My daily readings 08/05/2011

    •   彭明盛问道,这100年教会了IBM什么?成功正在飞逝。1961年财富500强企业里排名前40的公司到2010年时只有6家还存在。在过去数十年间,计算机历史中许多典型的科技公司都被兼并了,如Sun、Dec、Apollo、Tandem、Burroughs等等。
    •  彭明盛说,一个世纪以来,IBM基本上是在做同一件事:向未来前进。站在创新的最前线,不管有多成功,也不要用一个产品或一个商业模式定义自己。彭明盛称,时间教会IBM要平衡变化与延续。
    • 小沃森在IBM 50周年诞辰时表示,任何组织都必须有响亮的信念,必须遵循这些信念,要时刻准备好改变除这些信念外的一切。
  • tags: Android iOS CTR

    • The Westborough, Mass. company today shared data based on a sample of 1.3 million impressions across its network, showing a click-through rate (CTR) of 1.187 percent on Android devices vs. a lowly 0.654 percent CTR on the iPhone. Clearly, Chitika’s large sample size offers credibility to the theory that Android users are more likely to click ads, but why are they doing so?

       

    • It’s possible there are more mistaken ad clicks on Android as a result.
    • Given that Google’s history is rich in advertising and the science of optimizing it, I’m wondering if there’s some hot-spot algorithm or other ad-centric solution that gives the Android platform an advantage over others for advertisers.

       

    • Interestingly, the Android click-through rates that Chitika is seeing aren’t a one-off situation. Indeed, data from Smaato, another ad network, showed similar results in June with Android CTRs overtaking that of the iPhone, but still lagging behind Symbian and feature phones. Is it the interface, the platform, the type of users that Android attracts, or some combination of all three?
  • tags: iAd promotion mobile Ads

    • Advertising for apps within the App Store, even on the new iAd for Developers platform, is likely ineffective for driving sales.

       

      From August 19 through August 25 I ran a campaign on the newly released iAd for Developers platform for our Audiobooks Premium app. The results were, to say the least, disappointing. For all the promise of selling your apps directly within an advertisement, it appears that so far this is not a viable way to drive traffic and create an economically sustainable promotion. For $1,251.75, my campaign generated a total of 84 downloads, thus a Cost Per Acquisition (CPA) of ~$15. For a $0.99 app, those economics just can’t work out.

    • The goal is to find an economically viable way to introduce our apps to new customers, who might not find them through the typical Top Charts within the App Store.
    • I want to eliminate any doubt that the campaign’s performance was lackluster because the app it targeted wasn’t compelling. Our audiobooks app suite has generated well over 1.6 million downloads since it was launched and has consistently been in the Top 10 Book apps for its lifetime.
    • At this point we pulled the plug, there really wasn’t any indication that this campaign would be heading to a successful place with more time. So in summary the results were:

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

      Day Spend Impressions Clicks CTR Downloads CPA
      8/19 $255.00 400,991 1,020 0.25% 19 $13.42
      8/20 $258.25 449,338 1,033 0.23% 17 $15.19
      8/21 $253.73 422,354 1,015 0.24% 15 $16.92
      8/22 $254.00 413,144 1,016 0.25% 18 $14.11
      8/23 $128.50 229,958 514 0.20% 9 $14.28
      8/24 $102.25 137,144 409 0.30% 6 $17.04
      Total: $1,251.75 2,052,929 5,007 0.24% 84 $14.90

       

       

    • Out of curiosity I decided it would be interesting to try out the same campaign banner on AdMob’s network to see how it compared with the performance of iAd. So I took $75 and the exact same banner image and did a quick blast campaign there. AdMob can’t do the nice integrated download conversion tracking that Apple can, but the impression/click data is nevertheless interesting.

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

      Impressions Clicks CTR Cost CPC
      145,093 1,944 1.34% $77.76 $0.04

       

       AdMob is 6.25X cheaper than iAd, and surprisingly had a CTR that was 5.5X better. This surprised me given all the marketing about how Apple believed that their putting an iAd badge on their advertisements would induce a level of trust and excitement with users.

    • I think that this stems from the fundamentals of why people buy apps. I believe most people buy apps based on receiving a recommendation, either directly from word-of-mouth or indirectly by their position in the Charts. There is no way to realistically replace either of these recommendation systems by throwing money at the problem.
    • I think that this avenue might have some success if they allowed developers to create more engaging advertisements that can really showcase the app and its features, including videos, HTML5 mockups and demos.
    • We are hard at work designing an analogous system for the web: Web Intents. This web platform API will provide the same benefits of Android Intents, but better suited for web applications. When designing the system, we have first and foremost been interested in creating a simple, easy-to-use API. With Web Intents, you will be able to connect your web app to a service with as little as two lines of code! Chrome will perform the heavy lifting for you. As with Android, Web Intents documents an initial set of intent actions (edit, view, share, etc.) that likely cover the majority of use cases on the web today; however, as the web grows and sites provide more functionality, new intent actions will be added by services that document these intents, some more popular than others. To foster development and use of intents, we plan to create a site to browse existing intents and add new intents.
    • If you think about it, it’s obvious why we turned down Microsoft’s offer. Microsoft’s objective has been to keep from Google and Android device-makers any patents that might be used to defend against their attacks. A joint acquisition of the Novell patents that gave all parties a license would have eliminated any protection these patents could offer to Android against attacks from Microsoft and its bidding partners. Making sure that we would be unable to assert these patents to defend Android — and having us pay for the privilege — must have seemed like an ingenious strategy to them. We didn’t fall for it.
    • Should Google have just gone along with that anyway, since ultimately Microsoft did get them (along with Apple, Oracle, and EMC)? You could argue that. But fortunately for Google, the courts intervened in that deal and made Microsoft sell off the patents they bought and made the others in the group license the rest, Drummond notes.

Posted from Diigo. The rest of my favorite links are here.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: