PyroMarketing

Could we be headed toward a world without advertising?

Here is an interesting discussion about possible business models for social media.  What does the search for profits mean for the future of social media?.

Social media are exploding as more and more people use social media platforms (up 82% from last year according to Nielsen). But the big providers--MySpace, Facebook, Twitter, etc.--still haven't figured out how to make any money.  Meanwhile, their business expenses are increasing and their investors are clamoring for a return.  They need to make a profit.  But how?

Murder - Suicide
This has serious implications for marketers.  Social media stole people's time and attention from traditional media outlets, reducing the size of their audiences and the prices they could charge for advertising.  What's more, the infinite availability of ad inventory online drove traditional media ad prices down even further and often to unprofitable levels. 

This double-whammy wreaked havoc with traditional media like newspapers, magazines and television; forcing them to operate on the slimmest of margins.  Many couldn't and went out of business altogether.  Read The Chaos Scenario by Bob Garfield for a great review of the entire process.  (Full disclosure: I helped him publish the book)

Meanwhile, the social media companies that ran them off aren't making any money at all.  Which, I don't need to tell you, is a difficult business model to sustain.  If they can't achieve profitability soon, their demise could be next.

Could we be headed toward a world without traditional OR social media?  Not everyone would mind.  A 2003 Yankelovich survey found that a third of Americans would accept a slightly lower standard of living in exchange for a world free from advertising.  If social media don't discover a profitable business model--and soon--those people might just get their wish. 

Spread the fire. GS

Decisions: Timing Can Matter More Than Choice

It's been a little over a year since Capt. Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger successfully landed his crippled jet in the Hudson River, sparing the lives of everyone on board.  On January 15 those survivors met and traveled by boat to the spot where the plane went down.  At precisely 3:31 p.m., the moment of impact, they raised their glasses in a toast to the pilot whose skills had allowed each of them to grow a year older.

There are many reasons to praise Captain Sullenberger. He remained calm throughout a difficult situation.  He expertly guided the plane so it would glide atop the water rather than cartwheel across it.  The list goes on and on.  But what amazes me most is the timing of his decision to land the plane in the river.

After striking a flock of birds and losing thrust from both engines, the air traffic controller suggested returning to LaGuardia and later, Teterboro airport in New Jersey (You can hear the air traffic control audio in the video below).  Planes are supposed to land at airports. Sullenberger must have preferred those options.  And yet, he made the decision to land in the river and he made it in time to execute it.  If he had clung to his hope for a better alternative any longer, he would have lost ALL of his options and, likely, the lives of those on board.

When making decisions, timing matters.  Are you faced with a decision and holding out for the best option, but risking all of your options in the process?  What if you landed in the river instead?  You might find yourself toasting your choice in a year. Spread the fire. GS