Curvin O'Rielly died last week. Curvin was a wonderful copywriter -- which, in my opinion, is about the highest compliment you can pay to an ad person. Curvin worked at many of the world's best ad agencies
I never met Curvin, but I knew him by reputation and from his astute comments on George Parker's blog (AdScam.)
Curvin wrote to me once. He had just finished my book (101 Contrarian Ideas...) and wrote to say that he had enjoyed it. He also wrote that it contained a serious error.
In the book I have a piece about Saturn, the car. In the piece I credited Hal Riney with creating the brilliant campaign that transformed a mediocre car into a great brand. I wrote, "He did it with his unique blend of plain-talk, humor, beauty, and bullshit."
August 06, 2012
August 02, 2012
More Pressure On Facebook
Facebook shares are falling faster than panties on prom night.
They started life at $38 just a few weeks ago and, as I write this, are selling at a little over $20. A lesser man than I might remind you, for the umpteenth time, that he predicted this would happen.
While I take no pleasure in seeing innocent dumb-shits lose stacks of money in this contemptible hustle, I have to admit that I do take a certain pleasure in seeing social media con artists and their credulous disciples getting the shaft.
It seems to me, however, that Facebook's problems are just beginning. There are two reasons for this.
The first is qualitative. Before the IPO debacle, it was taken as an article of faith among the great marketing lemmingocracy that social media was magic. They couldn't exactly explain why -- other than nonsense syllables like "engagement" and "conversations" -- but they knew they had to do it because everyone else was doing it. As I've said many times, there's no bigger sucker than a gullible marketer convinced he's missing a trend.
But now it's different. A con game falls apart very quickly when doubts start creeping in. And the Great Social-Media-Marketing-Miracle con has been severely undermined by the terrible performance of so many of the players recently.
The second big problem is quantitative. It's the old supply and demand imbalance. As I said in my post of June 5th, Facebook is going to be in some real deep snow as "locked-up" shares (shares that early owners are forbidden to sell by law) become unlocked.
According to The Wall Street Journal, about 2 billion new shares of Facebook will become "unlocked" and available for sale before the end of this year. To give you an idea of how that will affect the supply-demand relationship, there are currently only about 400 million shares available for trading. In other words, the potential number of tradeable Facebook shares will sextuple.
The best case scenario for Facebook is that early owners, hoping for an upturn at some point, will hold on to their shares. But if early owners start selling off their shares when they become unlocked, there could be a pretty nasty massacre.
There's only thing worth knowing about economics -- when big supply meets small demand, it means low, low factory-direct prices.
They started life at $38 just a few weeks ago and, as I write this, are selling at a little over $20. A lesser man than I might remind you, for the umpteenth time, that he predicted this would happen.
While I take no pleasure in seeing innocent dumb-shits lose stacks of money in this contemptible hustle, I have to admit that I do take a certain pleasure in seeing social media con artists and their credulous disciples getting the shaft.
It seems to me, however, that Facebook's problems are just beginning. There are two reasons for this.
The first is qualitative. Before the IPO debacle, it was taken as an article of faith among the great marketing lemmingocracy that social media was magic. They couldn't exactly explain why -- other than nonsense syllables like "engagement" and "conversations" -- but they knew they had to do it because everyone else was doing it. As I've said many times, there's no bigger sucker than a gullible marketer convinced he's missing a trend.
But now it's different. A con game falls apart very quickly when doubts start creeping in. And the Great Social-Media-Marketing-Miracle con has been severely undermined by the terrible performance of so many of the players recently.
The second big problem is quantitative. It's the old supply and demand imbalance. As I said in my post of June 5th, Facebook is going to be in some real deep snow as "locked-up" shares (shares that early owners are forbidden to sell by law) become unlocked.
According to The Wall Street Journal, about 2 billion new shares of Facebook will become "unlocked" and available for sale before the end of this year. To give you an idea of how that will affect the supply-demand relationship, there are currently only about 400 million shares available for trading. In other words, the potential number of tradeable Facebook shares will sextuple.
The best case scenario for Facebook is that early owners, hoping for an upturn at some point, will hold on to their shares. But if early owners start selling off their shares when they become unlocked, there could be a pretty nasty massacre.
There's only thing worth knowing about economics -- when big supply meets small demand, it means low, low factory-direct prices.
August 01, 2012
Being Fair To Facebook
No one's been tougher on Facebook than this blog (and we will continue to be tomorrow.) But we also believe in being fair.
Yesterday I must have received at least 10 emails from people linking me to a story widely reported in the ad/marketing news and blog feedback loop about Facebook. The story said that a small company found that 80% of the clicks on its Facebook ads were not real people, but were bots.
This is a very damning and dangerous claim for Facebook, and potentially all online media, if legtimate. However, we have nothing but the company's statement as evidence.
I have no reason to doubt the company's veracity, but no way to know whether their assertion is true or whether it's just a weird aberration. Before we rush to judgment, let's see what others, including Facebook, have to say about this.
Yesterday I must have received at least 10 emails from people linking me to a story widely reported in the ad/marketing news and blog feedback loop about Facebook. The story said that a small company found that 80% of the clicks on its Facebook ads were not real people, but were bots.
This is a very damning and dangerous claim for Facebook, and potentially all online media, if legtimate. However, we have nothing but the company's statement as evidence.
I have no reason to doubt the company's veracity, but no way to know whether their assertion is true or whether it's just a weird aberration. Before we rush to judgment, let's see what others, including Facebook, have to say about this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
