OK, you know Maryam and I are having a kid in September, right? A boy. Yippeee. But what happens when you decide to bring another life into the world? Well, beyond another 100,000 Flickr images (which is probably how many images this kid will have on Flickr, if Thomas Hawk has anything to say about it) what else happens?
Easy. A lot of money moves from my wallet to somewhere else. Now, I know how to use Google, right? Google monetizes the last click in a complex chain. But how am I, or Maryam, going to be influenced on our choices? Say, for instance, diapers? I just did a search for diapers on Google and found only one brand name I recognize: Huggies. How did that damn name get hammered into my brain? Advertising.
Which gets me back to why I’m writing this post: let’s say you’re a Diaper company who has a better product than Huggies. How will you get word out? Advertising.
But, who will decide where you advertise? Ad agencies, influentials, business leaders inside your company, executives, customer research types, who else?
Which gets me to Friday’s acquisition, by Microsoft, of aQuantive. To Kevin Kelleher at GigaOm that seems totally ridiculous. At first it did to me too, except I’ve been doing a bit more looking at who aQuantive employs: a whole lot of people who decide, or at minimum influence, where big companies will advertise.
At the Forbes Online retreat a couple of weekends back I heard over and over from various speakers that they expect a lot of advertising money (billions, they told me) will be moved in the next five years from TV and print to online.
Who will decide where the dollars be spent? A good portion of it will be by folks who are working at aQuantive right now.
Will they all of a sudden influence their clients to spend more money with Microsoft properties than Google or Yahoo ones?
Hey, what if Microsoft bought Facebook? Did Microsoft just cut off some of Google’s air supply? Maybe this is a traditional Microsoft/Ballmer move? The problem is it’ll only work if Microsoft has a legitimately good set of audiences to advertise to. My friends in the advertising business aren’t that stupid, they’ll do their homework and will move their money away from aQuantive if they start getting stupid advice.
But, what if Microsoft started buying things like Facebook, TechMeme, Automattic, Twitter, Technorati, LinkedIn, Federated Media? They have enough money to sweep all of these things up, even at today’s inflated prices. And don’t miss what Microsoft already has: some of the Internet’s biggest audiences. About 200 million people used Hotmail in the past 30 days, for instance.
The thing is, how will the advertising industry reach me? I’m not watching much TV anymore. I’m not reading things on dead trees much anymore. I’m online. My wallet is waiting to be emptied. Who’ll be the first one to tell me about a new kind of diaper? A new kind of camera? A new kind of crib? A new kind of clothing? A new way to child-proof my home? A new financial instrument so this kid can go to college? A new kind of food for children? Etc, etc, etc.
I’m not watching old-style ads anymore. So, where are these new style of ads?
Anyway, will aQuantive prove brilliant or stupid? Depends on the ads, I guess. What do you think?
Scobleizer 
I don’t know about aQuantive but I wouldn’t buy Huggies. Go with Pampers Cruisers, the elastic ones, the ones in the purple box.
Yup.
🙂
LikeLike
I don’t know about aQuantive but I wouldn’t buy Huggies. Go with Pampers Cruisers, the elastic ones, the ones in the purple box.
Yup.
🙂
LikeLike
Microsoft should LEAD and NOT FOLLOW. Microsoft leads in software and could easily lead in hosted apps if they wanted to – like full “OFFICE LIVE”. Lite office apps that seamlessly blend with PC apps. It would kill Google. This is where MSFT should focus its energies – blending the offline and online worlds of apps to make business content creation easier.
They should of course keep moving into the consumer space – Xbox is a start but also online gaming, blogging and etc.
MSFT has an advertiser I guess they can afford to do it – but do they really need to? not sure sure.
Instead of COMPETING with Yahoo and Google (AOL and ASK) why not work with them and lead the entire pack in new ways….?
LikeLike
Microsoft should LEAD and NOT FOLLOW. Microsoft leads in software and could easily lead in hosted apps if they wanted to – like full “OFFICE LIVE”. Lite office apps that seamlessly blend with PC apps. It would kill Google. This is where MSFT should focus its energies – blending the offline and online worlds of apps to make business content creation easier.
They should of course keep moving into the consumer space – Xbox is a start but also online gaming, blogging and etc.
MSFT has an advertiser I guess they can afford to do it – but do they really need to? not sure sure.
Instead of COMPETING with Yahoo and Google (AOL and ASK) why not work with them and lead the entire pack in new ways….?
