Mary Meeker’s 2016 Internet Trends Presentation

"Blue Marble - 2002", Image by NASA Goddard Space Flight Center

“Blue Marble – 2002”, Image by NASA Goddard Space Flight Center

On June 1, 2016, at the 2016 Code Conference held this week in California, Mary Meeker, a world-renowned Internet expert and partner in the venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins, presented her fifteenth annual in-depth and highly analytical presentation on current Internet trends. It is an absolutely remarkable accomplishment that is highly respected throughout the global technology industry and economy. The video of her speech is available here on Recode.com

Her 2016 Internet Trends presentation file is divided into a series of eight main sections covering, among many other things: Internet user and financial growth rates, online advertising, generational market segments and technological preferences, new products and vendors, mobile screens for nearly everything, e-commerce, big data, privacy issues, video growth on social media platforms, messaging systems , smartphone growth,  voice interfaces, consumer spending, online security, connectivity, Facebook’s v. Google’s growth rates, and massive consumer markets in China and India. That is just the tip of the tip of the iceberg in this 213-slide file.

Ms. Meeker’s assessments and predictions here form an extraordinarily comprehensive and insightful piece of work. There is much here for anyone and everyone to learn and consider in the current and trending states nearly anything and everything online. Moreover, there are likely many potential opportunities for new and established businesses, as well as other institutions, within this file.

I very highly recommend that you set aside some time to thoroughly read through Ms. Meeker’s full presentation. You will be richly rewarded with knowledge and insight that can potentially yield a world of informative and practical dividends.

Summary of the Media and Tech Preview 2016 Discussion Panel Held at Frankfurt Kurnit in NYC on December 2, 2015

"dtv svttest", Image by Karl Baron

“dtv svttest”, Image by Karl Baron

GPS everywhere notwithstanding, there are still maps on the walls in most buildings that have a red circle somewhere on them accompanied by the words “You are here”. This is to reassure and reorient visitors by giving them some navigational bearings. Thus you can locate where you are at the moment and then find your way forward.

I had the pleasure of attending an expert panel discussion last week, all of whose participants did an outstanding job of analogously mapping where the media and technology are at the end of 2015 and where their trends are heading going into the New Year. It was entitled Digital Breakfast: Media and Tech Preview 2016, was held at the law firm of Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz in midtown Manhattan. It was organized and presented by Gotham Media, a New York based firm engaged in “Digital Strategy, Marketing and Events” as per their website.

This hour and a half presentation was a top-flight and highly enlightening event from start to finish. My gratitude and admiration for everyone involved in making this happen. Bravo! to all of you.

The panelists’ enthusiasm and perspectives fully engaged and transported the entire audience. I believe that everyone there appreciated and learned much from all of them. The participants included:

The following is a summary based on my notes.

Part 1:  Assessments of Key Media Trends and Events in 2015

The event began on an unintentionally entertaining note when one of the speakers, Jesse Redniss, accidentally slipped out his chair. Someone in the audience called out “Do you need a lawyer?”, and considering the location of the conference, the room erupted into laughter.¹

Once the ensuing hilarity subsided, Mr. Goldblatt began by asking the panel for their media highlights for 2015.

  • Ms. Bond said it was the rise of streaming TV, citing Netflix and Amazon, among other industry leaders. For her, this is a time of interesting competition as consumers have increasing control over what they view. She also believes that this is a “fascinating time” for projects and investments in this market sector. Nonetheless, she does not think that cable will disappear.
  • Mr. Kurnit said that Verizon’s purchase of AOL was one of the critical events of 2015, as Verizon “wants to be 360” and this type of move might portend the future of TV. The second key development was the emergence of self-driving cars, which he expects to see implemented within the next 5 to 15 years.
  • Mr. Redniss concurred on Verizon’s acquisition of AOL. He sees other activity such as the combination of Comcast and Universal as indicative of an ongoing “massive media play” versus Google and Facebook. He also mentioned the significance of Nielsen’s Total Audience Measure service.²
  • Mr. Sreenivasan stated that social media is challenging, as indicated by the recent appearance of “Facebook fatigue” affecting its massive user base. Nonetheless, he said “the empire strikes back” as evidenced in their strong financial performance and the recent launch of Chan Zuckerberg LLC to eventually distribute the couple’s $45B fortune to charity. He also sees that current market looking “like 2006 again” insofar as podcasts, email and blogs making it easy to create and distribute content.

