Marketing Is Getting Harder And Experts Sell Whatever
March 30, 2022
Selling in a digital landscape is harder now than anytime before. In order to succeed, sellers require marketing to get attention for their goods and services. Marketing had become complex and Read Write details how in, “Marketing Is Getting More Difficult. Here’s Why.” The basics of marketing are related to the amount of the, money and effort people place into their campaign. When marketing becomes more difficult, it consumes more time and resources. It is also harder for beginners to pick up concepts and it is also harder for anyone to stand out from competition.
People are bombarded with ads everywhere, especially on the Internet. They are often ignored and mostly annoying. Old marketing techniques do not work anymore. Modern consumers prefer organic, personalized content that tells a story. Technology is another factor that makes marketing harder, including the expense, learning said technology, misusing it, and misleading metrics.
It is not impossible to be successful, only harder and it is good to remain adaptable, diversify strategies, and stay agile to avoid competition:
“Marketing is getting more difficult. That much is certain. But you can at least find solace in the fact that it’s not just getting harder for you; it’s getting harder for all of us. We are entering a new era of marketing and advertising, and that’s not necessarily a bad thing period it just means you need to remain adaptable and attentive if you want your tactics to generate a meaningful return.”
The article gives fresh, positive advice. Fortunately it does not lead into a magic wand sales pitch for how a specific marketing service. Experience, research, and giving campaigns a try is how to get marketing done.
Agencies are ready to help. For a price. And it is easy… to send invoices that is.
Whitney Grace, March 30, 2022
Automated Censorship: What Could Go CENSORED with the CENSORED System?
March 28, 2022
Automated censorship: Silent, 24×7, no personnel hassles, no vacations, no breakdowns, and no worries.
Okay, a few may have worries, but these are very small, almost microscopic, worries. The reason? If one can’t find the information, then whatever the information discusses does not exist for many people. That’s the elegance of censorship. A void. No pushback. One does not know.
“How AI Is Creating a Safer Online World” does not worry about eliminating information. The argument is “more safety.” Who can disagree? Smart people understand that no information yields safety, right?
The write up states:
By using machine learning algorithms to identify and categorize content, companies can identify unsafe content as soon as it is created, instead of waiting hours or days for human review, thereby reducing the number of people exposed to unsafe content.
A net positive. The write up assumes that safe content is good. Smart software can recognize unsafe content. The AI can generate data voids which are safe.
The write up does acknowledge that there may be a tiny, probably almost insignificant issue. The article explains with brilliant prose:
Despite its promise, AI-based content moderation faces many challenges. One is that these systems often mistakenly flag safe content as unsafe, which can have serious consequences.
Do we need examples? Sure, let’s point out that the old chestnuts about Covid and politics are presented to close the issue. How are those examples playing out?
How does the write up? Logic that would knock Stephen Toulmin for a loop? A content marketing super play that will make the author and publisher drown in fame?
Nah, just jabber like this:
AI-assisted content moderation isn’t a perfect solution, but it’s a valuable tool that can help companies keep their platforms safe and free from harm. With the increasing use of AI, we can hope for a future where the online world is a safer place for all.
Does a “safer place” suggest I will be spared essays like this in the future? Oh, oh. Censorship practiced by a human: Ignoring content hoo hah. The original word I chose to characterize the analysis has been CENSORED.
Stephen E Arnold, March 28, 2022
Google Management: Fame and the F1 Crowd
March 23, 2022
With a grip on online advertising, what better way to cement exciting weekends than hanging with the in crowd at chi chi F1 venues. Will the happy Google colors find their way on the next McLaren road rocket? Are those McLaren confections climate friendly?
What does the Google team contribute to McLaren? “McLaren Racing Announces Multi-Year Partnership with Google” says:
McLaren will use 5G-enabled Android devices and Chrome browser across its operations during practice sessions, qualifying and races to support the drivers and team, with the goal of improving on-track performance.
According to the write up, a McLaren wheel will feature a Google logo. Perfect for the Google store or the ultimate booth give-away.
But those parties? The gear heads? Will Google executives abandon their daily drivers for a McLaren?
Nope, this is a high school science club interest which has been observed at Northern Light and Autonomy years ago.
Stephen E Arnold, March 23, 2022
Online Advertising: A Trigger Warning May Be Needed
March 18, 2022
I read “How Can We Know If Paid Search Advertising Works?” The write up is about Google but it is not about Google in my opinion. A number of outfits selling messages may be following a well worn path: Statistical mumbo jumbo and fear of missing out on a big sale.
