit goods which allows us to catch more counterfeit ads before they ever appear on Google
    • New “risk model” to detect violations: Our computer scanning depends on detailed risk models to determine whether a particular ad may violate our policies, and we recently upgraded our engineering system with a new “risk model” that is even more precise in detecting advertisers who violate our policies
    • Faster manual review process: Some ads need to be reviewed manually. To increase our response time in preventing ads from policy-violating advertisers, we sped up our internal processes and systems for manual reviews, enabling our specialists to be more precise and fast
    • Twenty-four hour response time: We aim to respond within 24 hours upon receiving a reliable complaint about an ad to ensure that we’re reviewing ads in a timely fashion

    Google says it disabled over 130 million ads last year out of the billions that were submitted. The company says it reduced bad ads by over 50% for the year, compared to 2010.

  • Google: Get Ready For More Advertising

    Google: Get Ready For More Advertising

    If you’re completely fed up with advertising and a constant bombardment of lame commercials and pop-up ads, it’s about to get worse. Ever notice that almost everything has changed about the telephone except the procedure? I’ll tell you what I mean; you pick up the phone, dial the number, hear the phone ring, and someone on the other end answers or you get their voicemail.

    Well Google is aiming to put an end to that. They want to sell that dead space and replace it with advertising. So no longer will you have to listen to that annoying ring, you’ll be treated to wonderful product choices and irritating sales pitches. I am sure, at some point, the telephone will become like the internet; your phone calls will constantly be redirected to a number you aren’t trying to call because some advertiser paid for the space.

    If the new privacy policy didn’t piss you off, this is sure to. Apparently the concept is not novel either, they have been doing this internationally since 2008. One company even offered free anytime minutes just for listening to the ads. It’s a growing trend that has now made its way to America. I don’t know that I like it.

    Google commented on the idea of launching the services and holding patents for the technology:

    “[We file] patent applications on a variety of ideas that our employees come up with. Some of those ideas later mature into real products or services, some don’t. Prospective product announcements should not necessarily be inferred from our patent applications.”

    So there’s no telling when this type of advertising will become a reality for American users, but I wouldn’t rule it out this year. Experts say it will be a $780 million industry by the year 2015. I’m sure corporations will want American consumers to be part of it sooner rather than later.

  • Small Businesses Using Facebook Ads For The Win

    Just in time for a new wave of companies to embrace Facebook’s open graph apps does a new study show that, beyond the Nikes and Foursquares of the world, small businesses are enjoying the efficacy of Facebook ads. A survey conducted by Payvment, the self-described “#1 social commerce platform on Facebook,” found that upwards of 40% say they use Facebook as their sole sales channel, more than traditional avenues of e-commerce like Amazon, eBay, and Etsy.

    Explaining the survey, Payvment founder and CEO Christian Taylor said, ““While a handful of large retailers have put their F-commerce efforts on hold, there are hundreds of thousands of small businesses who are successfully selling products on Facebook.”

    While most small businesses enjoyed success from advertising on Facebook, All Facebook highlights the most cited reasons why some businesses wouldn’t advertise on the site again. 68% of respondents said they weren’t successful in acquiring likes or customers while 65% said the ads were too expensive. 25% simply said they didn’t understand how to use the platform.

    More of the study’s findings have been summarized in the inforgraphic that Payvment put together. If you’re a small business owner, would you say that your experience is generally reflected in these findings? If not, what’s differed in your experience with marketing your business through Facebook? Feel free to start or add to a discussion below in the comment.

  • Netflix Updates Support Site

    Netflix Updates Support Site

    Netflix has recently added a new support site, as a primary resource regarding frequently asked questions and service error resolutions, according to Mike D. Kail, Vice President of IT Operations, per the Netflix official blog. An example given describes what a user might do if they are having an issue with Silverlight. A user can just search for “Silverlight,” and get a narrow result:

    netlfix

    Netflix adds that in the coming months, it will be adding more help topics to the new knowledge base.

