Source: http://gizmodo.com/5849026/hp-and-conde-nast-are-creating-an-unholy-union-to-print-magazines-on-your-home-printer-so-you-can-not-read-them-and-waste-paper-and-buy-more-expensive-ink

HP Wants You to Print Magazines with Your Home Printer So You Can Waste More Paper and Buy More InkTwo wrongs don’t make a right. I think I learned that as a 4-year-old. Apparently, HP and Condé Nast skipped out on that life lesson because they’re combining two dying things—print media and printers—to create the unholiest of unions: your HP printer at home will print out Condé Nast magazines for you to read.

It sounds straight out of the webpages of the Onion but it’s true, Condé Nast magazines like Wired, Details, Epicurious, Glamour, Allure, Golf Digest etc. will be “delivered” to people’s personal HP web printers so that they can presumably read them without having to go to the magazine stand. This is real! You schedule when you want to read the mags and your HP printer starts spitting out the pages. (I’m assuming you have to staple the pages together yourself)

I guess this could work in a bizarro world where there is no such thing as tablets or laptops or computers or smartphones or the Internet or common sense but we’re not living in that world! Instead, we live in an era where people are ditching their printers cause they’re useless, people who have printers never print anything because printer ink is ass expensive and print media is dying (which is legitimately sad). But still, combining print and more print is the dumbest thing HP’s done this… month, I guess.

But HP is serious about this. And since they want to revive the printer as some sort of news hub, they’re offering a subscription service for printer ink delivery. It’s like Netflix but for printer ink! Subscriptions for HP Instant Ink will start from $5.99 to $10.99 per month depending on the product line (shipping included). This will not end well. [HP, Image Credit: photographer2222/Shutterstock]


drag2share – drag and drop RSS news items on your email contacts to share (click SEE DEMO)

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Source: http://gizmodo.com/5842331/android-grows-but-apple-still-dominates-airport-wifi-networks/gallery/1

Android Grows, but Apple Still Dominates Airport Wi-Fi Networks If you’re in an airport and using the public Wi-Fi, chances are you are reading this post on your smartphone or tablet. And for 83 percent of you, this mobile device is either an iPhone, iPad or iPod touch.

According to data compiled by Boingo Wireless, the company behind 60 airport hotspots and over 400,000 public hotspots worldwide, a dwindling number of users (41 percent) pull out their laptop at public hotspots, while most (59 percent) use a smartphone or a tablet.

This is a complete 180 from 2008 when the majority of people (88.5 percent) were rocking laptops and a small minority (11 percent) were cruising the internet using a mobile device.

And it’s iOS that rules the mobile roost on Boingo’s wireless network. Yes, the data shows that Android devices have tripled in number over the last year, but its 11 percent share pales in comparison to the 83 percent commanded by the iPhone, iPad and iPod touch.

So what are people doing with their mobile devices on these public Wi-Fi hotspots? Boingo thinks most people are streaming music and video because data usage by mobile devices is skyrocketing. In 2011, users are pulling down 0.89MB of data per minute, up from a measly 0.37 MB in 2009. A little less than a megabyte per minute is not a lot, but it may be enough to secretly watch Rebecca Black on your iPhone while you wait for your plane. [Boingo Wireless]

Android Grows, but Apple Still Dominates Airport Wi-Fi Networks
Android Grows, but Apple Still Dominates Airport Wi-Fi Networks
Android Grows, but Apple Still Dominates Airport Wi-Fi Networks
Android Grows, but Apple Still Dominates Airport Wi-Fi Networks
Android Grows, but Apple Still Dominates Airport Wi-Fi Networks


drag2share – drag and drop RSS news items on your email contacts to share (click SEE DEMO)

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Source: http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-facebook-time-2011-9

Facebook’s domination of time spent on the web is absolutely astonishing.

A new report on social media from Nielsen shows U.S. users spent 53.5 billion minutes on Facebook in May, which is more time than was spent on the next four biggest sites.