Advertising executives once relied on the mostly entertaining methods captured in “Mad Men.” In the digital era, the suits have been exchanged for khakis, shorts, and hoodies. But the objective is the same: Find an advertiser, invoke fear of missing out on a sale, and hauling off the cash. Will a sale happen? Yeah, but one never really knows if it was advertising, marketing, or the wife’s brother in law helping out an very odd younger brother who played video games during the Thanksgiving dinner.
The approach in the article is a mix of common sense and selective statistical analysis. The selective part is okay because the online advertisers engage in selective statistical behavior 24×7.
Here’s a statement from the article I found interesting:
It was almost like people were using the paid links, not to learn about products, but to navigate to the site. In other words, it appeared like selection bias with respect to paid click advertising and arrival at the site was probably baked into their data.
The observation that search sucks or that people use ads because they are lazy are equally valid. The point is that online advertisers a fearful of missing a sale. These lucky professionals will, therefore, buy online ads and believe that sales are a direct result. But there may be some doubt enhanced by the incantations of the Web marketing faction of the organization who say, “Ads are great, but we have to do more search engine optimization.”
A two-fer. The Web site and our products/services are advertised and people buy or “know” about our brand or us. By promoting the Web site we get the bonus sales from the regular, non paid search findability. This argument makes many people happy, particularly the online ad sales team and probably the SEO consulting experts. The real payoff is that the top dog’s anxiety level decreases. He/she/them is/are happier campers.
Identifying causal effects does not happen with wishes.
I am no expert in online advertising. I think the write up suggests that the data used to prove the value of online advertising is shaped. Wow, what a surprise? Why would the leaders in selling online advertising craft a message which may not be anchored in much more than “wishes”.
Money? Yep, money.
Stephen E Arnold, March 18, 2022
The Cloud Horse Race: Rounding Turn One Is the Azure Softie with an Advantage
March 17, 2022
Listen to the cheers of the crowd. “Azure Pulls in Front of AWS in Public Cloud Adoption” says about a really probably objective study:
The key takeaway on the Azure front is its leadership with enterprise users, with 80 percent of respondents adopting Microsoft’s public cloud, up from 76 percent the previous year. This was just ahead of AWS, which claimed a 77 percent adoption rate, down from 79 percent a year earlier. Some way behind was Google, with 48 percent, followed by Oracle Cloud Infrastructure, which tumbled to 27 percent from 32 percent a year ago.
And what outfit generated this straight-from-the-race-track report? Flexera, that’s who. And who or what is Flexera? It is an outfit which has joined the Microsoft Azure Marketplace and “offers game changing solutions to help application producers monetize their solutions in Azure.” Got that. You can read more at this link.
Is this information about the outstanding speed of adoption and uptake of the well bred stallion accurate?
Like Jack Benny’s race track tout says,
“Pssst. Hey, bud, watch that Bezos nag.”
To sum up, marketing PR is not a guarantee of a race winner.
Stephen E Arnold, March 17, 2022
Technology Conferences: What Does Sponsorship Money Buy?
March 14, 2022
I have attended a number of conferences in my 50 year work career. Here’s what I learned:
- Giving a conference organizer money can provide access to the attendee list with phone number and email addresses
- Paying for a cocktail, breakfast, or some other gathering within the conference can include a speaking slot
- Supporting the conference with a payment can result in one of those logo-bedecked bags provided to each and every attendee whether the attendee wants the useless pouch or not
- Offering cash may allow a special information channel; for example, a contributor being able to provide a video commercial into each attendee’s hotel room. (Yep, I remember, the Chemical Abstracts’ video in London a decade ago)
- Coughing up money results in slots on the program and these talks are not on the last day of the conference at the tail end of the program day. Nope. These slots are keynotes or hour long masterpieces of PowerPointery.
Now you get the idea.
“The Tech Industry Controls CS Conference Funding. What Are the Dangers?” explains a more interesting and somewhat more conceptual approach to paying conference organizers big money or small money over, under, or on the table.
The write up points out that a role in selecting the topics and who can talk. That’s the nifty part. The attendee perceives the conference lectures as neutral. Often a panel of “experts” reviews the abstracts and interacts with the speakers. Some conferences offer helpful guidelines. Do conference funding sources manipulate the knobs and dials of the program itself? Yep, conference organizers love to play ball, have favorites (Isn’t Google special?), and their own industry biases (How about quantum computing for intelligence professionals?)
