Safespace invaders

Safespace invaders

From my experience with text message marketing I would classify it as spam. I might use Optus as my network carrier but when Optus sends me promotional material for movies or other stuff I get annoyed. First, because it was probably hidden somewhere in my contract that I consent to this being sent to me and I don’t like the fact that they’ve managed to slip that by me. Secondly, because my phone is a private space. It’s like those people on the street that talk at you to try and get you to “donatemoney to a cause, or people who knock on your door to try get you to join a religion or switch electricity providers. I hate them all.

So in a paper written relatively early in the mobile era (Retite et al. 2005) it’s stated that mobile advertising (text message advertising) has a positive effect on brand attitudes. This might be because people we’re not as connected to their phones as they are now and a little text message here and there wouldn’t offend them. But more recent literature has stated that this belief that it’s okay to send people promotional material via SMS needs to be re-examined. We now are much more attached to our phones, they are almost an extension of our being, and being sent SMS’s that aren’t from people we know are invasive and can in fact decrease brand attitudes (Kaan, 2014).

The more recent paper links the relevance and intrusiveness of the message to how it will affect brand attitudes. Relevance is key, and the feelings of intrusiveness can be diminished by increasing relevance. How relevant can a blanket spam message from your service provider be though? Maybe they don’t care because they know if they keep it to a minimum my brand attitude isn’t going to reach the tipping point where I leave them for someone else. This relevance intrusiveness brand attitude balance is something anyone engaging in text message marketing is going to have to consider.

Do you feel like you space has been invaded when you receive promotional material in SMS?

Varnali, K. (2014). SMS advertising: How message relevance is linked to the attitude toward the brand?. Journal Of Marketing Communications, 20(5), 339-351.

Rettie, R., Grandcolas, U., & Deakins, B. (2005). Text message advertising: Response rates and branding effects. Journal Of Targeting, Measurement & Analysis For Marketing, 13(4), 304-312.


TFW your virus fails

TFW your virus fails

One thing I absolutely detest is bull—-, my feelings are kind of relevant because obviously the same sentiment is held by a large portion of people.

Recently in my course covering IMC, we talked about integrating viral content into an IMC plan. I don’t think this is a great idea, because IMC’s are all about synergising media strategy to achieve the campaign objectives and viral content is something that is very unpredictable and unreliable.

Anyway I wanted to talk about a failure by Witchery Men’s that fall into the Homemade Failure of the Kaplan and Haenlein initiator outcome matrix. The brand tried to generate awareness and improve attitudes for their menswear branch. They did this via a poorly acted (another pet peeve of mine) video posted online, they then PR’d it featuring on morning shows and things that the target audience (,women who buy their male partners clothing,) consume.

The swindle went of for a couple of weeks, with people getting involved, trying to help this young woman find some guy who left their “beautiful” “silk lined” “beautiful stripped interior”’d jacket at a cafe. Eventually the truth surfaced and Witchery had to apologise and then deleted all the content on the channel they created to play with peoples emotions to promote awareness of their brand.

A lesson to be learned from this and creating viral content would be that honesty is the best policy. I’m totally okay with large corporations playing with emotive responses from people, as long as their honest with the content they use to do this.

What are your feelings towards brands that lie to people?

Do you have any examples of brands lying to people?

On Viral Videos

On Viral Videos

I was recently told about this youtube channel on the internet that demonstrates how certain viral videos are fake (Captain DisIllusion). In this video he talks about clickbait content and how these videos were fabricated to make interesting content for clickbait websites.

I’m going to run through the Kaplan & Haenlein paper on the criteria for making a viral video and apply it to the video talked about by Captain DisIllusion.

Two videos were talked about in this episode of his show, both about lightning. The one I’ll analyse is the surfer with dumb voice video. It has over two million views and weaselled its way into the highly reputable(heavy sarcasm), life destroying Murdoch Media news cycle.

The paper by Kaplan and Haenlein states that three elements must be present for a video to reach epidemic levels of attention:

1. Messengers-

Mavens, or people who are tuned into the marketplace and are members of a community that talks about these things.

Social Hubs, people/pages with large amounts of followers, meme pages on facebook are an example of this, or personalities on facebook that have massive amounts of followers.

Salespeople, shouldn’t have to explain this.

In the case of the lightning video it was posted onto a social hub, which was a clickbait news page on facebook that linked the video from youtube.

2. The Message-

It has to be memorable or interesting. If you watch the video the guy has a strange voice that seems like he had a stroke while watching Fat Pizza and someone nearly gets struck by lightning. It also only 46 seconds long so it’s easily digestible. These factors make it interesting.

3. The Environment-

The message should be spread to a wide variety of messengers. Simply put strategically spread your seed. The video was posted on facebook pages, reddit’s main video section.

I’m not donning a tinfoil hat, but if you were to claim that this video is using embedded marketing to advertise a product, the product it would be doing that for is the GoPro.


Andreas M. Kaplan Michael Haenlein

Getting creative with SEO

Getting creative with SEO

SEO or Search engine optimisation might be dying, but its still being practised and how people do it is interesting! It’s a highly creative field with many means to the end. Personally, I find the ethical road to the top of the search bar to be uninteresting in terms of creativity on the optimisers behalf. It requires sincerity and hard work.