Part 2: Today’s Golden Age of TV

Mr. Goldblatt asked the panel for their POVs on what he termed the current “Golden Age of TV” because of the increasing diversity of new platforms, expanding number of content providers and the abundance of original programming. He started off by asking them for their market assessments.

  • Ms. Bond said that the definition of “television” is now “any video content on any screen”. As a ubiquitous example she cited content on mobile platforms. She also noted proliferation of payment methods as driving this market.
  • Mr. Kurnit said that the industry would remain a bit of a “mess” for the next three or four years because of the tremendous volume of original programming, businesses that operate as content aggregators, and pricing differentials. Sometime thereafter, these markets will “rationalize”. Nonetheless, the quality of today’s content is “terrific”, pointing to examples by such media companies as the programs on AMC and HBO‘s Game of Thrones. He also said that an “unbundled model” of content offerings would enable consumers to watch anywhere.
  • Mr. Redniss believes that “mobile transforms TV” insofar as smartphones have become the “new remote control” providing both access to content and “disoverability” of new offerings. He predicted that content would become “monetized across all screens”.
  • Mr. Sreenivasan mentioned the growing popularity of binge-watching as being an important phenomenon. He believes that the “zeitgeist changes daily” and that other changes are being “led by the audience”.

The panel moved to group discussion mode concerning:

  • Consumer Content Options: Ms. Bond asked how will the audience pay for either bundled or unbundled programming options. She believes that having this choice will provide consumers with “more control and options”. Mr. Redniss then asked how many apps or services will consumers be willing to pay for? He predicted that “everyone will have their own channel”. Mr. Kurnit added that he thought there are currently too many options and that “skinny bundles” of programming will be aggregated. Mr. Sreenivasan pointed towards the “Amazon model” where much content is now available but it is also available elsewhere and then Netflix’s offering of 30 original shows. He also wanted to know “Who will watch all of this good TV?”
  • New Content Creation and Aggregation: Mr. Goldblatt asked the panelists whether a media company can be both a content aggregator and a content creator. Mr. Kurnit said yes and Mr. Redniss immediately followed by citing the long-tail effect (statistical distributions in business analytics where there are higher numbers of data points away from the initial top or central parts of the distribution)³. Therefore, online content providers were not bound by the same rules as the TV networks. Still, he could foresee some of Amazon’s and Netflix’s original content ending up being broadcast on them. He also gave the example of Amazon’s House of Cards original programming as being indicative of the “changing market for more specific audiences”. Ultimately, he believes that meeting such audiences’ needs was part of “playing the long game” in this marketplace. 
  • Binge-Watching: Mr. Kurnit followed up by predicting that binge-watching and the “binge-watching bucket” will go away. Mr. Redniss agreed with him and, moreover, talked about the “need for human interaction” to build up audiences. This now takes the form of “superfans” discussing each episode in online venues. For example, he pointed to the current massive marketing campaign build upon finding out the fate of Jon Snow on Games of Thrones.
  • Cord-Cutting: Mr. Sreenivasan believes that we will still have cable in the future. Ms. Bond said that service offerings like Apple TV will become more prevalent. Mr. Kunit said he currently has 21 cable boxes. Mr. Redniss identified himself as more of a cord-shaver who, through the addition of Netflix and Hulu, has reduced his monthly cable bill.

Part 3: Virtual Reality (VR) and Augmented Reality (AR)

Moving on to two of the hottest media topics of the day, virtual reality and augmented reality, the panelist gave their views.

  • Mr. Sreenivasan expressed his optimism about the prospects of VR and AR, citing the pending market launches of the Oculus Rift headset and Facebook 360 immersive videos. The emergence of these technologies is creating a “new set of contexts”. He also spoke proudly of the Metropolitan Museum Media Lab using Oculus for an implementation called Diving Into Pollack (see the 10th project down on this page), that enables users to “walk into a Jackson Pollack painting”.
  • Mr. Kurnit raised the possibility of using Oculus to view Jurassic Park. In terms of movie production and immersion, he said “This changes everything”.
  • Mr. Redniss said that professional sports were a whole new growth area for VR and AR, where you will need “goggles, not a screen”. Mr. Kurnit followed up mentioning a startup that is placing 33 cameras at Major League Baseball stadiums in order to provide 360 degree video coverage of games. (Although he did not mention the company by name, my own Googling indicates that he was probably referring to the “FreeD” system developed by Replay Technologies.)
  • Ms. Bond posed the question “What does this do for storytelling?”4

(See also these 12 Subway Fold posts) for extensive coverage of VR and AR technologies and applications.)