    Netflix was recently in the news, along with a slew of other companies, after pulling advertising from the embattled Rush Limbaugh Show. Netflix made a statement on the matter, after some subscribers complained about an alleged affiliation with Limbaugh:

    “Netflix has not and does not purchase advertising on the Rush Limbaugh show. We do buy network radio advertising and have confirmed that two Netflix spots were picked up in error around the Rush Limbaugh show. We have instructed our advertising agency to make sure that this error will not happen again.”

    As of now, Netflix and Rush Limbaugh are no longer affiliated.

  • Google Wants You To Use Sitelinks With Your AdWords Ads

    Google announced today that it is adding sitelinks to the Opportunities tab in AdWords. The Opportunities tab shows advertisers ways they can improve their campaigns as Google detects them. The company describes the tool as a personal assistant who can help you discover more keywords and make the most out of your budget.

    “A fast, simple way to increase your AdWords performance is adding sitelinks to your campaigns,” says Google’s Mark Martel. “If your campaign is eligible to show sitelinks but it doesn’t have them them up yet, it’s probably missing a good opportunity.”

    “Now, when we detect that your campaign is performing well enough to show ad sitelinks, but does not yet have them set up, we’ll show you that idea in the Opportunities tab,” says Martel. “You’ll also get a personalized estimate of the impact on clicks and cost if sitelinks were implemented, based on your last week’s campaign stats.”

    Martel notes that Google’s systems automatically determine which sitelinks perform best and show them more frequently, and suggests adding more than the minimum number of suggested sitelinks. “Sitelinks can appear with any of the ads in your campaign,” he adds. “So choose website destinations and sitelink text that make sense across all of your ads.”

    Last month, Google announced enhanced ad sitelinks, saying they’re great for clickthrough rate. Clickthrough rates are 30% higher for ads with sitelinks, compared to ads without, according to the company.

  • Twitter Brand Pages Said To Get Even More Changes This Year

    It wasn’t that long ago that Twitter brand pages got an overhaul. In fact, it was about a month ago if you’re going by when the redesign started rolling out to more brands.

    Not to be outdone by Facebook, however, Twitter is already planning more changes, according to AdAge. The publication is reporting that brands that spend money to advertise on Twitter will soon be able to include e-commerce, contests and sweepstakes to their Pages. The report cites “three executives familiar with the matter”.

    At a marketing event last week, Facebook announced a number of new features for marketers, including not only the new brand timelines, but also the ability for brands to include “offers” which let businesses and organizations share discounts with customers by posting offers to their Facebook Pages. Facebook, offering best practices for using them, describes them as coupons that brands don’t have to pay anything to create.

    Well, maybe Twitter is still being outdone by Facebook after all in that regard.

    In fact, it sounds like Twitter is taking a more Facebook-esque approach altogether. According to the report, app developers will also be able to build things on Twitter that would “be contained within the brand’s tweet timeline.” This is all, according to those familiar, expected sometime this year.

    Earlier this week, Twitter expanded into even more languages, bringing the grand total to 28. It’s also growing way faster than Facebook.

    Twitter is doing a lot more in the monetization department these days – an area it has been heavily criticized over historically. The company recently announced the expansion of its promoted products across its mobile experiences.

  • J-Lo, Darren Aronofsky Team Up For Non-Bizarre Kohl’s Ad

    In 2010, Darren Aronofsky directed one of the best films of the year – Black Swan. It won Natalie Portman an Oscar and was itself nominated for best picture. And it was deserving of all its acclaim in book, even if you take out some of Mila Kunis’ more erotic scenes…

    Anyway, that was simply said in order to get the point across that Aronofsky has some experience with putting dance on the screen. In all honesty though, calling Black Swan a dance film is like calling Silence of the Lambs a movie about entomology.

    However dance-centric you classify Black Swan, the point is that Aronofsky’s new project deals with the fun side of dance as opposed to the finger-peeling, schizophrenic side of it. According to MediaBistro, Aronofsky is the director behind the newest Kohl’s ad featuring Jennifer Lopez. You see, J-Lo has a clothing line at Kohl’s, and she’s appeared in numerous commercials for the brand over the past year or so. This time, she’s got the music in her.