The incorrect/unethical way which tends to lead to bad results is much more interesting, here is a few ways “black hat” SEO’s operate.

Parasite hosting

This is an extremely technical process where a site with high SE visibility/credibility is hijacked and a page is placed advertising X is placed on on the website. So when you search for product X it will be at the top of the results based off how the search algorithm prioritises results. The main target for these schemes are .edu pages. Here is an example of, a completely legit aviation school in the US being hijacked by a Viagra ad. As you can see google is already onto this as they have below the search result for the school “this site may be hacked”.


Google Bombing

You generate a lot of links to your page and spread them across the internet. This can be done through various means: Spam bots or people power for example. Now there are two applications of this technique which is what makes it a bit more interesting. The obvious one is you use it to boost your page to the top of a SE. The less obvious more devious method is where you purposefully do it to a competitor. Known as Google bowling, you use the a SE policy against Google bombing so that the competitor is seen to be using these tactics and is punished by Google by being pushed lower into search results.



This is where the page displayed on the SE will be unrelated to the page. This is done through IT wizardry and I, a simple man, was unable to figure out how exactly it’s done.

These are some of the interesting ways that people get creative with SE algorithms. Google is quiet large and works very hard to deliver quality content so the ability for people to do this gets more and more difficult, or you could say more and more technical.


Steps towards the automatization of white collar jobs: Marketing Research

Steps towards the automatization of white collar jobs: Marketing Research

Marketing has been about communication, two ways between consumer and business. Almost always this has been handled by humans, however with the advent of the internet of thing and big data this has changed. People are no longer necessary to foster this communication between consumer to business, software and machines are now able to gather consumers data without the consumer being aware of this. The fact that the consumer is unaware of this eliminates extraneous variables to do with traditional methods of market research. An example of this at play is the creation of the TV show House of Cards. Netflix utilised big data to generate certain design elements that would be successful in creating a great TV show.

The implications of this are immense for the marketing research field. Traditional forms of data collection are usually quite expensive and time consuming. Big data offers a cheaper, faster and possibly more true insight into wants and needs. Right now you might need people to analyse the data but it’s not much of a stretch to think that a program will be developed to make these insights user friendly to parties interested in the end product.

So what will happen to the jobs that are made redundant by this and on a greater scale is efficiency conducive to the idea that everyone has the right to work?

Big data & pricing

Big data & pricing


Big data has transformed or is transforming the way many things are practised. For example insurance companies now can use you posts you make on facebook to reject claims, banks now have algorithms that analyse who you’re friends with on facebookand then predicts how likely you are to repay loans based on who you associate with and Amazon can tailor the prices it offers you based on you customer data.

What the internet of things means for all of this is a much deeper analysis of individuals can be formed. What one does with this portrait is only limited by the imagination. Based off the amazon example of price discrimination would it be much of a stretch to say that with the portrait of an individual can prices be tailored to incentivise/disincentivse certain purchases based on data gathered on that persons. The ethics behind this are contentious, if left to the hands of an algorithm would it it positively influence a persons life?

Factors that would decide this would be the sophistication of the algorithm and the intent behind its creation. An algorithm designed to offer you cheap beers might be bad for obvious reasons but it has potential to be good in that it might be able to regulate consumption, or might be able to foster relationships (an algorithm that measure who else is looking for drinks and if you’re friends with them). An algorithm that incentivises healthy eating would be good for obvious reasons but if combined with other aspects such as health insurance, is there autonomy behind the decision or is it controlled by monetary factors?

It’s truly a brave new world we are entering into and deep examinations of the ethics and future implications of big data, wearable and the internet of things is extremely necessary.

Facebook analytics and how it offended me

Facebook analytics and how it offended me

I’m not very active on Facebook, I use it as a calender for events coming up and as a method of communication with friends. I even deleted the Facebook app off my phone because it used up too much data and Chat had all the functions I needed to talk to friends. My likes consist of musicians I like, magazines that post content I enjoy and a few pages I find funny.

So with all this considered, Facebook should have a fairly decent picture of who I am and what it should recommend me. This is incorrect. Facebook is terrible at recommending me things. Usually I’m not fussed about the bad club nights or festival ads/recommendations that pop up, but a few weeks ago Facebook managed to offend me. An advertisement for a vampyre (spelt with a y?) themed party in Brunswick appeared on my feed. The idea that I am in some way related to a group of adults who dress up as vampires in some form of sad escapism was triggering. I had a mild existential crisis.

This inspired me to learn more as to how Facebook business works. When targeting an audience Facebook is a very useful tool (in some cases). People wilfully pour out personal information about their demographic data, interests, behaviour and desires. From this users of Facebook business have a tool to target audiences based off this data.

So after learning about this I did some research into why I might be a candidate for a vampyre party. I went through my likes and couldn’t find any obvious reasons. My behaviour on Facebook might warrant the ad. My excessive event “attending” could make me a prime candidate for vampyre parties. The people I’m friends with might be into capes and teeth on the DL. I might be the right demographic for this kind of thing. I live on the Northside. It sort of made sense, but left me feeling concerned with the online persona I’ve created.

Have you had any messed up recommendations on Facebook or google?