Pinterest vs Tumblr

     

 

          Pinterest and Tumblr are considered curatorial social spaces, according to the NY Times, with the additional blog component for Tumblr. But after the Yahoo buyout of Tumblr, it’s following has become stagnant while Pinterest is coming up strong and predicted to soon rival Twitter in its amount of handlers. Social media has been around for decades but has only started trending now, which means out with the old blog spaces and in with the new real time one sentence life update.

 

 

          Google is the leading data search engine with the ability to image search as well, but while Google has the literal answer for image keywords, Pinterest has the creative answer for users with aesthetics in mind.

The great thing about Tumblr is that it effectively combines a variety of image content under a number of tags that is seen worldwide, and with gaining a following they can choose to get to know you personally via opinion blogs and messages.

 

Forbes Magazine recently did a study on the top four networking applications ranking Facebook ($170 billion), Twitter ($23 billion in stock), and Linkdin ($20 billion) as the top three but Pinterest ($5 billion) is climbing fast in popularity. It’s estimated to go head to head with Twitter in the next year. Surveys say that many of the users are identified females, myself included, but it has no target gender, and male identified users are testing the waters more and more.

 

I recently became a Pinterest convert. I was previously a Tumblr addict adamantly resisting the fact that something new could be better than Tumblr.My partner recommended Pinterest to me because I missed the visual inspiration I got from Tumblr but without the time investment needed to search and sort in comparison to Tumblr and Google.

 

 

          Pinterest brings to the table immediate satisfaction in all things visually pleasing to the eye, the interface allows for quicker browsing and more exploration in order to create personal mood boards in which others can view or you can choose to hide.

 

It’s an excellent time waster without the feeling of wasting time and its impersonal unlike a lot of other networking social media sites whose main focus is  blogging to meet people.

                                

I’ve been through many networking blogs from Xanga to Livejournal, to Myspace each with a target audience and it’s funny to see how they grow and decay leaving way for new social enterprises.

 

http://www.pinterest.com/goelaborate/
http://www.pinterest.com/sotechie/

 

 

 

 

Why the “Power of Branding” Is a Myth

Taken fron Inc.com / Written By Geoffrey James

Brand is important. No question of that. A strong brand can make it enormously easier to sell. However, the notion that “branding” can create a great brand is a myth. Worse, it’s a myth that can cost you a lot of money, without getting much in return.

By “branding”, I mean the panoply of marketing activities like brand-focused advertising, packaging, marketing materials, logos, taglines, and so forth. In almost every case, money spent on these activities is money wasted.

I fully realize that this viewpoint flies in the face of what you heard in business school. Nevertheless, it’s the truth and to understand why, you need to understand what “brand” really is.

Bottomline: Your brand is the emotion that a customer feels when thinking about your product.

That’s it. Neither more nor less. And that’s why “branding” is so impotent.

While it is true that branding can associate an emotion with a product, especially when pointed at highly impressionable buyers (e.g. young men who watch beer ads), in the vast realm of B2B sales and even in most consumer markets, there is one, and only one, thing that creates customer emotion: the customer’s experience with your product.

Once customers start thinking your product is garbage, there’s no amount of “branding” that can change the perception. In fact, attempting to use “branding” to fix a product problem always backfires. All it does is call attention to the difference between the brand message and what the customer knows is true.

By contrast, if customers love your product, then the brand will reflect that love. Of course, you can use the some of the tools of “branding” to help spread the word, but the keystone is always the customer’s experience.

Always.

I know what you’re thinking. What about Coke? What about Sony? They spend money on branding, so branding must be worth it, right? Well, not necessarily. In every case where there’s an instantly-recognizable brand, there’s a history (in Coke’s case more than a hundred years of history) of the company providing a consistently excellent product.

In any case, it’s a very weird notion that your company should be imitating the market spend habits of a company like Coke… unless, of course, your company also has an instantly-recognizable brand built up over decades.

The average SMB has almost nothing in common with Coke, or with Sony or Apple for that matter. Most SMBs sell B2B, which means appealing to a sophisticated buyer, who is very aware of the consequences of each purchase. That a B2B buyer might be swayed by a glossy brochure or a Coke-like logo, is frankly absurd. None of that fancy branding junk has any influence on a B2B buyer.

Same thing is true in many consumer markets. Apple, for instance, is a great brand not because or their logo or their commercials but because people feel good when they use Apple products. So good, in fact, that the Apple faithful are willing to overlook the occasional stinker.

Now, just in case you’re thinking that I’m just a sales guy who’s ragging on marketing, let be it known that I spent 6 years in a marketing group for a multi-billion dollar corporation where I was responsible for branding an entire line of software products. In fact, I won two awards. I still have the plaques.

It wasn’t until I got out of that job that I realized that our marketing group had wasted, over that six year period, well over $100 million on various kind of branding. This included (although I was not personally involved in this particular debacle) a multi-million dollar re-branding campaign that (wait for it…) changed the logo from blue to purple.

Don’t get me wrong. Marketing is important, essential in fact, but only as long as it is focused on 1) generating leads and 2) making it easier to sell.

And brand is important. Unbelievably important. But the “power of branding” to create that brand? Sorry, folks, ’tis but a myth.

The six most transformative in online marketing.

Taken from Adweek.com.
Written by Anthony Ha.

A vast array of technologies and trends are transforming online marketing. Because it’s hard to wade through the changes, we’ve whittled them down to six that are significant.

The death of the click through—maybe for real this time. Advertisers and publishers have been predicting—and hoping for—the death of the click-through rate for years, complaining it’s a highly inefficient way to measure an ad’s success, especially for brand advertising. Click throughs aren’t dead yet, but efforts like startup Moat’s “Kill the Click” campaign, which focuses on time spent mousing over an ad rather than clicking, should help dig its grave.

The merging of mobile and desktop. The dividing line between mobile devices (especially tablets) and desktop/laptop computers seems to be blurring. Apple, for example, has been incorporating features from its smartphones into its desktop operating system, and Jefferies & Co. predicted recently that Apple’s two systems—OSX and iOS—will merge completely. Meanwhile, ad servers like Google’s DoubleClick are trying to integrate their desktop and mobile offerings.

The persistence of supercookies. Researchers have found that major websites—specifically Hulu and MSN.com—have been following visitors with a file called a “supercookie,” which continues its tracking even after users delete it in their Web browsers. Not surprisingly, this doesn’t go over well with consumers. When called out, Microsoft and Hulu apologized and claimed to stop the practice. Don’t look for them to disappear completely, though—supercookies are legal.

The beginnings of ad-tech consolidation. Earlier this year, Andrew Bloom, vice president of business development at MediaMind, said, “The notion of consolidation is a wet dream for people in the industry.” And the dream may have started, sparked in part by Google’s acquisition in June of AdMeld. The latest deal came in September, when ContextWeb and Datran Media merged to create PulsePoint, which promises an easier way to create cross-channel campaigns.

The rise of HTML5. Once a dominant format on the Web, Adobe’s Flash has struggled to stay relevant, especially after Apple declined to support the format on the iPhone and iPad. Publishers and advertisers have shifted their attention to the newer, more mobile-compatible technology, HTML5. Even Adobe, which continues to defend Flash’s usefulness for games and other applications, has announced a separate product to help designers build ads in HTML5.

The value of specialized content. According to ad intelligence company SQAD, the CPMs paid for display ads held relatively steady over the past year, but things get more complicated when you compare different categories. Entertainment and finance sites saw their average CPMs increase by 50 cents or more, while automotive, lifestyle, and home/fashion sites went down by at least the same margin. SQAD’s conclusion? Specialized content still makes money.