Grindr: Scary Phone App?

You may have heard about the "gay cruising" phone application, Grindr, which "uses GPS technology in your iPhone or BlackBerry and Wi-Fi in your iPod touch or iPad to determine your exact location and instantly connect you with guys in your area." The first thing that I thought, was how scary is it to have strangers knows exactly where you are? Then I saw this article on Gawker about a Washington Examiner reporter using Grindr to find which part of the White House, Pentagon, and Capitol has the most gay people. Anyone can use this application, and my concern is, what if it gets into the wrong hands? I imagine that one using this application is aware that he is exposing himself to the world, and there is a "blocking" capability, however, I still couldn't help but worry about the possible misuse this application could lead to.

On the other hand, the app is immensely popular, and shows the power of mobile phone. The app reached its 500,000th member in February 2010, after launching in early 2009. http://iphone.sys-con.com/node/1299346 With almost 2,000 new users signing up daily, it's clear this app is filling some kind of social need. Just this one app also shows the potential of mobile marketing. If an application targets a specific market, I wonder if there is a way for marketers to advertise via the application.

Shopping Online- Beware of Bad Behavior!

This Time Magazine article, What's Wrong with Online Shopping, discusses common bad behavior that online retailers exhibit. In many cases, there is major discrepancy between what a brick-and-mortar store offers as opposed to the online store. Apparently the retail and online divisions of the same store are often run by completely different groups, which seems like it could lead to confusion over the meaning of a brand. If something is expensive at the store, but a cheap discount item online, what does it mean for the brand? Furthermore, if you go into a store asking for something you saw online and the store doesn't have it, eventually you won't think of the two stores as being the same, further diluting the brand.

This article also brings up potentially unethical behavior on the part of online retailers--for example, hiding true costs until the last minute and using web coupons to compile data about the customer. Overall, it seems that there are no set guidelines for online retailers to follow, and if there are, they're not being followed. Furthermore, what about information privacy? Is it fair to deprive a customer of a deal because he doesn't want to provide personal information? The U.S. government often asks internet companies to provide intelligence for them, so what responsibility do online retailers have towards their customers? I hope that some guidelines are established to protect consumers so they are at the very least, aware of what happens when they shop online- what risks they have, what price discrepancies they may face, and most importantly, who can have access to any information they provide.

SEO Basics

A video about the basics of search engine optimization-

http://vimeo.com/11904502

Is Social Media for Everyone?

A market of one, defined by Business dictionary, is "Level of customization and customer service at which a customer feels that he or she is an exclusive or preferred customer of the firm."

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/market-of-one.html

We have all seen this concept in action- When I first created a google account, I remember being spooked by an ad for a language school in Madrid popping up just as I was writing an email to a friend about my upcoming trip there. It creeped me out. I felt like someone was watching me and reading all my emails. However, with time, I got used to it, and it doesn't phase me anymore. The argument behind customized advertising is that it offers the customer what he or she might actually be interested in. A related concept is "inbound marketing," a term coined by the firm Hubspot. Hubspot is a marketing services company that uses inbound marketing,which is a term used to describe marketing strategies that attempt to "pull" prospective customers towards a business through the use of Web 2.0 tools such as search engine optimization, social media, and blogging. The intention is to create content that is compelling enough to draw customers to the business, rather than pushing content onto a mass audience in which most people are not interested in the products or services advertised. It is interesting to note what kind of customers Hubspot has. Their largest volume of customers is comprised of small to medium business owners, while the other kind of customer is the large firm that combines inbound with traditional marketing. (Inbound Marketing and Web 2.0, Harvard Business School) This begs the question- is social media necessary for businesses to build their brands?

As noted in E-Marketing for Sensible Folk, there are many advantages and disadvantages to social media. It can help spread a brand, but it can also lead to over exposure and resource commitments that may not pay off. Remember the story about Boeing and Harry? Boeing has started tweeting and using social media, and it unclear what a B2B aircraft maker is doing with all this social media.

