Real Estate, The Economy, and News: Advertisements

Showing posts with label Advertisements. Show all posts

Friday, September 21, 2018

Online Advertising in the U.S. Outpaces Print for the First Time

A company can be the best in the business and can be producing the highest-quality items at the lowest prices, but those facts don't matter much if no one hears about the company. So, in many ways, the reach of a company's advertising efforts can be a far more important factor in the business' success than the business itself. In the past, a company's outreach efforts involved advertisements posted in the local newspaper. Eventually, that developed into short commercials on the radio, then on television. Now, in the digital age, advertisers have to make use of the internet if they want to get noticed. In fact, according to Wendy Lee's L.A. Times article, over half of all advertisements in the U.S. this year were online.

Since companies are looking to target more consumers from the younger demographics, and since it's well-known that younger consumers tend to spend far more time on mobile devices than older consumers, those companies have pivoted their marketing strategy to focus on platforms like Google and Facebook. This pivot was so significant that in 2018, advertisers will spend a total of more than $100 billion on online advertisements, a 16% increase from last year's expenditures. Studies have found that the online advertisements are more successful in targeting consumers, provides the advertisers with more information about the targeted consumer, and even costs less overall.

The advertisements tend to focus mainly on social media and internet searches. For example, if you like a Facebook page related to cooking, you might tend to see more ads on your Facebook feed related to cookware. Or, if you search on Google for a specific product, the next time you use the internet, advertisements will be more likely to show you products similar to the one you searched for, or related products from the same company. Online advertising has the benefit that it can target specific demographics of consumers and can record how many people are actually affected by the ads (determined by the ratio of ad clicks to purchases).

It makes sense that companies are making the shift to online advertising. Social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter have millions of users who log on every day, and a targeted ad can draw in many more potential customers than a generic advertisement in the local paper or a catchy commercial on TV. Especially as streaming services become more popular (thereby decreasing the percentage of the population who actively watch cable television), TV commercials become less effective and more annoying to the common viewer. Online ads are still seen as annoying, but if done in the right way, they can catch a consumer's attention without distracting a consumer from the posts and online content they are actually there to see.

***************************************************************************************************
Find out more about us at www.sepulvedaescrow.net. Any Questions? Contact our Escrow Expert! Sepulveda Escrow Corporation (818) 838-1831. Follow our company on Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, and Google+.

**************************************************************************************************

Friday, July 6, 2018

Twitter and Facebook Introduce "Ads Transparency" Tools

In this day and age, it's difficult to get around without utilizing online resources, but in many cases, using those resources require the user to give up quite a bit of their personal information, from names and birthdates to shopping preferences. Because of this, private companies have access to a lot of their customers' personal information. Yet, although that personal data is being sold to companies to enable their "targeted advertisements" to work better, the customers being targeted rarely receive any information in return about the organizations trying to target them, especially when those organizations are political in nature. Fortunately, according to a recent Bloomberg article, both Twitter and Facebook are in the process of revamping their advertisement policies to make it apparent to all users where the ads are coming from, who paid for them, and how much they paid.

While understanding the identities and motivations of the companies and organizations trying to target you through social media can be nice, that kind of data isn't nearly on the same level as the browsing history and other product-preference data the companies have on you. But, since many of their customers have recently opted to discontinue use of several social media sites after various data scandals, the social media platforms had to make some sort of gesture to try to regain their customers' trust. Twitter was also recently under fire by US lawmakers for not having a system in place to identify and deal with fake accounts that are used for spam or scams, especially in the political arena, as that's the category on which lawmakers tend to focus.

The new Twitter tool, called the Ads Transparency Center tool, lets users search for any Twitter account and see all advertisements run by the account over the past week. For politically-related advertisers, even more data will be released: demographic-targeting data, the amount spent, billing information, etc. All of that data should help lawmakers and analysts determine if certain accounts are being designed specifically to produce misleading or false advertisements for the purpose of impacting US political races.

It's an interesting change in policies. Until now, there was very little oversight regarding advertisements on social media. But, it does make sense that there should be just as much regulation for a Facebook political message as for one that is played over the radio or on the television. Some lawmakers are even putting forward bills to require that social media advertisements meet the same honesty requirements as any other ads. Overall, these changes seem to have little to do with making the individual customers happy, and more to do with obliging with the wishes of lawmakers, but sometimes the two categories overlap.

