DailyDirt: Faster Food, Faster!

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

There are a lot of food options out there, and fast food is certainly one of the more popular choices for people on the go. Not surprisingly, though, fast food establishments usually don't have the best reputation for healthy dining, but some of them are trying to change their image. Here are just a few stories on fast food news.

• Burger King is testing out a home delivery service for its food in the DC area. Best sentence in the coverage: "There are some real food-quality issues here," says Ron Paul, president of research firm Technomic. [url]
• McDonald's tried a social marketing campaign on Twitter, asking for customers to tell some of their #McDStories. Oops. They didn't expect the #McSnideRemarks -- which is par for the course on the internet. [url]
• Yum! Brands restaurants (eg. Taco Bell, KFC, Pizza Hut...) in Kentucky lobbied to accept food stamps -- but some people don't think that's a good idea. Others argue that it's a step up from getting food from a gas station. [url]
• To discover more food-related links, check out what's floating around in StumbleUpon. [url]  

By the way, StumbleUpon can also recommend some good Techdirt articles, too.

Filed Under: #mcdstories, food, marketing
Companies: burger king, kfc, mcdonalds, pizza hut, taco bell, yum brands

Major Media Owning SOPA/PIPA Supporters Whine That They Had No Way To Have Their Message Heard

from the oh-come-on dept

We've been pointing out that one of the big reasons why the MPAA/RIAA and others failed in their efforts to rush through SOPA/PIPA was that they have been totally and completely tone deaf to what's happening online. And it appears that's continuing. The LA Times had a bizarre article over the weekend, where people were suggesting that the MPAA needed to "do a lot of test messaging," to see what would work in convincing the public that censoring the internet is a good thing. Test messaging? Seriously?!? They still seem to think that this is about a lobbying or PR campaign, rather than actually engaging and hearing what people have to say.

Even more ridiculous is the new talking point that both the MPAA and the RIAA are apparently "test messaging" currently. And it's that they -- who own all of the major media outlets around -- are somehow at a disadvantage in communicating their views to the public. I'm not kidding. In that article above, Chris Dodd from the MPAA is quoted as saying:

"You've got an opponent who has the capacity to reach millions of people with a click of a mouse and there's no fact-checker. They can say whatever they want."

Yup, that's the new MPAA talking point: "if only you moron internet kids couldn't actually say what you want!" Does anyone actually brief Dodd about how best not to make it totally transparent that he wants to censor the internet?

But the RIAA is passing along the exact same message. Dodd's counterpart at the RIAA, Cary Sherman, is quoted as saying basically the same thing in the NY Times:

“It’s very difficult to counter the misinformation when the disseminators also own the platform.”

First of all, this is ridiculous on all sorts of levels. Was it true that some of those against the bill weren't completely up on the facts? Yes. But, lots of us were clear on our facts, cited specific language in the bill, and were quick to correct those who stated things that were incorrect.

But much more to the point: we're talking about all of the major media companies in the world who were in support of this thing, and they're seriously claiming that they didn't have the means to get their message out? Who the hell do they think they're fooling? They own all the major TV networks, all the cable news networks, the majority of top magazines, a bunch of top radio stations... and most of those media outlets refused to give critics of these bills the time of day. But suddenly they're claiming they couldn't get their message out? Give me a break.

Even worse, let's compare the two platforms: SOPA/PIPA supporters completely own TV. But TV is a broadcast medium. They could put on whatever propaganda they wanted, and there'd be no way to guarantee a right to a response on TV. The internet, however, is a communications medium, where anyone can take part. So unlike the reverse situation, the supporters of the bill had every opportunity to counter the claims of people online if they felt they were being misrepresented. The real problem was that, for the most part, they weren't being misrepresented. The problem was that people were saying what the bill would actually do, and Hollywood wanted people to focus on what they wanted people to believe the bill would really do. Reality, it seems, has a strong anti-Hollywood bias.