(If you include YouTube with Google, then it’s more time than the next three biggest sites.)

 chart of the day, web brands, time spent may 2011, sep 2011

Follow the Chart Of The Day on Twitter: www.twitter.com/chartoftheday

Please follow SAI on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

See Also:


drag2share – drag and drop RSS news items on your email contacts to share (click SEE DEMO)

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Source: http://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-news-feed-apps-2011-7

Facebook users spend most of their time in the News Feed, the river of information about your friends, and comparatively very little (just 10%) using apps according to a comScore report on how people use Facebook. 

This is interesting because the biggest app company, Zynga, filed to go public, and more generally because tons of Facebook apps are getting zillions of VC money all the time.

If people spend so little time on Facebook apps, why the excitement?

First of all, 10% of usage on Facebook, the second biggest site in the world, is still a huge market.

And also almost certainly because those who do use apps, use them a lot. Social games are a perfect example: not everyone plays them, but those who do, play them a lot. And a smaller minority pay for virtual goods in those games, but that minority pays enough to fund a thriving social games industry.

It’s definitely possible to build big businesses on the Facebook platform. But those numbers are a useful reality check: Facebook isn’t becoming a new internet, with Facebook apps replacing websites, as some fear. People still overwhelmingly use Facebook for what it’s designed for: knowing what our friends are up to.

chart of the day, time spent on facebook, may 2011

Follow the Chart Of The Day on Twitter: @chartoftheday

Please follow SAI on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

See Also:

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Source: http://blog.compete.com/2011/06/30/summer-cinema-smash-or-site-traffic-stinker/

movie theatre marquee

36 years ago, Stephen Spielberg released Jaws during a traditionally quiet time of the year for the box office. It took in seven million dollars that opening weekend, and became the highest grossing film of all time until Star Wars debuted two years later. What followed was a new era of Hollywood, a period in which the summer quarter would account for 40 percent of the entire year’s box office earnings.

It also began the era of extreme (read: shameless) Hollywood marketing. On May 6, 2011 Thor was released, grossing 65 million dollars in its first weekend, and going on to earn more than 430 million dollars worldwide. We’re now deep into the summer blockbuster season.

So it got me wondering: are major studios using their mega movies to drive traffic to their websites?

uvs to major movie studios

Over the last two years, it looks like they’ve rarely gotten more than a million unique visitors in a month, with one glaring exception: Warner Brothers, which consistently gets over 2 million UVs a month. Half-Blood Prince was the second highest grossing film of 2009 behind movie mammoth Avatar, and Sherlock Holmes was at number 8. Because these films were driving WB’s traffic up so much, why weren’t other studios benefiting from their movies’ hype? Avatar is the highest grossing film of all time, but it did nothing for Fox’s UVs in December 2009. I realized that unlike WB, other studios don’t host their movies on subdomains—they set up new sites specifically for each movie.

So how do these sites stack up? Here are five of the six top grossing movies domestically this year. Each has a significant spike in daily reach right around their release date.

daily reach for summer movie sites

After just a few days, though, the sites become almost obsolete. Even The Hangover Part II, WB’s subdomain, falls to almost nothing. So then what is it keeping Warner Bros. at the top of the internet game? If it’s not blockbusters bringing in hundreds of millions, what is it?

uvs to warner brothers sites

Ellen DeGeneres’ show seems to drive about half of Warner Bros’ traffic.

I guess daytime TV is a blockbuster, too.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Source: http://blog.compete.com/2011/06/30/summer-cinema-smash-or-site-traffic-stinker/

movie theatre marquee

36 years ago, Stephen Spielberg released Jaws during a traditionally quiet time of the year for the box office. It took in seven million dollars that opening weekend, and became the highest grossing film of all time until Star Wars debuted two years later. What followed was a new era of Hollywood, a period in which the summer quarter would account for 40 percent of the entire year’s box office earnings.

It also began the era of extreme (read: shameless) Hollywood marketing. On May 6, 2011 Thor was released, grossing 65 million dollars in its first weekend, and going on to earn more than 430 million dollars worldwide. We’re now deep into the summer blockbuster season.