**************************************************************************************************

Friday, June 1, 2018

YouTube Most Popular Social Media Platform Among U.S. Teens

The internet has evolved so much since it was first created. The internet's growth from a hub of research sharing to the vast interconnected network that exists today is simply mindboggling. None of its original developers could ever have imagined how far their project would come one day. Although the internet is still used for that original intention (sharing research), consumers use it for so much more today. They can go shopping or communicate or socialize or really do pretty much anything they want. The internet is such a dominant force in our society that many online companies can make plenty of money just by getting users to visit their sites. According to a Bloomberg article, one such popular site, YouTube, has become the most dominant social media site, at least in terms of users aged 13-17, the "trendsetting demographic."

These days, the money-making ability and success of a social media company are dependent on how many users it can attract. Even though most of those kinds of sites are free to use, they make money off of advertisements. A few years back, Facebook was well in the lead and was able to make the statement that 71% of teenagers in the United States actively used the site. Now, there isn't one single definitive leader when it comes to favorite social media sites for US teens. The three market leaders are now YouTube, Snapchat, and Instagram, while Facebook has only captured 51% of their possible teen market. YouTube is in the lead currently, with 85% of teens in the US using the site, according to a Pew Research study.

Even with a decrease in their capture rate of that ideal demographic, Facebook still does very well for its shareholders. Facebook makes approximately $23 per user each quarter and has over 185 million users in the US and Canada alone. Those numbers could change pretty quickly in the future, though. Even now, the study found that only 10% of the respondents reported using Facebook as their main social media platform. Conversely, 33% said that Youtube and Snapchat are their top sites, and 15% said that Instagram is visited most often. Facebook's relatively recent acquisition of Instagram could be their saving grace.

Social media apps and plenty of other online platforms have had increased usage over recent years. This is likely because getting on the internet continues to become easier as technology becomes more and more advanced. Where a user once had to go to a physical desktop computer, the advent of portable computing made everything more accessible to so many people. From laptop computers to smartphones, users are now able to get online pretty much anywhere and anytime they want to. In fact, the Pew study found that 95% of teens either have a smartphone or have regular access to one. Also, 45% of teens say that they are online nearly constantly. That kind of ease of use is beneficial to the companies and consumers alike.

**************************************************************************************************

Friday, March 30, 2018

TV Networks Looking to Cut Commercials in Exchange for Higher Viewership

People who watch television today, especially Millennials, have discovered that with improving technology come opportunities to make the viewing experience more enjoyable. It is a generally accepted fact that very few people actually enjoy commercials of any kind. Sure, some SuperBowl commercials stand out, but in general, commercials tend to be repetitive and boring, and simply get in the way of the TV program trying to be watched. According to Stephen Battaglio's L.A. Times article, more and more television customers are finding ways to avoid commercials in their daily viewing.

Streaming services like Netflix give consumers an alternative to normally scheduled broadcast television. They can watch all the TV shows and movies they want (albeit within a limited library of titles) without any commercial breaks for around $10 per month. TV ratings are continuously declining because even though television has the earliest airing time for many sought-after shows, if a viewer is willing to wait an extra day, they can watch the same episode without the annoying commercials and advertisements.

When digital recording devices became popular within the last decade, primetime shows had to change their strategy to engage the viewers who would simply watch later and fast-forward through any commercials. When remote controls were first invented, TV channels stopped having commercials in between different shows because they found that viewers were more likely to change channels during that transition. Especially as younger viewers adapt to new technology, networks will have to adjust accordingly if they don't want to lose an entire demographic for the foreseeable future.

In response to the changing viewership, networks are working on cutting down the amount of ad time to meet the expectations of their viewers. Many viewers want to see fewer ads, and if that doesn't happen, they'll just turn to alternatives like streaming. Some channels have up to 18 minutes of commercials per hour of television. Some have stated that they're looking to cut ad time by up to 50%. Others are working on other strategies, such as airing two long ads, one at the beginning and one at the end of a TV show, without a commercial break in the middle. Their hope is that viewers will be more attentive to ads if there are fewer of them. If those networks can convince advertisers that the reduction in clutter will improve their brand, then they may just be able to bring in the same amount of ad revenue even with less air time commited to commercials.

