Motion detection technology firm 3DV is entering a sales agreement with an unnamed third party, thought to be Microsoft.
For weeks people have been speculating that Microsoft will be purchasing the Israeli digital camera technology company for around $34 million, though the platform holder has declined to comment on the matter.
3DV holding company Elron Electronics yesterday announced that it had “entered into a definitive agreement for the sale of substantially all of its assets to a third party.” This sale transaction is expected to close by the second quarter of 2009.
3DV has been designing its camera technologies for some time; its ZCams are said to be a far more accurate version of Sony’s EyeToy, due to the fact that the devices can interpret how far away a subject is from its lens. The technology had reportedly been used in “advanced defense systems”, and has already been described as superior – in terms of accuracy – to the Wii Remote.
This is the start of the NEXT NEXT generation of gaming.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Who Owns Social? Everyone...
Every day new technologies impact the way we live and communicate, disrupting markets in motion and forcing adaptation, innovation and change.
The introduction of the empowered and connected web surfer brought increased prominence to the voice of the individual and the power of the community. While nearly everyone now recognizes the power of social engagement, an intense debate has raged over where this discipline should live. While some have suggested that PR and Digital Agencies are poorly positioned or equipped to address this new communications dynamic (and in many cases they are right), I believe that this is more than a discipline, it is an actionable philosophy that lives across all marketing and communications streams. Oh yeah, and some agencies have proven more than capable at adapting to and activating in the social dynamic as well.
One Size Doesn't Fit's All
Nobody truly owns social. Not a single division within a brand, not a PR agency, not a digital agency, not a word of mouth agency, not an unagency. Social is owned by a team, not by any individual person. Because no one person or agency represents all aspects of the marketing discipline.
* CRM would never own product ideation discussions on their own.
* Engineers would never own customer service discussions on their own.
* Marketers would never own design discussions on their own.
So why would one suggest that social listening, activation or cultivation would live in any single agency?
Agencies Are Evolving
Clearly the face of the agency world is evolving. It always has. And successful agencies will continue to evolve. To suggest that digital agencies can only focus on banners and PR folks can only focus on journalists is ridiculous. New competencies are emerging within agencies of all stripes. New structures are being introduced regularly.
This is not an all-or-nothing world. Just because a capability wasn't embedded in an agency 10 years ago doesn't mean that it can't be there today or in 6 months from now. All it takes is a commitment to learn, to build and to optimize for success.
Good Relationships Often Drive Budgets
Agencies with good relationships with their clients are being asked by their clients to bring social expertise to the table. Smart agencies are proposing these solutions, bringing this expertise in house in advance of these requests, proactively proposing social marketing efforts and when appropriate, are even restructuring their teams to better meet social demands. There are relationships in place, and these should not be tossed out with the wind.
That being said, when agencies fall short of expectations or fail to deliver beyond expectations, smart brands look elsewhere for solutions. And these solutions may come from a "new media shop" or a "social consultant". But even the strongest social solutions should not live in a vacuum. Everyone who impacts the brand and their communications belongs at the table.
We all started somewhere
Even the smartest, most savvy marketer was once a child learning to walk. Part of this process involves falling down. While some of us are not falling down as often as some others, we are all listening to one another. We are all engaging in the same industry conversations, reading the same blogs, participating in many of the same twitter conversations, attending the same events and having many of the same behind closed doors conversations with our peers about what has worked and what hasn't. We may not have the same perspectives, frameworks or operating infrastructure, but one has to believe that anyone with a brain, two ears and eyes, a will and the drive to build successfully can and will do so.
The introduction of the empowered and connected web surfer brought increased prominence to the voice of the individual and the power of the community. While nearly everyone now recognizes the power of social engagement, an intense debate has raged over where this discipline should live. While some have suggested that PR and Digital Agencies are poorly positioned or equipped to address this new communications dynamic (and in many cases they are right), I believe that this is more than a discipline, it is an actionable philosophy that lives across all marketing and communications streams. Oh yeah, and some agencies have proven more than capable at adapting to and activating in the social dynamic as well.
One Size Doesn't Fit's All
Nobody truly owns social. Not a single division within a brand, not a PR agency, not a digital agency, not a word of mouth agency, not an unagency. Social is owned by a team, not by any individual person. Because no one person or agency represents all aspects of the marketing discipline.
* CRM would never own product ideation discussions on their own.
* Engineers would never own customer service discussions on their own.
* Marketers would never own design discussions on their own.
So why would one suggest that social listening, activation or cultivation would live in any single agency?
