Bio not provided
@rhetoricallyrad Here's the Ferguson tag: https://www.tumblr.com/tagged/ferguson
I hit refresh after about 1 minute, and there were about 100 new posts, of all shades of opinions. And yes, Tumblr has always policed content, well before the purchase.
4 months, 3 weeks ago on After abandoning core Tumblr users, Yahoo does the same with Flickr. So what?
Yes making photos bigger by, like, 50 pixels and making a video player that works? SCREWING IT UP.
1) Your lack of awareness about an alternate WhatsApp bidder does not mean there wasn't one. It's just as possible (indeed, probable) that Facebook was, in fact, in a bidding war, and, thus, the price was actually "a bit more than the next guy would have paid"
2) There is nothing new or specific to tech about revenue-less companies having positive value. I own a factory, fully paid for. I shut it down and stop making and selling stuff. I still own the factory. My company has a positive value and zero revenue.
3) Tech IPOs have actually been increasing steadily these last few years, thus exposing these companies to shorts and the public markets. The postponing of IPOs in tech that you describe was a phenomenon a few years back, thanks to lackluster IPO markets and Sarbanes-Oxley, but it is normalizing now.
4) Tech stocks performance, post IPO, has been anything but heady and bubble like. In fact, it's been downright boring.
And this is coming from someone who wrote a 10,000 word article saying we WERE in a bubble, pre-Facebook IPO.
Fact is, the Facebook IPO killed any bubble. Thankfully.
Are private valuations 100% right? No, of course not. But eventually these companies face the music - by being unable to raise more capital, being bought by a public company, or going public.
12 months ago on Conversation @ http://www.newrepublic.com/article/117559/how-silicon-valley-investors-created-tech-bubble
You will probably enjoy the NY Tech Meetup tonight.
1 year, 2 months ago on When will we see “smart” sex and love wearables that aren’t moronic?
This isn't a bad article, but it leaves out two big things:
1) the very clear, concise strategy towards buttressing mobile and "routine habits." No, it's not a quick fix, but it's an insight into the way the world is going and could very well pay off in the long term. Monetizing mobile is, after all, what saved Facebook's stock.
2) The incremental but much needed improvements to the ad platform and ad offerings. This was the biggest piece of her CES announcement, and it seems like most journalists are glossing over it. It, too, has a ton of potential. If it works. A big if, to be sure, but sure seems like that should be included in any review of her performance.
1 year, 3 months ago on Just say no. Please, Marissa. Just. Say. No.
Brand doesn't need to be measured in likes and engagements. It never has been, and people have been happily spending the bulk of ad money on TV for decades on brand advertising without it. Even now, $50 billion a year is spent on brand advertising without a single measuring of "click" or "engagement." It's called television ads.
Brand advertising is measured by a noticeable change in perception about your brand in the public at large. it's done by surveys. It may ALWAYS be done by surveys. I think it probably will. The method of measurement need not change for the medium of brand advertising to change - from TV to digital. If you walked into any CMO's office and said "I can increase your unaided awareness by Y% and your brand sentiment by Z% - the two metrics you already use and obsess over - for 20% less money, okay?" They would all say "okay! great!" The problem is that no one can honestly say that because brand advertising options on the web suck - up till recently it's mainly been banners.
But brand doesn't need a new measurement metric. The old ones will do, even in digital. It's just that there are still limited good options for brand advertising on the web, because all of ad tech was so navel-gazing at direct.
2 years, 3 months ago on Social media might drive brand awareness, but search still drives the sales
Not commenting on the wisdom of such a move - I would be against it - but it's worth pointing out that Ingram's argument relied less on anecdotal teen use and more on this quote: "it is clearly a huge and growing force when it comes to sharing and engaging with visual content of all kinds — in other words, it’s the kind of curatorial and creative market that lots of advertisers and brands are interested in appealing to. The sharing of that content is exactly what Facebook has tried to encourage with its “frictionless sharing” apps and features, but much of that has been awkwardly handled from a user point of view and it’s not clear what effect it has had on engagement."
2 years, 5 months ago on Blog Counterpoint: Why Facebook should NOT buy Tumblr
In their defense, foursquare beat most of these people with the sponsored badge like 3 years ago. ;)
2 years, 6 months ago on Native Advertising Will Save Us All. Maybe.
This was a great article. I can't tell you how many times I have referred to that chart as "the chart."
2 years, 7 months ago on We’re Still Waiting For Internet Ad Spend To Catch Up to the Web — Let’s Not Make The Same Mistake With Mobile
The thing I think is funny is the way it's somehow not expensive to hire 1,000 developers like Twitter but it's expensive to hire 50 journalists.
It's actually pretty funny to think how it's expensive to hire 10 journalists but somehow not expensive to hire 10 developers. As if journalists are highly paid or something.
You hit the nail on it right here: "platforms are like catnip to investors"
This doesn't necessarily mean they're good investments, but that there is a super slim chance they MIGHT be. As going concerns, though, they sure are more expensive than media companies.
2 years, 7 months ago on Platforms Are For Pussies
As a tech investor and writer, I can assure you it is not easy, at all, to be a naysayer. Great article otherwise, though.
2 years, 11 months ago on No Pop Equals a Flop? Welcome to the Irrational World of Public Markets, Facebook
This seems like an awesome idea and an awesome model, but it's worth nothing that it would only apply to direct advertising, not brand advertising. Brands have value and advertising agencies make them for peanuts compared to how much a good one can end up being worth. On the direct side, a model like this would make sense for a marketer, but on the brand side, where a good chunk of ad money is spent, the brands would get a raw deal compared to what they're getting now if they were to pay based on value added.
3 years ago on Toronto’s Siren Takes the Mystery Out of Advertising, Sees Revenue Surge