LikeLike
aQuantive is a good strategic move, assuming, of course, Microsoft’s strategy is on target, which (of course) it isn’t and won’t ever be. They tried the content and media plays and failed royally, and are spending billions failing in Xbox/Mobile/Cable, so now they are going to morph professional services advertising agencyish? Please. Way too expensive, plus the merger won’t really take, think a AOL/TW style bomb out.
aQuantive just became broadcast.com part 2. I will bet money, that a new insufferable Mark Cuban clone will appear, gawd that was great watching the Warriors hand it to the Mavericks. But if his HDNet saves ‘The Black Donnelly’s’, I’ll love him forever.
And hey, pssst, you may have not noticed, but the world doesn’t really revolve around a small demographic of Valleyish geeks. Besides, that’s where real Product Analysis guys earn their keep, charting out where, what and how effective stuff is, Rex Briggs style. And there are times when YOU need to research things out, the world ain’t gonna spoon-feed you, and buying into the best advertising pitch is stupid anyways, do some homework and get the best products at the best prices.
LikeLike
aQuantive is a good strategic move, assuming, of course, Microsoft’s strategy is on target, which (of course) it isn’t and won’t ever be. They tried the content and media plays and failed royally, and are spending billions failing in Xbox/Mobile/Cable, so now they are going to morph professional services advertising agencyish? Please. Way too expensive, plus the merger won’t really take, think a AOL/TW style bomb out.
aQuantive just became broadcast.com part 2. I will bet money, that a new insufferable Mark Cuban clone will appear, gawd that was great watching the Warriors hand it to the Mavericks. But if his HDNet saves ‘The Black Donnelly’s’, I’ll love him forever.
And hey, pssst, you may have not noticed, but the world doesn’t really revolve around a small demographic of Valleyish geeks. Besides, that’s where real Product Analysis guys earn their keep, charting out where, what and how effective stuff is, Rex Briggs style. And there are times when YOU need to research things out, the world ain’t gonna spoon-feed you, and buying into the best advertising pitch is stupid anyways, do some homework and get the best products at the best prices.
LikeLike
Why buy sites like Facebook? Why not just go and get the exclusive rights contracts on advertisements (for instance, Facebook is already on the Microsoft DAP, MySpace is on Google and DC..which is now Google)….you get the eyeballs and don’t have to pay the inflated rates to buy properties that may or may not be here to stay…
Just wondering….
LikeLike
Why buy sites like Facebook? Why not just go and get the exclusive rights contracts on advertisements (for instance, Facebook is already on the Microsoft DAP, MySpace is on Google and DC..which is now Google)….you get the eyeballs and don’t have to pay the inflated rates to buy properties that may or may not be here to stay…
Just wondering….
LikeLike
Joseph: a Facebook executive told me they are not selling Microsoft their best traffic.
That might be one reason there.
LikeLike
Joseph: a Facebook executive told me they are not selling Microsoft their best traffic.
That might be one reason there.
LikeLike
I would still think the best course of action would be to find out a) why they aren’t selling Microsoft their best traffic and b) what Microsoft could do to fix the problem…. how about that…improve their platform AND make more money 🙂
LikeLike
I would still think the best course of action would be to find out a) why they aren’t selling Microsoft their best traffic and b) what Microsoft could do to fix the problem…. how about that…improve their platform AND make more money 🙂
LikeLike
Robert, at your age, you should be focusing more on Depends and not Huggies.
LikeLike
Robert, at your age, you should be focusing more on Depends and not Huggies.
LikeLike
“The thing is, how will the advertising industry reach me?”
I guess the big point now is whether THEY will reach you or YOU will reach them. You told us you googled for diapers. Would you have liked to get diapers’ ads 2 yrs ago? In other words: Can companies still start (and control) the conversation?
Man if you have spare time we’re discussing this kind of stuff on http://www.talkmarks.wordpress.com. Cheers, Simone.
LikeLike
“The thing is, how will the advertising industry reach me?”
I guess the big point now is whether THEY will reach you or YOU will reach them. You told us you googled for diapers. Would you have liked to get diapers’ ads 2 yrs ago? In other words: Can companies still start (and control) the conversation?
Man if you have spare time we’re discussing this kind of stuff on http://www.talkmarks.wordpress.com. Cheers, Simone.
LikeLike
“The thing is, how will the advertising industry reach me?”
Guess the point now is: will THEY still reach you or will YOU look for them when needed? You told you googled for diapers. Would you like to get diapers’ ads if you weren’t about to have a kid? So the big question is: will companies still be able to start (and control) the conversation?