Agencies Are Evolving
Clearly the face of the agency world is evolving. It always has. And successful agencies will continue to evolve. To suggest that digital agencies can only focus on banners and PR folks can only focus on journalists is ridiculous. New competencies are emerging within agencies of all stripes. New structures are being introduced regularly.
This is not an all-or-nothing world. Just because a capability wasn't embedded in an agency 10 years ago doesn't mean that it can't be there today or in 6 months from now. All it takes is a commitment to learn, to build and to optimize for success.
Good Relationships Often Drive Budgets
Agencies with good relationships with their clients are being asked by their clients to bring social expertise to the table. Smart agencies are proposing these solutions, bringing this expertise in house in advance of these requests, proactively proposing social marketing efforts and when appropriate, are even restructuring their teams to better meet social demands. There are relationships in place, and these should not be tossed out with the wind.
That being said, when agencies fall short of expectations or fail to deliver beyond expectations, smart brands look elsewhere for solutions. And these solutions may come from a "new media shop" or a "social consultant". But even the strongest social solutions should not live in a vacuum. Everyone who impacts the brand and their communications belongs at the table.
We all started somewhere
Even the smartest, most savvy marketer was once a child learning to walk. Part of this process involves falling down. While some of us are not falling down as often as some others, we are all listening to one another. We are all engaging in the same industry conversations, reading the same blogs, participating in many of the same twitter conversations, attending the same events and having many of the same behind closed doors conversations with our peers about what has worked and what hasn't. We may not have the same perspectives, frameworks or operating infrastructure, but one has to believe that anyone with a brain, two ears and eyes, a will and the drive to build successfully can and will do so.
Friday, March 13, 2009
PC Remains an Online Gaming Leader
The PC continues to dominate all other gaming systems in terms of usage for online gaming, research firm NPD Group has found in the study, Online Gaming 2009.
According to NPD among online gamers surveyed, 87 percent play PC games, down from 90 percent from a 2008 survey.
Of the 20K surveyed, 25 percent said they used a console for online gaming, up from 19 percent in 2008.
Xbox 360 led the console online gaming pack, with 50 percent of online gamers saying they use Microsoft's machine to play online. Online gaming usage on the Nintendo Wii increased from 18 percent in 2008 to 29 percent in 2009. PS2 dropped "dramatically," NPD said, while PS3 moved to third place on the usage chart, with 20 percent of online gamers saying they used the system to play online.
Microsoft's concerted effort to make online gaming a major component of its console strategy began when the company decided to include a standard ethernet connection in the original Xbox. The Xbox Live online gaming service launched in 2002. Nintendo has been slower to jump on the online bandwagon, but now offers online play and a storefront, while PS3 has the highly-touted Home virtual world and PlayStation Network.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
The Growth of Smartphones
Technology research firm In-Stat projects smartphone sales will grow strongly over the next five years, accounting for 20% of all handsets globally by 2013, compared to 10% today.
In North America, the number of smartphones will increase 15% annually over the next five years, more than doubling to 62.3 million units in 2013. With prices coming down as the choice of smartphones increases, more than one-third of U.S. wireless users in 2008 said they plan to get a smartphone the next time they upgrade their phone. Today, 36% of U.S. subscribers already own one.
While the iPhone has been the catalyst for expanding the appeal of smartphones to date, In-Stat expects that phones powered by open mobile operating systems -- including Google's Android platform -- will overtake the popular Apple device in the coming years.
So if only 9.1 million Linux-based phones were sold last year compared to 16.2 million iPhones, the ratio will be reversed by 2013 when the former sells 68.1 million units worldwide to the iPhone's 33.4 million.
No one stands to benefit more from that trend than the Web search giant, which unveiled its first phone, T-Mobile's G1, last year. "Google and its partners have the potential to aggressively enter the smartphone segment of the market by creating a development environment that is to be the most convenient for mobile applications development," reads the In-Stat report "Smartphones: Heading to the Mainstream." "This will lead to even greater interest in the smartphone market segment."
The study also indicates that demand for the iPhone will be diluted by the host of imitators it's inspired, including the Samsung Instinct, the BlackBerry Storm, the G1, and the Nokia N97.
While none of these devices has taken off like the iPhone, the hundreds of thousands or more than a million units some have sold, show. A number of competitors including Palm, BlackBerry, Google and Microsoft, are also opening their own mobile app stores to compete more directly with Apple.
What about the impact of the recession on smartphone sales overall? In-Stat says its estimates account for the economic uncertainty that will lead people to cut discretionary spending in the U.S. and worldwide.
