Mobile Advertising in the Modern World

The rise of web 2.0 in the public sphere means a new online world of interactive many-to-many communication. As technology progresses so do different ways of communication. Mobile internet has grown rapidly and is the fastest growing technology with more than 10 billion users in 2010 (Morgan Stanley, 2009) especially as data access and transfer speeds increase as well as more user-friendly interfaces being developed.
Consumers of all ages are becoming increasingly attached to their phones which they always keep on (White, R., 2008). Consumers carry their phones with them and use them even when consuming other media. This means that the reach for advertisers is potentially massive as there is a possibility of contacting consumers at any time of the day. 56% of Smartphone users frequently use their phones to access the internet (Ofcom, 2010) which gives advertisers even more opportunity to reach consumers not just through SMS and in-game adverts, which many users find intrusive (Wired, 2011) but also through banner adverts and brand websites.

As mobile advertising is relatively new many brands are unsure whether to get involved, especially in the current economic climate when budgets are tight and each media choice needs proof that it is the best. Measuring the success of a campaign is also a problem as many companies are unsure how to do this because of the fragmentation of information. Companies such as AdMob (2009) who sell mobile advertising space could help to track the progress of mobile campaigns much like other online campaigns are tracked, using impressions and click through rates. AdMob also work out ROI, for example in 2009 Land Rover wanted to drive people to their website and allocated 40% of their budget on mobile advertising which generated 70% of website traffic (AdMob 2009). Other brands incorporate mobile into their multi-media campaigns such as Wagamamma who are currently targeting university students by giving out free noodles with QR codes on the sides of the pots directing consumers to their mobile-friendly website. This is a good way for a brand to ease into the mobile market, integrating it into an existing campaign.

Many companies believe mobile advertising is definitely worth spending at least some of their budget on as it is the most specifically targeted media available. They can gather huge quantities of personal information such as demographics and interests through user’s online mobile profiles and the websites that are visited. With the rise of GPS tracking on mobile phones, advertisers can also target consumers according to their location; meaning consumers benefit relieving nearby offers relative to their personalities as well as the time of the day. For example, TGI Friday’s have targeted 18-35 year olds visiting the cinema. The mobile advert shows real time directions to the restaurant and users can find out more by clicking on the banner (Butcher, D., 2010).

A survey by JiWire (cited by Chong, S., 2010) explained that 53% of mobile Wi-Fi users would show their location to receive more targeted ads with a massive 38% saying they were likely to click through to find out more. This is a huge advantage for advertisers considering the average click through rate is 0.05% (Chong, S., 2010). This very specific targeted advertising means brands can reduce costs and increase the effectiveness of their adverts. Conversely, Dan Butcher (2010) from Mobile Marketing Magazine explains that other brands disagree with location based advertising. Apple have blocked location based in-app advertising so that their users don’t get spam whilst using their products, however this also means that consumers are missing out on potentially good offers relevant to them.

It is a difficult balance that advertisers need to accomplish. They need to ensure consumers don’t become irritated by mobile advertising, but also understand that consumers prefer “online, personal interaction with brands” (Marketing Charts, 2008) and mobile internet is a very good way of doing this. Brands can reach them through various online channels on their mobile, for example through apps and social networks as well as their own mobile-friendly websites. For this reason it is important that companies create mobile-friendly websites now so that they don’t get left behind. It is so easy for consumers to browse a website, click on a product and purchase it in a few minutes. EBay has taken advantage of this by creating a shopping app as well as teaming up with PayPal offering an easy, seamless way to pay.

The main concern with mobile advertising is privacy and the amount of personal information being shared with brands, especially GPS location. Goodin (2011) discussed this in online tech publication ‘The Register’ explaining how internet radio service Pandora has been providing advertising services AdMarvel and AdMob with incredibly detailed personal data. Demographic information including birth dates were collected as well as geographic information from consumers mobile GPS and each user’s mobile IP address. These services could then be used to directly target each person who fits a specific persona.

It is extremely difficult to regulate the internet even though from March 2011 the ASA began to regulate brands websites and advertising on social network sites. This is a start and will therefore affect mobile internet advertising as content is likely to be similar. Online privacy laws state that a website has to inform a user before they sign up what data will be collected, what it will be used for, who they will share it with, if tracking cookies are used by the website and permission to send offers etc. (Adlex Solicitors, 2011). There needs to be a way of opting in or out, for example Facebook has added a privacy setting to their mobile site enabling consumers to control how Facebook uses their information, for example in relation to emails as well as users being able to opt-out of being linked to adverts that will be shown on their profiles (Melanson, M., 2010).