    Check it out below:

    Kohl’s “Classic. Remixed” from H.K. McCANN on Vimeo.

    Pretty hard to tell it has the Aronofsky touch, isn’t it? I guess everyone just needs a paycheck now and again.

    The last time we saw Aronofsky at work with advertisements, he was the brain behind a series of anti-meth ads that definitely bear his mark:

    ER from Organic Inc. on Vimeo.

    What do you think? Can you spot the Aronofsky in that J-Lo ad? Are you, like me, waiting for someone to remix that ad with the Requiem fior a Dream music? Let us know in the comments.

  • What Rush Limbaugh Is Not Telling You About His Advertiser Losses

    The firestorm over Rush Limbaugh’s “slut” remarks aimed at Sandra Fluke has not died down. Daily tallies of fleeing advertisers are being kept. Yesterday, as Limbaugh’s program was just getting started, he took a few minutes to explain to his listener base what was going on with the much-ballyhooed exodus of advertisers from his program.

    Sponsors on this program are both local and national. We deal with the national sponsors on this program. We have 600-plus stations. They sell their own commercials. We don’t have anything to do with those sponsors. We don’t get paid by those sponsors. We have no idea who those sponsors are.

    Let’s make up a company, ABC Widget Company. And let’s say that ABC Widget Company says, “We are no longer going to appear on the Rush Limbaugh Show.” Well, ABC Widget Company isn’t on the Rush Limbaugh Show. What happens is, advertising agencies order advertising buys on a series of local stations from market to market to market. A controversy like this erupts. They put out a notice to the stations, “By the way, for the time being we don’t want our commercials run when Limbaugh is on.” But they are not canceling their advertising on the station. They’re just saying they don’t want it running on my program during the local affiliate’s commercial time, not ours.

    We have not lost 28 national sponsors. There are not 28 advertisers who were paying us who aren’t anymore. They are local commercial buys. Many of them may not even be running in my show to begin with. The advertisers are just saying, “If they are, pull ’em. We don’t want ’em in there for now,” but they’re staying on the local stations. These advertisers are not abandoning EIB affiliates.

    Nobody is losing money here, including us, in all this. And that is key for you to understand. They are not canceling the business on our stations. They’re just saying they don’t want their spots to appear in my show. We don’t get any revenue from ’em anyway.

    Much of what Rush said is completely accurate. He also claimed that two unnamed national-level advertisers that had bailed were asking to come back, one of them “practically begging”. Since he won’t name them, that is, of course, unverifiable. But on the whole, he correctly explained the difference between national advertisers versus regional and local ad buys.

    So, where are these numbers coming from about 28 sponsors gone, or 32 sponsors gone? Do those numbers matter at all? Or, as Limbaugh said, are they “like losing a couple of french fries in the container when it’s delivered to you at the drive-thru”?

    I used to be an “on-air radio personality”. Despite the cultural icons we like to revere in the DJ world, the job is not glamorous, does not pay well, and you end up seeing a lot of sausage-making in the radio world. Stick with me here while we look at the business that Limbaugh has to deal with. This is in no way about the politics or content of Limbaugh’s statements. Let’s just look at the numbers.

    Basically, here’s what’s happening. Someone who objects to Rush Limbaugh’s comments decides to do something. So, they listen to his program one day and jot down all the companies that have commercials running during the program. Then, they send emails, make blog posts, start Facebook discussions, etc. about the businesses on that list. But, those businesses actually fall into three distinct categories.

    Many of those commercials are for local businesses. These were sold by the individual radio stations (or station groups) themselves. Many advertisers get a spread of commercials, a package, that airs at different times of the day. Depending on the demographic that business wants to reach, they may request that their commercials mostly air at certain times of the day – morning drive, for example, or during Limbaugh’s program. Advertisers want the most bang for their buck. They want to know that their commercials are airing when the greatest number of their potential customers are listening. But, most radio stations will do some spread of commercial time throughout the day, even if there is a focus on certain time slots. An example of a local commercial is a bank, tire store, local restaurant, etc. Anything that is unique to your town or city.

