Bloody Hell

 
amanda @ 2008-04-08 20:17

The best way to help people in China, is to engage the Chinese government, not to enrage them. For those very people you support, would suffer the most.

*I deleted my biased thoughts because, after my head cooled down, I see that I was wrong. No utilitarian excuses. Everyone deserves freedom. That's principle.


 
amanda @ 2007-11-07 00:33

Why Google won’t use Pay-per-Action model for its AdWords program when Pay-per-Click is subject to fraudulent clicks? Pay-per-Click of course generates more profit. But is this short-term gain the reason? Doesn’t Google care about its reputation and relationships with the online advertisers?

Referring to last year’s class action lawsuit, two problems are evident with click fraud. Asymmetric information and incomplete contract.

A fundamental problem for advertisers is that they do not have access to the same information Google has on click data. In the words of a web consultant: “nobody has any idea how much of (click fraud) is actually going on.” While some advertisers may employ sophisticated software to help them track down click fraud, smaller advertisers either lack the know-how or resources to do so. Moreover, lack of information makes it hard for advertisers to measure Google’s performance. Google argues, however, that releasing too much information will only help con artists undertsand Google’s screening mechanisms and thus result in more click fraud.

Secondly, it is nearly impossible to have an explicit contract that lists all contingencies. Click fraud is such a new problem that there is little regulation in place. Even its definition is uncertain at this time. There is a whole spectrum of complicated cases when clicking intent is far from clear and therefore cannot be detected by technological means with certainty.

In summary, incomplete contracts and asymmetric information give customers reasons to suspect that Google might act opportunistically, as some observed: “Google stands to benefit from overcharging for clicks” and it is down to Google to earn its customers’ trust and prove otherwise.

In 2006, 99% of Google’s revenue were generated from its online advertising programs. Google’s relationship with online advertisers is important to them, as well as their reputation, especially considering most advertisers seek a long-term relationship with the search engine. If Google is as rational as economists think all businesses should be, then it is indeed in their best interest to advertisers have confidence in online advertising. In other words, they must have advertisers’ trust.

However, Google’s unique search functionality is the source for their competitive advantage that makes Google the dominant industry leader (60% market share in the US). Being in such a position gives Google massive bargaining power against advertisers. It is reasonable to expect that Google will still run PPC as their main advertising model to appropriate rent before they feel pressured to switch to the less profitable model.

So, Google will continue its PPC model, but will also seek positive PR for themselves, by providing more information transparency, participate in establishing industry standards (3rd party monitoring), etc.

At the end of day, with share prices above 0 Google is not worried, yet.

Copyright Amanda LI


 
amanda @ 2007-11-06 23:39

Brand loyalty is not a new concept. Marketers know that loyal customers pay more, buy more and can act like brand advocates. But what about brands acting disloyal to existing customers?

An easy example, iPhone’s 0 price cut. Apple’s competitive advantages in technology and design place them at a very beneficial position in the marketplace. Macintosh has become increasingly a status symbol for the rising ‘Creative Class’. Many of them extremely loyal to Apple the brand. But sometimes you can’t help but feeling that Apple doesn’t really care about its customers. Especially those outside the US.

The question is this: when the brand has demonstrated disloyalty to its customers, can it still expect to build brand loyalty?



 
amanda @ 2007-09-13 23:40



A photo story recently appeared in Italian Vogue, reflecting the lives of Hollywood's troubled starlets. At first glance the story is cool, then it starts to get a bit intimidating and boring. I mean, are those nudity neccesary?

Looking at fashion photography reminds me of a great story I saw in Vogue a few years ago. "Alice in Wonderland" by Annie Leibovitz, starring Natalia Vodianova, Karl Lagerfield, Jean Paul Gaultier (the Cheshire Cat), John Galiano (the Queen), Marc Jacobs (the Caterpillar), Tom Ford (the White Rabbit), et al. Fabulously surreal.



 


 
amanda @ 2007-09-13 13:54

My old employer is coming to Sydney.


 
amanda @ 2007-08-24 10:53

Very straightforward. So I did three, it really is quite easy, if you think about it, because Absolut ad's format is simple: something humorous, somewhere famous, something symbolic/iconic, then smartly incorporate a bottle (shape). Two of my ads:


This Haunting ad I hope is a little different. I should make the branches look more natural though. Photo credit: Orangestock



 
amanda @ 2007-08-24 08:23

I am currently taking a Creating Communications in Marketing class at uni. Each week, we get a little task to take home and think about. The topics are always very interesting, so I want to share them with my friends who I hope occasionally read this blog. The first task was:

You were asked to think about new ways to describe target audiences.  The intention is to find a way to avoid the stereotypes as shown in the slides last week.  For example:  The happy housewife, the career woman etc.  The challenge is to see if we can find new ways to identify our targets that will make creating communications directed towards them more effective because they recognise the person and connect with them in ways that relate to them.

