I wonder whether we will see the same advertising fatigue as the kind you detailed in your first sentences. Either way, advertising is advertising and product placement is a particularly old form; if you look at James Bond movies, it is no coincidence that the car is an Audi versus a Mercedes or that the sunglasses are Tom Ford versus something else. I think we’ve been so sensitized to advertising that something as retro as product placement will feel even more intrusive, no?
I’m very impressed by the company’s ability to pick a market and sell to them effectively, which is often hard for new technology. I wonder if there will be more mass adoption once the price comes down. Also, how they will compete with other players entering the space such as the Google Facebook etc., Perhaps they have found a niche that no one will bother them for a while?
I thought introducing the cardboard was a clever way to start working on this adoption issue as well as creating a camera to be openly adopted by anyone who wants to use it. It seems that the introduction of the platform is an early way to make sure that they win the platform space but doesn’t negate the other efforts they are making to drive user adoption, but the point about reducing prices on hardware is well taken!
I really like the fact that Huffington Post allows the journalists to use the tool and experiment on their own. I do see a universe in which it is a race to the bottom (for example, two journalists covering a similar topic and one who chooses clicks over substance) but I also agree that it is important for journalists to understand how people read and what engages them to learn about the underlying business mechanics. I think this tool is great for media with editorial integrity but perhaps would drive sensationalist sites to be even more sensationalist. For the more clickbait driven sites, it will provide a feedback loop that only intensifies.
Starbucks has been very proactive about mobile engagement with consumers. The ability to “order ahead” a coffee with your phone and then pay for it upfront helps them get so much data in a way that seems non-intrusive because the customers see it as a win and convenience as opposed to data collection. Very cool!
There is a lot in the model that is similar to Waze, which I wrote about. I was thinking about what would happen whether the user community felt undervalued and less incentivized not to contribute? If a group of people got together and were agitated, perhaps made the argument that Wikipedia is destroying academic journals or textbooks, which then in turns hurts professional academics, which then hurts academia as a whole, would they have a problem or would it be fine? Or, if they decide that they are doing work that should be compensated? Would the “Spanish Revolt” happen on a larger scale? I’m not sure whether that argument is compelling enough but I am curious to see. Also, how do serious academics or researches think about Wikipedia when considering it as a source — is it reliable or no? It is possible that people could grow to be more concerned about peer edited internet information and see this as a negative.
Had never heard of this before, it’s a neat idea. I’m wondering if 3D make up printing gets going, which people are trying to do, will this model be less exciting? Meaning, will people who are enthusiastic enough be happy to spend time submitting photos for a product to may or may not be developed when they could just create the same kind of color of their own? Obviously, this is more complex in some beauty segments than others, where the pigment is just one aspect of what the consumer is looking for, but it made me think of that trend!
It’s an interesting idea and clearly much more dynamic than any traditional guide or static web post. Foursquare comes to mind as something similar, perhaps? It allows users to “check in” real time, which would signify something about how many people are there, and other attributes. These apps usually need some aspect of gamification to keep the user base engaged.
Totally agree — it’s not an extreme shift enough to supersize chairs, which seemed crazy when it was all about getting volume/ticket sales in the space. I don’t think the super luxury format is going to work out very well as screens continue to get bigger and better as well and as some people start caring less about feature length experiences and turn to other content instead.. AMC is very protectionist about allowing “day and date” releases but the studios are slowly starting to work around them. I think Screening Room, Sean Parker’s start up to allow day and date releases in the home, will become popular in the coming years. It already has some huge filmmakers, like Peter Jackson of Lord of the Rings, saying that they think it is a good idea for the industry as a whole! I believe that system costs $200 for the hardware, and then $50 per movie. Which, if you’re a family or a parent taking 10-14 kids out on a Saturday, seems like a pretty decent idea.
Also curious about the “capturing value” part of their business model, which always seems to be a problem judging by the persistent request for donation on the homepage. Shouldn’t they be able to monetize this without ruining the crowd-sourcing aspect? Is it possible that they could just turn into the next Encyclopedia Brittanica, if that rings any bells? Is there any suggestions of doing a royalty to contributors? How many people do this as hobbyists and would it even bring up the bar to have people incentivized to contribute by possibly making some money? Curious!