So it got me wondering: are major studios using their mega movies to drive traffic to their websites?

uvs to major movie studios

Over the last two years, it looks like they’ve rarely gotten more than a million unique visitors in a month, with one glaring exception: Warner Brothers, which consistently gets over 2 million UVs a month. Half-Blood Prince was the second highest grossing film of 2009 behind movie mammoth Avatar, and Sherlock Holmes was at number 8. Because these films were driving WB’s traffic up so much, why weren’t other studios benefiting from their movies’ hype? Avatar is the highest grossing film of all time, but it did nothing for Fox’s UVs in December 2009. I realized that unlike WB, other studios don’t host their movies on subdomains—they set up new sites specifically for each movie.

So how do these sites stack up? Here are five of the six top grossing movies domestically this year. Each has a significant spike in daily reach right around their release date.

daily reach for summer movie sites

After just a few days, though, the sites become almost obsolete. Even The Hangover Part II, WB’s subdomain, falls to almost nothing. So then what is it keeping Warner Bros. at the top of the internet game? If it’s not blockbusters bringing in hundreds of millions, what is it?

uvs to warner brothers sites

Ellen DeGeneres’ show seems to drive about half of Warner Bros’ traffic.

I guess daytime TV is a blockbuster, too.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Source: http://lifehacker.com/5814945/everyone-wants-better-no-one-wants-change

"Everyone Wants Better. No One Wants Change"Jonathan Fields points out that often times we’re only interested in the result and want to ignore the hard work it takes to get it. The internet has created a culture based on immediacy, and that is good in many ways, but sometimes the hard way is better. Being healthy and happy isn’t just a decision to make. It takes concentrated, ongoing effort. It’s easy to see the hard stuff as bad, but it rarely is. Even positive change may be stressful, but it’s going to be better.

Photo by Yuri Arcurs

"Everyone Wants Better. No One Wants Change" Everyone Wants Better. No One Wants Change | Jonathan Fields


You can follow Adam Dachis, the author of this post, on Twitter and Facebook.  Twitter’s the best way to contact him, too.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Source: http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-ben-horowitz-tech-valuations-2011-6

The valuations of internet-based companies have significant room for growth in the next decade, argues venture capitalist Ben Horowitz for the Economist.

To understand why, Horowitz produced the three charts below. As you can see, the “Internet Cycle” is due for a massive explosion in the next ten years based on historical trends. 

He says that major technology cycles generally last 25 years, with the “bulk of the purchases” happening the last 5-10 years as late adopters sign on. Using this as a frame of reference he says we are “poised to hit the major adoption wave for the Internet technology platform over the next 8 years.”

This isn’t just idle chatter from Horowitz, either. His VC firm Andreessen Horowitz raised almost $1 billion to invest in this next wave.

chart of the day, tech valuations, june 2011

Follow the Chart Of The Day on Twitter: @chartoftheday

Please follow SAI: Silicon Alley Insider on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

See Also:

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Source: http://gizmodo.com/5801695/screw-mtv-youtube-100-makes-music-videos-relevant-again

Screw MTV. YouTube 100 Makes Music Videos Relevant Again.YouTube 100 sheepishly materialized this week. The feature itself is minor, a space in their music section listing the 100 most popular music vids. But for the future of the music video, the implications are HUGE. In the best possible way.

YouTube 100 not only lists the Top 100 vids, but lets you play them back to back automatically. (Roku and AppleTV need to get this on their boxes). YouTube 100 returns us to an era when finding and watching music videos isn’t an arbitrary, single-serve experience. It makes watching vids less about personal discovery and more about the shared experience. And it’s as populist as the MTV of yore: our clicks determine what hits the top of the list. It will make music videos relevant again, which they haven’t been for quite some time.

When MTV cancelled TRL and decided they only wanted to show every form of reality TV under the sun, the music video basically died. I mean, specimens still existed (YouTube was coming into its own), but the music video universe had turned into a wasteland of cheaply made abominations that depended on viral distribution for views.