Part 4: Ad-Blocking Software

Mr. Goldblatt next asked the panels for their thoughts about the impacts and economics of ad-blocking software.

  • Mr. Redniss said that ad-blocking apps will affect how advertisers get their online audience’s attention. He thinks a workable alternative is to use technology to “stitch their ads into content” more effectively.
  • Mr. Sreenivasan believes that “ads must get better” in order to engage their audience rather than have viewers looking for means to avoid them. He noted another alternative used on the show Fargo where network programming does not permit them to use fast-forward to avoid ads.
  • Mr. Kurnit expects that ads will be blocked based on the popularity and extensibility of ad-blocking apps. Thus, he also believes that ads need to improve but he is not confident of the ad industry’s ability to do so. Furthermore, when advertisers are more highly motivated because of cost and audience size, they produce far more creative work for events like the NFL Super Bowl.

Someone from the audience asked the panel how ads will become integrated into VR and AR environments. Mr. Redniss said this will happen in cases where this technology can reproduce “real world experiences” for consumers. An example of this is the Cruise Ship Virtual Tours available on Carnival Cruise’s website.

(See also this August 13, 2015 Subway Fold post entitled New Report Finds Ad Blockers are Quickly Spreading and Costing $Billions in Lost Revenue.)

Part 5: Expectations for Media and Technology in 2016

  • Mr. Sreenivasan thinks that geolocation technology will continue to find new applications in “real-life experiences”. He gave as an example the use of web beacons by the Metropolitan Museum.
  • Ms. Bond foresees more “one-to-one” and “one-to-few” messaging capabilities, branded emjois, and a further examination of the “role of the marketer” in today’s media.
  • Mr. Kurnit believes that drones will continue their momentum into the mainstream. He sees the sky filling up with them as they are “productive tools” for a variety of commercial applications.
  • Mr. Redniss expressed another long-term prospect of “advertisers picking up broadband costs for consumers”. This might take the form of ads being streamed to smart phones during NFL games. In the shorter term, he can foresee Facebook becoming a significant simulcaster of professional sporting events.

 


1.  This immediately reminded of a similar incident years ago when I was attending a presentation at the local bar association on the topic of litigating cases involving brain injuries. The first speaker was a neurologist who opened by telling the audience all about his brand new laptop and how it was the latest state-of-the-art-model. Unfortunately, he could not get it to boot up no matter what he tried. Someone from the back of audience then yelled out “Hey doc, it’s not brain surgery”. The place went into an uproar.

2.  See also these other four Subway Fold posts mentioning other services by Nielsen.

3.  For a fascinating and highly original book on this phenomenon, I very highly recommend reading
The Long Tail: Why the Future of Business Is Selling Less of More (Hyperion, 2005), by Chris Anderson. It was also mentioned in the December 10, 2014 Subway Fold post entitled Is Big Data Calling and Calculating the Tune in Today’s Global Music Market?.

4.  See also the November 4, 2014 Subway Fold post entitled Say, Did You Hear the Story About the Science and Benefits of Being an Effective Storyteller?

Can Scientists Correlate the Language Used in Tweets with Twitter Users’ Incomes?

Tweet100515

In the centuries since William Shakespeare wrote one of Juliet’s most enduring lines in Romeo and Juliet that “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet”, it has been almost always been interpreted as meaning that the mere names of people, by themselves, have no real effect upon who and what they are in this world.

This past week, the following trio of related articles was published that brought this to mind, specifically about the modern meanings, values and analytics of words as they appear online:

All of these are highly recommended and worth reading in their entirety for their informative and thought-provoking reports containing so many words about, well, so many words.

Then to reframe and update the original quote above to serve as a starting point here, I would like to ask whether a post by any other name in Twitter’s domain would smell as [s/t]weet? To try to answer this, I will focus on the first of these articles in order to summarize and annotate it, and then ask some of my own non-theatrical questions.

