One interesting statistic is which email clients recipients prefer to use.
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Email Client Popularity
RNM recently sent our a Xmas greetings and end of year shut-down notice to our clients and prospects. As ever we monitor the open rates, click-throughs and other recipient behaviour on these emails.
One interesting statistic is which email clients recipients prefer to use.
The example illustrates clearly the hegemony of Outlook in all it's versions however interestingly the iPhone is the second most popular email client. Surprised?
One interesting statistic is which email clients recipients prefer to use.
Tergeted Advertising, pros and cons or is it just inconclusive research.
Most consumers choose not to opt-out of behavioral targeting
Marketers who feared opt-out icons on targeted advertising would lead to a mass uptake can relax. Recent analysis has shown that, when given the option to opt-out of behavioral tracking, many consumers don't bother.
Earlier this year, the Digital Advertising Alliance, representing thousands of advertising and trade companies, announced details of a program designed to give consumers more control over how their Internet browsing habits are used to target ads.
Advertisers that collect Internet user information for behavioral targeting of ads were encouraged to implement an "Advertising Option Icon" on websites, or near ads, where behavioral tracking has been used.
But, as ClickZ reports, recent analysis from Better Advertising shows few consumers are choosing to opt out. An average of one in 700,000 who were served an ad with the icon chose to opt out - a rate of about 0.00014%.
Of those that clicked on the icon and were presented with information about tracking, only 5% decided to continue the process and fully opt out.
This is great news for marketers who depend on targeted advertising to hone their response and conversion rates.
"There's always a chance the number of users opting out could go up as more advertisers implement the icon... It's early days, but there's no indication the opt out rate will go up dramatically," said Better Advertising CEO Scott Meyer.
"Whatever the [opt-out] rate is, it's so small that it's not going to destroy the business."
Web users say targeted advertising not justified
As discussion surrounding Do Not Track and behaviorally targeted ads continues, new research has surfaced that shows most consumers don't think targeted advertising is justified, even if they do get free access to content in return.
We recently reported on analysis from Better Advertising that came to the conclusion consumers, when given the option to opt-out of targeted advertising, choose not to.
New insights from a poll conducted by Gallup and USA Today appear to contradict Better Advertising's findings.
The poll found that while the vast majority claimed to pay little or no attention to online advertising, 61% did admit to having seen ads they felt were directly targeted at them based on their browsing history - and they don't like it.
In fact, almost 70% are opposed to behaviorally targeted ads and believe them to be unjustified. Nearly as many (61%) said that behaviorally targeted ads aren't even justified if it means they can access online content free of charge.
Ultimately, consumers want more control. If given a choice, just under half of respondents said they would accept targeted ads from networks specifically chosen by themselves. Thirty-seven percent said if they had the option they wouldn't allow any ad networks to target them.
______________________________
These two articles above have made me think of the difficulties involved in turning research into reliable market intelligence.
Two recent studies into the same subject have come up with diametrically opposed findings. The truth in my opinion is consumers have never liked advertising. People who realise that they will be advertised to no matter what they do, would probably rather they got adverts that were targeted at them offering things that may be of some interest.
If you have for instance had a day off work, ill perhaps and needed to watch a lot of day time telly.
It is unlikely that you would have found any of the advertising applicable and it may have even been rather annoying, stealing minutes of your life showing you things you have no need for or even dislike.
at least the internet is not this way. Id rather have track days, hosting deals and e-commerce tools flashed in front of me regularly than sanitary products, denture paste and train to be a plumber courses.
I think the best way to manage expectation is to ensure that the adverts are of high quality, not just "Male 30 UK we want you to try our sneakers" and not intrusive either, stay away from the pop ups that get in the way of content. There is a lot of good stuff on the net that is free but it does have to be paid for somehow so advertising will continue and I for one would rather it be relevant.
Monday, December 20, 2010
I don't agree with student riots.
I know that this is primarily a business blog and I try to keep things on topic in the hope that I can build a reader base or genuinely interested people. In the last week however I have been having a lot of heated discussions about the UK student riots in London and and I am intrigued by the differing viewpoints on this issue.