I noted this statement in the cited article:
Relying on large companies and the resources they control can create significant limitations for the kinds of CS research that are proposed, funded and published. The tech industry plays a large hand in deciding what is and isn’t worthy of examination, or how issues are framed. For instance, a tech company might have a very different definition of privacy from that which is used by consumer rights advocates. But if the company is determining the parameters for the kinds of research it wishes to sponsor, it can choose to fund proposals that align with or uphold its own interpretation.
Let’s imagine a hypothetical conference about smart software. The funding entities are part of the Stanford AI Lab persuasion. What happens when Dr. Timnit Gebru and her fellow travelers propose a paper? In an objective, academic, Ivory Tower world, the papers are picked based on some arbitrary set of PhD-infused criteria? What happens if an IBM- or Google-type outfit funds the conference? Forget that Ivory Tower handwaving. The idea will be to advance the agenda. Snorkel, cognitive computing, whatever.
What happens when a history major with an MBA attends the conference looking for something in which to invest his financial firm’s hard earned assets? Is this MBA able to differentiate the goose feathers from the giblets? In my opinion, the MBA will select from the knowledge buffet. Think about a boxed conference lunch sponsored by the keynote speaker’s company? Do you want cheese with your chicken or do you want cheese? See there is a choice. In reality, one takes what is served.
Even “research” has been converted into information warfare. Objective and exciting, right?
Is the conference organizer complicit? Yep.
Stephen E Arnold March 14, 2022
Standard Operating Procedure for High School Science Club Leaders?
March 14, 2022
Unfortunately the tech industry remains predominantly white and male. Tech companies state they have taken initiatives to boost the number of women and ethnic minorities employees. The Conversation discusses the lack of diversity in the article, “The Tech Industry Talks About Boosting Diversity, But Research Shows Little Improvement.” The Conversation conducted a study to see if the numbers of women and ethnic minorities increased. The news Web site used machine learning and firm level data on employment diversity from 6,163 tech companies.
Despite all the hype from the tech industry, the study results are surprising and yet not so much:
“We found that 80% of firms displayed a pattern of very minimal increases in diversity in their professional labor force, primarily driven by small increases in the employment of Asian men and Asian women, with declines among non-Asian women and no change among other minority men. We also found that this widespread pattern reflects much slower movement toward employment diversity in this sector than in the rest of the U.S. labor force.”
There was some diversity growth with a 5.9% decline in the amount of white male executives. More women and ethnic minorities were moved to leadership positions, but it could be a PR stunt/defensive response to demonstrate companies are diverse. In reality, the companies are not dedicating resources to diversifying their labor force.
Companies that exhibited the most diversity had the most growth, so were hiring more employees. Diversity looks good for businesses and/or newer, innovative companies know how to effectively have diverse employees.
Tech companies, however, strongly remain in their attached to their outdated hiring practices. Newer companies are likely to make these practices extinct, but it will be a while before they dominate the industry. It could also be a marketing ploy, because that takes less effort.
Whitney Grace, March 14, 2022
AI Tools to Eliminate the Human Touch from Digital Marketing
March 9, 2022
For both better and worse, algorithms can help humans do many things. For example, it can now automate junk content. Oh goodie. Digital marketing blog Crunch Hype shares its “Top 9 Free AI Tools that Make your Life Easier.” The first is a tool that may be angling for my job. Writer Adil Ahmad tells us:
“First one on the list is copy.ai. It is an AI based copy writer tool. Basically what a copywriter tool does is, it gives you content that you can post on your blog or video when you give it a few descriptions about the topic you want content on.So copy ai can help you write instagram captions gives you blog idea, product descriptions, facebook content, startup ideas, viral ideas, a lot of things it can do, you just make an account in this website, then select a tool and fill in the necessary description and the AI will generate content on what you ask for. For tutorials go to their official Youtube channel .An awesome tool that is going to be really handy in the future.”
Thank goodness our dear leader Stephen E Arnold cares enough about quality content to employ actual people. For anyone who is curious, a quick search suggests Ahmad is also human. He also goes on to list several tools that clean up or augment images, including one he really likes but recognizes can be a bit disturbing, Deep Nostalgia:
“So what makes it really cool is that fact that you can upload an old photo of your family and see them animate and living. Which is pretty cool and creepy at the same time if they are dead already.. Really amazing service from myheritage, I created a lot of cool animations with my old photos as well as with the photos of my grandparents.”