    Next are the regional commercials. These are for larger companies, particularly national names. Their advertising purchases are much like the local ones, just on a larger scale. Unlike the local ones, the official representatives of those companies do not know much about the details of where and when their ads are being aired. They hire an ad agency to oversee that. If the results are coming in, they don’t micromanage. They may not be aware that their commercials, and thus their name and reputation, are being put in the Limbaugh time slots. Examples of regional advertisers might include a grocery chain that is unique to the South, candidates in electoral races, credit card companies, a mattress company, Netflix, or Geico.

    Then there are the companies that advertise directly with Limbaugh as official show sponsors. These people want to be associated with the Limbaugh brand. They have made a calculated decision that their customers are Limbaugh’s listeners. It may be difficult to tell who they are, as opposed to the local and regional buys. One of the easiest ways to tell is by whether or not Limbaugh himself does the voiceover for those commercials. It is not always the case, but it’s a surefire way to pin down some of the companies. But, the simplest way, though not easy, is to determine which commercials are airing in every market. Local commercials are not played outside the listening area of a given station. Regionals will vary from region to region, even if bought by national names. But, full-fledged Limbaugh show backers will be on in every single market. They come in to each station on the satellite feed with Limbaugh’s show. Once in a while, you will hear a glitch where a commercial starts, then the audio cuts to something more local. That was likely a national ad. Limbaugh does not name these, or even tell how many there are, but they are logically far fewer than the regional or local advertisers. A good example of a national sponsor is LifeLock. We know this because they have spoken up about their sponsorships themselves.

    Now it’s time to let you in on a dirty little secret about radio that you find out the first day on the job. Radio stations do not exist to educate or even to entertain you. They do not exist to play new, exciting music. They do not exist to support a particular political ideology or add to any sort of cultural conversation. They exist for one reason: to sell commercials. You can screw up many other things when working as a DJ. You can talk way more than playing music. You can play long blocks of music with almost no banter. You can interrupt and talk over songs. But, never, never miss the commercials. If they could get away with just selling and playing commercials 24 hours a day, they would do it. But, no one wants to listen to sales pitches all day. They want to be entertained in some way. So, stations research and decide what kind of entertainment/programming would best attract people in their area to their radio frequency instead of the competitor’s. If the answer is “talk radio”, they do that. If the answer is “country music”, they do that. If that answer changes, they change the programming. It’s all about selling and playing commercials. Understanding that helps you to see why the loss of advertisers at any level is important, despite Limbaugh’s cavalier statements to the contrary. It helps you to understand why all those local and regional advertisers that he seems to not care about are actually far more important even than his national-level advertisers.

    There are tons of companies out there who would fall all over themselves to give Rush Limbaugh their money to advertise on his program at the national level, even if he were the most reviled man on the radio. The level of “class” in those advertisers might drop, but opportunists will attach to a scandal in a heartbeat. The trouble is, the vast majority of hometown and regional advertisers won’t. And, boycotts and protests are most effective at the local and regional level.

    If a person who heard what Limbaugh said about Sandra Fluke got an emailed list of local advertisers whose commercials aired during the Limbaugh show, that person can pick up the phone and call each local or regional business on that list. They can tell them, “I will not be eating at your restaurant for as long as you advertise with that man. When you stop, I will come back. And, by the way, I am tweeting, emailing, and Facebook messaging every person I know to tell them the same thing. We’ll be listening tomorrow to see if you are still supporting him.”

    Limbaugh may not care about that, but the restaurant owner sure does, even if he likes Limbaugh. If even a few people make that intention known, that owner will call the radio station and demand that his ads be pulled out of the Limbaugh show and spread elsewhere. He may even post a sign on his door expressing his support for Limbaugh, but he will eventually move his ads. In order to not lose that ad business, the station will quickly comply. Eventually, if enough advertisers bail on the program, the program gets replaced. No more Limbaugh in that town.

    Limbaugh himself said it yesterday, “They’re just saying they don’t want their spots to appear in my show.” Exactly.