If you have some spare time, we’re discussing this kind of boring stuff on talkmarks.wordpress.com. Cheers, Simone
LikeLike
“The thing is, how will the advertising industry reach me?”
Guess the point now is: will THEY still reach you or will YOU look for them when needed? You told you googled for diapers. Would you like to get diapers’ ads if you weren’t about to have a kid? So the big question is: will companies still be able to start (and control) the conversation?
If you have some spare time, we’re discussing this kind of boring stuff on talkmarks.wordpress.com. Cheers, Simone
LikeLike
I’ve switched from TV to Internet for two reasons:
more choice
less advertising
So, what would advertising do for me? I would avoid sites which used it. If I want something, I research it. Not buy the first name that pops into my head. One of the more annoying habits of sites these days are:
directing you to a full page advert before the proper article – I call that hijacking.
popping up adverts which ‘slide’ in/down in your viewing area. These are simply just annoying and a facneir way of doing the popups that all porn sites and warez sites love. I dont visit those sites either.
Advertising is simply brainwashing in a different guise. You show something to somebody enough times, they wont forget it. Doesnt mean the product is good, or even worth the money. Just means the company has enough to pay for the advertising.
LikeLike
I’ve switched from TV to Internet for two reasons:
more choice
less advertising
So, what would advertising do for me? I would avoid sites which used it. If I want something, I research it. Not buy the first name that pops into my head. One of the more annoying habits of sites these days are:
directing you to a full page advert before the proper article – I call that hijacking.
popping up adverts which ‘slide’ in/down in your viewing area. These are simply just annoying and a facneir way of doing the popups that all porn sites and warez sites love. I dont visit those sites either.
Advertising is simply brainwashing in a different guise. You show something to somebody enough times, they wont forget it. Doesnt mean the product is good, or even worth the money. Just means the company has enough to pay for the advertising.
LikeLike
“But, what if Microsoft started buying things like Facebook, TechMeme, Automattic, Twitter, Technorati, LinkedIn, Federated Media?”
It’s duplication on site concepts they already have, and furthermore there is no ROI in buying these websites.
To buy these sites, would be to solely buy the brands, and the brands are not stronger than the reputation they have from being independently owned.
“Technorati sponsored, owned and moderated by your friendly evil doers at Microsoft”
Think about how much the brand would be worth after acquisition.
LikeLike
“But, what if Microsoft started buying things like Facebook, TechMeme, Automattic, Twitter, Technorati, LinkedIn, Federated Media?”
It’s duplication on site concepts they already have, and furthermore there is no ROI in buying these websites.
To buy these sites, would be to solely buy the brands, and the brands are not stronger than the reputation they have from being independently owned.
“Technorati sponsored, owned and moderated by your friendly evil doers at Microsoft”
Think about how much the brand would be worth after acquisition.
LikeLike
FYI, while every kid’s bottom is different, we had nothing but trouble with Huggies. Leaked like a sieve on my daughter’s bottom, along with periodic blowouts (think “it’s time for a bath now”). We had good luck with Pampers Swaddlers when she was very small, then when she was about 4-5 months, she moved into Luvs which don’t give us any trouble with leaks.
As to Microsoft’s issues, when Google bought someone just a few weeks ago, I wondered if Google was manipulating Microsoft. Some of what Google does forces Microsoft to respond to Google’s moves, rather than following its own goals. The aQuantive purchase didn’t surprise me because of Google’s recent purchases.
I’m not sure how well aQuantive will fit – I think that a part of Microsoft’s purchase of them was a response to Google’s moves. From Google’s perspective, Microsoft wastes money outside their core competency and wastes “focus.” At the same time, Google advances their own goals. Google wins twice.
LikeLike
FYI, while every kid’s bottom is different, we had nothing but trouble with Huggies. Leaked like a sieve on my daughter’s bottom, along with periodic blowouts (think “it’s time for a bath now”). We had good luck with Pampers Swaddlers when she was very small, then when she was about 4-5 months, she moved into Luvs which don’t give us any trouble with leaks.
As to Microsoft’s issues, when Google bought someone just a few weeks ago, I wondered if Google was manipulating Microsoft. Some of what Google does forces Microsoft to respond to Google’s moves, rather than following its own goals. The aQuantive purchase didn’t surprise me because of Google’s recent purchases.