**************************************************************************************************

Friday, January 19, 2018

Amazon Expects Advertising Revenue to Improve Profit Margin

Jeff Bezos, the CEO of Amazon Inc., recently took over the spot of "richest man in the world" from Bill Gates, the creator of Microsoft. To many, Bezos' wealth doesn't make much sense, because, for the past 20 years, Amazon has not brought in a profit. That may seem pretty cut and dry: profit means financial success. However, for Bezos, that's not exactly how it works. For many years, Bezos' financial strategy has been to choose business growth over profit, reinvesting any revenue into expanding Amazon. In that manner, Amazon's stock value has steadily gone up, even without paying any dividends to shareholders. According to an L.A. Times article by Spencer Soper and Mark Bergen, Amazon's latest shift, to focus on sources of advertising revenue, could help to push the company into profit territory.

Over the past few years, Amazon has been losing money in its e-commerce business but has been able to recoup those losses due to its profitable business of providing cloud services. However, the differences between gains and losses are tight: Amazon's average profit is only around 1%. Up until now, Amazon's advertising business has been pretty small, at $1.7 billion in revenue compared with Google's $35 or Facebook's $17.4 billion. Amazon has nowhere to go but up when it comes to advertising. It is likely that the growth will be among companies trying to get priority placement for their products on Amazon's website. That kind of business plan pivot is unlikely to have high costs and has huge potential for billions more in revenue.

Amazon is in a good place for advertisements. Often, on Google or Facebook, an advertisement appears that tries to push a user toward another site, where the user might purchase the product being advertised. The problem with that system is that users get annoyed by incessant advertisements when they aren't looking to buy anything. The difference for Amazon is that its users are already looking to buy something. Advertisements would be both helpful to the shopper, would benefit the advertiser, and would give Amazon more revenue. Everyone wins!

Food companies spend millions each year to put advertisements on television and in magazines to try to generate more interest in their products among potential customers. The same effect can be achieved on Amazon's website for far lower cost, with less work, simply by adding in suggested searches or sponsored search results. Of course, putting actual images and videos as advertisements can also help, but if someone is looking to buy a product, they're going to choose the one that seems to be at the best price. Through Amazon advertisements, companies can make their products more interesting to the average user. Perhaps one day, Amazon's advertisements could replace those on television entirely. Amazon does have its own video streaming capabilities, after all.

**************************************************************************************************

Friday, May 26, 2017

Google Aims to use Targeted Advertisements to Boost Both In-Store and Online Shopping

Most people who use the internet, especially for online shopping, have noticed at some point that the advertisements that appear on web pages they visit tend to relate to items they have been looking to buy. It is one of the ways that Google makes revenue, by selling advertising space and targeting the advertisements at those consumers most likely to be swayed by them. By correlating the number of clicks on an advertisement to the actual items purchased online by consumers, Google is able to show online retailers that their advertisements are the right choice.

Similarly, Google seems to be looking to move into the non-digital marketplace. According to an article by the Associated Press of the L.A. Times, Google is looking into a new service that will track how much consumers spend in brick and mortar stores after clicking on advertisements related to those purchases. However, it will only be able to correlate the information to stores, not to specific items purchased at the stores, which may not be enough information for some advertisers.

By determining how ad clicks are connected with actual purchases, Google can help advertisers to determine whether their ads are a waste of money or actually useful. If the data is convincing enough, it could be beneficial to both Google and the advertisers it is contracted by. If advertisers see how well their ads work, they are more likely to increase their advertising budget, thus generating more revenue for the retailer and more income for Google. The main problem, however, seems to be the loss of privacy inherent in this kind of data tracking.

Already, Google has digital dossiers on everyone who uses their online services. They know what people search for, what people shop for, and even the types of videos people watch on social media. Using that information, they can create targeted ads that are directed at the proper demographics. This new system just seems to be an expansion of that concept. There are precautions in place, fortunately. The system is expected to run in a "double-blind" manner, which means Google receives personal information that credit card companies and merchants don't, while the credit card company receives information that Google doesn't. Additionally, it won't be able to gather information on cash transactions and about 30% of credit card transactions. Advertisements have the ability to help all involved parties in that they can point customers toward products they want and provided added demand on products for retailers. The main question: is the loss of privacy worth the added benefits of the ads?