I think that social media can be very effective for small businesses, which normally have niche products. Social media is an excellent way for these types of businesses to target the right audience without spending resources on traditional marketing that most probably will not reach the target market as efficiently. As noted on Hubspot's website, "The internet disproportionately favors small businesses since it enables them to position their niche goods to people shopping for that particular niche good regardless of the numbers of degrees of separation from their rolodex." For large corporations with abundant resources, online social media serves as a complement to traditional media. The most important thing for any business considering social media is that it is a commitment that can only be effective if resources are put into developing it. A static facebook page or boring tweets can hurt the brand's image rather than helping it. Any business considering social media must be willing to devote resources to create compelling content, which is no easy task, and analyze what the cost/benefit relationship to determine if social media is right for them.

Fired for your blog?

An article from a blog I like, Jezebel, brings up some questions about internet privacy. http://jezebel.com/5530644/anonymous-sex-blogger-fired-from-her-day-job Due to a Twitter glitch, a woman's anonymous "sex blog," (is that a term?) The Beautiful Kind, was exposed, her employers found it, and fired her. Their reason was the fear of "negative publicity" but like the author at Jezebel, I think it more has to do with disapproval. It seems unfair that this blog, which was supposed to be anonymous, was a big enough reason to fire this woman, who apparently was fine at her job. I really see no reason why this blog should interfere with her work performance.

I have mixed feelings about personal blogs and social websites. On one hand, I support all forms of self expression. On the other hand, these sites breed exhibitionism that isn't acceptable in person but somehow is online, and I can't help but judge people based on how they present themselves online. We all know that employers and universities have started checking these sites so people have to be careful...But this Jezebel article asks, Is that fair? Is googling someone like stalking them? Or is everything online fair game now and people have to understand that with self-expression comes risks.

However, an important question is, how much of the information on the internet can we trust? Since my numerous stints at internet cafes in India last year, my old, supposedly deactivated hotmail address occasionally sends emails from "me" about great companies everyone should check out. It's spam, and all my friends know it, but I still get annoying emails from people people asking me to stop. Embarrassingly, these emails go out to ALL my contacts, including old employers, professors, and people I've completely lost touch with. Even after closing this account, the spam continues. So I'm guessing that for those who don't know me, they may judge me as 1) An asshole who sends them spam or 2) An asshole who isn't considerate enough to close the account. And there's nothing I can do about it.

I decided to further investigate my "online image" by googling my name. Facebook, old forgotten Friendster, and LinkedIn came up. Then a lot of Suparna Guptas who aren't me came up, and it was a little depressing. I think that I'm definitely the least qualified Suparna Gupta out there in the online world. There's a founder & CEO, Senior Research Scientist, and a Human Rights, Child Protection "Changemaker." Luckily, though...no sex bloggers or porn stars...yet.

The Future of the NYT

The New York Times is going to use a paywall approach which charges people who exceed a certain number of articles a fee. The number hasn't been fixed yet, but many think that it will be in the range of 15-20 per month. Essentially, the fee will target regular readers, not casual browsers. The fee will most likely be $7.95 a month. This brings up a few questions, posed on this blog: http://e-marketingforsensiblefolk.blogspot.com/2010/05/will-only-rich-get-high-quality-news.html

1) Will moving to a subscription or pay-per-read method generate enough revenue to make up for the millions of readers who may just find other "free" news elsewhere?

Felix Salmon, from Reuters, explains the complicated profit maximization factors the NYT will have to look at. http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/01/20/the-economics-of-the-nyt-paywall/ However, regarding how the revenue model will work, he concludes "I have no idea." Reading his blog, I realized that this model will simply stress a lot of people out. "Am I reading too much?" "Should I just subscribe this month and read everything I can?" From a psychological perspective, it makes me think that they should charge a subscription for any access, as long as it's affordable.

From empirical evidence, we know that Times Select was a disaster, attracting 227,000 subscribers, from a monthly unique user base then measured at 13 million. Prominent writers such as Thomas Friedman lost many readers, particularly in Asia, where the $7.95 a month is a more substantial amount.

