As I personally thought that The Voice was quite innovative already, I was totally surprised when I heard about Rising Star. Not only was I interested because people are really judged on their singing qualities, it includes some technological innovations as well.

Instead of listening to all the judges and their opinions, Rising Stars enables you to be a judge a yourself! With the Rising Starr app you can easily swipe people to the next round. The swiping aspect of the app reminds me to the Tinder app. In fact you are now doing the same with the performers on Rising Star. If you swipe to the right you’ll vote for the contestant to go the next round. Pretty awesome, right?

Another new aspect is that if the performer gets enough votes, an enormous wall will ‘rise’. But not just a wall. It is an huge video screen that shows both the performer and the viewers at home. The application is linked to your Facebook and Twitter account, so you will see your Facebook or Twitter profile picture on that wall.  How cool would it be if you see yourself on national television?

I think that the programme would be a real success in The Netherlands. And I’m not the only one who thinks that, as Joop van den Ende has bought the rights for Rising Star. I think it especially can become a huge success if the app lets you share your judgements on social networks. Nothing takes more up to the trend ‘real-time’ than social media. On one hand, If viewers don’t want to install the Rising Star application, I think they have to make it possible to vote through Twitter, Facebook and Instagram. For example using the hashtag RisingStar and then the name of the contestant.  And on the other hand, you can make the app more attractive by adding exclusive content of the show.

The only fault of the American version of Rising Star is that there was not a possibility to vote by texting or calling. There are people that don’t want to give their personal information to commercial companies, they believe it is an invasion on their privacy. When Joop van den Ende is going to launch the Dutch version of Rising Star, voting through texting and calling needs to be possible.

References

http://abc.go.com/shows/rising-star

http://www.endemol.nl/Nieuws/Paginas/Endemol-Nederland-verwerft-rechten-van-tv-sensatie-%E2%80%98Rising-Star%E2%80%99.aspx

Creating a network, but using only social media. I don’t know if it is good development for the latest generation and therefor I post this video from Youtube about someone who disagree with it and brings up some strong and less strong arguments from his point of view.

Are the friends you have on platforms as Facebook also your real life friends and can you always trust them? I don’t think so, while the friends I have in real life will do anything for me, I think that Facebook is a place where everybody have hundreds of friends, but these aren’t always the best friends. The man in the video is clearly explaining that some people are friendless instead of having a long friend list on Facebook and think they are very popular.

I do not agree with everything he says, but I think that his main goal of this video is right. The youth of nowadays isn’t always aware of the effect of social media and that’s why this generation has to be warned for this effect. Do you agree?

In this blog I’d like to talk about a crowdsourcing and co-creation campaign from Coca-Cola. In cooperation with Maroon 5 they organised a 24-hour during live stream. In this period people from all over the world could contribute to create an original track. The song had to be written, recorded and produced within 24 hours. When fans visited the website of this campaign, they were able to see the studio from different angles. They could communicate with the band through different social media networks. Fans were able to comment and suggest ideas for the lyrics and rhythms for this new track. This input was projected on a large screen in the studio. If the song would be downloaded by fans all around the globe over 100.000 times, Coca-Cola would donate the amount of money they have earned to a charity called the RAIN Foundation.

Despite the fact that  the idea was original, the campaign itself didn’t create quite a lot buzz. The (after)movie of the campaign was only viewed 15.000 times on YouTube. At the time Coca-Cola was promoting the campaign on their social media accounts. They had about 23 million followers on Facebook, but no more than 6.000 subscribed for this particular event. What went wrong?

Personally, I think this concept was one of a kind. A song was created in a whole new way. Coca-Cola had the courage to experiment with new ways to create music. This kind of innovation is exactly what the music industry needs because I think that the music industry has lost its creativity. Everything is about the money, it should be about creating art.

As I was very curious to learn about this (failed) event, I have scoured the internet to find some answers. Several answers were given. Some claimed that the engagement was low because Maroon 5 was the participating band in this campaign. Others claimed that the content marketing campaign was not executed properly. There was not enough content about this event available.

However, most people claimed that the event failed because of the fact that they had to subscribe with their Facebook account as they didn’t want to share their personal information with Coca-Cola. I think I wouldn’t have participated as well when I had to subscribe with my Facebook account because I neither want to share my personal information with Coca-Cola.

All in all, I think that it was an unique and original concept of Coca-Cola. However, I think it could have become a bigger success if they let people choose whether or not they would subscribe with their Facebook account. Besides, it would have been wise if they had done some research to decide which artists would generate enough buzz for the campaign. Who topped the Billboard chart at that particular moment?

References

http://www.coca-cola.com/music/en_US/24hrsession/html/Coke24hrs_PostEvent.html

The ultimate dream of a marketer: a high ranking in the organic search results in Google without paying for it. It is the ultimate dream, as a high ranking in the Google search results is directly linked with more interaction and blogging can make that happen for you! There are many other advantages besides a higher ranking in the organic search results.

