Forgot your password?
I have used apple app store for years. I think this is the best <a href="http://www.appmarketing.biz">app marketing</a> store in this industry I have ever used.
The millennials seem to give themselves a higher level of importance as engines of change than what they may deserve.
David, I suspect that you are correct. As the leagues become greedier and greedier---mainly in order to pay the players those absurdly inflated salaries----and continue to over saturate viewers with basically irrelevant in-season games, extended play-offs with hordes of teams participating, off-season games, phoney all-star games, etc. the public's appetite for such heavy doses of inconsequential content will be manifested in lower and lower ratings. This will depress the vaule of the games to the networks due to declining ad support to the point where the other considerations I mentioned in my earlier post, no longer tip the balance in the leagues' favor.Then the leagues will try to sell their numerous garbage games to TV at a lower price while offering the better games to streaming subscribers for a hefty price----only to discover that this formula doesn't generate the required dollars. It will be fun to watch the players deal with the situation that will then develop. No more long term contracts without performance guarantees, no more $15 million-a-year- deals for baseball "stars" with batting averages of .215, who slug 25 home runs per season but can't field their positions, etc. I can't wait.
After writing this post, you might just get ads to buy the movie 2001 Space Odyssey DVD. I just hope someone remembers to program in good jokes into AI...lol
All bubbles must eventually burst and it will happen with the sports bubble. The only questions are of of timing and the order in which the individual sports packages will be affected. Because of medical issues, football probably has a tougher burden.
You must be dreaming.
Translation has never been only about language or just content. A good translator translates language, cultural, social and political contexts. Please refer to Gregory Rabassa's work as an example of what translation is about. Google translator is not a decent option, it is a terrible one. The problem here is that there is a misconception of what a translator is: you need a human being to translate and not an app. Throughout the whole article you have been describing what a the job of a human translator is, but instead of calling him translator, you call him transcreator.
Refunds are not the same as rebates. Please be careful with the context you are creating.
Fraud is rampant in the mobile app advertising world and clawbacks for suspicious clicks/installs from networks and other supply partners are commonplace.
Percent change stats , while worth noting as they may be predictive, do not tell you the size of the audience. Last time I looked, the Fox News Channel was leading MSNBC by about 30% in average commercial minute primetime viewers and held a 60% in the all daypart averages. This is much closer than the two were about 18 months ago and probably reflects a growing negative reaction to Trump's incrediblely poor performances. It should also serve as a warning sign to Fox that going all out in suport of the Trump-led GOP may be a dangerous strategy and the infusion of some strong and less biased personalities is in order, not Ann Coulter. Fox may be bannking on the assumption that liberal minded viewers, who are the primary MSNBC supporters, are fickle and may drop out if Trump cools it and the GOP starts acting responsively---and Fox may be right. But what if Trump keeps doing what he is doing and the GOP continues to fumble?Fox may go down with that ship.
So sorry to be the one to tell you Ray, but your logic is flawed.
More than half CAN be successful in beating their competition. Say we have a market of widgets. With one big player: MegaWidget and 99 smaller ones. Everybody sees MegaWidget as their Main competitor, and they all might still be doing better.
In that case, 99% of the marketers are doing better than their competitor.
Dan, I assume that by "revamping" their delivery of TV sports you mean why dont the TV networks present these attractions via digital means----mobile, for instance---rather than the same old way. The reason that they dont---though this does not preclude new business models for TV sports in the future---is that digital exposures, alone, would not deliver anything like the audience levels attained via "linear TV" and, accordingly, would not earn enough ad revenue---even if the ads could be seen----to pay off the leagues. You might well ask why the networks don't offer the games both ways on a live basis, and this is a possibility----but only if the revenues earned are sufficient to honor the contracts with the leagues. That may be something for the networks to test, but so far, they are playing it safe ---and, so far, I can't fault them on that.
So what other entities would profit from Turn and its theft of info ? The Russians ? (can't do the intonations here)
The issue is not replacing sports with something else, the question should be "why haven't the networks revamped its sports offerings to appeal to a changing audience that does not consume entertainent the way their parents did?"It's all very Norma Desmond-ish.
The "tech savvy" component of marketing continues to deepen and accelerate. This is yet another platform which requires yet another expansion of skills among marketers, with all the attendant strategic implications of "splintering channels." Learn it, build it, or outsource it. The latter increases the likelihood of disintermediation, building it is even harder (for most marketing companies), which leaves ... learn it. The channel silos continue to fall/blur/get complicated, and the requirements for bright, agile, tech-savvy marketers continues to accelerate.
