Sunday, September 26, 2010

First "Spacestreamed" post from Virgin flight

I am on my way to San Francisco for my 3-day "vacation".

It's actually fun to be able to blog 30,000 feet up in the air. That's also where the word "Tweet" takes on a much deeper meaning despite the metallic wings of this A319.

Nonetheless, I have limited blogging features on my iPad browser. I cannot even upload a picture!

Well should I really say upload here? The servers that Google uses to host that post are definitely on the ground... The cloud computing thing in the sky is quite confusing, I guess I am totally losing my bearings.

In a few decades, when mankind will have sufficiently wasted natural resources the servers will most likely migrate to some other planet, hopefully powered through solar, and we may no longer specify the direction of the digital stream.

Will we be saying "Hey babe, I just finished spacestreaming my blog post"?

Where will the kernel of the Internet be located at that time? The interco among the various GSPs (Galaxynet Service Providers) will certainly be much different from the current one. Will we still be talking about Border Getway Protocol (BGP) routing among the varioous Autonomous Systems (AS)? What will the Domain Name Server (DNS) be like?


Maybe that BGP will become GGP (Galaxy Border Protocol) and that the association of Domain Names with GP (Galaxynet Protocol) adresses will be stored in the Plasma Name Server (PNS)???

How will the architecture of the net will have evolved? The notion of "packet mode" will have disappeared in the darkness of the remote universe and so will the "circuit mode", the traditional views of the OSI model will have morphed into new co-created architectures where physical boundaries make no more sense to code... Who knows?

It's getting bumpy heeeeere. I'd better put my feet on the new grounds of how I believe new forms of interactive marketing will be much more scalable than the prehistorical ones that most branded marketeers nowadays use.

How many Billions of Dollars are wasted in advertising that doesn't work every year?

It's gotta be a lot, and it's gotta change!

If we just look at the TV medium, the ambassador od the hit society as described by Chris Anderson, how dumb is it?

First, when you want to to TV advertising, you need to invest a few hundreds of thousands of dollars just to cover the production part of what you want to brand or sell (in the case of DRTV).

Second, you need to do a media test. A.k.a you throw in a few extra dozens of thousands of dollars just to get a feel for how way too broad of a medium TV is, your target audience is most of the time much narrower than any targeting metrics that any TV network may want to share with you (including GRPs).

Bottom line, before you know it you throw out the window $1,000,000 to get a fragile idea of what might work or might not work actually.

It's funny to see that most TV investments are generally extremely high, yet the ability of the company to track the effectiveness of this capital intensive mass marketing is extremely blurry.

Very few companies have an idea of how their true target audience respond to the mass message.

All in all, some smart guys say that over $400,000,000,000 (yes, Billion) are blown out every year in the U.S. on advertising that doesn't move the result needle by a nanometer.


Line up 400,000,000,000 $1 bills, that's more than the distance between the Earth and planet Mars.

We need to stop this nonsense. How?

No comments:

Post a Comment