The first one is that you can provide your target group with a lot of information. Instead of only trying to sell your products to (potential) customers, you can also provide information about the products itself. As you provide additional and unique information about the specifics products, potential customers will most likely be interested in following your blog. They don’t have the feeling you are trying to palm them with your products.

Secondly, it makes your brand and webshop more reliable. By sharing your thoughts and opinions of new developments within your branch you can profile yourself as a specialist or a thought leader.

As mentioned before, blogging is not only useful to create more engagement, but if you blog on a regularly base Google will see that there is a lot of user generated content, which will make your webshop more relevant. I often see people on Facebook sharing blogs to 300/400 friends at a time. With social shares you are not only showing Google that your site is relevant, but you are also increasing brand awareness.

Despite these advantages, there are a couple of things that you have to take into account before you start blogging. The first one is the amount of time that you’ll need. Writing interesting and relevant blogs is not something you do in 10 minutes as you can easily spend a couple of hours on writing it. You also  have to realise that your blog is directly linked to the brand its image. Posting your opinion on specific (sensitive) subjects could harm your brand reputation.

All in all, I really think that blogging is one of the most important things for having a high ranking in the search results. It is especially worthy if others are linking to your blog or if your blog is posted on an external and relevant blog. In this way Google will think your site is relevant and this will increase you page authority and a higher ranking, of course.

References

SEO for Idiots: The 10 Basics of Blogging Search Engine Optimization

http://moz.com/blog/how-to-include-influencers-in-your-content-strategy

Nowadays crowdfunding websites such as GoFundMe, Kickstarter and Indiegogo are not only used to raise money for business related things, but also to crowdfund personal expenses. People ask the crowd for money to fund their honeymoons, field trips, education etc. There are several examples given within the article: Ms. Chan wants to attend circus school in Seattle. She went online asking strangers for money on GoFundMe, hoping to raise $3000.-. According to her there used to be a stigma against asking people for money, but this stigma is shrinking as crowd funding becomes commonplace. These days people embrace the technology and look to crowdfund everything from birthday parties to Italian getaways. Do you think this stigma is shrinking? And would you ever crowdfund the honeymoon of a stranger?

For me the answer to these questions is no, I think it is crazy to ask people for money to raise your personal expenses and I would never pay for a stranger’s honeymoon or birthday party. If they can’t pay it themselves they have to cancel it or find a (better) job.

All crowdfund websites differ from each other: Kickstarter has an “all-or-nothing” structure. If someone doesn’t meet his monetary goal, none of the moneys come through. There are guidelines on what types of projects qualify to start fundraising on the site. You are only able to fund money for finite works such as, film and books. While Indiegogo is more flexible, almost any legal activity can be funded. If I had to fund something I would rather look at kickstarter then on Indiegogo because of the strict guidelines on Kickstarter. Which website do you prefer?

References:

http://online.wsj.com/articles/people-are-using-crowdfunding-sites-to-pay-for-overseas-travel-classes-1413997556
http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml

We know that social media has a big impact on our dayly life and that businesses are trying to effect our behaviour. The minor was only focusing on this subject and how to connect with other people and the creation of a social network. The thing is, that we didn’t focus on the B2B market and that is what this blog is about. The B2B market is a big market and a lot money traveling through this market. That’s why I found it necessary to give some facts about this subject. Apparently there is more influence in this market than we think.

An infographic, made by a website about B2B marketing, tells me this:

• The most used social platform is LinkedIn and this is not a big surprise for me
• We see that LinkedIn is also generating most revenue, so it isn’t strange that this platform is used the most.
• A bigger surprise is the use of video to contact other businesses. I would expect that written information would be used much more than video.
• Besides, after we saw that LinkedIn is the most used platform, for brand awareness Twitter is the best social platform to act on. I expected that Twitter is a helpful platform in the B2C market, but I didn’t think that it is also very important in the B2B market.
• More than half of the questioned businesses think that social is not very important in the B2B market.
• The last surprising fact is that only 27% of the experts in a company place posts on social channels. I think that these people, who know the most of the company, will be better in reaching other companies than other and that they must post more. They have a lot of experience with the company and they are involved with almost everything that happens.

Apparently, social media has a lot of influence in this market too. What I’m wondering is the informality of social media and the connection with the B2B market. Isn’t it better to communicate only using more formal ways, like mail or via phone conversations?

References:

– http://www.b2bmarketing.net/knowledgebank/social-media-marketing/features/infographic-2014-b2b-social-media-landscape, 29 October 2014

It is called Fling and the app send photos and videos to 50 random people around the globe.

What is Fling?