Filed Under: cary sherman, chris dodd, copyright, marketing, media, message, pipa, protect ip, sopa, test marketing
Companies: mpaa, riaa

Network TV Execs Discover What Pirates Always Knew: Making Stuff Available Online Is Good Marketing

from the wait,-what? dept

Want to understand just how tone deaf and clueless the legacy entertainment industry players are these days? It appears that network TV execs have just discovered the brilliant idea of using the internet to pre-release TV shows in an effort to build up buzz and an audience who will watch the full series. The stunning thing here is that these are the very same companies who go absolutely ballistic if their works get "leaked" early online -- and insist that criminal penalties are needed to stop this kind of action. It's really quite amazing how these execs are coming to the same conclusion that pretty much every internet user came to years ago: just make the damn stuff available. Instead, they're acting like it's some big revelation:

The networks have embraced the idea — originally hatched by cable networks — of introducing initial episodes of their shows through other distribution outlets like YouTube before they have their premiere on their own schedules.

Yes, the same YouTube that Viacom is still trying to sue out of existence. The same YouTube that supporters of PIPA and SOPA still insist is really a den of "piracy" from which Google unfairly profits.

So, here's a simple question: How much are these networks paying YouTube/Google for the use of YouTube's software, bandwidth and audience? Nothing? Damn those TV networks... just wanting all that stuff for free. But, more to the point, if laws like PIPA and SOPA were put in place a few years ago, the networks wouldn't even have a YouTube to do this. This is what's most stunning about all of this. They seem to think that they've come up with something brilliant and new here, when this is all that "pirates" were doing earlier: putting stuff online to make it accessible. When "pirates" do it, it's theft? And when companies do it, it's some brilliant marketing scheme? How's that work?

Filed Under: free, marketing, networks, online, piracy, streaming, tv

Paul Christoforo Doesn't Seem To Know How To Stop Digging A Deeper Hole Of Internet Infamy

from the wow dept

Remember Paul Christoforo? The "marketing rep" for the Avenger gaming controllers who caused quite a stir this week by doing just about everything wrong in responding to a customer service request, and then missing no opportunity to make the situation worse at every turn -- especially after Gabe (aka Mike Krahulik from Penny Arcade) got involved. It involved pretty much everything: dreadful customer service, false claims, anger, curses, bravado, promises that couldn't be kept, an absolute refusal to back down, and an apology for getting caught (rather than an apology for the actual actions).

You might think that, after the widespread backlash and a couple days to reflect (especially after getting fired from handling the Avenger account), Paul might come back a bit more humble and with a bit more perspective on what he did. In fact, that's exactly what I expected when I saw the headline of Kotaku's interview with him: Chastened Gaming Rep Paul Christoforo Responds to Internet Infamy.

Then I read it. And, all I can say is that Paul doesn't seem to know how to stop himself from digging himself a deeper hole. A recommendation: in the future, maybe just don't speak up. Even as he claims to have learned his lesson, his words show that he still wants to blame others and doesn't seem to recognize why what he did was wrong. He makes additional questionable statements, such as contradicting himself in the same interview.

A chastened Christoforo is now looking for forgiveness from the Internet community he unwittingly antagonized, saying in an interview with MSNBC.com's In-Game he was "caught on a bad day" and that he hopes they will "let sleeping dogs lie."

"They've pretty much ruined me in the past 24 hours," Christoforo said. "It was humbling a little bit, but life goes on. I'm not going to die."

"Life goes on" and "I'm not going to die" are actually good mantras for getting through a tough situation, so I won't begrudge him those statements, but the overall sentiment that comes across here is that he's brushing off what happened, as if he needs to just ride out the storm, rather than fix what he did wrong. As for that first statement, about how he was ruined... just hang onto that one for a second, because soon after that, we get:

Yet despite all the drama, Christoforo said he hasn't lost any of his other accounts, aside from Avenger. "It hasn't affected my business yet," he said. "Clients have brought it up, but they've mainly laughed about it. I haven't lost any clients."

Wait, what happened to him being "ruined"? Then almost immediately after that he says it "hasn't affected" his business? I'm curious how many of his clients actually "laughed" about it. But really that's not the worst of it. As the interview goes on, Paul seems to show less and less understanding of what happened here.

"I didn't know who that guy at Penny Arcade was," he admitted. "If I had known, I would have treated the situation a little better. PAX is a great show. What he does is what I've been idlolizing since I was a kid. It's admirable he's put that together. He has a lot of connections, ones I want too."

Who Gabe is really is kind of meaningless here. Paul seems to be suggesting that it's okay to be a complete asshole to people so long as they're not important or don't have "connections." But if someone has "connections" then you should be nice to them. This certainly fits with Paul's claims during the email exchange, where he kept claiming that he had some special "connections."

