Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: Ed B on June 18, 2014, 12:56:36 pm
-
http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2014/06/15/instagram-followers-advertising-ecosystem/9494537/?AID=10709313&PID=6149335&SID=1nehrwhyd52z4
Her instagram account. Seems like a lot of composites and/or filters are used.
http://instagram.com/misvincent
-
"With a plugged-in younger generation turning away from traditional ad spaces such as newspapers, broadcast television and magazines in droves, ads need to go where the eyeballs are."
Can't see what all the excitement is about, 390,000 is peanuts -
The Sun had the largest circulation of any daily newspaper in the United Kingdom,[2] but in late 2013 slipped to second largest Saturday newspaper behind the Daily Mail.[4] It had an average daily circulation of 2,069,809 copies in March 2014.[
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sun_%28United_Kingdom%29
-
Now think about how little advertisers will pay for putting their message in front of those 390,000 Instagram followers.
A lot less than they would pay the Daily Mail.
I do wonder if people think she's a good "photographer?" I saw one photo of a chick in a nest with three eggs, it was lit by the phones's LED and looked terrible but it had 16k likes and over 500 comments. That was the most of either on the images I looked at. It makes me wonder if all this pursuit of perfection we seek on sites like LL and others dedicated to photography is worth the effort. Get a phone, a 1/2 million followers and you just might be able to make a living without spending a fortune on equipment. ;)
-
Now think about how little advertisers will pay for putting their message in front of those 390,000 Instagram followers.
How much and what's the response rate? If they are not paying much its probably because it's not worth much.
-
Now think about the demographic that are likely to be Instagram followers and the demographic that are likely to be tabloid newspaper readers.
Do you have any figures on the demographics, socio economic classes, spending power etc of the various audiences? A quick search of the web was not particularly helpful, but then it rarely is.
-
Melissa Vincent Showing a different side of Mississippi
She certainly is; I had no idea there were elephants, leopards & lions in Mississippi
-
A lot less than they would pay the Daily Mail.
I do wonder if people think she's a good "photographer?" I saw one photo of a chick in a nest with three eggs, it was lit by the phones's LED and looked terrible but it had 16k likes and over 500 comments. That was the most of either on the images I looked at. It makes me wonder if all this pursuit of perfection we seek on sites like LL and others dedicated to photography is worth the effort. Get a phone, a 1/2 million followers and you just might be able to make a living without spending a fortune on equipment. ;)
Well I just had a quick look at her Instagram page and all I can say is that despite their flaws, her pictures show more imagination and creativity than most professional or amateur photographs I see. Some of them are poor, but others show real imagination.
Jim
-
- daily mail reader demographics
2nd search result after Wikipedia -- Daily Mail: readership figures (http://www.mediauk.com/newspapers/13700/daily-mail/readership-figures)
Also 7th result pdf "You Are What You Read - Ipsos MORI (http://www.ipsos-mori.com/DownloadPublication/240_sri_you_are_what_you_read_042005.pdf)"
- instagram reader demographics
5th search result -- Here's Why Instagram's Demographics Are So Attractive To Brands (http://www.businessinsider.com.au/instagram-demographics-2013-12)
Well done but what do the figures mean? Instagram has a younger audience than the broadsheets as expected, but so has the Sun, and the Sun sells 5 times as many copies daily in one country as this lady has followers worldwide, and we don't know how often her followers visit her site or whether they bother visiting at all anymore and have moved on to the next cool thing. And then we are constantly reminded that the population is aging so the youth market is decreasing, so the question is will today's younger generation keep to spending the hours of their lives online or will their habits change as they grow older?
Instagram state they have 150m active monthly users which sounds a lot, but I doubt that they are all viewing every day so what is the average and how does it compare to the number of papers sold daily worldwide?
I'm sorry, but I am not convinced that the web is anyway near as effective in selling to viewers as the printed media is to readers and I have plenty of thoughts on why the reported demise of magazines and papers is greatly exaggerated, but they can wait until I sort them out properly. In the meantime it's worth remembering that Instagram is part of FB and FB is just one big spy machine. The older I get the more I detest the thing and I doubt that I'm the only one.
-
You don't seem to be questioning the effectiveness of newspaper advertising.
Well of course not! It is the supposed effectiveness of online advertising that has been the subject of our exchange, if you wish to broaden that then go ahead.
BTW, amongst the links you provided I cannot recall seeing any suggesting what the response rate to any form of advertising was. We also keep hearing how every business should be on FB but not once have I seen any figures on just how cost effective that is for companies and traders.
-
Well of course not! It is the supposed effectiveness of online advertising that has been the subject of our exchange, if you wish to broaden that then go ahead.