    Limbaugh’s website says he has over 600 stations in his stable. Calls from individuals, especially people not even in the listening area, will have little effect on the decisions a station makes. But calls from the advertisers are treated like messages from God. Limbaugh may think say that those advertisers are like a few french fries. But, the local stations do not. There are people at those stations whose job it is to beat the pavement and sell ads. They work on commission. They build relationships with those advertisers. It is in their best interests to keep those advertisers informed about where their money is best spent. If there is a huge stench around a program, local and regional advertisers will abandon it. Stations will then eventually drop it, not on principle, but out of economic necessity. And thus, the listener base dwindles. They simply won’t have it to listen to unless they subscribe online. Then, the chain effect begins. The cost of regional ads drops due to a smaller listener base. So, ad sales people have to sell more commercials to recover the lost revenue. No one wants to support a sinkhole. Eventually, the show folds.

    Limbaugh can put on a brave face and act like those national level advertisers are all he cares about. But, that’s disingenuous. Even if he never lost a single one, the local and regional markets can dry up around him. He will be a tree falling in a forest.

    Yesterday, Bill Maher, of all people, tweeted his disappointment with what he called “intimidation by sponsor pullout” from Limbaugh’s show. Bill Maher’s stance on unfettered capitalism is long-established. Maybe his unfamiliarity with it is causing him to miss this: sponsor pullout is one of the edges of the capitalism sword. It is the dollar vote. People buy the things they support. They stop buying the things they don’t. It’s the free market at work.

    Limbaugh’s show may well weather out this storm. He may still be here having the last laugh ten years from now. But, make no mistake, he knows that those advertisers trickling away in Small Town, USA matter. He may not tell you that, in fact he may tell you the opposite. But, that doesn’t make it so.

    [Update: According to the Media Matters blog, a study of Limbaugh’s program as it aired yesterday (March 7) on WABC, the network’s flagship station, revealed that over half his commercial spots on that station had been pulled and replaced with free public service announcements to fill the time.]

  • Limbaugh Scandal Brings Out the Bottom-Feeders

    Rush Limbaugh’s most recent foot-in-mouth moment was calling Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke a slut and a prostitute. Advertisers began to jump ship at an alarming rate. Limbaugh issued a Saturday blogged apology in which he said that his “choice of words was not the best”, but advertisers have continued bailing or distancing themselves.

    But, in any scandal lies opportunity for someone. And, Limbaugh is starting to actually gain some potential advertisers who feel they can use his notoriety to their advantage.

    In a press release issued on March 6, a website that purports to help bring “sugar daddies” together with young, willing women announced its intention to buy $500,000 worth of advertising on Limbaugh’s show.

    From their release:

    “Rush Limbaugh is one of the greatest examples of the modern day Sugar Daddy,” says [the site’s founder]. “We wouldn’t feel right if we didn’t come forward and support him in his time of need.”

    The press release made a point of mentioning that the founder had “a BS and an MBS from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.”

    The company’s release went on to try to parallel Limbaugh’s attack on Sandra Fluke with distasteful comments many people make about gold-diggers who sleep with rich men in a “mutually beneficial arrangement”. Their angle was that they support Limbaugh with their ad dollars because, unlike those others, he “apologized”.

    The site features mostly college-age girls who list their remuneration expectations as anywhere from “Open – Amount Negotiable” on some listings to “US$10,001 – $20,000 monthly”. One of the female profile photos on the site had a stock photo site watermark symbol on it.

    (Watermarked Profile Pic)

    Another site that helps people cheat on their spouses has announced that they want to buy up all of Limbaugh’s ad space vacated by others.

    The terms of these media buy offers are not disclosed. Whether or not either of these opportunists will actually follow through with an ad buy, or are simply using the trending popularity of search terms related to the scandal to boost their own presence remains to be seen. You’ll note that we did not name them here.

    Scandal attracts bottom-feeding opportunists like a carcass attracts buzzards. Losing advertisers may not worry Limbaugh. The fact that the dregs are starting to circle overhead should.