As for all those "connections" he claimed? Yeah, not so much...

Regarding the litany of names Christoforo's e-mail called up as potential supporters - a list that included everyone from Epic Games' Cliff Bleszinski to the mayor of Boston - he said the tactic was meant to "impress, not to threaten" and didn't come through correctly because "you can't see tone of voice in email."

"I don't know the mayor of Boston," he admitted. "That was taken totally out of context, I was just joking around. I am from Boston, though, and I know a lot of people people who own clubs. I know some influential people, like the guy who runs the door at the convention center.

Saying something you wish you didn't isn't others taking something "totally out of context." It just means you made up stuff and got called on it. And, um, the guy who runs the door at a convention center isn't generally considered "influential." Finally, nothing in the email suggested that naming those "connections" was meant to "impress, not to threaten."

And then there's this part, in which he shows that he's not really apologetic at all:

"He called me a bully, but he was being a bully ... especially when he emailed me out of the blue, saying 'That's f***ing s***ty, you're banned from PAX,' I was like 'Who the f*** are you? That's how you introduce yourself? ... I dont want to call him out, but he could have gone about that a totally different way, he could have said, 'Hey, I run the show, that email was a little unprofessional, if you don't do something to apologize I don't want you at my show.' But he just came at me and said, indirectly, 'Hey, f*** you, you're banned from PAX.' Is that what you'd call professional? I wouldn't."

Christoforo also said his response was driven in part by what he saw as the disrespectful tone of the messages that came before it. "Not that I don't have respect for anybody, but if someone's badmouthing me or being a little punk or being a jerk, they don't deserve respect," he said. "You can't expect to go up and say 'Hey you piece of s***,' and expect respect. Send an email, introduce yourself. ... I trust everybody until they give me a reason not to respect them. I'm not a tough guy, not a bully, but at same time not going to take s*** if it's uncalled for.

Basically he's still blaming the others in the conversation, and even suggesting that they should have gone about things differently. In fact, he seems to suggest that they provoked him into his reaction. At this point, it might be worth going back to the original email thread, to see who started the hostilities. The customer, Dave, was nothing but polite through a series of perplexing emails. It's Paul who kicks off the hostilities with a totally uncalled for email that first tells Dave that his order will be cancelled if he dares to try to reorder at the new, cheaper price, and then pulls out:

You placed a pre order just like any software title the gets a date moved due to the tweaks and bugs not being worked out and GameStop or any other place holds your cash and im sure you don’t complain to activision or epic games so put on your big boy hat and wait it out like everyone else. The benefit is a token of our appreaciation for everyone no one is special including you or any first time buyer . Feel free to cancel we need the units were back ordered 11,000 units so your 2 will be gone fast. Maybe I’ll put them on eBay for 150.00 myself.

Sorry, but I don't see how that's anyone's fault by Paul's.

Then there's this:

"Ultimately, if I was able to control the customer, it never would have happened. I've dealt with thousands and thousands of customers with similar complaints, they were all asking the same question. When is it big enough that it hits the news? When it hits Penny Arcade, when it hits a guy who has the biggest affiliations in the industry."

He still thinks it's about controlling the customer, not responding to Dave's very legitimate and real requests.

Finally, at the end, he seems to admit that perhaps he was really at fault here:

So what lessons has Christoforo taken from his brush with Internet infamy? "I'll definitely stay away from customer service emails," he said. "I could have nipped this all in the bud by being a little nicer. You never know who knows who, and lesson learned. We all have bad days and they caught me on one."

"At the end of the day, I'm a human being, and it feels like the entire world was bullying me," he said. "I want people to like me, I don't want people to think I'm a bad person. ... I made a mistake. ... I hope I can make something positive out of it."

We agree, and hope that he can make something positive out of it, but it's got to start with ditching the claim that he's somehow the victim in all of this and trying to excuse his behavior.