According to the Phys.org article, which nicely summarizes the study of a team of US and UK university scientists that was published on PLOS|ONE.org entitled Studying User Income through Language, Behaviour and Affect in Social Media by Daniel Preotiuc-Pietro, Svitlana Volkova, Vasileios Lampos, Yoram Bachrach and Nikolaos Aletras, a link exists between the language used in tweets and the authors’ income. (These additional ten Subway Fold posts covered other applications of demographic analyses of Twitter traffic.)

Methodology

Using only the actual tweets of Twitter users, that often contain “intimate details” despite the lack of privacy on this social media platform, the two researchers on the team from the University of Pennsylvania’s World Well-Being Project are actively investigating whether social media can be used as a “research tool” to replace more expensive surveys that can be “limited and potentially biased”.  (The work of the World Well-Being Project, among others, was first covered in a closely related Subway Fold post on March 20, 2015 entitled Studies Link Social Media Data with Personality and Health Indicators.)

The full research team began this study by examining “Twitter users’ self-described occupations”. Then they gathered a “representative sampling”  of 10 million tweets from 5,191 users spanning each of the nine distinct groups classified in the UK’s official Standard Occupational Classification guide and calculated the average income for each group. Using this data, they built an algorithm upon “words that people in each code use distinctly”.  That is, the algorithm parsed what words had the highest predictive value for determining which of the classification groups the users were in the sample were likely fall within.

Results

Some of the team’s results “validated what’s already known”, such as a user’s words can indicate “age and gender” which, in turn, are linked to income. The leader of the researchers, Daniel Preoţiuc-Pietro, also cited the following unexpected results:

  • Higher earners on Twitter tend to:
    • write with “more fear and anger”
    • more often discussed “politics, corporations and the nonprofit world”
    • use it to distribute news
    • use it more for professional than personal purposes, while
  • Lower earners on Twitter tend to:
    • be optimists
    • swear more in their tweets
    • use it more for personal communication

This study will be used as the basis for future efforts to evaluate the correlations between user incomes with other data from the real world. (Please see also these eight Subway Fold posts on the distinctions between correlation and causation.)

My Questions

  • Might the inverse of these findings, that certain language could draw users with certain income levels, be used by online marketers, advertisers and content specialists to attract their desired demographic group(s)?
  • How could anyone concerned with search engine optimization (SEO) policies and results make use if this study in their content creation and meta-tagging strategies?
  • Does this type of data on the particularly sensitive subject of income, risk segmenting users in some form of de facto discriminatory manner? If this possibility exists, how can researchers avoid this in the future?
  • Would a follow-up study perhaps find that certain words used in tweets by authors who aspire to move up from one income level to the next one? If so, how can this data be used by the same specialists mentioned in the first two questions above?

New Report Finds Ad Blockers are Quickly Spreading and Costing $Billions in Lost Revenue

"Stop Sign", Image by Kt Ann

“Stop Sign”, Image by Kt Ann

The global usage of ad blocking software is rapidly rising and the cost in 2015 so far has been $21.8 billion in lost revenue. This amount is projected to nearly double in 2016. These are the key conclusions of a new 17-page report entitled The Cost of Ad Blocking, co-authored by Adobe and PageFirst (a startup working to analyze and counter ad blocking technology). The report assesses the technological, economic and geographic impacts of this phenomenon.

A concise summary and analysis of this was posted on BusinessInsider.com on August 10, 2015 entitled Ad Blocking Has Grown 41% in the Past Year and It’s Costing Publishers Tens of Billions of Dollars by Lara O’Reilly. I will sum up, annotate, and add a few unblocked questions of my own.

I highly recommend clicking through reading both the actual report and Ms. O’Reilly’s article together for a fuller perspective on this subject.

Other leading data points among the report’s findings include:

  • Ad blocking software usage has increased 41% in the last year, now totaling 198 million active users each month.
  • While this represents only 6% of web-wide activity, it is the dollar equivalent of 14% of the “global ad spend”.
  • In 2016, the revenue lost to ad blocking is expected to reach $41.4 billion.
  • The usage of ad blockers began to rise significantly in 2013 (as shown in the chart on Page 4 of the report).
  • Ad blocker users tend to be “young, technically savvy, and more likely to be male”.
  • The rates of ad blocking varies widely within specific countries (as shown in the graphic on Page 5 of the report), and likewise from country to country (as shown on Page 6 displaying the countries in Europe).