One voice I keep hearing from the liberal media, left leaning parties, the students themselves and some apologists that I have associated with during the period of these mass civil disobediences, claims the following.
1. Children from disadvantaged backgrounds are having their hopes of attending university and therefore the better prospects for social mobility, crushed but a totalitarian, oligarcist regime that is only interested in maintaining Britain's "unfair" status quo.
2. The police are to blame for the violence by perpetrating violence against the rioters.
3. The students behaved in this way because they feel that they have no voice and are being oppressed.
4. It is the duty of government to redress the imbalance in UK society and to therefore fund "social mobility".
I take exception to all of these points.
I don't believe for a second that the Met ever escalated the violence at any of the marches. I can clearly remember the incident where just 12 non riot equipped members of the MET held off thousands of students attempting to storm Tory headquarters. During this engagement, the students behaved disgracefully, throwing potentially lethal projectiles at the police who were a model of restraint. In the same vein, what had HRH Prince Charles done to escalate the violence so that he was seen as a legitimate target for malicious attack.
The students do have a voice, not only are they all of voting age and therefore able to make use of the democratic system in place in this country. There is the e-petition system in place that no doubt many of them are aware of. Each student union would have contacts in the local and international press who would also be only too keen to have a real story with which to hold the government to account. Students of the UK, you are not oppressed! I don't even think you know what that word actually means.
Under the new system, no one will be deprived of an education, student loans will still be in place and the threshold of when they need to be paid back is also being raised to £21,000 per year. Education will not be unattainable, just more expensive. The government has also put in place bursaries and a number of other schemes to make university more attractive to people from less privileged back grounds.
This I am sure is partly because of my upbringing in a very conservative society and also because as a tax payer and someone who has worked with lots of different people and companies during my career, I have learned the one most vital lesson that the screaming left are being deprived of.
"Hard Work Pays"
Now my own views on socialism and benefit culture are probably somewhere right of centre but I am also not immune to the injustice in the economy of this country. It does make bile rise in my gullet every time I hear of the obscene treatment that superstar top end executives get in banking and media. I would like to see something done about the levels of top end executive pay however I believe this action should be taken by boards of directors and the shareholders who should be taking them to account over these issues.
This does not I believe condone the fact that we have a generation of people in this country that have been brought up to believe that the state owes them a living. From the worst case scenario of a teenage girl deliberately bearing children to scam the benefit and housing system to the lower middle class who object (Violently!) to paying a market rate for their education.
This makes me think, what is the point of a University education? A number of friends and colleagues who have attended Uni in the UK freely admit that the university experience is mostly messing about, drinking too much and very, very little learning.
If you have people graduating without a clear vocational course ahead of them of what benefit is it to the UK taxpayer to fund the higher education of someone who works as a shop assistant in their local TopShop. To put a cost to that, at current rates, university tuition costs £5,000 per year plus living costs of easily another £5,000 annually. That's a direct cost of £10,000 per year so for a three year course a student loan of £30,000 would be required. This for the moment, is money from the government purse.
Another cost to the UK taxpayer, is the top up funding to universities which can be conservatively estimated at another £5,000 per year per student and over that same 3 year course so add another£15,000 to the bill.
That leaves the taxpayer picking up a bill of £45,000 per graduate.
The next step in how we lose out is what if, that student took a useless degree like Golf Course Management at the University of Birmingham or David Beckham Studies at Staffordshire University. Not that I am picking on the Midlands, I am sure they are a wonderful place full of interesting and friendly people however, I can't see anyone getting a well paid job in a hurry with one of these degrees. In this case, the student goes on to work in retail or as a golf caddy earning about £12,000 a year if they manage to find full time work at all. This means that the student loans they took out (using the word "loan" loosely) never get paid back, ensuring that the UK government has to write-off their entire investment of £45,000 in the tertiary education of this citizen.
It is not however the young people of Britain who are to blame. The media, educational institutions, and the HR profession have convinced everyone that the only way to get ahead in life is to have a University degree. In the last 20 years we have seen a huge rise in the amount of jobs requiring a person to have a degree or be a "graduate". Very often, there is not even a requirement that the candidate hold any relevant qualification just that they are a "graduate level" candidate. This is a very unhealthy situation for the UK economy because as we have previously established, the taxpayer bears the burden of funding these excessive qualifications.
