posts about or somewhat related to ‘advertising’
"Facebook has been aggressively marketing social endorsements, which it calls sponsored stories. For example, if you post that you love McDonald’s new Mighty Wings on the chain’s Facebook page, McDonald’s could pay Facebook to broadcast your kind words to all your friends."
"Twitter also enables advertisers to show public tweets in their ads, but requires advertisers to get the permission of the original author of a message before using it in an ad."
Nothing to see here. This is just the natural movement of companies finding ways to monetize the personal information you give them. If you don’t want to be in an ad, don’t endorse products online.
FJP: To opt out of Google’s “shared endorsements,” head here. Scroll to the bottom of the page and uncheck the box.
Related: Citing lack of use of its universal privacy controls, Facebook announced earlier this week that it was doing away with them and instead asks Users to select privacy settings on a post by post basis.
The caveat, of course, is that when Facebook says only a few percent of its Users use something, we’re talking millions of people.
Instagram, the photo-sharing app that Facebook acquired last year, just added the ability to share videos, as well. It’s a copy of Vine, which is owned by chief rival Twitter. But whereas Vine lets users upload videos up to 6 seconds long, Instagram has opted for a maximum length of 15 seconds, and the difference is more significant than just 9 seconds.
Which, according to Quartz, is a strategic move:
An Instagram with 15-second videos is right in the sweet spot for Facebook: It’s mobile, it’s video, and at that length, it means that advertisers can drop in their short television spots without even modifying them. This is an important but overlooked feature of online video ads, when compared to other kinds like banner and search: the ability to re-use the same creative on which advertisers have already spent so much money. That’s an extremely appealing advantage to ad buyers.
FJP: Interesting take. 15 seconds does feel a bit long for the Instagram attention span. Here’s a Digiday round-up of reactions to Instagram video.
A trade group says that newspapers like the New York Times have seen large increases in circulation, but that’s partly because they are allowed to count their readers multiple times. The industry needs to do better. →
The latest circulation gains for the NYT and others came courtesy of the Alliance for Audited Media (formerly known as the Audit Bureau of Circulations), an industry group composed of advertising agencies and publishers. The group noted that the numbers are not really comparable to the previous year’s results for a number of reasons, including the fact that some newspapers have launched new subscription formats, stopped printing every day and so on.
As Edmund Lee at Bloomberg points out, the AAM survey — which is somewhat ironically locked behind a paywall — also allows publishers to count their readers multiple times, according to rules adopted recently by the group. In other words, newspapers can count someone who reads the newspaper in print, on the web and on their Kindle as three separate readers. But doesn’t this inflate their readership numbers unreasonably? It sure does. The bottom line is that no one really knows what the “real” readership numbers are for newspapers.
Some argue this has always been the case with newspapers, which is true: publishers have routinely engaged in all kinds of shady tricks to boost their circulation — including special discounts for bulk purchases by hotels and airlines and other giveaways, and even dumping large quantities into ravines or pulping them after printing. On top of that, many papers have inflated their readership numbers for years by claiming that each copy gets read by as many as five people, an estimate that borders on the ridiculous.