You began by making comparison to newspaper circulation (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=90914.msg740021#msg740021), and have just said "but I am not convinced that the web is anyway near as effective in selling to viewers as the printed media (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=90914.msg740500#msg740500) is to readers" -- but you've simply taken the effectiveness of print media advertising for granted.
Instagram is part of FB and FB is just one big spy machine.
Hacking claims made against Mirror Group: Ruling extends scandal further beyond News International (http://www.ft.com/indepth/leveson-phone-hacking)
-
... Instagram state they have 150m active monthly users which sounds a lot, but I doubt that they are all viewing every day so what is the average and how does it compare to the number of papers sold daily worldwide?...
Anecdotal evidence: my daughter is practically glued to Instagram 16/7 (though I think that if she could somehow connect her brain to it during the remaining eight hours of her sleep, she would jump to the opportunity). The older generation (me) stopped reading newspapers about 15-20 years ago (except when given a free copy on airplanes).
-
Anecdotal evidence: my daughter is practically glued to Instagram 16/7 (though I think that if she could somehow connect her brain to it during the remaining eight hours of her sleep, she would jump to the opportunity). The older generation (me) stopped reading newspapers about 15-20 years ago (except when given a free copy on airplanes).
Anecdotal evidence No 2: Our two are more into snapchat and the dreaded FB (as far as I know) but the point is that their disposable income is pretty limited, certainly more so than the most 35+ newspaper readers I should imagine. I don't often buy a newspaper either but I think that's due to a world weary cynicism rather than switching to alternative media. I do though still love magazines, but since they provide an occasional income I guess I would say that.
-
You began by making comparison to newspaper circulation (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=90914.msg740021#msg740021), and have just said "but I am not convinced that the web is anyway near as effective in selling to viewers as the printed media (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=90914.msg740500#msg740500) is to readers" -- but you've simply taken the effectiveness of print media advertising for granted.
Half of all advertising is wasted, the trouble is knowing which half (accredited to various figures)
First of all we have to measure effectiveness, how is that to be done? Cost efficiency, response rate, cost to sales ratio? There is a fellow on here who is certainly better qualified than I on these matters so I can say little more. However, once we have decided how to go about doing it we can try to apply the method to various media, and we all know that companies will be spending millions on doing just this. Unfortunately though they tend to keep that sort of information to themselves and it's bound to vary over different sectors and product types anyway. So let's consider what we can see; the printed media has suffered a decline but is still with us, without going back to the link I think the Daily Mail had suffered something like a 15% decrease in sales over the last four years. But by how much has online viewing increased over the same period? Are the two figures proportional? Does web browsing displace print reading (not just newspapers) in a linear fashion? We can't say for certain but it's interesting to note that printed media still attracts advertising revenue, maybe not as much, but it's still substantial so those companies that have invested large sums in quantifying the effect of their advertising spend would appear to be confident of printed medias effectiveness.
Hacking claims made against Mirror Group: Ruling extends scandal further beyond News International (http://www.ft.com/indepth/leveson-phone-hacking)
The tabloids are as bad as each other and even that self acclaimed pillar of probity, the Daily Mail, is hardly innocent either. However, there is a considerable gulf between a few corrupt and immoral journo's listening in to mobile phone calls (which is quite wrong, make no mistake) and the wholesale harvesting of personal information from sites designed to extract as much detail on users lives as possible. At least the papers were punished whereas the websites carry on regardless mainly because they are of great use to various governments. To try and compare the two in an attempt to justify what FB is doing is a little desperate to say the least.
-
For what it is worth:
A Wall Street Journal article on Gallup poll: "U.S. companies spent $5.1 billion on social media advertising in 2013. 62% of consumers say those ads have no influence." http://on.wsj.com/1m5cj5s
Also from the article:
In a study last year, Nielsen Holdings NV found that global consumers trusted ads on television, print, radio, billboards and movie trailers more than social-media ads.
-
Everyone says that ads don't effect them. Statistically, almost everyone is wrong.
There are extensive studies that demonstrate this.
-
Everyone says that ads don't effect them. Statistically, almost everyone is wrong.
There are extensive studies that demonstrate this.
Such as?
-
There's a book called Can't Buy My Love which is probably a good starting point.
-
I havent seen the particular insta account but saying it can be used for advertising sounds ridiculous.
Insta is mostly for engaging people for a second. Ooh nice pic like. Move on. Pic doesn't even register beyond that.
And the followers wont necessarily be interested beyond that -unless a conversation starts up or random hooking up or flirting ensues.
So advertising, via a much-followed person? Dunno. Kinda sounds bogus/ineffective to me.