In North America, the number of smartphones will increase 15% annually over the next five years, more than doubling to 62.3 million units in 2013. With prices coming down as the choice of smartphones increases, more than one-third of U.S. wireless users in 2008 said they plan to get a smartphone the next time they upgrade their phone. Today, 36% of U.S. subscribers already own one.
While the iPhone has been the catalyst for expanding the appeal of smartphones to date, In-Stat expects that phones powered by open mobile operating systems -- including Google's Android platform -- will overtake the popular Apple device in the coming years.
So if only 9.1 million Linux-based phones were sold last year compared to 16.2 million iPhones, the ratio will be reversed by 2013 when the former sells 68.1 million units worldwide to the iPhone's 33.4 million.
No one stands to benefit more from that trend than the Web search giant, which unveiled its first phone, T-Mobile's G1, last year. "Google and its partners have the potential to aggressively enter the smartphone segment of the market by creating a development environment that is to be the most convenient for mobile applications development," reads the In-Stat report "Smartphones: Heading to the Mainstream." "This will lead to even greater interest in the smartphone market segment."
The study also indicates that demand for the iPhone will be diluted by the host of imitators it's inspired, including the Samsung Instinct, the BlackBerry Storm, the G1, and the Nokia N97.
While none of these devices has taken off like the iPhone, the hundreds of thousands or more than a million units some have sold, show. A number of competitors including Palm, BlackBerry, Google and Microsoft, are also opening their own mobile app stores to compete more directly with Apple.
What about the impact of the recession on smartphone sales overall? In-Stat says its estimates account for the economic uncertainty that will lead people to cut discretionary spending in the U.S. and worldwide.
Skittles.com... A Massive Social Media Experiment
Skittles's has turned it's website into little more than a channel to point visitors to buzz and information about the brand on consumer-generated media sites such as Twitter, Facebook, Flickr, YouTube and Wikipedia. Instead of corporate-produced content, visitors to skittles.com see one of these areas (the landing page is being rotated) with two overlays.
One overlay requires them to register their age and agree to terms of service stating that they are clicking into non-Skittles-controlled outside site content. The other is navigational. Clicking "chatter" takes visitors into Twitter and the thread of tweets about Skittles (bad words and all); clicking "media" takes them into Skittles videos and photos on YouTube and Flickr; and clicking "friends" takes them into the brand's Facebook area. Only the "products," "contact" and "other gobbledygook" (nutrition info) links connect into corporate brand content.
Other brands have employed the concept of using the home page to redirect visitors to social media sites. But the consensus seems to be that this is the first consumer brand to go this route.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Facebook game developer Playfish only launched its first game, Who Has The Biggest Brain?, just before Christmas 2007. But it has already generated 43m users across its six Flash-based casual games, with 21m playing within the last month.As one of Facebook’s most popular app makers, Playfish shows how Facebook can be a gaming platform – and one that’s already, in terms of popularity, leaving Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo in its dust. Investors including Atari CEO David Gardner have put a total of $21m (£14.7m) into the company, and with the average player spending 30 minutes with a Playfish game every day, generating between 15 cents and $1 each per month in revenue, its ventures seem astute indeed.
Below is an interesting interview between EDGE and Playfish's CEO Kristian Segerstrale focused on the brave new frontier he’s been exploring.
Is it fair to say that you’re one of the first companies to think about Facebook and other social networks as gaming platforms?
There are a few companies that focus on them as platforms, but we’re the only one with a gaming heritage. I think we’re at the bleeding edge of what’s happening in the games industry – we’re making games as a service as opposed to as a product. You don’t buy something up front, you play games that evolve over time, with a free-to-play model and the chance to buy upgrades. That has a lot of implications – you don’t do a marketing blitz ahead of the game, and we ask players what they like and don’t like, and track their data to see when and why they stop playing. We also utilize fully viral distribution, so 98 per cent of our new players to date come from invites or from seeing on friends’ profiles that they’re playing the game. If you look at the top ten apps you don’t see any established IP there.
Why is that lack of known IP so pronounced?
The source of trust you get from a known IP like FIFA or Halo gets negated on social networks by the fact that trust instead comes from friends’ tastes in games. Also, it’s free to play so you can try games out. We’re also philosophically different from other game companies: we fundamentally try to make games that are for people to play together. We appeal to social emotions, like a game of cards – it’s not you and the cards, it’s about what’s going on between the people playing. Research we did into Who Has The Biggest Brain? said that the average player played well over 50 games of five minutes each, and we couldn’t believe that there would be that much value in that game. And it all comes from the fact that the emotional driver for playing is not you beating your own score but finding out how good your wife or friends are.
Why do you think traditional game-makers aren’t leading this sort of online gaming?