Navigate to the site for a taste of this disquieting tool. Also included in the list is a marketing video maker, a logo generator, and a tool that can generate both a logo and suggest brand names based on keywords. Some of these could be helpful—creating a logo is a famously difficult task, for example, and those tools could at least offer a starting point. But I have to hope algorithms will not replace content creators entirely. At least not before I am ready to retire.
Cynthia Murrell, March 9, 2022
Interesting Chatbot Findings
March 2, 2022
I am an old geezer. I remember when one could call or stop by a store and ask a humanoid a question. If that humanoid did not know the answer, there was a chance that the clueless humanoid could ask another allegedly more informed humanoid over to consider my question.
Not any more. I have to figure out how to find a company online. This is not often easy for a wide range of reasons. Then I have to locate the “contact” button. Then I have to identify crosswalks or work a math problem. And then I can fill out a form? At no point in the process is a humanoid offered as a solution.
Many, many Web sites are embracing smart software which either talk like the weird pitches on junk telemarketing calls or through a pop up box into which one types. The smart software on the receiving end determines how to answer. Some of the really nifty approaches include referring me to the firm’s Web site again or displaying a list of links which the smart software has determined with 55 percent confidence will address my issue. Sure, sure.
I was surprised when I read “Report: Two-Thirds of Consumers Would Rather Use a Chatbot Than Browse a Website.” Here’s the key statement in the write up:
According to Botco.ai, not only do eight out of 10 people say they’ve used a chatbot in the past, but the vast majority of consumers — 70% — say that chatbots typically answer all or most of their questions satisfactorily.
And who sponsored the study? And what does the sponsor do to make money? You get one guess.
Did you say, “This outfit is in the chatbot business”? If so, you are sort of correct.
Just one question: How does one locate and use a chatbot?
Did you say, “On a company’s Web site”? If so, you are right again.
Do I have confidence in this finding?
Nope. Why not label this type of document “Marketing”?
Stephen E Arnold, March 2, 2022
Microsoft: The Security Supremo Cloud Pitch
February 28, 2022
I read “Microsoft’s New Security Chief Says It Is Time to Take Shelter in the Cloud.” The write up reports:
Microsoft has been hit by a series of high-profile cyber intrusions in recent years. In December 2020, the company said it had been compromised by the hackers behind the cyberattack on SolarWinds Corp.—a group that U.S. officials have linked to the Russian government. Months later, Microsoft’s widely used email product, Exchange, was targeted by a cyberattack that was eventually linked to the Chinese government.
I know. So now Microsoft wants me to trust their cloud service because it is more secure?
What’s interesting is that a former Amazon AWS executive is in charge. Apparently he has addressed assorted security concerns. He is, if true, a fast worker or a faster PR content generator.
The write up points to February 22, 2022, as the day it asserted it would repurpose the Microsoft security products for the Google cloud. Keep in mind that Microsoft security is compatible with Amazon’s cloud.
The write up includes this statement:
In addition to the SolarWinds and Exchange cyberattacks, the company in August had to repair a flaw in the Azure cloud—strategically Microsoft’s most-critical business—after a cybersecurity company found a bug that left customer data exposed. The Azure bug, which was discovered by the cybersecurity company Wiz Inc., rattled some Microsoft customers because it showed how hackers could steal data from thousands of customers by targeting one part of Microsoft’s cloud.
Saying security is different from delivering security. In some ways, Microsoft’s penchant for distraction with the wonky Windows 11 release and then the super spectacular metaverse game type thing have worked.
Now security is back in the spotlight. Oh, just move everything to the cloud. Lock in? Yep. More expensive? For some yes. Put all the eggs in one basket with some security issues? Sure, that makes perfect sense.
If you are doubtful about the cloud, navigate to “Report: 76% of IT Pros Say That Cloud Has Hit a Wall.” The main idea of that write up is that
multicloud, multitool environments have outgrown the tools and platforms that IT leaders currently rely on.
That’s what’s interesting about the Microsoft security PR. Flawed software? Seems possible.
Remember SolarWinds? Remember Exchange Server?
Stephen E Arnold, February 28, 2022
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