As the modern world progresses so the technology that it uses advances. Mobile advertising regulations are always trying to keep up with technology (MMA, 2007) but what is clear is that advertisers need to make their brand mobile-friendly so they can be interactive with consumers at any time of the day. Companies can also take advantage of the great amount of user information available to target specific groups of people as long as they are seen to be respectful with user’s personal information. Providing they are made aware about what will be done with their information before companies use it, mobile advertising can benefit everyone. 

Dataveillance; Do you know what’s really going on?

Web 2.0 means that everyone is communicating online together. As this happens it is becoming increasingly easy for companies to track our behaviour. In this new era of ‘Dataveillance’ companies are creating data-bases full of information about everything we do online; from emails, what we search for, buy and anything else we happen to look at. They are creating a digital footprint for each online user. This is one person’s view of privacy;

Online security is hugely important to consumer and take so much care when setting up online banking or shopping online. However many don’t realise that all of the information you write online are stored for companies’ benefits.

Search engines such as Google as well as social networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter and Foursquare say they are giving us free content but they are using our personal information for monetary gain. Facebook’s policies mean that they own everything posted on the site including all of your information (ref reading). As no one reads the small print many people don’t even know this is happening. This makes Facebook more attractive to advertise on than any other websites as they can show your advert only on certain pages depending on which demographics the advertiser is targeting.

The only real benefit in dataveillance for consumers is that they will only see adverts targeted to them specifically rather than random adverts which are irrelevant. Pam Horan found in her research that ‘the majority of consumers prefer to see more relevant ads’. This could mean that many consumers don’t mind that they are being targeted by advertisers. 

There are massive advantages of dataveillance for brands. Facebook makes its revenue from using the data to sell to advertisers and Twitter is planning to do the same thing in the future so it can start making money rather than operating at a loss. It not only benefits social networks but can be massively beneficial to every brand. They can reduce costs dramatically by targeting their exact audience rather than placing a banner ad on a website that will be irrelevant to many users. Companies such as Match.com can advertise on Facebook, targeting single over 40’s and put an ad straight onto their page. They can then link you to people that have the same interests through Facebook’s data as well as the data they already have. This could also be good for the consumer as this way they are more likely to find a date with common interests.

On the other hand brands could be seen in a negative light by a lot of consumers. Brands could get a bad public image if people think they are spying on them. Google admitted in 2010 that their Street View cars had been collecting personal information from non-password protected Wi-Fi networks since 2006. This was very worrying for consumers as they don’t know what kind of information that Google has.  

There is debate about whether dataveillance is ethical or not. Brands such as Facebook do say in their terms and conditions that they will use consumer’s information for targeted advertising. However many users do not read the small print and therefore they don’t realise that their information is being used in this way. I think it is important that consumers know this is happening, so governments should have some kind of regulation meaning that brands should made more obvious that they are using these techniques. I agree with Joseph Donahue who argues that if people are unaware that they are being monitored they are likely to be unaware that their information is being shared with other sources.  This means that anyone could have information about them and they don’t know it. Some states in America you can’t get married if you have an outstanding parking ticket. This is madness. How do they know all of this information about you? However in terms of online dataveillance I believe that as long as consumers are aware, it is ethical as targeted advertising can be a benefit to both brands and consumers.

Using the web to spy on digital activists

The new world that we live in with the public sphere means that everyone can have their say; people can communicate with each other all around the world. They can share comments pictures and advice about everything. People meet others through the internet which is why it is such a good tool for activists. They can find millions of other people that might want to join in with an activist movement. For example; the student protests were very much organised online. As we are the age of digital natives it is so easy for us to organise things this way.

On the other hand, as Julian Assange believes; the internet is the ‘greatest spying machine the world has ever seen’ and I agree to a certain extent. Even though this new digital age is making activism so much easier it means that it is easier for the people you are lobbying against to find out about it and stop it before it even starts. The internet, especially social networking sites is making it increasingly easier to organise activism. Many of the student protests in the UK were organised through Facebook as well as protests across the world. This year in both Egypt and Libya political demonstrations have become violent and so the government has tried to shut down many the internet focusing on social networking sites. This is all in a bid to stop activists communicating and organising public protests.