  • AOL’s AdTech Launches New Mobile SDK

    Advertising.com’s AdTech (owned by AOL) has launched a new mobile software developer kit, which the company says is the first of its kind to comply with the IAB’s rich media standard MRAID 2.0.

    MRAID, which stands for Mobile Rich Media Ad Interface Definitions is an IAB project tasked with defining a common API for mobile rich media ads that will run in mobile apps.

    “The mobile internet has fast become a popular communication medium and for many users, life can no longer be imagined without it,” says AdTech CEO Erhard Neumann. “As the number of mobile internet users increasingly rises, advertising on the mobile web becomes more and more significant. Our Mobile AdTech SDK opens up an additional sales opportunity by enabling publisher clients to monetize the advertising space in their mobile apps.”

    AdTech says the SDK will make it easier for customers to manage display, video and mobile inventory from one tool, listing the key features as:

    • Delivers ads even if the device is offline
    • Simplifies banner creation through MRAID support
    • Easy Rich Media handling across different mobile platforms
    • Caching ads for accelerating rich media content
    • Mediates Inventory through Network Partners
    • Integrated solutions for Mobile Web & Apps, Display and Video
  • Over A Billion In Ad Revenue For Amazon

    Over A Billion In Ad Revenue For Amazon

    Amazon is already doing more than $1 Billion in ad revenues and quietly threatening Google’s core search business. As long as consumers continue to start their product searches at Google, there is no worry for the Goliath search engine monster. Up to now, Google hasn’t really been concerned about which merchandiser sells the product ultimately because they will get paid either way.

    The biggest threat to Google’s core business (searches) is the possibility that Amazon could become the starting point for more and more searches and take with it the revenue Google has been enjoying. Google makes the majority of its revenue from searches for specific products. However, for the last ten years, Amazon has been expanding its web site to sell its own merchandise, the merchandise of third party partners and advertising and links to other third party merchants with whom they don’t even have a connection or relationship.

    Currently, Amazon places ads and links at the bottom of product pages and they better targeted and noticeable compared to Google search results and Google ads. The other key thing is that they appear in detail on pages being viewed by consumers during a highly relevant shopping search. Amazon is now hiring aggressively to strengthen its ad business, now doing over a billion dollars in ad revenue yearly.

    How does Amazon compete with Google? Amazon pushes $1B, or 2.5% of Google’s $40B, in ad revenue from non-affiliates http://t.co/IS4yqGjB 1 hour ago via UberSocial for BlackBerry ·  Reply ·  Retweet ·  Favorite · powered by @socialditto

    Compared to Google’s $40 billion, Amazon’s ad revenues may seem small, but Amazon is growing very fast and has the enviable position of being the top global e-commerce site. Over the past year, Google has become more and more worried about the threat from competitor, Amazon. Any amount of ad spending captured by Amazon is a potential loss in revenue for Google.

  • Facebook Offers: Facebook’s Advice For Successful Ones

    At a marketing event this past week, Facebook talked about a new “Offers” offering for brands.

    Offers let businesses and organizations share discounts with customers by posting offers to their Facebook Pages. Facebook describes them as coupons you don’t have to pay anything to create. When a customer claims an offer, they’ll get an email to show at the physical location for the brand to get a discount.

    Facebook Offer

    Facebook has a help center with guidelines for using Facebook Offers (hat tip to AllFacebook).

    Under the “best practices” section, Facebook says it encourages businesses to experiment with offers to find out what customers respond to best, but suggests the following to have a better chance of success:

    • Make discounts substantial. Discounts should be at least 20% off regular prices. Additionally, offering things for free performs better than discounts even if the percentage off is the same implied value of the free item.
    • Keep it simple. Describe your terms and conditions as simply as possible, and don’t require customers to perform unusual activities.
    • Use an engaging image. Photos of people using your product typically perform better than photos of your product by itself. Photos of your product perform better than your business’s logo.
    • Keep language natural and direct. Make sure your headline leads with the value of the offer instead of marketing slogans. Avoid using unconventional capitalization or punctuation.
    • Set a reasonable expiry date. Give people at least a few days to see and claim an offer. Take advantage of word-of-mouth promotion by allowing time for your offer to spread by word of mouth in people’s News Feeds.
    • Promote your offer. Run sponsored stories and pin your offer to the top of your Page so new visitors notice it. We recommend sharing an existing offer instead of creating the same offer twice so it’s easier to track how many people are claiming it.
    • Train your staff. Make sure your employees know the terms of your offer and how to help people redeem it. Some people will print out the offer while others might show the offer on their phones.