Filed Under: customers, marketing, paul christoforo, penny arcade
Companies: ocean marketing

The Latest Entrant In 'How Not To Do Marketing' In An Online World: Ocean Marketing Fail

from the easy-to-boil-this-ocean dept

One of the key points that we've been making for years is that, in an online world, pissing off (or simply not caring about) customers is no longer a viable business strategy. A good business today recognizes that the customers' best interests are also the company's best interests. If you don't realize that... well, then you get into a situation like Paul Christoforo and Ocean Marketing that's taken the internet world by storm today. It begins with a must read email thread posted at Penny Arcade. Seriously, just go read the whole thing.

The short version for those who don't read it, is that a guy, Dave, who pre-ordered some gaming controllers that hadn't arrived, emailed Ocean Marketing and got back less than optimal customer service from Christoforo, who runs Ocean Marketing. Actually, he got back obnoxious customer service. Beyond not being helpful Christoforo is outright insulting of the customer (who has already paid for the item not yet delivered) and bragging about how "connected" he is. In response, the customer (Dave) wrote back explaining why this was totally unacceptable, and cc'd some various gaming websites/blogs. Gabe (aka Mike Krahulik) from PA chimed in, especially when he saw Christorofo brush off Dave by mentioning PA's own event PAX East. After replying to both that Christoforo won't be allowed to exhibit at PAX, Christoforo (apparently not realizing who he was dealing with) simply makes a bad situation worse:

We’re not renting a booth at pax east this year , bigger and better shows to be at we got nothing from the show . Oh so you know this guy has sold over 500 thousand dollars of product in Dec and is my main distribution arm landing us in GameStop , fry’s , Myers , Best buy , Activision , MLG , play N trade and a lot more . Were in 6 countries and you’re not going to take my money for a booth that’s a crock I can guarantee I’ll get a booth if I want one money buys a lot and connections go even further. He’s a native Bostonian from Little Italy . Who are you again ?

Amazingly, this actually comes after Dave had told Mike "Please don’t cancel their booth on my account. As much as I hate this asshole, I still WANT his product and think it should be out there." Mike explains to Christoforo that he runs PAX, but Christoforo still doesn't get it:

OK Mike whatever you say lol , are you sure hour not in Boston I spoke to the person who ran the show in Boston last year. If you let some little kid influence you over a pre order then we don’t want to be a your show ,Ill be on the floor anyway so come find me , I’m born and raised in Boston I know the people who run the city inside and out watch the way you talk to people you never know who they know it’s a small industry and everyone knows everyone. Your acting like a douchbag not that it matters pax east pax west , e3 , CES , Gamer Con , SSXW ,Comic Con, Germany I’m all over the place. If we want to be there we will be there with industry badges or with a booth you think I can’t team up with turtle beach , Callibur or Koy Christmas , I can’t get Kevin Kelly to pull some strings or G4 , Paul Eibler Ex CEO of take 2 , Rich Larocco Konami , Cliff Blizinski Epic who were working with on a gears version , Activision who were working with on a MW3 and Spider man Bundle , The Convention Center Owners themselves , Mayor of Boston come on Bud you run a show that’s all you do and lease a center in Cities you have no pull in its all about who you know not what you do. I’ll see space where ever I want , with who I want when I want and where I want so many ways around you and so many connections in this industry its silly. Anyway , I have no issue with you Sean Buckley Engadget, Scott Lowe IGN and the list goes on and on. Little kids unhappy with a PRE ORDER starting trouble and you email that to us , he’s a customer unless you’re his boyfriend then you should side with the company not the customer. Be Careful

And it gets worse from there. Of course, once Gabe posted it to Penny Arcade, it started to get picked up elsewhere including (of course) Reddit, and from there it just began exploding. Popehat has a bunch of links including the fact that Christoforo went ballistic on Scott Lowe from IGN, after Lowe told Christoforo to stop saying IGN supported him. Christoforo responded on Tiwtter calling him a "douchebag" and suggesting that because he sent IGN review units he should support him. That tweet has since been removed, but the screenshot lives on.

Separately, people have turned up more examples of poor customer service experiences involving Ocean Marketing and Christoforo, as well as claims that Ocean Marketing has been plagiarizing a ton of articles from around the web on its own blog. Andrew Galbraith from Examiner.com has the details:

It seems the plot has thickened a bit further. Apparently, as pointed out by @williambgoss on twitter, Ocean Marketing has been lifting articles from across the web for their blog with little to no attribution of sources whatsoever. An article published on Forbes is clearly posted wholesale on the Ocean Marketing blog with no sourcing roughly two weeks after initially hitting the web. Moreover, the same is done with a BizReport article, appearing as Ocean Marketing's "original work" no less than two days later.  