I think it is time that we considered weather or not a University education is in fact the best way to encourage social mobility as degrees become more prevalent they also become less useful as a means of differentiating between job candidates. Perhaps we should look to the example of other developed nations such as Sweden or Holland where it is true that the government does fund education at least as generously as in the UK. In these countries, the education is much more targeted and multi tiered. In a nutshell, you will not leave the Dutch education system without the skill required to be gainfully employed.
An example of superfluous education is the requirement of a Nursing Degree. Nurses are valuable members of society and no one would refute the need to have qualified able people employed in the nursing profession. Surely there are much cheaper, faster and less exclusive ways of getting people to a standard where they can safely and confidently work in this profession. Ditto for school teachers, accountants, engineers etc...
I suppose to sum up my thoughts on this matter are, if you want to be a doctor , a lawyer or for the time being a teacher and this is your genuine ambition, please go to uni, enjoy it, work hard and I am sure you will find it a good investment in your future, whatever it costs. If you want to drink and hang out with your friends while you study art, you'd do better going on holiday to Thailand with your mates and not making the government pay for it.
One voice I keep hearing from the liberal media, left leaning parties, the students themselves and some apologists that I have associated with during the period of these mass civil disobediences, claims the following.
1. Children from disadvantaged backgrounds are having their hopes of attending university and therefore the better prospects for social mobility, crushed but a totalitarian, oligarcist regime that is only interested in maintaining Britain's "unfair" status quo.
2. The police are to blame for the violence by perpetrating violence against the rioters.
3. The students behaved in this way because they feel that they have no voice and are being oppressed.
4. It is the duty of government to redress the imbalance in UK society and to therefore fund "social mobility".
I take exception to all of these points.
I don't believe for a second that the Met ever escalated the violence at any of the marches. I can clearly remember the incident where just 12 non riot equipped members of the MET held off thousands of students attempting to storm Tory headquarters. During this engagement, the students behaved disgracefully, throwing potentially lethal projectiles at the police who were a model of restraint. In the same vein, what had HRH Prince Charles done to escalate the violence so that he was seen as a legitimate target for malicious attack.
The students do have a voice, not only are they all of voting age and therefore able to make use of the democratic system in place in this country. There is the e-petition system in place that no doubt many of them are aware of. Each student union would have contacts in the local and international press who would also be only too keen to have a real story with which to hold the government to account. Students of the UK, you are not oppressed! I don't even think you know what that word actually means.
Under the new system, no one will be deprived of an education, student loans will still be in place and the threshold of when they need to be paid back is also being raised to £21,000 per year. Education will not be unattainable, just more expensive. The government has also put in place bursaries and a number of other schemes to make university more attractive to people from less privileged back grounds.
This I am sure is partly because of my upbringing in a very conservative society and also because as a tax payer and someone who has worked with lots of different people and companies during my career, I have learned the one most vital lesson that the screaming left are being deprived of.
"Hard Work Pays"
Now my own views on socialism and benefit culture are probably somewhere right of centre but I am also not immune to the injustice in the economy of this country. It does make bile rise in my gullet every time I hear of the obscene treatment that superstar top end executives get in banking and media. I would like to see something done about the levels of top end executive pay however I believe this action should be taken by boards of directors and the shareholders who should be taking them to account over these issues.
This does not I believe condone the fact that we have a generation of people in this country that have been brought up to believe that the state owes them a living. From the worst case scenario of a teenage girl deliberately bearing children to scam the benefit and housing system to the lower middle class who object (Violently!) to paying a market rate for their education.
This makes me think, what is the point of a University education? A number of friends and colleagues who have attended Uni in the UK freely admit that the university experience is mostly messing about, drinking too much and very, very little learning.
If you have people graduating without a clear vocational course ahead of them of what benefit is it to the UK taxpayer to fund the higher education of someone who works as a shop assistant in their local TopShop. To put a cost to that, at current rates, university tuition costs £5,000 per year plus living costs of easily another £5,000 annually. That's a direct cost of £10,000 per year so for a three year course a student loan of £30,000 would be required. This for the moment, is money from the government purse.
