Ciaran Norris
- 30 comments
- 9 likes given
- 8 likes received
30-something English web & music geek, currently living in Dublin.
Songkick has had "I'm going" since it launched I think.
$40m? That's a shitload of banners to sell. Let's not start crowing about the victory of the web just yet. And whilst we're at it, what exactly is pando's biz model?
@jholyhead @roryelgin @paulcarr @trevoragilbert and whether it was a light hearted story or not, and even if he did take it too seriously, the way that he was treated was not cool. Not cool at all (and, I should add, I don't know him from Adam).
@jholyhead @roryelgin @paulcarr @trevoragilbert Really? That counts for trolling now? He disliked the story, thought it was rather vapid, and said so. What makes this trolling, as opposed to just expressing an opinion? Was it the bad language? I know that Pando is an American site, and that things can get a bit prissy, but Paul Carr writes on it for goodness' sake.
Then, one of the site's writers, and another contributor (and BFF of the owner) come along to mock and abuse him. It was like some sort of hazing scene out of an 80s brat-pack flick.
If daring to suggest that the group-think of the valley set isn't perhaps gospel counts as trolling, then I'll be under the bridge waiting for the billy goats gruff.
@roryelgin @paulcarr @trevoragilbert Pando - from launch to this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDthMGtZKa4 in less than 4 months. Impressive.
Seriously guys, I know that all tech journalists seem to think that anyone who dares disagree is somehow a troll, and therefore open for abuse, but you get the comments you deserve.
And, up till now, you guys have had far better comments than you've deserved. I'm guessing that from here on in you'll get the same sort of abuse and smug self-righteousness that you're dishing out to your readers. I don't think I'll hang around to find out.
Oh well, at least you'll have the memories.
@unastronomer No, but you suggested they don't produce anything - they produce returns for advertisers. It's not an iPhone, but it's something! ;)
Did he then go on to grumble about all the immigrants, before swearing that he'd never go south of the river at that time of night?
@unastronomer The 'produce' several billion dollars in advertising revenue. Does that mean they're worth €100bn? I don't know. But let's not pretend they're worthless, or without value (I often thing that there is an important distinction between worth and value, which has gone missing along the way)
@genuinechris You misunderstand me (prob my fault); lots of sensible regs, implemented after the GD, were rolled back from 90s onwards, by Bush, also by Clinton. And similar things happened on this side of the pond from Thatcher through to Blair
@genuinechris Actually, most of the industries you mention are in trouble because government has backed away too much: the NHS (goverrnemt owned and run) has lower running costs than the US govt's contribution to health care; finance went gang busters because much of the sensible legislation put in place after the Great Depression was rolled back.
Governments aren't perfect, but neither are markets. Generally the best results come when the two work together.
Maybe he was thinking about this http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/11/disneyland-paris-20th-birthday-debt
"On its opening day on 12 April 1992 motorists were warned of massive tailbacks near the park, then called Euro Disney, in Marne-la-Vallée about 18 miles east of Paris. The French government reckoned that up to half a million people were planning a visit on the big day. In the event the huge car park complex was only half full, suggesting only about 25,000 people turned up."
I'm sure that this wouldn't be a popular view, but personally I don't think that companies should be able to sell products at a loss, whether book-sellers or supermarkets. It distorts markets, and always ends up screwing the little guys (farmers are being driven to the wall by the big retailers).
@lxmorj It's picking up? Sure, maybe it is. But so is the amount of TV advertising in general, because there's more TV than before.
More that work? Again, I'm not convinced. This is from 2006 http://www.lenovo.co.uk/tapes/; I was involved in this back in 2008 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ahg6qcgoay4&, these T-Mobile ads are from 2009 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQ3d3KigPQM. The Lenovo effort was estimated to have created millions of dollars in earned media, whilst the do the test one was shown to have saved lives. Just because someone hasn't heard of something before, doesn't mean it hasn't been working.
"At the beginning of the movie “2012,” there is scene where a huge wall of water rushes towards a monk standing on the top of a mountain, where he is ringing a bell.
Ring-a-ling, ring-a-ling, the bell tolls. Then the wave kills the monk. End scene."
Except there isn't. It's near the end of the film.
Great movie mind.
@kevinmarks "That perhaps the don't need your White Saviour Complex mixed up in their stories?"
Perhaps not, but there is a strong argument that having local (to the reader) reporters allows people to better understand foreign issues. Relying on Press Association and local reporters could, some would argue, be a good way of ensuring people stop reading your content.
The issue isn't having foreign correspondents or not, it's about the tone they take.
"It looks like there’s a new trend in the marketing world, to design advertisements specifically to go viral....it’s clear that marketers have finally caught up with the viral world."
This is a joke right? Do you actually read any of the ad/marketing press? 'Viral' has been an annoying buzz-word in ad agencies for at least 6 or 7 years, and probably longer. Adage.com has been running its Viral Video chart for I can't remember how long (at least 2009 if a quick search of their archive is anything to go on).
Guys, if you're going to write about things other then tech, can I please suggest that you actually do some research, or hire some people who know what they're talking about. This is as embarrassing as when other media get tech so wrong, something I'm sure that sites like Pando would jump on whilst screaming 'FAIL!'
@nathanielmott @kontrary But, as I'd hope you'd know, increasingly ads aren't chosen by someone in editorial (just as almost no sponsorships are decided on by editorial) ,or even in marketing (and I've worked in marketing in publishing; believe me, they read the site/magazine). It's decided by algorithms that work out what people are likely to click on/interact with/sign up to.
This doesn't mean that bad advertising doesn't exist, or will go away. But it does mean that there are plenty of people with more nuanced view of this (very important) subject, and that your back of a fag packet solution isn't really worth the time of the day.
And I'd also argue that the last thing that the publishing industry needs is an increased blurring between editorial and advertorial. What do you think is going to happen to that trust you were talking about if that happens?
@nathanielmott Forbes use of full page interstitials is horrible. Like I said, I never said advertising is in any way perfect. But the idea that sponsorships can a) replace the revenue that advertising in all its forms brings, and b) provide enough value to advertisers, is naive at best.
Advertisers are getting more creative, and also more targeted, so that the sort of thing you're talking about is already becoming increasingly rare. Unfortunately the method recommended by this post isn't really either.
Ooops. http://www.forbes.com/sites/suwcharmananderson/2012/03/13/influencers-are-not-key-to-viral-success/
Excellent. I look forward to reading your next post detailing your years working in marketing/advertising/anything that might give your viewpoint any sort of currency.
I'm not saying that the traditional advertising is perfect, or even in a great state. I'm not even saying that sponsorships don't work (they do, they're great).
But that doesn't change the fact that this post is the worst sort of student-journalism, based on rehashing things you didn't really understand when people cleverer than you said them the first time round.