Monthly Archives: February 2012

Many-to-One?

There are many advertising and communication models used by marketers today. A particular subset that I find very descriptive, direct, and conceptually easy to understand is that of one-to-many, one-to-one, and, many-to-many. Clear. Concise. Sequential. Wouldn’t the next logical progression in this model be many-to-one? After all, isn’t it the ultimate goal of marketing to bring the many to the one? Namely, the product or service sold by the corporation?

Let’s pretend for a minute that brand doesn’t matter, and that I actually have a point here. Isn’t many-to-many a little misleading? Facebook is many-to-many and Twitter is many-to-many. Here’s my point: Many-to-many does not exist without a network. Facebook is a media network. A corporate Facebook page is not.

Many-to-many does not exist without the goal of bringing many-to-one. So how do marketers practically participate in the many-to-many advertising and communication model? Easy, bring the many to the one by creating your own network.

KLM's Meet & Seat

Continue reading


Kung Fu Panda 2, Google, and the Rebirth of Infographics

Google PandaEverybody loves a good infographic. You know, those big data illustration thingies. I especially appreciate them when I’m reading an article that’s just a little beyond my comprehension; I like the mental push I get from a well-done infographic.  Infographics come in many formats, which are often times combined: statistical, timeline, process or flow, map, and conceptual. Oh, yeah, and they drive huge amounts of search engine traffic.

Algorithms Cha-cha-cha

Google burst to the top of the search engine market in 1998, not because it could index webpages faster, but because it did a better job at ranking and weighting them. In other words, it had a better system of algorithms for assigning relevance. Google then concocted its own supply and demand, as it were, by selling the results of searchable keywords through AdWords; A pay-per-click service (PPC), which still generates the majority of Google’s revenue.

Continue reading


“…and so on, and so on and …”

Don’t worry, I’m not going to use the Faberge Organic Shampoo commercial as an introduction into yet another social media post, nor will I declare that then-Faberge CEO George Barrie should be dubbed the Father of Social Media . . . and so on, and so on, and so on.

Continue reading


Second Screen Experiences: A higher state of consciousness or more opiates for the masses?

TV watchers are an easy target for those who damn the activity. Their indignations always seem to fall upon a lack of intelligence boob tube, couch potato, idiot box, and the glorification of books. These haughty assertions are hard to refute for those of us who enjoy a good brain deadening experience, because the evidence is rather conclusive. Studies show that while watching TV, brain wave activity almost entirely switches from our left brain, which is linear, logical, and ordered, to our right brain, which is intuitive, creative, and random. This transfer “numbs” the left brain, leaving our right brain in charge.  That explains my late night urges to frequent a Wendy’s drive through.

A study commissioned by Yahoo and Nielson found that 86% of mobile users are on the web while watching their favorite shows, especially sports and reality TV. This phenomenon is part of the social TV movement called the “second screen.” That’s right, as a species we are instinctively evolving. These dual activities are reinstating a natural order by stimulating our left brain with verbal and problem solving activities, while appeasing the other half with imagery and entertainment. TV. An addiction, or a necessary evolutionary step toward a higher state of consciousness?

Continue reading