Another cost to the UK taxpayer, is the top up funding to universities which can be conservatively estimated at another £5,000 per year per student and over that same 3 year course so add another£15,000 to the bill.
That leaves the taxpayer picking up a bill of £45,000 per graduate.
The next step in how we lose out is what if, that student took a useless degree like Golf Course Management at the University of Birmingham or David Beckham Studies at Staffordshire University. Not that I am picking on the Midlands, I am sure they are a wonderful place full of interesting and friendly people however, I can't see anyone getting a well paid job in a hurry with one of these degrees. In this case, the student goes on to work in retail or as a golf caddy earning about £12,000 a year if they manage to find full time work at all. This means that the student loans they took out (using the word "loan" loosely) never get paid back, ensuring that the UK government has to write-off their entire investment of £45,000 in the tertiary education of this citizen.
It is not however the young people of Britain who are to blame. The media, educational institutions, and the HR profession have convinced everyone that the only way to get ahead in life is to have a University degree. In the last 20 years we have seen a huge rise in the amount of jobs requiring a person to have a degree or be a "graduate". Very often, there is not even a requirement that the candidate hold any relevant qualification just that they are a "graduate level" candidate. This is a very unhealthy situation for the UK economy because as we have previously established, the taxpayer bears the burden of funding these excessive qualifications.
I think it is time that we considered weather or not a University education is in fact the best way to encourage social mobility as degrees become more prevalent they also become less useful as a means of differentiating between job candidates. Perhaps we should look to the example of other developed nations such as Sweden or Holland where it is true that the government does fund education at least as generously as in the UK. In these countries, the education is much more targeted and multi tiered. In a nutshell, you will not leave the Dutch education system without the skill required to be gainfully employed.
An example of superfluous education is the requirement of a Nursing Degree. Nurses are valuable members of society and no one would refute the need to have qualified able people employed in the nursing profession. Surely there are much cheaper, faster and less exclusive ways of getting people to a standard where they can safely and confidently work in this profession. Ditto for school teachers, accountants, engineers etc...
I suppose to sum up my thoughts on this matter are, if you want to be a doctor , a lawyer or for the time being a teacher and this is your genuine ambition, please go to uni, enjoy it, work hard and I am sure you will find it a good investment in your future, whatever it costs. If you want to drink and hang out with your friends while you study art, you'd do better going on holiday to Thailand with your mates and not making the government pay for it.
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
UK first in Europe for e-commerce spending
It is no seceret that British people love to shop but recent research by e-commerce specialists FACT-Finder indicate that the U.K, Germany and France account for almost three-quarters of on-line sales in Europe.
As reported in a recent article on Internet Retailing, FACT-Finder has released figures that show the majority, 70%, of on-line sales originate from just three countries:
U.K: $64.1bn German: $52.4bn France: $33.4bn
These figures prove that, despite their geographical closeness, their cultural differences and diversities mean that Europe cannot be viewed as a single entity from an e-commerce point of view. This means cross-border trading can be a challenge and many retailers choose to focus on trading locally. Even ad campaigns don't translate, culturally or literally, across multiple countries because brands, and stores, differ from country to country. Think of perennial TV favorite Lynx, commonly known on the Continent as Axe.
While the infrastructure may be in place to support international e-commerce in Europe, it can still take a considerable investment in time and money to understand the intricacies of trading abroad. In many cases this leads to companies not taking advantage of these expanded markets and solely focussing on local trade.
Ofcom research indicates that British Internet users made more than double the number of on-line purchases in the past six months than Internet users in any other European country, except Poland (19 and 14 on-line purchases respectively). The next country was Germany with nine purchases.
In addition, the total value of online purchases Internet users said they made in the past six months was highest in the U.K. with $1,624. This was nearly double the amount spent by Internet users in the next-placed country, Germany, with $938.
Mathias Duda, head of UK operations at FACT-Finder, said: “The growth of ecommerce has made it much easier for even small brands and retailers to trade outside their domestic markets."
He added: “We hope others will find this report enlightening and perhaps start a conversation about how retailers see themselves in the European market and consider how cross-border trading might be improved.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)