Dr. Johnny Ryan, an executive at PageFirst, views the growth of ad blocking as being “viral” in its characteristics and anticipated continuance. As stated in the 2014 report on ad blocking, this software spreads both by word of mouth and users’ online research.

Currently, most ad blocking activity is on desktops. Despite the 38% of total web browsing occurring on mobile devices, ad blocking is now only present in 1.6% of this traffic. (See Page 10 of the report for the indicators of potential increases turning it into a “mainstream phenomenon”.)

As well, Apple’s pending release of its IOS9 mobile operating system will permit developers to create ad blocking apps. Both Apple and PageFirst stated this could be a “game changer” insofar as Apple’s deep and wide global reach of its mobile products. (See the bottom of Page 11 of the report.)

Regarding users’ motivations for using ad blockers, a survey of 400 US users, displayed on Page 12, found the leading reason was their concern over the handling of their personal data.

In another survey of UK users by the Internet Advertising Bureau, a majority found that ad blockers increased the speed and performance of their browsers (although this was not listed as one of the reasons in the Adobe and PageFirst report). Nonetheless, Mr. Ryan does not consider this to be an important factor is motivating the use of ad blockers.

My own questions are as follows:

  • Are the people motivated enough to install an ad blocker more than likely to not be uninterested in the ads and thus not potential consumers to the degree that the claims of huge lost revenues are not really all that lost?
  • The report’s underlying assumption is that if these blocked ads were otherwise viewed more sales would have been generated. Where’s the actual harm and where’s the real foul if these “lost” users are more unlikely to become paying consumers in the first place?
  • If ad blocking is so pervasive and growing at such a steep rate, are online advertisers now seeing this phenomenon as a just a cost of doing business to be factored into their accounting and reporting systems?
  • How can truly savvy and inventive e-commerce marketers and content strategists possibly use ad blocking their advantage? That is, can they somehow recast their web advertising content and formats to be less intrusive, more informative, and better protective of personal data to incentivize users enough to not use ad blockers?

For additional informative coverage of Adobe’s and PageFirst’s report with further links to useful references, I also suggest clicking through to read a report posted on the Wall Street Journal’s Digits blog  on August 10. 2015 entitled Ad-Blocking Software Will Cost the Ad Industry $22 Billion This Year by Elizabeth Dwoskin.

Twitter and Facebook are Rapidly Rising Across All Major US Demographic Groups as Primary News Platforms

"Media in Central Park New York City", Image by Ernst Moeksis

“Media in Central Park New York City”, Image by Ernst Moeksis

Cutting across five fundamental demographic segments, Twitter and Facebook are now the primary sources for news among the US population. This was the central finding of a new report issued on July 14, 2015 by the Pew Research Center for Journalism and Media entitled News Use on Facebook and Twitter Is on the Rise by Michael Barthel, Elisa Shearer, Jeffrey Gottfried and Amy Mitchell. The full text and supporting graphics appear in an 18-page PDF file on the Pew website is entitled The Evolving Role of News on Twitter and Facebook. I highly recommended clicking through to read the full report.

A number of concise summaries of it quickly appeared online. I found the one written by Joseph Lichtman on NeimanLab.com (a site about Internet journalism at Harvard University), entitled New Pew Data: More Americans are Getting News on Facebook and Twitter, also on July 14th to be an informative briefing on it. I will, well, try to sum up this summary, add some annotations and pose some questions.

First, for some initial perspective, on January 21, 2015, a Subway Fold Post entitled  The Transformation of News Distribution by Social Media Platforms in 2015, examined how the nature of news media was being dramatically impacted by social media. This new Pew Research Institute report focuses on the changing demographics of Facebook and Twitter users for news consumption.

This new study found that 63% of both Twitter and Facebook users are now getting their news from these leading social media platforms. As compared to a similar Pew survey in 2013, this is a 52% increase for Twitter and a 47% increase for Facebook. Of those following a live news event as it occurs, the split is more pronounced as 59% of Twitter users and 31% of Facebook users are engaged in viewing such coverage.

According to Amy Mitchell, one of the report’s authors and Pew’s Director of Journalism Research, each social media site “adapt to their role” and provide “unique features”. As well, they ways in which US users connect in different ways “have implications” for how they “learn about their world” and partake in their democracy.

In order enhance their growing commitment to live coverage, both sites have recently rolled out innovative new services. Twitter has a full-featured multimedia app called Project Lightening to facilitate following news in real-time. Facebook is likewise expanding its news operations with their recent announced of the launch of Instant Articles, a rapid news co-publishing app in cooperation with nine of the world’s leading news organizations.