• Fling shares photos, videos and text messages with 50 random people.
• When a user ‘flings’ a message, they have no idea where it will end up.
• If the recipient likes the fling, they can reply and start a conversation.
• No personal details are shared, other than usernames and general location.
• But users of the free app can share phone numbers and other details.

So is this the new version of throwing a bottle in the sea and just wait and see who will find and respond to it? You can compare fling with Chatroutlette and Snapchat. You can captioned your pictures and videos to explain where they are, or what is happening.

After taking the picture or video and captioning it, you will send the message to 50 random Fling users around the world. The recipients can reply and start a conversation by double-tapping on the flings they like. No personal details are shared with recipients, other than their Fling username and general location, but the users can share phone numbers and other details if they want to.

Fling said 93.5 per cent of users who engage in a conversation come back to the app within the week, with active users on average returning to app 14 times each day. ‘Fling is restructuring the messaging complex and opening the doors to those who are bored of cluttered social news feeds with photos and messages from people they already know – having a thirst to widen their sharing and connect with people outside the country they’re in’ said the developers. ’No longer limited to what your friends are up to, or boasting about, Fling is the modern day “message in bottle”.

So will “traditional” social media get competition from apps like fling? Are people looking for new ways of interacting with random people? Or is it all just a hype…

Sources: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2713065/The-message-bottle-gets-21st-century-makeover-App-sends-photos-videos-50-random-people-globe.html

https://itunes.apple.com/nl/app/fling-message-the-world/id838162317?mt=8

Remember that once in class we had a debate on whether employers should be allowed to access applicants’ social network profile? Most of you don’t agree doing that because companies shouldn’t cross the line of privacy. What if companies encourage their employees to post or share about their work? Positively, of course.

Recently, there’s a new term called employee advocacy, which means encourage employees to participate in communications efforts and motivating them to share interesting professional content to their external social media networks. It is named by a Finland entrepreneur who created the system to evaluate this.

For more details, take a look at this video by BBC:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=128tqdsVqRg

It will definitely generate a lot of doubt and concern, as asked in the video, companies might use this to judge an employee’s performance. Although, the inventor said it is on voluntary bases, people still feel pressure when there’s really a competition to reward the person who makes most approved post about their job. In addition, they may somewhat feel forced to do so in order to impress their boss. For corporation, this might have side effect when your workers are reluctant but forced to do something.

Personally I think it is not a good idea to do so. First, the post won’t be convincing unless the authors like it themselves. Secondly, if a company really satisfies its employees, they will post compliments and true condition automatically, because one of the reason people use social media, like Facebook, is to show off to their acquaintances. For example, people working in Google, Lego might want to show how good their working place is to make others envious or admire them.

All in all, I think companies should focus on improving working environments since it is way easier to post complaints rather than compliments. And that their employees will be much happier to share the firm in a positive way.

Would you like to be an ambassador for your firm if they encourage you to do so? Do you think it is a good idea for companies to adopt this employee advocacy system in the future?

Whatsapp, in the first half of 2014 they lost 230 million dollar. Their sales volume was only 10 million dollars. Being a free app without any advertisments made Whatsapp an app without any revenues. But they have many employees who have to been paid and that’s the reason why they lost this amount of money.

But then a interesting question is rising in my opinion. If Whatsapp is losing money, it’s a free app without any possibilities to earn money (maybe ads, but they’re not going to introduce ads on Whatsapp), why does Facebook paid 19 billions dollars for this app?

Well, the answer is difficult, I found an article where is said that Facebook bought Whatsapp to have the 600 million users of Whatsapp in the ”Facebook group”. Facebook is losing users for different reasons and by buying Whatsapp they try to get those lost users back in their hands. In other articles I read that Facebook is never going to earn that 19 billions back, but that’s not the reason why they bought Whatsapp. The reason is that they saw in Whatsapp a big rival as a messenger app. By buying Whatsapp they got the total control over them and can do with them what they want.

But if it’s smart to buy Whatsapp, we will never know. Losing 230 million dollar in half a year is a lot of money, on the other hand when we look at the earnings of facebook, they made 806 millions of dollar profit in the third quarter of 2014, 806 million in three months!
Facebook can have that 230 million loss…

To be continued..

References:

http://www.nu.nl/internet/3914910/whatsapp-verliest-230-miljoen-dollar-in-eerste-helft-2014.html

http://www.nutech.nl/apps/3707201/waarom-betaalt-facebook-19-miljard-dollar-whatsapp.html

http://www.demorgen.be/technologie/waarom-facebook-zijn-19-miljard-dollar-voor-whatsapp-niet-moet-terugverdienen-a1798169/

http://nos.nl/artikel/613772-waar-verdient-whatsapp-geld-mee.html

http://nos.nl/artikel/715214-winst-facebook-bijna-verdubbeld.html