**************************************************************************************************

Friday, March 3, 2017

Snap Inc. IPO Jumps 44% on First Day

Snapchat has, since its release in September of 2011, continuously updated and found new ways to attract its expanding base of users. Most recently, the company was planning on adding functionality to help users find their friends and stay updated during emergency situations. From funny videos to reality-distorting filters, Snapchat has stayed technologically in tune enough to keep boosting demand and stay competitive with other social media networks. This week's L.A. Times article by Tracey Lien, Paresh Dave, and Nina Agrawal detail's Snap Inc.'s initial public offering (IPO) and what it means for the company as a whole.

On Wednesday, Snapchat's stock was priced at $17. Within 24 hours, it leaped to a closing price of $24 on Thursday, where it had peaked at $26 for a short time. That 44% gain is the kind of "pop" that can indicate massive success for a new stock offering. It usually means that the stock is in high demand among investors. However, it could also mean that the company purposely "left money on the table," setting the stock at a price lower than it was worth.

Analysts found that Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and other big investment banks had orders for 10 times the number of shares Snap was willing to sell, so they could easily have charged more than $17 per share in order to make extra money. However, in raising the cost per share, they risk reducing demand. While one or two dollars extra per share would have been unlikely to have any significant impacts on overall demand, if Snap had chosen to open at $22 or $23 per share, the market would probably have shown much less interest, and it's possible that the stock would have busted.

To many investors, it's far more impressive for a company's stock price to rise rapidly than to stay steady at an already-high price. It was a smart plan for Snap Inc. to set their stock price at a lower level, giving it room to grow. There is a possibility that if they had started it high it may have ended even higher, but in all likelihood, people would have shown much less interest in the company and not bought at such high levels. Either way, however, investors are unhappy if prices fluctuate too much from their original levels. Whether they start high and drop or start low and pop, investors become concerned. Therefore, the best way for a company to keep its investors happy is to try to predict a stock price that will stay steady through its IPO.

**************************************************************************************************

Friday, January 13, 2017

Snapchat's Planned Updates Expect to Expand User Base

In late 2011, a group of Stanford students came together to develop a new kind of social media platform, which they called Snapchat. Snapchat was unique in that it aimed to allow virtual communication with the same level of emotional range that one might expect from an in-person conversation. To accomplish that goal, Snapchat was designed to be impermanent in that all messages, pictures, and videos sent through the app would be deleted after the recipient had viewed them. The new concept took the social media world by storm and brought in many users, especially among the teenage to early twenties demographic.

Eventually, however, the buzz died down and many users became bored of the concept, turning to standard social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter for their day-to-day use. Snapchat kept updating their software, adding features to make it more interesting to use, but some people didn't see a purpose in sharing 10-second blurbs of their life. It wasn't until late 2015 that the company made a big change that brought in so many more users: filters. Their filters gave users the ability to change their appearance, voice, or background, thereby making photos and videos more of a fun experience to share with friends. Since then, Snapchat has been continuously adding to their supply of filters, getting more and more detailed by the day. Most recently, as Paresh Dave described in his L.A. Times article, Snapchat is making another big change, a search bar that will make the platform that much more similar to competitors like Facebook.

Besides the fact that the new update seems to stray from the company's original plan to be different from other social media platforms, the search bar seems to be a great addition. Not only will users be able to look up friends by name, they will also be able to efficiently find celebrities and companies that they want to follow. Additionally, all users will have the ability to send their Snaps to the company for the chance to be featured publicly, a feature that was once limited to specific locations and events. Perhaps the coolest part of the new update involves the use of artificial intelligence to identify objects or people in public videos. In that way, a user could choose to view any Snap containing a specific product or featuring the image of a politician or some other famous person.

Because Snapchat is now allowing public submissions from anyone around the world, they are making their users happy and are granting themselves access to far more content. If users are willing to send in their own funny or thought-provoking images and videos, then Snapchat doesn't have to invest money into coming up with their own. Their AI will sort the Snaps based on event or location, which could be helpful for real-time coverage by real people in the event of a natural disaster or local emergency. All of these changes to the app seem to be timely and will hopefully be quite effective in both helping the company grow and allowing users to connect easily.