I’m not sure how well aQuantive will fit – I think that a part of Microsoft’s purchase of them was a response to Google’s moves. From Google’s perspective, Microsoft wastes money outside their core competency and wastes “focus.” At the same time, Google advances their own goals. Google wins twice.
LikeLike
Stupid or smart purchase? Won’t be able to answer for a while. Could turn out either way depending on how well and how quickly Microsoft integrates the new technologies, people, and insights they’ve just acquired. (or to flip it: how well and how quickly aQuantive exploits the new resources they now have access to.)
Talk to anyone who’s been through a major acquisition or merger. It’s never easy and it’s sometimes impossible.
@7. Take the question ‘would you like to get diapers’ ads if you weren’t about to have a kid?” and flip it from the advertisers perspective: “would you like to pay money to reach people who have no need for diapers?” Works both ways. The promise is that neither the advertiser nor the consumer controls the conversation, but that both get a better deal out of precision targeting, relevance, and accountability.
This is, potentially, a brilliant strategic advance in the art of getting useful and effective advertising to the right customers. But it could easily turn out to be a waste of $6 Billion. It’s all in the execution now.
LikeLike
Stupid or smart purchase? Won’t be able to answer for a while. Could turn out either way depending on how well and how quickly Microsoft integrates the new technologies, people, and insights they’ve just acquired. (or to flip it: how well and how quickly aQuantive exploits the new resources they now have access to.)
Talk to anyone who’s been through a major acquisition or merger. It’s never easy and it’s sometimes impossible.
@7. Take the question ‘would you like to get diapers’ ads if you weren’t about to have a kid?” and flip it from the advertisers perspective: “would you like to pay money to reach people who have no need for diapers?” Works both ways. The promise is that neither the advertiser nor the consumer controls the conversation, but that both get a better deal out of precision targeting, relevance, and accountability.
This is, potentially, a brilliant strategic advance in the art of getting useful and effective advertising to the right customers. But it could easily turn out to be a waste of $6 Billion. It’s all in the execution now.
LikeLike
At a P/E of nearly 100 and considering that aQuantive was traded on April 2001 at only $.75, the purchase by Microsoft is too high to be smart!
If I quote William Edwards Deming‘s Disease 2: Emphasis on Short-Term ProfitsHow do managers make profits these days? Today’s managers are plagued by “paper entrepreneurialism. Heavy pressure comes from the stock market for short-term, quarter-by-quarter gains. These gains ignore variation and each quarter they must go up. So managers rely on creative accounting, mergers, acquisitions, tax schemes, foreign currency swaps and all sorts of finagling to boost the short-term profit. This disease when unchecked will ruin our economy.Microsoft did a a very stupid deal.
In fact and IMHO, Microsoft should do everything possible to permanently optimize the quality of its service offerings and software!
LikeLike
At a P/E of nearly 100 and considering that aQuantive was traded on April 2001 at only $.75, the purchase by Microsoft is too high to be smart!
If I quote William Edwards Deming‘s Disease 2: Emphasis on Short-Term ProfitsHow do managers make profits these days? Today’s managers are plagued by “paper entrepreneurialism. Heavy pressure comes from the stock market for short-term, quarter-by-quarter gains. These gains ignore variation and each quarter they must go up. So managers rely on creative accounting, mergers, acquisitions, tax schemes, foreign currency swaps and all sorts of finagling to boost the short-term profit. This disease when unchecked will ruin our economy.Microsoft did a a very stupid deal.
In fact and IMHO, Microsoft should do everything possible to permanently optimize the quality of its service offerings and software!
LikeLike
Ditto @1 — Pamper’s Cruisers! Fewer rashes, better movement and minimal blowouts.
SEO and adverts are one thing. Word-of-mouth totally better, more honest and efficient. You know this buddy! 🙂 Twitter about those diapers and see what the delta between THAT network of friends is saying and the shilling adverts are telling you. We want you, Mrs. Scoble and Patrick to have a good time with your new baby. The marketers (and I’m one of those too!) just want to part you with your money.
Did you guys care if the mom’s and dad’s who showed up for your Canon sales event LIKED the bargain diapers you were selling!? Nah, you wanted them to buy cameras, film, carrying cases! Big diff!
LikeLike
Ditto @1 — Pamper’s Cruisers! Fewer rashes, better movement and minimal blowouts.
SEO and adverts are one thing. Word-of-mouth totally better, more honest and efficient. You know this buddy! 🙂 Twitter about those diapers and see what the delta between THAT network of friends is saying and the shilling adverts are telling you. We want you, Mrs. Scoble and Patrick to have a good time with your new baby. The marketers (and I’m one of those too!) just want to part you with your money.