The story has been getting picked up in a ton of places, but you have to wonder why anyone would hire Christoforo to market any of their products ever again. The Popehat link above notes that when you outsource your marketing, you're outsourcing your reputation. And that can be dangerous...

In the meantime, it appears that Christoforo, beyond digging himself a deeper hole, has also tried to well, dig himself a deeper hole. He first threatened to have his "lawyers" contact Penny Arcade, followed up by some begging:

"You have the power Mike Please make it stop"

Of course, as Gabe/Mike points out, he really doesn't have the power. Once these things are out there, they're out there. Then comes the non-apology apology, where Christoforo apologies for not knowing how big Penny Arcade/PAX are and for getting exposed -- but not for his actual actions:

I just wanted to apologize for the way our emails progressed I didn’t know how big your site was and I really didn’t believe you ran Pax , So for what’s its worth I am very sorry. Your post has obviously made my life very difficult and I have not slept yet dealing with all the spam and personal information intrusion as well as my family being smeared on the internet.

That's not a real apology at all. That's someone digging even deeper.

Update: Ah, and now reports of pretending to be someone else. Kotaku apparently reached out to Bruce Brandon Leidel, who had been their contact in the past on the controller in question, and they noticed something odd in the response -- which suggested that it actually came from Christoforo. Then Leidel apparently reached out to Kotaku separately saying that he no longer works with that client, in part because of Christoforo...

Filed Under: customers, marketing, paul christoforo, penny arcade

Epic Games On The Future Of Triple-A Game Development Marketing And Pricing

from the the-future-is-inevitable dept

In a pair of interviews with Develop, Epic Games' Mike Capps shares his thoughts on some of the problems the industry faces by having focused on AAA game development for so long. According to Capps, this focus on AAA games, or games with large budgets and high production values, has led to the death of lower quality but still good AA games.

In the first interview, Capps was asked if the death of AA game development and the rising costs of AAA game development is good for the gamer.

No, no I don't think so at all. Certainly as a gamer I don't think what's going on is a good thing. Triple-A is as much about marketing these days as it is about production values.

Take a game like BulletStorm, for example. That game was supported and well reviewed but just didn't break out. It wasn't a failure, but it wasn't a success that could fund a series of projects either. That's a game that I think people loved but it's not one that gets the $100 million marketing budget, because that amount of money is only spent on a few sure-fire hits and annualised sequels.

There's a lot of great games out there that don't take off. How many games have you loved that sell less than three million units? There's probably dozens. Those games can't get made in today's games economy. So no, I don't think it's a good thing that the middle-class of games have gone away.

Here he lays out some of the concerns over marketing allocation for games. While publishers will release a number of games during the year, the vast majority of the marketing budget is spent on only one or two hits. However, he feels that this is changing in gaming. Capps feels that there is a marketing shift from direct marketing to building a community behind games.

I'm not an expert here, but there is a huge impact from non-commercial marketing these days with things like Facebook and Twitter. If you don't spam people then you can be very useful to your customers. We were not forward-thinking in that area, but we're really driving in this space now and have more than one million Facebook fans.

But other forms of marketing and PR are starting to change things. The focus is changing from shoving TV ads in people's faces to actually building a community.

I don't know if there will be the same amount of TV adverts in five years' time. No one gets fired for buying TV ads, because they make sense, but soon they will start to make less and less sense. I think what could happen is a lot of money can be saved with less TV adverts and that itself, perhaps, could free up more money to take more risks and be more creative.

Such a move can certainly help the viability of AA games in the market. Many game developers, specifically in the indie scene, have learned that building a community behind a game increases the word of mouth exposure of the game and the developer. As AAA publishers shift to a community focused marketing strategy, they will be able to focus more on the games themselves.

Moving on to the second interview, Capps feels that pricing restrictions on consoles are also part of the problem of less viable AA games.

I think another thing that's changed is the way people are willing to spend their money. Consoles need to adapt to this. Game revenue has moved to the service model and the microtransactions model. Consoles need to start being comfortable with that. They need to be able to do something where small virtual items can be sold and bought for 20¢ without a long certification process and a price approval process.