Further parsing the survey’s demographic data for US adults generated the following findings:

  • Sources of News: 10% get their news on Twitter while 41% get their news on Facebook, with an overlap of 8% using both. This is also due to the fact that Facebook has a much larger user base than Twitter. Furthermore, while the total US user bases of both platforms currently remains steady, the percentages of those users therein seeking news on both is itself increasing.
  • Comparative Trends in Five Key Demographics: The very enlightening chart at the bottom of Page 2 of the report breaks down Twitter’s and Facebook’s percentages and percentage increases between 2013 and 2015 for gender, race, age, education level, and incomes.
  • Relative Importance of Platforms: These results are further qualified in that those surveyed reported that Americans still see both of these platforms overall as “secondary news sources” and “not a very important way” to stay current.
  • Age Groups: When age levels were added, this changes to nearly 50% of those between 18 and 35 years finding Twitter and Facebook to be “the most important” sources of news. Moving on to those over 35 years, the numbers declined to 34% of Facebook users and 31% of Twitter users responding that these platforms were among the “most important” news sources.
  • Content Types Sought and Engaged: Facebook users were more likely to click on political content than Twitter users to the extent of 32% to 25%, respectively. The revealing charts in the middle of Page 3 demonstrate that Twitter users see and pursue a wider variety of 11 key news topics. As well, the percentage tallies of gender differences by topic and by platform are also presented.

My own questions are as follows:

  • Might Twitter and Facebook benefit from additional cooperative ventures to further expand their comprehensiveness, target demographics, and enhanced data analytics for news categories by exploring additional projects with other organizations. For instance, and among many other possibilities, there are Dataminr who track and parse the entirety of the Twitterverse in real-time (as previously covered in these three Subway Fold posts); Quid who is tracking massive amount of online news (as previously covered in this Subway Fold post); and GDELT which is translating online news in real-time in 65 languages (as previously covered in this Subway Fold post).
  • What additional demographic categories would be helpful in future studies by Pew and other researchers as this market and its supporting technologies, particularly in an increasingly social and mobile web world, continue to evolve so quickly? For example, how might different online access speeds affect the distribution and audience segmentation of news distributed on social platforms?
  • Are these news consumption demographics limited only to Twitter and Facebook? For example, LinkedIn has gone to great lengths in the past few years to upgrade its content offerings. How might the results have differed if the Pew questionnaire had included LinkedIn and possibly others like Instagram?
  • How can this Pew study be used to improve the effectiveness of marketing and business development for news organizations for their sponsors, content strategist for their clients, and internal and external SEO professionals for their organizations?

Eight Proven Factors to Help Make Your Web Content Go Viral

"M31. The Andromeda Galaxy", Image by Adam Evans

“M31. The Andromeda Galaxy”, Image by Adam Evans

On a daily basis, we see news, commentary, videos, photos, tweets, blog posts, podcasts, articles, rumors and memes go viral where they spread rapidly across the web like a propulsive digital wave. From YouTube postings of dogs and cats doing goofy things to in-the-moment hashtags and tweets about late-breaking current events, attention grabbing content now spreads at nearly the speed of light.

All content creators, strategists and distributors want to know how to infuse their offerings with this elusive clickable contagion. Providing eight very useful and scientifically proven elements to, at the very least, increase the probability of new content going viral, is a new article entitled The Science Behind What Content Goes Viral, by Sarah Snow, posted on SocialMediaToday.com on July 6, 2015. I will sum up, annotate, and pose some not entirely scientific questions of my own.

For further reading I also highly recommend clicking through and reading The Secret to Online Success: What Makes Content Go Viral, by Liz Rees-Jones, Katherine L. Milkman and Jonah Berger (the second and third of whom are professors at the University of Pennsylvania – – the “U of P”), posted on ScientificAmerican.com (“SciAm”) on April 14, 2015. Two fully detailed and fascinating reports by Milkman and Berger that underlie their SciAm article are available here and here. Ms. Snow’s article cites many of the findings in the SciAm piece. As well, I suggest checking out a May 22, 2015 blog post by Peter Gasca entitled The 4 Essentials of the Most Read Content posted on Entrepreneur.com for some additionally effective content strategies, not to mention a hilarious picture of a dog wearing glasses.