You might like to consider what are some current male target audience stereotypes.

This task does not mean we would abandon socio-demographic information but rather build something more meaningful on it.

My thoughts:

Many stereotypes focus on the role and status people play in the society (for example, women stereotypes: soccer mom, happy housewife, career woman, single party girl). Rather than taking people as individuals, these stereotypes group them based on a few demographics statistics, and then make a lot of assumptions.

Today consumers buy product not for what they do, but for what they mean. (Image value or psychological value) They choose a brand that has an image or personality consistent with their underlying needs. It is very much a lifestyle statement, think Apple, or Chanel. Marketers should focus on individuals and appeal to people’s values, beliefs and motivations instead of using stereotypes based on demographics.



 
amanda @ 2007-08-01 18:31

Time Magazine recently featured an article called China's Me Generation which portrays the new middle class youths in China's big cities as a generation that pursues prosperity and personal freedom rather than politics and democracy. To illustrate this trend, an infamous group of young Beijing bloggers - a mix of advertising executives, consultants and other professionals - was observed partying, dining out and consuming expensive products. They talked about snowboarding weekends, credit cards, iPods and overseas shopping trips. But when asked about politics,

"There's nothing we can do about politics," says Chen. "So there's no point in talking about it or getting involved."
I happen to know of these bloggers and I have read their blogs. Indeed, most of it are recaps of what they did during the weekend, where they have been, which restaurant they went to, what they bought and which country they plan to visit the next. They say "Work hard, play harder" and are proud of their full social lives.

While some of them were not happy being described as a bunch of party-loving, shallow stereotypes who can't be bothered to think about politics, I have to say that the article illustrate a serious problem in China. The youths today are more self-centred thanks to the one-child policy and a generation of parents who are determined to make up for the life they didn't have. Left, right and centre, young people I see in China today are creatures of globalisation and consumerism and think very little about politics.

Okay, maybe they are not as shallow as they shows, but  no matter how liberal they think, no one is actually doing anything. Why worry? Let's party! What politics? Wait til I get a bigger house. What's wrong with getting rich? Show the Americans we have money too! Democracy? There's nothing I can do.  These are the dominating attitudes among the younger generation in China today.

What would you do?


 
amanda @ 2007-07-20 19:39

I am banning Sina.com from myself and I curse it to never be profitable and lose all their 'celebrity-bloggers', who drive traffic by posting bathroom-mirror photos of themselves.

I have been a Harry-Potter fan ever since high school, when ICQ was the coolest thing and Britney Spears was still hot. I have read each of the six books published thus far at least twice. Just today, I finished re-reading The Order of the Phoenix (so that I can enjoy the movie more), after re-reading The Half-blood Prince last week (to prepare for the 7th book).

I know that the latest book has been leaked in its entirety. But I was never tempted to even read the news about the leaking. After all, I don't want to ruin the Harry Potter experience for myself. Before the last and final book come out tomorrow, the least I want is to have a spoiler pushed in front of my face.

But this is exactly what happened when I regretably decided to open sina.com.cn to a 5-minute distraction from studying. I wanted to look at trash news featuring pretty second-rate bimbo actress-has-beens without having to think. Usually I don't read Sina.com - I have 88 RSS subscriptions to keep myself busy enough.

(In fact, now I think abou it, the main reason I went to Sina.com today was because I read something about a piece of news that made its way into many major western newspapers earlier: chopped cardboard found in buns sold in Beijing. Turns out, this news was faked. A current-affair TV program producer bought cardboard and asked the vendors to put it in buns, while shooting it with a hidden camera. Bad journalism, indecency, cheating... why am I not surprised?)

There it was, the leaked ending of the last Harry Potter book, summed-up and announced blatantly, IN THE NEWS TITLE. I was totally unprepared. I was shocked, I was dumbstruck. Then, anger rose in my heart. How could they do that? Basic manners, decency - gone. Bad journalism - if what Sina reports are journalism at all - again. It completely ruined my reading experience and it upsets me so much.