    For now, Offers are only available to Facebook’s managed advertising clients. If this applies to you, you can go to your Page, and click “Offer” from the sharing tool at the top of you timeline.

  • Jeffrey Dahmer Tours On Groupon Don’t Go Over Too Well

    This week, Groupon ran a deal for its Milwaukee customers for a tour of notorious serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer’s crime scenes. This reportedly resulted in protests from local residents, including family members of some of Dahmer’s victims. Groupon has pulled the deal, but you can still see it, courtesy of Google’s caching.

    (image)

    Groupon’s description for the deal said:

    Things that go bump in the night keep us awake by invading our dreams and loudly honking car horns every 30 seconds. Give yourself the creeps with this Groupon.

    $25 for Two Tickets to a 90-Minute Dahmer Tour ($60 Value)

    Guides march guests through the grisly corridors of Jeffrey Dahmer’s life and killing spree as they narrate the triggers of his psychosis and the heinous crimes he committed. Tours take place every Saturday at 1 p.m. and 3 p.m.

    Dahmer Tours

    Dahmer Tours grants a spine-chilling glimpse into the life of Jeffrey Dahmer from within his hunting grounds. The guides, who are neither insensitive to the victims’ families nor approbating of Dahmer’s monstrous acts, narrate thoroughly researched information about the crimes and their historical impact over the course of a one-mile walk. The company crosschecks all their material with former members of Milwaukee’s legal community and several unturned stones to ensure that every fact and trail is credible. As guests’ feet cover the very tracks that Dahmer stalked upon, guides dissect his mad world to grant access into the mind of a serial killer.

    Groupon was also encouraging users to “buy it for a friend”. I have to admit, it does sound like a hell of a gift idea.

    Groupon is certainly no stranger to controversy. It even offended people with its first Super Bowl ad.

    People aren’t just mad at Groupon, however. They’re more upset with the tour in general.

    Here’s a screencap from the official site for the tour:

    (image)

    Jim Stingl from Milwaukee’s Journal Sentinel shares some comments from locals:

    “I think it’s in very poor taste. There’s a lot of families of the victims, and their wounds are still healing,” said Ald. James Witkowiak, who represents that area of town.

    Victor Ray, who lives in the neighborhood and is president of the Walker’s Point Association, dislikes the plan to do Dahmer tours, and rejects an idea by tour organizers to mount a plaque or memorial in honor of the victims. None has ever been erected in Milwaukee.

    Timothy Benkowski owns TimothyJ Kitchen & Bath in the same block as Dahmer’s old favorite bars, and he doesn’t favor the tours. “I’d just as soon not have the memory of that hanging around my place,” he said.

    The tours begin on Saturday.

  • Update AdSense Ad Unit Code Or Miss Out

    Update AdSense Ad Unit Code Or Miss Out

    Update your AdSense ad unit code if you don’t want to miss out on some key features. That’s the message Google is trying to get across with a new video it uploaded to its Inside AdSense Channel.

    If you’re not using the updated code, there are certain tools you won’t be able to use, Google explains.

    “Click into the ‘My Ads’ tab,” Google says in the video. “If you don’t see any data listed for one or more of your sites in the ‘Ad Unit’ section, you’re using the old ad code. This means you’re missing out on some key features in the ‘Performance Reports’ tab, such as ad units, which shows performance for your individual customized units and ad sizes reports, which show which ad sizes perform best on your site.”

    Ad Sizes Reports

    “Additionally, anytime you want to change the style of your ad, you also need to change the code on your page,” Google says. “With the new code, the settings of your ad units are saved within your AdSense account by name and unique ad ID, so you can apply the same code to multiple pages across your site, and make changes just once.”