Ms. Snow organized her article into a series of eight individual hypotheses about online virality that she then proceeds to provide references to support them. I will put each of these in bold and quotes below as she stated them in her text. (My own highlights in orange are explained afterwards.)

  • Long, in-depth posts tend to go viral more than short ones.”: Drawing from the findings of Milkman’s and Berger’s studies that, among other things, examined the data from the feature on the home page of the NYTimes.com called Most Emailed, longer articles had a higher tendency to be shared. As also stated by Carson Ward of the search engine optimization (SEO) consulting firm called Moz, of all possible variables, word count most closely correlate with the breadth of online sharing. Further, he believes this is a directly causal relationship. (The distinctions between correlation and causation have been previously raised in other various contexts in these six Subway Fold posts.) See also, Mr. Ward’s practical and informative January 14, 2013 posting on Moz’s site entitled Why Content Goes Viral: the Theory and Proof.
  • Inspire anger, awe, or anxiety and your post will go viral.”: Evidence shows that “high energy emotions” such as awe and anger, as opposed to “law energy emotions”, are more likely to spur virality.  Among them, anger is the most effective, but it must be, well, tempered without insulting the audience. It is best for content authors to write about something that angers them, which, in return, require “some tolerance” by their readers. In terms of usage data, blog content which engages controversial topics generates twice as many comments in response. Alternatively, awe is a better emotion for those who wish to avoid controversy and instead focuses on the positive effects of brands and heroic acts.
  • Showing a little vulnerability or emotion helps content go viral.”: This is indeed true again according to the U of P studies. Readers respond to emotional content because they “want to feel things when they read”. The author Walter Kirn is quoted recommending that writers should begin with what they feel “most shameful about”. This is where conflict resides and writing about it makes you vulnerable to your readers. For other content creators, rather than shame, writers can start with some other genuine “human emotion”.
  • “Viral content is practically useful, surprising, and interesting.”: Clearly, engaging and practical content beats boring and dull any day of the week. Content that is useful generates the highest levels of online sharing. For example, posting pragmatic suggestions and solutions to “how-to” questions is going to draw many more clicks.
  • “Content written by known authors is more likely to go viral.”: Milkman’s and Berger’s reports further showed that being a known writer had a significant impact on the sharing of a news article. Name recognition translates into credibility and trust.
  • “Content written by women is more likely to go viral.”: The U of P professors also reported that on NYTimes.com, the gender of a writer had an effect insofar as the data showed that articles by female authors had a tendency to be shared more that stories by male authors. 
  • “Posts that spend a lot of time on the home page are more likely to go viral.”: Yes, insofar as the NYTimes.com goes. (The article does not mention whether other sites have been tested or are planning to be tested for this variable.)
  • “Content that is truly and broadly viral is almost always funny“: This quote about humor from Ward’s post (linked above in the first factor about blog post length), is helpful for content authors as it gives all of them an opportunity to be funny. This is particularly so in efforts to make online ads go viral.

I propose the following mnemonic to assist in remembering all of these variables tracking with the key words highlighted above in orange:

Writer + Emotion – – give- – Useful – – content – – Funny + Long + Inspiration + Gender + Homepage Time

That is, WE give U content FLIGHT!

My own questions are as follows:

  • Which of these factors will more likely endure, expand or disappear, especially now that a majority of users access the web on mobile devices? What new factors that have not yet emerged might soon affect the rate(s) of content virality?
  • Is going viral purely an objective and quantifiable matter of the numbers of clicks and visitors, or are there some more qualitative factors involved? For instance, might marketing specialists and content strategists be more interested in reaching a significant percentage of traffic among a particular demographic group or market segment and just attaining X clicks and Y visitors regardless of whether or not they involve identifiable cohorts?
  • Do the above eight factors lend themselves to be transposed into an algorithm? Assuming this is possible, how would it be applied to optimize viral content and, in turn, overall SEO strategic planning?
  • Beside the length of content discussed as the first factor above, how do the other seven factors lend themselves to being evaluated for degrees of correlation and causation of viral results?

Advertisers Looking for New Opportunities in Virtual and Augmented Spaces

"P1030522.JPG", Image by Xebede

“P1030522.JPG”, Image by Xebede

Are virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) technologies about to start putting up “Place Your Ad Here” signs in their spaces?