Did you guys care if the mom’s and dad’s who showed up for your Canon sales event LIKED the bargain diapers you were selling!? Nah, you wanted them to buy cameras, film, carrying cases! Big diff!
LikeLike
The funny thing about the diaper example is that you knew about huggies before you needed diapers. All the focus these days is reaching out to “people who are looking”.
LikeLike
The funny thing about the diaper example is that you knew about huggies before you needed diapers. All the focus these days is reaching out to “people who are looking”.
LikeLike
From my reading of what these companies do in this deal, they don’t make the final decision on where the dollars are spent. They are not in themselves media buying companies, they don’t directly control the media but as far as I can see but provide tools to track and optimise advertising, run an ad network that other companies can buy space on plus develop strategy and creative. Just as important, we all need tools to optimise effectiveness of advertising, improving targeting, getting the right ads in front of the right people. With respect to nappy/diaper companies reaching out to, the do so through targeted advertising on sites that have a high level of traffic from their targeted demographic plus contextual text ads. Look up diaper on Google and Huggies is a sponsored link.
With regards to the more personalised reach out, that is a completely different business model that brands and agencies need to get their head around. If all you are used to is broadcast mass media, with the efficiencies of spend associated with that for the reach, moving to a more personalised, higher engagement lower volume model is a big step. In the last week, there were around 5500 mentions of nappies/diaper in blogs (according to Google). How many people do you need to assess these and talk to the ones that are relevant? There are tools to help this process, but they are usually a pretty heavy investment and then you need the extra people as well, or fees to agencies.
CPG companies, with low profit, high volume goods, that have been around for a while are set up in a certain way. It’s a way that many of them are recognising may not be the right way but challenging the cultural and financial inertia is a long slow process. Many of the people at the coalface are extremely uncomfortable with being online themselves, so a lot of people need to be brought along with the change.
So will you get baby companies reaching out to you at some point? Possibly, some are going that way. However, given your readership, I could guess that systems put in place to filter mentions may not put as high a priority on this blog as on blogs with a higher female readership – nearly all baby stuff is marketed to females.
LikeLike
From my reading of what these companies do in this deal, they don’t make the final decision on where the dollars are spent. They are not in themselves media buying companies, they don’t directly control the media but as far as I can see but provide tools to track and optimise advertising, run an ad network that other companies can buy space on plus develop strategy and creative. Just as important, we all need tools to optimise effectiveness of advertising, improving targeting, getting the right ads in front of the right people. With respect to nappy/diaper companies reaching out to, the do so through targeted advertising on sites that have a high level of traffic from their targeted demographic plus contextual text ads. Look up diaper on Google and Huggies is a sponsored link.
With regards to the more personalised reach out, that is a completely different business model that brands and agencies need to get their head around. If all you are used to is broadcast mass media, with the efficiencies of spend associated with that for the reach, moving to a more personalised, higher engagement lower volume model is a big step. In the last week, there were around 5500 mentions of nappies/diaper in blogs (according to Google). How many people do you need to assess these and talk to the ones that are relevant? There are tools to help this process, but they are usually a pretty heavy investment and then you need the extra people as well, or fees to agencies.
CPG companies, with low profit, high volume goods, that have been around for a while are set up in a certain way. It’s a way that many of them are recognising may not be the right way but challenging the cultural and financial inertia is a long slow process. Many of the people at the coalface are extremely uncomfortable with being online themselves, so a lot of people need to be brought along with the change.
So will you get baby companies reaching out to you at some point? Possibly, some are going that way. However, given your readership, I could guess that systems put in place to filter mentions may not put as high a priority on this blog as on blogs with a higher female readership – nearly all baby stuff is marketed to females.
LikeLike
Remember to apply all patches to your kid, and be warned, it will catch every virus until it has a stable version!
(and the suspend mode seem to be broken too, mostly in the middle of the night!)
LikeLike
Remember to apply all patches to your kid, and be warned, it will catch every virus until it has a stable version!
(and the suspend mode seem to be broken too, mostly in the middle of the night!)
LikeLike
Nah, that was a bad idea. Microsoft could have “bought” key aQuantive employees and built their own company from scratch.
aQuantive has 2400 employees. Those 6 billions come up to about 2.5 million dollars per employee.