Right now we're not even allowed to change the prices of virtual content. We're not even allowed to set the prices. I just don't think this protectionist approach is going to be successful in a world where the price of virtual items changes on a day-today basis.

Double-A games will never come back unless we get rid of this notion of a game being $60 or not released. The console manufacturers need to let this happen. The best way of driving developers to PC is telling them they have no freedom in what prices they can set for virtual items. It would be great to have the level of freedom that, say, Steam gives you.

On the surface, this may seem contridictory to comments Capps made earlier in the year about how $1 games are destroying the games industry. Hopefully, Capps is just seeing the folly of that view point and instead feels as he is expressing now, that console manufacturers need too allow more price flexibility. While they probably don't need to let prices drop to $1, having more available pricing options will only help some games.

As game development further moves into the realities brought by the digital age, there will be companies lost as they try to hold onto old business models that may have worked in the past but do not work today or will not work tomorrow. As Capps has shared, marketing and pricing are two aspects that will change the fastest. As gamers rely less and less on television and print media for gaming announcements and move more toward social media for that information, game publishers will need to adapt or they will be left behind. As console manufacturers continue to insist on complete control over game pricing, gamers will move toward platforms that allow for less expensive fare that provides just as much enjoyment. Times change and so do markets. Epic Games seems to be on a path toward success in this new age, how many other developers and publishers will join them?

Filed Under: marketing, pricing, video games
Companies: epic games

Microsoft's $844 Million Software Giveaway To Nonprofits: Pure Charity Or Cheap Marketing?

from the free-now-pay-later dept

Microsoft has just released its 2011 Annual Financial Report. But alongside that document's dry facts about its $69.9 billion turnover, and the operating income of $27.2 billion, Dj Walker-Morgan pointed us to a more interesting publication, Microsoft's 2011 Citizenship Report:

We release our Citizenship Report at the same time as our Annual Financial Report to give our broad base of stakeholders a full view of Microsoft’s financial and non-financial performance. Corporate responsibility means more than returning value to shareholders – it means engaging with stakeholders to address our responsibilities in the areas of environmental, social and governance issues. We believe all corporations have, as part of their license to operate, a responsibility to contribute positively to society on a global scale. To quote our company’s founder, Bill Gates: "It takes more than great products to make a great company."

So let's just take a look at the things Microsoft has been doing to "contribute positively to society on a global scale". Here's one detail:

We have increased corporate charitable giving year-over-year since fiscal year 2008, despite economic challenges. Our employees volunteered more time—more than 380,000 hours in the U.S. alone. We also contributed more cash and in-kind support to nonprofits—$949 million globally.

That's nearly $1 billion of cash and in-kind support to nonprofits – a big number. There's a web page devoted to these activities, with this paragraph giving some more information:

In FY2011 we donated more than $844 million in software to 46,886 nonprofits in 113 countries/regions.The value of software we have donated globally since 1998 is more than $3.9 billion. The FY2011 value of software donated now includes employee software donations; previous years’ in-kind giving numbers do not.

This means that of the $949 million dollars "contributed" to nonprofits, $844 million -- 88% – was actually software, presumably Microsoft's, since it's unlikely it went out and bought it from competitors.

What's harder to judge is how much that $844 million worth of software actually cost Microsoft: the specific phrase used is "fair market value". This has quite a well-defined meaning in US tax law:

The fair market value is the price at which the property would change hands between a willing buyer and a willing seller, neither being under any compulsion to buy or to sell and both having reasonable knowledge of relevant facts.

Now, I'm not suggesting that the people who put up the web page about Microsoft's contributions to nonprofits were following that definition exactly. But equally, it seems likely that the gist is the same: it's a kind of rough price that you'd usually find in normal markets selling the products in question. And those prices are almost certainly well above the cost of manufacturing, especially if the software was delivered online, or if multiple installations were permitted.

So the actual cost to Microsoft of that donated software is likely to be only a small fraction of the $844 million "fair market value" cited. This inevitably tempers our admiration for Microsoft's ten-figure generosity somewhat.

But there's something else. Microsoft wasn't just handing out a bunch of any old products: it was giving away mostly Windows and Office, judging by a table showing a breakdown by region. Both of these are well-known for the lock-in effects they produce: once you start installing applications and creating documents with them, it's quite hard to move to a completely different platform like Apple or GNU/Linux. Most people don't even try.