Gone were the days of Diddy’s 10 minute, multi-million dollar epics, which featured big name actors and entire scenes that had little—if nothing—to do with the song. Gone was the video premiere as an event. Some artist (or if they were lucky, PR flak) would just upload a video to a YouTube unceremoniously. Gone was the focused, steady stream of music videos force-fed to us in 30 and 60 minute blocks. Instead, we watched what someone emailed to us, then went back to staring at animated GIFs. Also gone were the video countdowns—there’s something to be said for coming to your own conclusions, but filters and lists always make things more interesting, amiright?

But then something happened. Musicians and labels learned how to market music on the internet (even if they still have no idea how to make money off of said marketing). They learned that a music video gone viral could be a crucial turning point for an artist. They learned how to make the music video an event again (have you SEEN Kanye’s Runaway?!). And when this happened, videos started getting the time and money and care they needed to flourish on the internet. Many of the recent videos from the likes Beyonce, Lady Gaga and Kanye West have had TV-quality production values, but largely found their viewership online.

The problem has been that there’s been no single, communal space where these videos are curated and discussed. MTV has had its MTV Hive site for a while now, but they’ve kept it far too obscure and feature-lacking to really connect with the masses. Vimeo, despite having a treasure trove of amazing content, is too niche in its scope to find a mainstream audience. And YouTube on its own is too chaotic to facilitate a sense of community.

But now that they’ve added the YouTube 100, we have a starting place. Something to talk about. Something to disagree with. It’s a reason to care about music videos again. You know, just as long as VEVO doesn’t ruin it all with those crappy, borderline intrusive ads.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

SOURCE: http://www.emarketer.com/blog/index.php/numbers-major-media-ad-spending/

  • Share

Behind the Numbers: US Major Media Ad Spending

Posted By: Nicole Perrin

eMarketer’s major media ad spending projection is the result of a comprehensive analysis of myriad elements related to the ad spending market. We use both bottom-up and top-down approaches for the estimates and projections.

  • Top-down approach: Marketing and advertising expenditures are often budgeted as a whole and allocated to different media based on needs and interests. We analyze macro-level factors that are closely associated with overall marketing and advertising budget growth, such as GDP, consumer expenditures, unemployment rates, etc. In addition, we take into consideration the historical trends of the advertising market and how each medium contributes to the grand total
  • Bottom-up approach: For each medium, we examine the historical trends of ad spending in the medium, consumption trends, and how the medium is faring in relationship with other media. To get a more solid picture of the ad spending trends, we also keep track of the performance of key players and the overall financial situations of the key advertisers and industries within the medium.
  • Numerous sources: Following eMarketer tradition, we also analyzed hundreds of datapoints from some 30 research firms and other organizations that track ad spending on TV, the internet, newspapers, magazines, radio and directories. Tracking these statistics over a period of several years provides a detailed picture of ad spending across major media. All data is normalized to account for differences in methodology and inclusions. Some firms attempt to measure the size of the market through reports of company earnings, while others rely on rate cards or agency billings. By examining a variety of figures and the available information on how they were compiled, eMarketer makes estimates that take all sides of the market into account.
  • Reliable benchmarks: In looking into all the sources, we are able to identify reliable benchmark sources for our projections of several media. The sources whose data we benchmark our projections against are: Newspaper Association of America (NAA) for newspaper advertising,Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB)/PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) for online advertising, Outdoor Advertising Association of America (OAAA) for outdoor advertising, and Radio Advertising Bureau(RAB) for radio advertising.
  • Segmented estimates: Lastly, for all the core media ad spending, we have segmented the online portion of the ad spending figures from the total ad spending figures. By doing this, we are able to avoid double-counting and come up with the total major media ad spending figures, as the online portions for all the traditional media are counted in the online ad spending category. Most importantly, a separate estimate and projection of advertising revenues that the traditional media companies might generate through online venues could provide some insight into whether they can survive the digital transition or not.
  • , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,