Gee, that’s a bit much, isn’t it? Even if you’re an optimist, at most a hundred of those employees would be worth more than 2.5 million dollars, but the rest can be found elsewhere for less.
Microsoft could instead have lured the smartest people in the marked by offering them lots of money and then get a new company off the ground. And that would even have had the added benefit of stealing some people from the competitors.
Then they could offer better value than the competition and operate the company at a loss for a few years and maybe still come out ahead of the 6 billion they just wasted.
But hey, it’s just monopoly money, right? 🙂
LikeLike
Nah, that was a bad idea. Microsoft could have “bought” key aQuantive employees and built their own company from scratch.
aQuantive has 2400 employees. Those 6 billions come up to about 2.5 million dollars per employee.
Gee, that’s a bit much, isn’t it? Even if you’re an optimist, at most a hundred of those employees would be worth more than 2.5 million dollars, but the rest can be found elsewhere for less.
Microsoft could instead have lured the smartest people in the marked by offering them lots of money and then get a new company off the ground. And that would even have had the added benefit of stealing some people from the competitors.
Then they could offer better value than the competition and operate the company at a loss for a few years and maybe still come out ahead of the 6 billion they just wasted.
But hey, it’s just monopoly money, right? 🙂
LikeLike
Well I think we have to wait ,in order to realize.
But I think nowadays there is another thing that parents should think about, even before thinking of Diaper….Buy the name!
LikeLike
Well I think we have to wait ,in order to realize.
But I think nowadays there is another thing that parents should think about, even before thinking of Diaper….Buy the name!
LikeLike
MS paid a little bit too much to acquire a company with Fat Clients. Google thrived on AdSense for SMBs and I am not sure if aQuantive will deliver AdSense technology to MS.
LikeLike
MS paid a little bit too much to acquire a company with Fat Clients. Google thrived on AdSense for SMBs and I am not sure if aQuantive will deliver AdSense technology to MS.
LikeLike
@3 – so if you know so much about strategy of multinational software corporations, what is your track record in this space? You must be a hot-shot CEO, right?
LikeLike
@3 – so if you know so much about strategy of multinational software corporations, what is your track record in this space? You must be a hot-shot CEO, right?
LikeLike
In 1999, The New York Times reported that 92% of children in 1957 were toilet trained by 18 months of age, when all diapers were cloth. Today due to the dominance of disposable diapers, they are worn on average 36 months. Now what does this have to do with MS buying aQuantive? Well, not much other than making a pretty good case for ClothBabyDiapers(dot)org! 🙂
LikeLike
In 1999, The New York Times reported that 92% of children in 1957 were toilet trained by 18 months of age, when all diapers were cloth. Today due to the dominance of disposable diapers, they are worn on average 36 months. Now what does this have to do with MS buying aQuantive? Well, not much other than making a pretty good case for ClothBabyDiapers(dot)org! 🙂
LikeLike
I think everyone has completely missed the boat. How about a world where everything is just a screen/cpu/network connection…TV, PC, Phone or umm Xbox360, PC, Mobile6 device…hmmm a solution on every screen size…now lets flatten out the next part. TV/Web/Radio/RSS or as I like to think of them as “Media”. Information intake methods as video,text, and sound. Now if I were going to advertise across every platform, and every form of media to hit people in every point of thier daily life, who can do it? Google’s out, Apple..nope. How about microsoft AdCenter…Sounds great, but I normally go through an adhouse…like 24/7 or aQuantive. Perfect..they use adcenter too… in one simple move microsoft is about to trump everyone with a cross platform, cross media, cross location solution that you don’t even have to understand. I can just call up the guys I’ve been working with already…and if I haven’t I really need to soon.
End of line.
LikeLike
I think everyone has completely missed the boat. How about a world where everything is just a screen/cpu/network connection…TV, PC, Phone or umm Xbox360, PC, Mobile6 device…hmmm a solution on every screen size…now lets flatten out the next part. TV/Web/Radio/RSS or as I like to think of them as “Media”. Information intake methods as video,text, and sound. Now if I were going to advertise across every platform, and every form of media to hit people in every point of thier daily life, who can do it? Google’s out, Apple..nope. How about microsoft AdCenter…Sounds great, but I normally go through an adhouse…like 24/7 or aQuantive. Perfect..they use adcenter too… in one simple move microsoft is about to trump everyone with a cross platform, cross media, cross location solution that you don’t even have to understand. I can just call up the guys I’ve been working with already…and if I haven’t I really need to soon.
End of line.
LikeLike