***************************************************************************************************

Friday, October 28, 2016

Twitter Inc. to Shut Down Vine and Lay Off Hundreds of Employees

Five years ago, Facebook and Twitter got into a battle over who would ultimately purchase Instagram. When the more-powerful Facebook ultimately purchased Instagram, Twitter took a risk and went for the unheard-of Vine app. In the short-run, Vine was a far cheaper investment and ended up with millions of users. However, now that live video streaming seems to be the way of the future. According to Paresh Dave, in his L.A. Times article, Twitter is being forced to stop all future development on Vine and cut approximately 9% of its workforce to make ends meet as their profits continue to decrease.

Vine is an app that enables users, especially those with comedic talent, to share short videos, limited to approximately 6 seconds. Many people have gained viral fame due to Vine, including comedians like Thomas Sanders and singers like Shawn Mendes. Unfortunately, even though Vine gained massive popularity, it only lasted a few years before users and advertisers realized that YouTube and other platforms would be more lucrative. As one analyst stated, there are too many alternatives for video advertising to have a successful app that limits clips to 6 seconds.

Vine isn't the only thing Twitter Inc. is getting rid of, though. In order to save around $100 million per year, even after severance pay, Twitter plans to lay off approximately 350 of its 3,900 employees. Unfortunately, analysts don;t believe that the cuts will be enough in the long run. While Twitter's revenue is up 8% from last year, in part due to advertisement sales, it is also showing a loss of over $100 million per quarter. Twitter executives seem confident that the addition of live-streaming capabilities will enable the company to be more successful in the future, but that remains to be seen.

One of the main problems that analysts have pointed out regarding Twitter Inc.'s business is that users are too limited. On Twitter.com, posts are limited to 140 characters, and on Vine, videos were limited to 6 seconds. Users don't like limits, especially when they are so small. At least on Snapchat, videos have a slightly longer 10-second limit, nearly double that of Vine. There has been some talk in recent years of Twitter raising their character limits, but as of yet, that has not come to fruition. Logically, longer messages and longer videos would have more space for advertisement, so if Twitter wants to stay competitive, it may have to adapt to the longer format used by most platforms.

***************************************************************************************************

Friday, February 5, 2016

Apple's 1984 Super Bowl Commercial - A Marketing Marvel

Each year, millions of Americans spend their weekends watching football games. Some go to stadiums, where they can experience it first-hand, while many others watch the games on television, from the comfort of their own homes. No matter how they're watching the game, the National Football League (NFL) is making plenty of money from their viewership. Last year alone, the NFL's 34 teams brought in a total of over $7 billion in revenue. Of that total, hundred of millions of dollars came from one game in particular: the Super Bowl. This revenue comes from a combination of ticket sales, merchandise sales, and, most of all, advertisements. Michael Hiltzik discusses, in his L.A. Times article, the Super Bowl and how its advertising goals have changed over time.

Several estimates claim that, depending on several factors, the Super Bowl's host city can gain up to $100 million in extra revenue during the week of the big game. Between money spent on hotels/motels/Airbnb rentals, money spent on tourist attractions, and increased spending at restaurants and other such establishments, the Super Bowl provides a huge amount of income for local businesses. Yet, the largest portion of Super Bowl income has to do with advertisements by big-name companies like Apple and Coca-Cola. At the 1984 Super Bowl, Apple Inc. aired a commercial that was so successful that it set an expectation for all future Super Bowl commercials.

Apple's commercial was a pull-out-the-stops production, directed by Ridley Scott (who had previously directed "Alien" and "Blade Runner") and starring Anya Major, a British actress and discus-thrower. The commercial, which was championed by Steve Jobs, made Apple's CEO, John Scully, doubtful, yet eventually was approved and made its way to the television screen. The commercial itself was greatly influenced by George Orwell's novel, 1984, which depicts a dystopian society. The commercial concludes with Major's disruption of Big Brother's Stalin-like speech and announces: "On January 24th, Apple Computer will introduce Macintosh. And you'll see why 1984 won't be like '1984.'" This appeal to nationalism and patriotism called to many Americans and the commercial came to be known as one of the most successful of all time. You can watch the full commercial here.

