Like the pot calling the kettle black
I think this is a bit disingenuous. Live Search's Cashback program has been a success for the goals that they set for the program. Microsoft made clear earlier in the year that they are seeking to perfect certain search niches, as evidenced by their acquisitions related to search (i.e. Farecast).
Also, overall search share does not equal revenues. Yahoo may have increased search share (barely, I might add), but they are hurting right now big time.
What matters for vendors in search is the profitable niches/searches.
I also think you guys should be smarter than to jump on the dump on Microsoft bandwagon. Plenty of companies use incentives to attract customers. Where's the post criticizing Apple for bribing users with discounts last week?
I've often wondered if the writer's strike spurred the economy on to its bad status. People were out of work - did they foreclose on their homes?
Viewership went down, which meant advertisers reached fewer people.
And now, when things are dicey, the actor's want more money.
Just curious what impact these unions' strikes have had on the economy. (Plus, it's not like they were receiving poor wages and working in dangerous factories or something)
Radio stations are notorious for having contests where they give away cash, tickets, or even cars. In those cases, only one person or a few people win.
At least with Cashback - anyone who uses the program can take advantage.
It's not like MSFT is the first company to use incentives to get people to use it's product.
Coupons, free shipping, BOGO, 0% financing, the list goes on and on.
I think Disney will start charging for games in the future. I mean, look at console games. People shell out $$ for games based on movies.
Also, it's really no big deal to pay 99 cents for an iPhone app. So why not charge for it?
Even if they don't, I don't think it will hurt indie developers who do charge. Again, 99 cents is not a big deal for most consumers.
It's the developers who insist on charging prices that are too high who have the struggle, but they will with or without advertisers like Disney.
I love telecommuting. I hated the office b/c of office politics. It was like being in high school with gossip and people getting promoted for likability and not for talent.
I get to sit in my recliner, avoid sitting in traffic for hours, and play my music when and what and how loud I want. I don't have to worry about a work wardrobe, and since I can work from anywhere, I worry less about vacation time.
It's nice that you guys get so much done during face-to-face meetings, but I've found pretty much the exact opposite when I worked in an office.
Hopefully, telecommuting is the wave of the future sooner rather than later. What better time than a bad economy to implement the changes?
my dad had an mri after surgery and treatment for his brain cancer. they said he was looking good. i can't even remember why we went for a second opinion at a nearby hospital, but we did.
turns out they had somehow missed a good chunk of stuff still in his brain.
If American Airlines wants more clicks, perhaps they should consider offering first rate service, low prices, and drop the extra baggage fee.
Funny how having a good service or product can trump petty issues where you're in the wrong in the first place.
Who cares if people want to buy it? It's not illegal. It may be useful to some people. I like someoldguy's suggestion of it being a parental control.
Adams has a point, and I think for most comedians and other creative types, this holds true. I've dabbled a bit in screenwriting and filmmaking, and it's amazing how people who have absolutely no contact with each other can come up with strikingly similar ideas, even at the same time.
But that doesn't mean there haven't been legitimate cases of idea/story/screenplay stealing in Hollywood.
I have no idea what Mencia did. I don't find him funny, so I don't care.
I'm not sure individual movies should be financed by VC, but production companies surely can. And what the movie industry needs is more entrepreneurs and fewer writers, actors, etc. depending on the existing studio system.
My husband and I are trying to do exactly this.
As far as the writers' strike is concerned, writers are trying to get paid for production and distribution. If they want to get paid for it, then they should become producers and distributors!
If Sumner Redstone is passionate about copyright, then I'm assuming he supports the writers during their strike?
Companies only have themselves to blame for consumers not watching ads. They suck. On radio and TV. I don't have DVR on my radio - I simply change to the next preset, play a CD or my iPod.
If ads were entertaining - I'd listen or watch.
The real problem with Michael Moore's statement is that the film is about people who (supposedly) don't have $ for healthcare.
If he's that passionate about it, then why doesn't he just release it on the internet himself for free. What about the people who can't afford to see it in the theater? They could watch it at school or a public library.
It's just like Al Gore and his recycled materials DVD for Inconvenient Truth. Come on already! If he'd just released it on the internet, he wouldn't use any materials - and save $ on gas for shipping the DVDs to the stores.
These dudes are after $ and don't think they won't benefit in a monetary way should their agendas win in Washington.
Health care system would be far worse if run by the government. Is anything run by the government actually worth admiring? NO!
One time i was sitting in the waiting room while my dad had surgery. I was chastised by a hospital employee for taking pictures of fish! Ridiculous!
Oh and TJW - i suppose we should put little adhesive strips over guns too?
It doesn't appear that bidding for just "blinds" will get you on the page for "national blinds." Type in other searches using the word "blinds" and you'll see.
I think the internet has impact when you're talking about an issue or a party or something more long-lasting than a campaign. Or that requires less effort.
It's easy for people to forward an email, add a MySpace friend, or Digg an article. But voting is VERY DIFFERENT from the Social Media experience. Voting requires people to register, wait on the government to snail mail them a card, remember to go to a physical location on a specific day during specific times, oftentimes waiting in line.
Then there's the whole issue of demographics. The older you are the more likely you are to vote. All this political online marketing is gobbled up mostly by younger people who are not as likely to vote - until THEY become middle age and retired, and then we'll have to see.
The good thing about the internet for campaigns is their access to information, such as voting data posted by the Board of Elections or financial data about donors. Also, reputation management by monitoring the media online. It makes for a quicker response to issues that pop up.
Search Engine Optimization (SEO) really needs to be seen as part of the marketing effort as a whole.
Companies pay to be on prime time spots in television, for ad space in publications, and for prime retail space in stores. They strive for "earned media" with public relations.
All of this is translated to the web. SEO is organic search, and there are paid search options as well.
The search engines can create any algorithm they want. They are a business like any other. They set it up to make a profit. If other people come in and capitalize on it - they can only do so b/c that's what people want. Ultimately, people have to buy what's being sold on the internet for all of this to work.
If you engage in a business that is so heavily dependent on another company (in this case a search engine) - then name or extension changes and changing algorithms are part of the risk.
I wonder
I wonder how Jermaine and Bret feel about this.