No images? Click here #247/ May 9, 2021 ZUCKERBERG'S BIG LIE EXPOSED The bullshit that Z-bag has been peddling about FB's relentless tracking is that it's good because -- For years I have been saying that this is pure, undiluted horseshit. We now have unassailable proof that it is. Last month Apple updated its mobile operating system. The update defaulted to no tracking. If you want to be tracked - and get all that delicious "relevant advertising" - all you need to do is click one button. According to Mashable, this week Flurry Analytics owned by Verizon, reported on how many people are doing this in the US. The number is 4%. You can't get much closer to zero. What does this prove? First it proves that Zuckerberg and the whole adtech monkey house are full of shit. Nobody's pining for "more relevant advertising." Second it proves that the only reason people tolerate tracking is that platforms and websites make it too confusing and difficult to opt out. Given a legitimate choice, almost no one is stupid enough to want to be tracked. Third, it proves that the GDPR and CCPA regulators have wasted years, millions of dollars, and tons of paper on unnecessary and counterproductive complexity. If they're serious about protecting privacy but want to be fair and offer consumers a choice about "more relevant advertising," it would take one simple regulatory tweak: Make all tracking opt-in instead of opt-out. Zuckerberg Gets Dick Slapped Not a great week for the Z-bag. He got his weenie whacked by the "oversight board" he created. Zuckerberg hired this gaggle of lawyers, brainiacs, and pols so he could dodge big decisions by handing the decisions off to them. But the problem with hiring smart people is that they see through your dumbass schemes. The decision in question this week was whether or not to allow former president Trump to get back on Facebook. Zuckerberg tried to avoid the decision by handing it off to the board. They weren't having it. They accepted Facebook's "punt" on the question by putting off a decision for six months, but chided Zuckerberg by saying FB was “avoiding its responsibilities.” Avoiding responsibilities is Zuckerberg's core competency. He's clearly incapable of coming up with a coherent strategy for dealing with this issue or resolving FB's whole speech dilemma. As he has demonstrated for years, he has neither the maturity nor integrity to deal with important issues. 80% Of Comments To FCC Were Fake The Attorney General of New York reported this week that an investigation into "public comments" regarding an important FCC policy issue showed that of the 22 million "public comments" they received, more than 18 million were fake. It is becoming almost impossible - even for an hysterical blogweasel - to exaggerate the corruption and squalor of online activity. Here's the background. A few years ago, the FCC began a review of net neutrality with the intent of scaling back government regulation of internet traffic. Net neutrality requires all internet providers to treat internet traffic equally. Internet providers hate this. They can make more money by providing tiers of service. So the anti-net neutrality forces (consisting largely of the internet service providers and their lobbyists) created a deceitful campaign to influence the FCC. According to The Wall Street Journal... "the campaign was aimed at FCC Chairman Ajit Pai so he could argue that there was widespread grass-roots support to repeal the FCC’s net-neutrality regulations." The campaign first tricked people into handing over personal information. Then these stolen personas were used to create fake comments -- 8.5 million of them. On the other side, net neutrality advocates also flooded the FCC with 9.3 million fake comments in support of net neutrality. Here's the kicker, of the 9.3 million bullshit pro-neutrality comments, 7.7 million were created by one 19-year-old college student. No, you can't make this shit up. CMO's Dying Young The life expectancy of a CMO is approaching historic lows. According to the annual report from headhunters Spencer Stuart, the median lifespan of a CMO fell from 30 months in 2019 to 25.5 months in 2020. The average lifespan fell from 41 months to 40 months. This was the lowest reported staying power for CMOs in over a decade. For comparison purposes, the lifespan of a CEO is about twice that of a CMO. One of the reasons CMOs can't hold their jobs may have to do with digital media. A study released last week suggested that CEOs of major corporations aren't nearly as mesmerized by the magic of online media as we marketing lemmings are. The study of 200 CEOs by marketing tech firm Bango reported that... CMOs can't win. It seems like just a few moments ago they were under fire for not being quick enough to embrace digital media. Now they're getting dinged for embracing it too fervently. Online advertising has been a fiasco for marketers. Money is being stolen from them at staggering rates. Advertising has gotten worse, not better. It has gotten less effective, not more. Rather than creating advertising that is “more relevant, more timely and more likable” we are creating advertising that is more annoying, more disliked, and more avoided. And CMOs are one of the victims. I used to ridicule CMOs for their inability to stay employed. I've changed my mind. I don't know how anyone does that job anymore. It's become a nightmare. 40% of CEOs Are Idiots Per the study above, 60% of CEOs believe that the effectiveness of social media has been exaggerated. What planet are the other 40% on? The Power of Sloppy "Have you ever wondered how McDonald's and Coca-Cola and Nike and Toyota and Apple and all the other enormous worldwide brands became successful? For one thing, they were sloppy. They had to be. When I wrote that, I heard a lot of, "Oh yeah, well we're not all FMCG supermarket brands...blah, blah blah..what about us B2B brands?...blah blah blah..." So I was delighted to read that Prof. Jenni Romaniuk of the Ehrenberg-Bass Institute (home of the redoubtable Prof. Byron Sharp) released a study this week showing that narrow targeting among B2B brands is "counter-productive." Says Mashable..."For a B2B marketer looking to acquire new customers and drive business growth, it might seem common sense to target a niche group of customers whose needs directly align with the product or service on offer...(But) according to a major new study by Ehrenberg-Bass Institute’s Professor Jenni Romaniuk ...that’s a “counter-productive” approach. The best way to drive B2B business growth is to target all customers within the brand’s category." The study was sponsored by the LinkedIn B2B Institute. Peter Weinberg of the LinkedIn Institute said, “Ultimately you want to target anyone who buys your category, not just some niche segment you think your brand can own,” Jon Lombardo, also of the LinkedIn Institute said “..the trend has been to go smaller and smaller and smaller, and there’s no evidence that smaller and smaller works.” The study is very interesting and provides important media principles for everyone working in marketing. Even former CMOs. You can read about it here. Stay sloppy my friends. Dumbest Tweet of the Week "One purchase in the last year..." Is that supposed to be indicative of something important or just a crap stat to impress morons? I make 20 purchases every f-ing day! "The bulk of consumers make decisions based on Alexa's recommendations..." Amazing since fewer than 11% of people used Alexa to buy even one thing in 2020. Old, Bald, And Angry There will be some very smart people on the panel to make up for me: Tanya Joseph, MD at H&K London and former press secty to PM Tony Blair; Adrian Holmes, creative VIP & co-founder of agency Ancient & Modern. Moderator is Tess Alps, former Chair of Thinkbox. * * * * * * |