So these free copies not only cost Microsoft considerably less than the $844 million figure it used to calculate that near-billion dollar total for its corporate brochure, but it wasn't really altruistic at all. With hundreds of thousands of copies of Windows being distributed (417,030 were supplied for refurbished computers alone), there is a very high probability that Microsoft will be benefiting financially – and not just in terms of goodwill -- from upgrades and follow-on sales for many years to come.

Making copies available at zero or very low prices is something that Microsoft has done time and again whenever there was any danger of customers "defecting" to open source. For example, in 2009, Russia planned to deploy free software throughout its education system. That didn't happen, in part because Microsoft offered to license Windows for $30 a copy (article in Russian.) It's part of the rough and tumble of the highly-competitive software business.

Still, it's a little rich for a company as profitable as Microsoft to try to dress this up as “corporate charitable giving.” It's really nothing of the kind: it's marketing, pure and simple, and Microsoft should be big enough to describe it as such.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: charity, marketing, software
Companies: microsoft

Success Of Mixtapes Finally Making Major Labels Realize That 'Free' Can Be Useful Marketing

from the not-so-awful dept

We were amazed a few years ago when the RIAA, with the help of law enforcement, started going after DJs who made mixtapes, even though those same mixtapes were considered a huge part of the promotional infrastructure of certain parts of the music world (mainly hip hop, but certainly elsewhere as well). Of course, after shutting down and arresting a bunch of mixtape DJs, a bunch of artists just started making and releasing their own damn mixtapes, and doing so for free online. And even though we still see some stories of the RIAA going after "officially released" mixtapes, it seems that even the labels are starting to recognize that free mixtapes help promote artists and aren't worth freaking out about:

"The game favors people that can produce quality music and then turn right around and produce more quality music-which is not a given," Atlantic Records VP of A&R Zvi Edelman says. His signee, Wiz Khalifa, leveraged free, original mixtapes like 2010's "Kush & OJ" and 2011's "Cabin Fever" into the building of a dedicated fan base that helped, along with an intensive touring strategy, make his Atlantic/Rostrum Records debut, "Rolling Papers," one of the few hip-hop debuts to sell more than 500,000 copies (it's now at 570,000, according to Nielsen SoundScan) in 2011.

A batch of newcomers -- such as J. Cole, Big Sean, Dom Kennedy, Mac Miller and Smoke DZA -- has adapted to the consumer demand for free, original rap music. The philosophy is often described this way: As a reward for artists remaining loyal to them (by giving away original music), fans return the favor by buying concert tickets, merchandise and "real" albums from record labels. The result is a give-and-take relationship that keeps rappers in control of their brand and marketing, and iTunes playlists full of free albums disguised as "mixtapes." The payoff is an active fan base, which labels and management hope stimulates retail purchases.

This might be about as close as you can come to big record labels officially admitting that free music actually has value that is monetized elsewhere. But, still, apparently, we need special new laws to shut down the very same marketing that they now want to use to build a stronger fan base.

Filed Under: free, marketing, mixtapes, music

DailyDirt: Studying Advertising As A Science...?

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

There's a quote attributed to John Wanamaker that goes: "Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted; the trouble is I don't know which half." Marketing analytics is getting better all the time, but it's still pretty hard to pin down what really works. (At least the traveling salesman problem has a brute force approach!) Here are just a few interesting links about advertising.

• Sex sells. Here's a project that aims to prove it by advertising to monkeys. Photoshopping the ideal female monkey form must be a pretty weird job... [url]
• There's some research that suggests that the special status of fine art could be lost if used in advertising carelessly. Yah, like when I first heard The Beatles' Revolution in a Nike commercial. [url]
• Authenticity is important -- even to a Nazi. Psychologist Paul Bloom talks about how we're all essentialists at TED and mentions how kids could think veggies are tastier if they're included in a Happy Meal. [url]
• To discover more interesting advertising-related content, check out what's floating around on StumbleUpon. [url]  

By the way, StumbleUpon can recommend some good Techdirt articles, too.

Filed Under: ads, art, authenticity, john wanamaker, marketing, monkeys
Companies: mcdonald's, nike