There are actually fewer serious companies doing what we’re doing than we thought there would be, but you need to operate a service and not a product. It’s pretty hard – we had to brainwash ourselves to not think in terms of a release schedule and a marketing plan, and instead think: ‘What are we doing for our players this month?’ That’s a fundamental change. It’s very much about monitoring and deciding whether incremental changes are worth it, and this is uncomfortable for companies that think of games as products. We also require an eclectic range of skills and expertise, and cope with 3.5m players per day, something an internet company is comfortable with, but not necessarily a games company.
Do you think that these companies can apply traditional game design to social networks?
On the design side EA has done a fair amount of work, but, not to cuss EA, particularly as they’ve done some pretty cool stuff, I think they’re having a challenge designing social interaction for social networks. If you have a bunch of designs for other platforms and you’re told to make them successful on social networks, the first idea is to just convert the game to Flash, add a leaderboard and launch it. But if it’s not designed to be played socially or isn’t free to play, it won’t work. It won’t distribute or make money. But if you have a product that you’re used to consumers paying £20 or £30 to play, do you really want to give it away for free on a social network? Yet you have to destroy some value in order to make a new kind of value.
Do you consider it a risk to depend on Facebook and the other social networks?
Sure there’s a dependence, but there’s a dependence both ways. One of the reasons for Facebook’s success is it allowed third parties to make applications. And one of the things we’ve invested in from the start is to try to be as helpful to Facebook as possible because the relationship between an app maker and the network can be symbiotic. We answer for a lot of the time spent on Facebook today, we drive new users into it and we give reasons for people to connect with their friends. Quid pro quo, they provide us with the ability to spread virally and to have access to people’s friend relationships.
Freebies + Social Media = Hot Restaurant Strategy
Earlier this month, Denny's gave away more than 2 million Grand Slam Breakfasts in one day with the help of a Super Bowl commercial and online chatter.
This week, Quiznos gave away a million subs in three days after using only banner ads, Facebook and Twitter presence and some free local radio exposure.
Denny's may have been investing in brand awareness, but as the Quiznos promotion demonstrated, with consumers looking to save every penny they can, you probably don't need the Super Bowl part to drive a freebie.
Another current example of using a giveaway and online chatter to drive restaurant traffic: International House of Pancakes just completed its third annual National Pancake Day on Tuesday, in which it gives away a small stack of pancakes and in return asks customers to consider donating to the Children's Miracle Network or a local charity.
IHOP, which has raised nearly $2 million for charities since starting the day in 2006, relied on a dedicated Web site with a "tell a friend" pass-along application, its normal presence on key social networks and some PR to drive awareness and traffic.
The result? IHOP has not finished tallying, but the chain was shooting for $1 million and believes that this year was its best in terms of awareness, traffic and donations, according to spokesperson Patrick Lenow. "The word-of-mouth generated through social networks was just incredible," he says.
And that's just this month's roster of freebie-based promotions designed to draw in new diners, get existing customers to visit more frequently and pick up some revenue from the beverages and other purchases that usually accompany the freebie.
Social networking and restaurants are a logical match. Food is naturally social. Where do you want to eat? Do you want to grab something here? This is translating to online conversations around restaurant brands. Recently, we've seen tremendous adoption of social media strategies among QSRs and fast-casual restaurants.
Combine social media with freebies, and you've got marketing dynamite. Giving away food in these uncertain economic times obviously resonates strongly with consumers. Huge gains are being made by brands who are reaching out to consumers with something tangible. IHOP deserves kudos for taking it important steps further by giving back to the community and forging loyalty along the way.
Denny's SMI score more than doubled (from 22 to 45.6) after its commercial and meal giveaway. Quiznos' jumped from 12.4 on the first day of the promotion to 16.1 three days later, or by 30%. IHOP's score was 36.9 on Jan. 1 and 73.9 on Feb. 25, the day after Pancake Day--a 99% gain. The WOM for IHOP's event was largely organic rather than IHOP-driven, presumably because of the event's charitable mission. IHOP has a formal Facebook page and more than 27,000 fans, but there was no call-out of the Pancake Day event on the page. There were about 135 different events created around Pancake Day, but it looks like none were created by IHOP or connected with the Facebook page. They were created by Facebook users and some IHOP franchisees, and so lacked a cohesive or core message.
IHOP and other brands could benefit from more compelling Facebook pages, perhaps incorporating surveys, polling and a restaurant locator. Providing franchisees with the tools to tap their online social circles to market local events is another opportunity, as is capturing event RSVPs to go back to individuals with coupons and other loyalty-building offers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