Sina, I curse you! You are every bit a second-rate website as you have always been. Limited by short-term goals, a lack of decency and sheer unintelligence. You pleased and cheated and forced your way into the Chinese Internet landscape.
I condemn you.



 
amanda @ 2007-07-10 19:42

Makoto
385-401 Pitt Street
(Corner of Pitt and Liverpool Street)
Sydney
(02) 9283 6767

A more up-scale sushi train-ish place, Makoto Sushi Bar has always been popular with Sydneysiders. Be prepared to wait in line for at least 15 minutes for a table or 30 minutes for bar seats on any given night. (But it is fun to watch passer-bys on one of Sydney's busiest streets too!) Service is timely and friendly. Great variety of sushi and the sashimi of the day are especially fresh.


You can see how busy this place is, one layer is not enough! There are always a handful of people grabbing plates of sushi for take-away too.


Eel AUD3.50


Green Tea Cheese Cake AUD3.50


Wagyu Beef, AUD9.80. Not that good, very chewy, should be an Aussie version of wagyu beef.


Snapper Sashimi, AUD6.00


I forgot what this was..


Should be Ibon(?) Sushi



 
amanda @ 2007-07-02 12:17

Seth Godin is an enterpreneur/marketer with serveral Amazon bestsellers under his belt. He is also an excellent speaker. I analysed one of his presentations for my Communication class and thought I'd put up the transcript. Note his use of rhetoric and framing techniques.

Video of this presentation is available here
Alternative address here
A similar presentation given by Seth Godin on the same topic can be found here



[Applause]

I need to start with a sad story. It’s a story about a fellow technologist, an inventor, a guy named Otto Rohwedder.

[to screen] We could practice going to the… [screen lights up, slides appear] there we go.

Otto Rohwedder, in 1913, invented [pause] the greatest thing: sliced bread. [laughter] and like most inventors, like most technologists, Otto went out, got some money together, and made sure he had the patents, so that no one would steal his idea. And the other thing he did, was he made sure he had the factory all lined up. He made sure he had the operation in place so when everyone showed up, [pause] to buy his sliced bread, he’d be ready.

And for 17 years, no one bought sliced bread. Otto Rohwedder was a complete failure.

And it wasn’t until much later, 17 years later, when the patent ran out, that Otto realised his mistake. He’d forgotten to ask a question, a two-word question: Who cares? No one was wakin’ up in the middle of the night or in the morning, say: ”Oh good! I can go downstairs and get some of that sliced bread and make me some toast!” No one wanted sliced bread; no one needed sliced bread; no one had been sold sliced bread.

And it wasn’t until these guys [Wonder Bread] came along and marketed the sliced bread. In 1930 they started doing this: puting it in the bright bag, with a little twist tie, built strong bodies, 12 ways… the whole thing. They marketed the sliced bread and people bought it. It became a success.

It’s only four simple words: if your ideas spread, you win! That’s the goal: ideas that spread, win.

It doesn’t matter if you are in the coffee business, or whether you are an intellectual, or you are in the computer business or the TV business or if you are in the business of running airlines. It doesn’t matter. All these people succeeded in every line of work, for one simple reason: they figured out how to get their ideas to spread.

And if your ideas spread, that’s it! You win! Everything else, [pause] takes care of itself.

And what we are sittin’ at, right now, is the end of a hundred-year stretch, where our culture, our country has been all about the spread of ideas that we have optimised for, we have lined up for, we have gotten excited about, we’ve rewarded people for. Ideas have never spread faster, they have never spread more fluently than they spread right now, right here.

And a big part of that, is TV. Not just television, but the TV thinking. And TV thinking is based on two words: Pay Attention.

And when you think about those two words, you gotta stop for a second. Because there’s a lot of meaning in it. Attention.

Well, I don’t know about you, but I only get 17 spare minutes a day. And just ‘cause someone comes along, and buys an ad for a minute on a TV show, doesn’t mean I’m gonna give them a minute of my hard-earned attention. I don’t get that attention back!

So the equation is really interesting: pay attention. You pay the media company, you pay the post office, you pay the phone company and I have to pay you [pause] with my attention.

And TV was the greatest example of this, ever! But it was all about a simple idea: you can buy attention in our country. If you’ve got money, you can market yourself by buying attention.

That led to what I call the TV-industrial complex. A little bit of a take-off, here at the belt way. But it starts like this: you buy a bunch of ads; those ads get you more distribution; that distribution helps you sell more stuff; when you sell more stuff, you make a profit; and if you are smart, you are buying more ads!

