Radio broadcasters don't understand this generation. It's a generation that wants control. They are used to getting control. They want what they want when they want it. Baby boomer parents gave it to them that way. The same parents, by the way, who still run America's radio stations. Ironic.

Source: Inside Music Media

Powered by Qumana

Baby boomer managers think they can control radio stations by devising formats that different demographics will listen to. It’s always been that way so why not follow the logical conclusion.

But the next generation is different – very different.

They want to be the program director.

They want to be involved in their lives every step along the way. They turn to YouTube and are happy enjoying content created by other people --- even other people who are not their age. User generated content.

They have their own social website pages – Facebook, MySpace and increasingly smaller niche sites. They want to discover their own music, share it and enjoy the music of others even it isn’t number 12 with a bullet in Billboard.

Source link: Inside Music Media

Powered by Qumana

Facebook has missed out on a tremendous opportunity to use recommendation permissions to annotate their social graph with trust information – that’s an order of magnitude more valuable than the graph itself.

They got it wrong. No one is going to say “please show me more ads based on what my friends like.” But plenty of people will ask a friend to recommend digital cameras or books to them. There are subtle and important differences. First, there’s the asking. Asking someone for recommendations puts both parties in a position of giving permission. That changes the feel of the transaction.

Second, and more importantly, most of the people who are friends on Facebook are probably complete bozos when it comes to buying cameras or LCD TVs. I’m not dissing them, it’s just a fact of life that we trust certain people for certain kinds of things. I may trust one friend’s judgment on clothes and another’s on music.

Source link: ZDNet

Powered by Qumana

Why was contextual advertising superior? The economics of behavioral targeting don't make any sense. The benefits are clear for advertisers, but not for audiences. Since behavioral targeting imposes greater costs on users (cost of privacy loss, cost of lost attention from more invasive ads) than contextual targeting does, it must offer audiences greater gains as well.

How could it do this? Well, the most straightforward way is to push ads that consumers want to see. Unfortunately, behavioral targeting can only be marginally better (if that) at this than contextual targeting can. Assuming behavioral targeting can't offer consumers gains, consumers have great incentives to disable behavioral tracking systems - and they do. What this, in turn, means, is that behavioral targeters have the incentive to hide their actions from consumers - it's a classic case of moral hazard. This is how adware/spyware emerged.

So contextual targeting has, and I think will continue to, be more efficient at advertising to consumers the stuff they're searching for.

What this means is that behavioral targeting will continue to stay locked into the (profitable) niches that it's been successful in: serving ads in places where consumers spend a lot of time (and so can be costlessly tracked). Think NYT. In other words, behavioral targeting will pick up where contextual targeting stops. You search for 'Ferrari Dino' (and see contextual ads), and then visit a car review site (and see behavioral ads). This is the thinking behind the funding of plays like Revenue Science from fairly heavy hitters.

source: http://www.bubblegeneration.com/2005/04/advertising-2.cfm

This allows profile-based targeting, which I think has the potential to be the aforementioned disruptive tech - it can be superior to both behavioral and contextual targeting on value-driving attributes, but inferior in others.

Powered by Qumana