More from the Cluetrain

As an extension from my review of the Cluetrain Manifesto, here are two of the 95 theses presented and my thoughts on them.

#17: Companies that assume online markets are the same markets that used to watch their ads on television are kidding themselves.

Very true. Most of all, the internet adjusts market segmentation. Instead of appealing to broad audiences (ex: male), internet markets are more specific and concentrated (ex: male, married, 2 children, annual income of $70K, Miami Dolphins fan, etc).

By using the internet, companies can communicate in a one-to-one fashion as opposed to the one-to-many communication that TV, radio and newspapers provide. The internet can provide personalized experiences that other forms of media cannot. And, perhaps most importantly, the internet allows for [easier] feedback, or communication in general, from the consumer to the company.

#74. We are immune to advertising. Just forget it.

I disagree. Although pop-up ads are annoying and most people just don’t like advertising, I don’t believe that we’re “immune.” First of all, the authors of Cluetrain must have forgotten about product placement as a form of advertising. If people don’t realize something is being advertised, how can they be immune?

Also, I think advertising has been able to evolve and grow because of the internet. It’s able to target those smaller, more concentrated markets because of the internet and there’s more opportunity and need for advertising. Many websites depend on the income from advertising to stay up and running. Going along with this, there has been a movement towards online advertising from newspaper advertising. According to Wachovia Equity Research, online ad spending rose 17.8 percent in 2006 while major marketers continued to reduce spending on newspapers.

Finally, if people are immune to advertising, why is total US advertising spending for 2007 expected to be $152.3 billion? Online advertising spending alone reached nearly $10 million in the first half of 2007. That’s a lot of money to waste on something we’re immune to.

In other news,

A Reuters/Zogby poll regarding approval numbers of President Bush and Congress was released today. The results:

President Bush: 24% approval. Down from 29%.

Congress: 11% approval.

Also, a USA Today article reports that the feelings surrounding the SCHIP program are mixed.
A USA Today/Gallup poll shows these numbers:

52% agree with President Bush. This concerns the allocation of benenfits going towards families that earn less that 200% of the federal poverty level. (or $41,000 for a family of 4)

40% say benefits should go to such families earning up to $62,000, as the bill written by Democrats and some Republicans would allow.

55% are very or somewhat concerned that the program would create an incentive for families to drop private insurance.

The last figure is the most interesting to me. The largest percentage reported in this article regards people being "very or somewhat concerned" about families dropping private insurance. Because the margin of error is +/- 5%, this figure shows that at least 50% fall in this category of concern.

And I thought Americans wanted government-run healthcare and were all completely in favor of the SCHIP. Well, all except for children-hating republicans.


Oh, and is it just me or does a possible Putin/Ahmadinejad alliance frighten anyone else?