My loft, where I work, in New York, 7,000 square foot thing, used to be a printing plant. Charles Revson from Revlon did all his printing there. Revlon is a multi-billion dollar company because of this: in 1947, he bought some TV ads. He was one of first cosmetic people to do so. It worked. He got distribution. He made money. He bought more TV ads. The cycle repeated itself and repeated itself.

And if you do things right, and I don’t care if you selling to the consumers, stuff like make-up; or selling to businesses or the government, things like ball bearing. It’s all the same. You can interrupt people, get their attention, and make money.

All these products succeeded, not ‘cause they were really super amazing, except maybe Pop-Tarts, [laughter] but because they were organised to be on television! Right? They were organised to be an average product for the average people, that could be advertised like crazy and make a profit in the process.

And the bad news that I am here to give to you tonight is this: while we were watching; while you were building your businesses; while you were making your plans; while your clients were struggling to build what they built, somebody cancelled [pause] the TV-industrial complex.

All of a sudden, on our watch, right? On our watch, TV ads don’t work, radio ads don’t work, magazine ads don’t work… all that stuff doesn’t work like it used to!

There is a whole bunch of reason and I’ll cover a couple of them. But there didn’t used to be a billion web pages, there didn’t used to be 500 TV channels, you didn’t used to be all that to kill three or four hours IM-ing people on the internet, when you are supposed to be watching Gilligan’s Island! Right? [laughter]

So, this picture is really fuzzy, I had a bad cold when I took it. [laughter] But I showed it to you for an important reason. Take a look at that blue box, centre, one shelf up. The brand manager of that blue box spent 100 million dollars last year, trying to interrupt me.

100 million dollars on coupons, shopping allowances, TV ads, radio ads, direct mail, detailing in doctors’ offices… so that when I was sick, and I had money in my hot little hand, I would go to the deli, and buy her product.

And do you know what I did? I ignored every single one of those 100-million-dollar worth of ads. ‘cause I don’t have a pain reliever problem! Twenty years ago, I’ve started buying the stuff in the yellow box. I am finished! I don’t need another pain reliever. I’m done.

She is invisible. She doesn’t exist! Right? It’s as if her product doesn’t even exist.

And here, it’s sorta the end of my bad news, I think I’ve gotta cover a little bit more:

You are the product in the blue box!

Your law firm, your accounting firm, your technology firm, your agencies trying to sell stuff to the government… all of you [pause] are the blue box!

Unless you are doing something so way out there, what you are busy doing, is trying to solve a problem, for people either don’t know you exist, don’t wanna know you exist, or don’t have a problem they believe you can solve!

And we gotta do something about that, if we wanna get things to grow.

[end of excerpt]




 
amanda @ 2007-06-04 13:25

"Let's use a lot of big words in our presentation so that people don't know what we are talking about but will be impressed"

"I don't mind cheating, do you, Amanda? Some people are a bit funny about cheating. Let's just put 'Dr. X' says ...., it usually gives you extra mark. For referencing, just search for relevant books at www.amazon.com and add them randomly in text."

This is an example of his 'big words':

Starbucks coffee range for it to be segmented within the same line of thought as a regular purchased product. With benefits sought by the consumer based on Starbucks high level of quality and service that differentiates it from its competitors and attracts such consumer markets, with an attempt to tap into the existing lucrative consumer market by gaining first time users of Starbucks products from competitors such as McDonald’s allowing for increased Starbucks control of the market share at the same time place importance on regular users in order to consolidate Starbucks in the lucrative market of fast food and allow for the expansion of the hot sandwiches product. Nurturing and gaining a high level of loyalty from consumers that may be transferred from existing coffee consumers and new consumers from other fast food chains in order to form a barrier of entry to other firms and maintaining market share, at the same time building on current attitudes towards the hot sandwich product as a healthy alternative.

Now you know why for the past two days, I have been rewriting the group report, and don't have time to study for my final exam tomorrow!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I WANT TO KILL HIM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What sort of business school did I get myself into?


 
Calendar
Category
Archive
Food/Restaurant
Photo
Rant
Other
Business
Marketing
Advertising
Secret Diary
Overheard in USYD
Comments
08/13 lol :D
07/28 哈哈,好文,国...
Links
Ycul Fifi
Risa
Hans
Lu
Iris
订阅 RSS
0038843
歪酷博客