Given the millions of people that watch football each year, it makes sense that companies would want to take advantage of the large audience to advertise their products and services. Since the NFL knows how much each time block is worth, they charge a high price to those who want to advertise during the game. Everyone benefits from this relationship: advertising provides companies with a larger consumer base, which creates an opportunity for more sales and greater revenue, and the NFL makes money selling airtime to advertisers. The Super Bowl especially creates this opportunity, as over 100 million people watch the game, many of whom aren't even football fans.

The aforementioned 1984 Apple commercial is considered by many to have been the trigger that got many people interested in the Super Bowl for more than just football. When the game is half over, the Super Bowl has its famous half-time show, in which a popular musician or other artist puts on a performance while the players take a short break and regroup. Even more popular to viewers are the long-awaited Super Bowl commercials, which are expected every year to surpass Apple's amazing 1984 commercial, and yet never quite succeed. In fact, there are viewers that don't care about the game at all, but instead watch it in order to experience the game's half-time.

While no company has yet to produce a commercial with nearly as much fame and success as Apple's 1984 commercial, viewers still watch the Super Bowl every year, in hopes that the half-time commercials will amaze and inspire as they did before. Advertising during the Super Bowl has become a marketing standard, a sign of a successful business. Even though IBM's personal computers eventually took over a large portion of the home and office markets, Apple's success in business is nothing to be scoffed at either. Maybe this year's commercials will be able to emulate Apple's marketing success? There's only one way to find out.

***************************************************************************************************

Friday, October 23, 2015

Google to Offer New "YouTube Red" Subscription-Based System

Where YouTube once made all of its income through advertisement sales, the Google-owned company is planning to make a big change. Starting next week, YouTube will be providing an option for viewers to pay $9.99 per month to be a part of a service called YouTube Red. As described by Saba Hamedy and Paresh Dave, in their L.A. Times article, this service will not only remove advertisements from most videos, thereby enhancing the viewer's enjoyment, but will also provide the ability to download content and stream music from Google Play.

YouTube, which first opened in 2005, grew in popularity very quickly and as purchased by Google a year later. Since then, while videos on YouTube get millions of views per month, Google has found that the well-known site is not quite the money-maker it might have been expected to be. Analysts believe that this is because YouTube is free, in general. Artists, musicians, instructors, and entertainers can upload videos for free, and people around the world can watch, like, and comment those videos for free. Only videos with advertisements provide any sort of income to YouTube and the maker of the video.

Now, with YouTube Red, Google's parent company, Alphabet Inc., expects to make far more money from the site without increasing advertisements or drastically changing its currently free setup. Analysts YouTube Red has great potential to become hugely profitable, but only if YouTube finds a way to overcome competition by Facebook, Vimeo, and Snapchat, among several other competitors.

Furthermore, will it really be worth it to viewers? Is the removal of ads, even on top of the addition of all kinds of new content by such YouTubers as The Fine Bros, Lilly Singh, and Pewdiepie, really worth the $10 per month that it will cost. YouTube tends to be targeted more toward teenagers and younger Millennials, so that would also mean that subscription to YouTube Red would probably fall under the jurisdiction of viewers' parents, who may not be willing to spend money on that which used to be free.

Much of the new content will be produced by well-known YouTube stars, who, unlike so-called "traditional actors," tend to come up with the content in their own videos. Many such stars started out with comedy or singing shows, filmed in their bedroom, and since have accrued hundreds of thousands of subscribers. It is these individuals that YouTube Red is going to use to try to pique the interest of potential viewers.

Market research company EMarketer believes that the growth of YouTube's ad revenue will slow over the coming years, which would make now the perfect time for the company to move away from advertisements and toward other forms of income. Many wonder, however, how this new system will affect the YouTube stars, some of whom are making a comfortable living off of payments from advertising sponsors. Will they be willing to give up that security to be a part of this new project? Hamedy and Dave seem to conclude that with YouTube Red, the stars will have more opportunities to create newer and better content that previously would have been cost prohibitive. YouTube executives believe that the stars will see the project's potential and will happily sign on to be a part of this new system.

***************************************************************************************************