Until it all spins out of control. Some of it already has.
Clean up. Clean out.
What is the difference in prices between fast food and Panera's, even though Panera's food is better ?
For many years the major TV sports packages that the networks negotiate with the leagues have been loss leaders when it comes to profitability at the network level.But even if a network loses money---or barely breaks even----on these deals they attract a breed of advertiser that would not constitute a major presence on the network where many of its other programs are concerned. More important, the networks' O&O stations and other affiliates make a lot of money selling spots to local advertisers at prmium CPMs in the station breaks adjacent to the sports content, some of which flows back the the networks in their corporate bottom lines and serves to reinforce the powerful bond they maintain with independently owned affiliates. What would the stations replace the sports attractions with if they were no longer available, how much would such programming cost and how many ad dollars would be generated?
Ed, totally agree that an eight-week diary is an horrific thought. Fatigue, refusal, box-ticking etc.What we're doing is using the single-week accumulation on a day-by-day basis, and calculating the a,k parameters for the Negative Binomial Distribution. While the cume in a week is significant the forward projection is not always robust at the demo level or station by station.It could be a problem without a solution - apart from some (expensive) bespoke bedrock surveys that could be used to quantify the parameters that could be applied across time and markets.
John, the basic problem with radio reach tables is the fact that until recently they were all based on a one -week time frame because Arbitron's diaries were limited to that span. The diary method seriously shortchanged radio stations as to reach on a weekly basis because it was filled out by memory--usually after the fact--- by most respondents who overstated their degree of listening to a few favorite stations but failed to record sampling of many other stations. A number of years ago, while the diaries were still in vogue, I believe the RAB funded a two- week diary study, ( or it may have been of longer duration ) which showed a 15-20% reach build per station over the one-week levels, but then the PPMs arrived and there was no need for more diary-based tables. The PPMs found a) much lower listening that the diares per quarter hour but b) much higher reach levels for most stations. I happen to have seen four- week PPM tallies for a number of stations and station types which revealed considerably higher reach attainment gains over one -week levels for many stations --- more or less like we see with many cable channels. Sadly, however, since the Arbitron system had been set up on a one -week basis, this is the primary reporting frame for the PPM reports now put out by Nielsen and we seem to be the only independent source for both one- and four- week reach tables that I am familiar with. This is discussed in one of our special reports--"Radio's Surprising Reach & Frequency Capabilities" ---which is part of our new Media Insights & Data Service and is available via our website for the modest price of $85. It also provides some of our reach estimates in tabular form. Otherwise our American RAB may have some data that they might share, but I can't say for sure. A final comment about using diaries to define reach over long periods of time. In my opinion. an eight-week diary keeping stint---which is problematic in terms of cooperation rates and compliance to begin with----would not provide a true picture of the reach buildup for many stations as the weeks went by. Gains, yes, but probably not nearly what an electronic methodology like the PPMs would pick up.
Interesting you should mention radio R&F for local radio advertising. While yourself, Ed and many others such as Erwin are well known in Australia, I will have to do my homework on Jim.I also work on radio, and while we have robust calculators for metro R&F (i.e. for weekly diary data, or for meter-based markets), providing similar tools for our regional areas is a challenge. Basically, they don't have the ad-revenue base to fund an eight-week diary sweep Also they tend to have only a handful of commerical stations that may want to fund surveys. Many of these markets have not been measured for decades.So, we successfully tested a CATI based 'Station Listened To Most' (by session) that allows us to economically survey samples of typically n=800 to n=1200 in a week and get the results to market a further week later, and have now surveyed more than 50 markets.While SLTM doesn't quantify the amount of listening, but more the quantum of listeners, it does give the sales team something to sell off, and agencies a guide to their investment strategies. In all of the markets surveyed revenue has increased more than the cost.The 'but' is that now the reps and agencies want 'full-blown' R&F calculators/estimators. Given the small sample sizes, the lack of longitudinal data, and the lack of intensity of listening it is proving a mathematical challenge in providing differentiation by demo, station mix and campaign duration.Myself, the Technical Committee and another technical consultants are testing and trialling various NBD-based models but not yet with 100% success rate.If you have any idea or pointers it would be much appreciated.
Thanks Nick. Yes, I remember Jim and his work. Those were the days when we had real researchers helping the media and working with their agency counterparts---myself being one of them until I became a media director. I hope that the same sort of relationships are still in place today.