Today’s advertising firms and their clients are constantly searching for new venues and the latest technologies with which to compete in evermore specialized global marketplaces. With so many current and emerging alternatives, investing their resources to reach their optimal audiences and targeted demographics requires highly nimble planning and anticipating risks. Effective strategies for both of these factors were recently explored in-depth in the March 22, 2015 Subway Fold post entitled What’s Succeeding Now in Multi-Level Digital Strategies for Companies.

Just such a new venue to add to the media buying mix might soon become virtual worlds. With VR is the early stages of going more mainstream in the news media (see the May 5, 2015 Subway Fold post entitled The New York Times Introduces Virtual Reality Tech into Their Reporting Operations), and even more so in film (see the March 26, 2015 Subway Fold post entitled Virtual Reality Movies Wow Audiences at 2015’s Sundance and SXSW Festivals), it seems inevitable that VR might turn out to be the next frontier for advertising.

This new marketplace will also include augmented reality, involving the projection of virtual/holographic images within a field of view of the real world. Microsoft recently introduced a very sleek-looking headset for this called the HoloLens, which will be part of their release of Windows 10 expected sometime later this year.

A fascinating report on three new startups in this nascent field entitled Augmented Advertising, by Rachel Metz, appeared in the May/June 2015 edition of MIT Technology Review. (Online, the same article is entitled “Virtual Reality Advertisements Get in Your Face”.) I will sum up, annotate and pose a few additional questions to this. As well, I highly recommend clicking through on the links below to these new companies to fully explore all of the resources on their truly innovative and imaginative sites.

As the VR and AR headsets are set to enter the consumer marketplace later in 2015, manufactured by companies including Oculus, Sony, Microsoft (see the above links), Magic Leap and Samsung, consumers will soon be above to experience video games and movie formatted for these new platforms.

The first company in the article working in this space is called Mediaspike. They develop apps and tools for mobile VR. The demo that the writer Metz viewed with a VR headset placed that her in a blimp flying over a city containing billboards for an amusement ride based on the successful movie franchise that began with Despicable Me. The company is developing product placement implementations within these environments using billboards, videos and other methods.

One of the billboards was showing a trailer for the next movie in this series called Minions. While Metz became a bit queasy during this experience (a still common concern for VR users), she nonetheless found it “a heck of a lot more interesting” than the current types of ads seen on websites and mobile.

The second new firm is called Airvertise. They are developing “virtual 3-D models that are integrated with real world locations”. It uses geographic data to create constructs where, as a virtual visitor, you can readily walk around in them. Their first platform will be smartphone apps followed by augmented reality viewers. At the SXSW Festival last March (please see the link again in the third paragraph above to the post about VR at SXSW), the company demo-ed an iPad app that, using the tablet’s motion sensors, produced and displayed a virtual drone “hovering above the air about 20 feet away” with a banner attached to it. As the user/viewer walks closer to it the relative size and spatial orientation of it correspondingly increases.

The third startup is called Blippar. Their AR-based app permits commercial content to be viewed on smartphones. Examples include seeing football players when the phone is held up to a can of Pepsi, and shades of nail polish from the cosmetics company Maybelline. The company is currently strategizing about how to create ads in this manner that will appropriately consumers engage consumers but not put them off in any way.

My questions are as follows:

  • Will VR and AR advertising agencies and sponsors open up this field to user-generated ads and commercial content which has already been successful in a number of ad campaigns for food and cars? Perhaps by open-sourcing their development platforms, crowdsourcing the ads, and providing assistance with such efforts this new advertising space can gain some additional attention and traction.
  • What is exactly about VR and AR experience that will provide the most leverage to advertising agencies and their clients? Is it only limited to the novelty of it – – that might well wear off after a while – – or is there something unique about these technologies that will inform and entertain consumers about goods and services in ways neither previously conceived of nor achieved? Is a critical must-have app or viral ad campaign going to be needed for this to reach a tipping point?
  • Might countering technologies also appear to block VR and AR advertising? For example, Ad Block Plus is a very popular browser add-on that enables users to filter out today’s banner ads and pop-ups online. How might advertisers positively reaction to such avoidance?
  • Just as the leading social media services such as, among others, Facebook (which now owns Oculus), Twitter and Intagram, where advertisers have major presences, do VR and AR similarly lend themselves to being populated by advertisers on such a web-wide scale?