The WSJ's model seems to be working, but perhaps for reasons other than profits through subscriptions. Charging customers allows the WSJ to charge considerably higher rates for ads than free sites did. Advertisers are willing to pay more for an affluent audience. However, the NYT is not a business newspaper and I'm not sure if they want to have the same kind of attitude towards its readers. I think that the NYT should be read by everyone, and not target an elitist group.

I need to take a closer look at the revenues of the NYT, but it seems that they should be focusing more on their advertisement model, which it can only do by generating increased traffic, which paying for articles will not do. Currently the Huffington Post has more traffic than the NYT, a sign that the NYT should focus on generating more traffic through content. "The Times could have fought to become the preeminent news brand on earth, fighting it out with the BBC for that title. Instead, I fear, it will duck into its shell as the Washington Post has," said the columnist Jeff Jarvis.

The other promising model I see is with the iPad. It is rumored that Sulzberger, the NYT Chairman will strike a content partnership for the new device. If people are willing to pay $400 for the iPad, I don't see why they wouldn't pay a monthly fee to be able to use it with some of the best content available.

2)Will that supposedly "great equalizer of information access" -- the Internet -- now move into a new phase where only the more wealthy are able to access quality news?

I'd say "wealthy" is a bit of a stretch. Paying $7.95 a month is not much. People may much more for cable t.v. and their phone subscriptions. It's more a matter of culture. If people value quality news, they invest in it. If they value TV and cars, they invest in that and get their news from less in-depth sources. Newspapers have to spend a lot of money to deliver quality news. Already stretched budgets mean that papers can no longer follow every lead or cover stories in depth. I am hoping that reading will become fashionable through the iPad and other e-readers to bring back a culture that cares about getting valuable information.

3)Will NYT drop back to free access? How long will it take them? And what will be the lasting impact this move on readership and advertising revenue?

Two things could happen- most newspapers could start charging memberships, making that the norm, or the ubiquity of the news could force newspapers to rely on advertising rather than subscription charges. Perhaps there will be a mix of both, but I right now I really can't say.

Online Groceries: From NYC to Beijing

We know about some of the failures of e-grocery stores. However, there are success stories out there too, and much of the success lies in the habits of younger generations living in areas that are tight in retail space. Most inefficiency occurs at the retail level, and the cost of retail increases based on the lack of availability of space. Of course NYC comes to mind as having the lowest availability of retail space in the U.S. Fresh Direct operates out of Queens, NY and has seen success in the past year. I myself have used FreshDirect a few times while living in NYC, and although the prices were a little high, they are high everywhere in the city, and I saved the trouble of shopping in crowded, cramped spaces and lugging the groceries home. FreshDirect also brands itself as "Fresh from the Farms," by selling organic, local products, a concept that is becoming increasingly popular. You can see how they brand themselves on their website:

http://www.freshdirect.com/about/index.jsp?siteAccessPage=aboutus

After starting six years ago, the company became profitable for the first time last year estimating sales at $240 million in 2009, up from $215 million the year before. Some important factors in their success include decreasing delivery errors, which is obviously terrible for business, and also increasing average spend through up-selling techniques. I am also guessing that grocery shopping online is like any other kind of e-commerce; it takes a little while to gain momentum because of the time it takes to change consumer habits. People used to be afraid to shop online, but we now see the enormous success of Amazon. I think that the same is possible for groceries. The new generation is used to shopping online, and if online grocers can provide quality food for a decent price, I'm sure it will catch on. FreshDirect is now planning on testing new markets in Boston and Philadelphia, so we will see how they fare.

Looking outside of the U.S., it's also possible that online grocery shopping will popularize in China. Younger people are used to buying everything online, and are often dissatisfied with take-out but want a convenient, healthier option. Check out this article about a recent 6-month online groceries test by two major e-commerce companies. http://enovatechina.com/blog/online-groceries-a-recipe-for-success/