Posted March 31, 2010 by Bev Barker | 0 Comments
"The New York Times" still runs a section called "Media & Advertising." These real life stories profile how professionals have been being passed up for "stock" photos - almost free - money-wise and copyright-wise. It's technology - again.
Posted March 30, 2010 by Bev Barker | 21 Comments
Here's a fascinating look back to when "Ad Age" published its first issue in 1930. The stock market "had just tanked, and a Great Depression was only beginning. Consumer spending plunged 41% from 1929 to the Depression's 1933 nadir." There is a timeline profiling great brands and change - reinvention and the rise of "new media" from radio to TV to Cable to Internet and new technologies from refrigerators to "Bill Gates' and Paul Allen's Micro-Soft."
There are more articles and a complete timeline! (NOTE: To see each decade - go back to the top of the timeline page and click on the decade of choice.)
Where will "Ad Age" be (virtual only? or gone?) in the next 10 years? Whatever happens - it will happen much FASTER than those first 80 years.
Posted March 18, 2010 by Bev Barker | 25 Comments
"Advertising Age" published this story but also said "Things are looking up" because figures from the fourth quarter and first quarter 2010 "show improvement in most media." To see the ongoing impact on "old" local media by Internet, check out this table at the bottom of the page.
Posted March 15, 2010 by Bev Barker | 0 Comments
USA Today to be sold at Starbucks reports the Washington Business Journal.
In 2009, Gannett's publishing advertising revenue declined again, down 28 percent. What makes Gannett (NYSE:GCI) think that selling their newspapers is a revenue raising strategy in today's online/anywhere reading world? At Starbucks, visitors read via laptops, not paper.
Posted March 11, 2010 by Bev Barker | 0 Comments
"Back to boring" is what Pete Blackshaw, exec vp of Nielson Online Digital Sttrategic Services, proposes for online advertising. He writes there's, "Too much sizzle in the system right now."
Interesting take from the "old school." Comments so far are in agreement. What do you think?