    To update your code, click the “import old ad code” link under the “My Ads” tab, paste your old ad code into the box, give it a descriptive name, and click import to create a new unit with the same settings, then replace the code on your new pages, and save.

  • Facebook, Twitter Influence Psychology Of Online Shopping

    If you’ve shopped on sites like Amazon or eBay in recent memory, you’ve likely noticed the appearance of Twitter or Facebook icons on the webpage encouraging you to share the product info with your online social networks. Given the presence of those icons on the product page, though, have you ever found yourself second-guessing the privacy of your purchase as a wave of unchecked paranoia swept over you because maybe, just maybe you had accidentally linked to your Facebook or Twitter account and news of your purchase would soon be broadcast to your friends and colleagues?

    If this sounds familiar, guess what: turns out you’re not alone for feeling that way. A new study by way of the University of Miami School of Business Administration has found that the presence of Facebook and Twitter logos on a shopping website increases the likelihood that consumers will buy some products and reduces the likelihood that they will buy others.

    The study found that consumers who saw a social media icon near a product that might embarrass them were significantly less likely to buy that product than those who saw the same product without the icon. On the other hand, consumers who viewed products they would be proud to show off were significantly more likely to buy than those who saw the same product with no such icon.

    “Our study finds that the mere presence of social media icons on a web page where we shop appears to cause us to feel as if our purchases are being watched by our social network, and we adjust our buying decisions accordingly,” said Claudia Townsend, an assistant professor of marketing at the University of Miami School of Business Administration who conducted the research with Empirica’s David Neal. “Marketers should be aware that the placement of these symbols in their web design strategy could have a major impact on buying behavior.”

    The study enlisted 200 participants to explore a variety of products, some that people were happy to display in public (e.g., women’s sportswear or colognes) and some that people did not want to share with the public (e.g., compression underwear or acne medication). When the product was one for which public consumption is desirable, like the cologne, the presence of the Facebook and Twitter icons made people 25% more likely to purchase. But when the product was more private in nature, like a product for acne treatment, the icons suppressed purchase intentions, also by 25%.

    What’s so startling about this study is that people seemingly didn’t even realize they were adjusting their shopping habits because of presence of the Twitter and Facebook logos. The impact on intended buying behavior emerged regardless of whether people had any memory of having seen the social media icons, meaning the logos were seeping into the subconscious of these shoppers and then creating turmoil with their senses of pride and shame.

    Businesses will see a study like this as a powerful advertising tool. More than marketing strategies, though, this study offers a penetrating glimpse into how the presence of social media in our lives has influenced our inhibitions even when we’re alone. The presence of something as seemingly unobtrusive as a Twitter or Facebook logo serves as an constant reminder that our social networks are always nearby and, with that distance between Us and Them becoming shorter, the membrane that seals off our privacy seems to have become all the more permeable.

    In other words, the chance that we ever feel genuinely alone, even when we are physically alone, appears to be dwindling.

    As a result, icons representing Twitter and Facebook on shopping websites have become unintended mechanisms that can cause us to police our shopping habits. They inspire in us the unfounded speculation that we are being watched by omnipresent internet overlords who will then betray our privacy and broadcast details of our shopping habits to our online social networks. Worse, it causes our imagination to turn against us as we worry about what our friends would say if they could only see what we were buying online. Reaching back to the simple psychological principles of punishment and reward, the impact of possibly sharing our purchase on our social networks could produce in us a sense of shame or a groundswell of pride.

    This study highlights a fascinating example of how our involvement with social media sites can unknowingly police our lifestyle choices even as we consider something as innocuous as the purchase of Neutrogena acne treatment or Ralph Lauren Polo. One of the hallmarks about shopping online is that it has always been a way for people to purchase whatever they want without running the risk of public embarrassment for what they buy. Those days, however, seem to be waning if the results of this study are to be believed.

    If the mere reminder that we’re constantly available to our friends and colleagues through Facebook and Twitter is enough to influence something as minor as these types of purchases, in what major ways are these diminutive icons affecting our behavior?