-
I havent seen the particular insta account but saying it can be used for advertising sounds ridiculous.
Insta is mostly for engaging people for a second. Ooh nice pic like. Move on. Pic doesn't even register beyond that.
And the followers wont necessarily be interested beyond that -unless a conversation starts up or random hooking up or flirting ensues.
So advertising, via a much-followed person? Dunno. Kinda sounds bogus/ineffective to me.
Indeed, and I think that applies to a great deal more of the web than we are willing to admit, or the advocates of internet marketing would have us believe.
On a slightly different note I see that that paradigm of virtue, FB, has slipped a little from the moral high ground once again -
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jun/30/facebook-emotion-study-breached-ethical-guidelines-researchers-say
-
You just "dunno" ;-)
Do you know just how effective it is?
-
There's a book called Can't Buy My Love which is probably a good starting point.
Starting to point to what? Obtaining a degree in statistics? I already have a postgrad course in it, should I get a PhD in order to appreciate your laconic statement ("everyone is wrong"). Every time someone throws a book at me in a forum discussion, I wonder what was the point. Shall I get an advanced degree in the subject just to be able to participate in forum discussions?
My point being, when someone throws in a blanket statement like that, it should be followed by a sentence or two of at least a basic explanation. That would be a minimum courtesy to other forum participants, without telling them: "Go first read a book to understand what I meant."
-
I don't even know if you've thought about exactly what you mean by effective :-)
I posted the following ten days ago -
First of all we have to measure effectiveness, how is that to be done? Cost efficiency, response rate, cost to sales ratio? There is a fellow on here who is certainly better qualified than I on these matters so I can say little more.
I was rather hoping that would count as thinking about it, but perhaps not.
-
I was asked to produce studies.
The book is a starting point for digging up the relevant studies. It should provide ample information to locate as much or as little information on the studies I mentioned as you care to have.
I don't have the citations for the studies on hand. I do have a book title on have which can you to them, though.
-
I was asked to produce studies....
Well... what I was asking is to produce studies in the sense of providing a sentence or two of so-called executive summary, ideally in your own words, unless there is a textbook explanation already. Then web links or book titles might make sense if someone wants to dive deeper. As I said, I consider myself pretty versed in statistics, but I must admit I never heard of the concept "statistically, almost everyone is wrong." By the way, is that a stand-alone statement, or directly related to the preceding sentence?
Is the meaning of that claim, for instance, that, while "everyone says that ads don't effect them," real numbers prove them wrong? In other words, if "everyone says that ads don't effect them," how come ads made Google uber-rich? Could it be that ads really do not effect anyone, yet companies paying Google are simply stupid, not realizing it? Or could it be that indeed ads have no influence on 62% of consumers, but the remaining 38% more than make it up? Or that 62% are simply lying (as you seem to imply)?
There is another phenomenon, related to political polling, that might be similar to what you had in mind. Namely, non-reliability of certain polls, in particular exit polls. I think the effect even has its own name, after an LA mayoral candidate who lost even if polls and exit polls predicted a sure win. The explanation behind the effect is the following: when polled, especially face-to-face, like in exit polls, people tend to answer more politically correct or socially acceptable, e.g., that they voted (or will vote) for a black candidate, while in reality they voted based on their long-establshed prejudices.
-
My wording was sloppy, to be sure.
The executive summary of the state of the art in research along these lines (as I understand it) is that advertising works pretty well. In particular, a high percentage of people
- believe that advertising does not work very well on them
- are severely underestimating the effect that advertising has on them personally
-
Listing those questions doesn't provide enough for us to say yes that's "effective", no that isn't "effective".
Maybe not, but it suggests that I had certainly thought about them and may have come to my own conclusions but was aware that there are people on here far better qualified to comment on such criteria.
-
That really doesn't help with your question -- "Do you know just how effective it is?" -- because we need to know -- "exactly (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=90914.msg742513#msg742513) what you mean by effective".
Which is precisely the question I asked earlier (First of all we have to measure effectiveness, how is that to be done? Cost efficiency, response rate, cost to sales ratio?) but as the proponent of web based marketing (as I understand your position) it is a question you have not addressed even when I suggested that FB has yet to be proven as a worthwhile means of advertising.
So, you first, how would you measure the 'effectiveness' of web based advertising?
-
Nope, neither proponent or opponent.
It is the question you needed to answer before you suggested that FB has blah blah.
So what's the problem then?
-
Jesus! You two better get a room in Hairsplitting Hotel. ;D
-
Jesus! You two better get a room in Hairsplitting Hotel. ;D
No thanks, I need a rest from it! :D