China has also been accused of tampering with the internet. There is no freedom for activism in China with Facebook, YouTube and parts of Google banned. Google has accused China of tampering with Gmail meaning that users can’t send or receive emails properly. The Guardian believes this is also as a result of the government trying to crack down on activism inspired by the events in the Middle East.

Although some, mainly communist governments watch activists online and have the power to close down sites, brands don’t have this power, nor does David Cameron in the UK. Here freedom of speech is legal, activism is not as heavily monitored online. Activism against brands isn’t harming the country so nothing is done about it.

Many people believe that ‘Clickivism’ is ruining activism. it is too easy for someone to move their mouse and click to join a petition. It is not the same and doesn’t have the same effect as actually going out onto the streets protesting. 

38 Degrees launched an online petition to ‘Stop the factory farm’. Over 60,000 people signed the petition and this was just an appeal to stop a US dairy farm from opening in Lincolnshire.

Surely this many people wouldn't have turned up if they had to actually go somewhere to sign the petition. It has become all about numbers. Even so, for brands this could mean death if they get on the wrong side of consumers. Bad word of mouth spreads like wild fire and if it is this easy for people to click for example, ‘like’ to a boycott BP Facebook campaign then companies need to be wary. 

Attack of the Cookies?

Cookies are not as scary as people are led to believe. They are just a clever little marketing tool that is designed to be helpful to you. They remember details such as usernames and passwords (if you allow them) to make it easier and quicker when logging in to websites like Facebook. Cookies can be really helpful as they can store information about a users location and can then make sure that when the user types for example ‘weather’ into a search engine, only local weather results will be shown. All of these things are designed to make your online experience more personal. 

Research from warc found that ‘65% of consumers believe targeted advertising is an abuse of privacy’ however they also found that ‘64% of consumers think advertising tailored to their individual tastes and interests is a good idea’. How can people believe both without completely contradicting themselves? 

Many people believe that tracking cookies are some kind of virus or bug that is sent to steal personal information. The Electronic Privacy Information Centre (EPIC) believes that as the online world develops the cookies are getting more advanced and ‘poses a great threat to consumer privacy’.  They believe that most of the public aren’t even aware of these cookies and what they are doing. EPIC and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) discuss the development of Flash cookies which are harder to find and get rid of. Users are not notified that they exist on their webpage and they don’t expire like traditional HTTP cookies. They are more advanced which means that if a user deletes a HTTP cookie the new Flash cookie can reinstall data that was deleted. Many groups believe this is a massive invasion of privacy. People are choosing to ‘opt out’ by deleting the tracking cookies but other cookies are re-installing the information without the user knowing. Clearly this is an invasion of privacy because the whole point of cookies is that people can opt out.

However I don’t believe that these are as harmful as people are led to believe. There are benefits to Flash cookies. They save more information about your online interests and can be really helpful. If you are watching a program on BBC iplayer it will remember the volume that you set as well as how far into the program you are. This means that if you close the web page and go back to it later it remembers your settings. You don’t have to log in, adjust sound or even find the place in the program when you stopped watching. It means that a consumer can time when surfing the internet.

I believe the benefits of cookies outweigh the negatives. The intention of cookies is for companies to find out about your interests so that they can target you with products that would be useful to you. I agree with Peter Adams who believes that people aren’t really sure what cookies are. People just presume that they are bad and don’t think about how they can be helpful. I don’t think they realise that the things that are saving them time are the things that they are against. I like that when I go to a website it has remembered my log in details and my preferences. I don’t want to have to type in my location whenever I check the weather. It is so much better that it remembers who you are and the information that you actually care about. And if you still hate cookies there are still ways to delete tracking cookies on your antivirus software, so the choice is up to you.

Will Product Placement ruin the UK viewing experience?

As of Monday regulatory body Ofcom has allowed product placement in both TV and radio. The first ever UK television placement was Nescafe’s Dolce Gusto coffee machine on ITV show ‘This Morning’. Nescafe spent £100,000 for the product to be placed for three months in the kitchen area of the set. There wasn’t an obvious logo, just the machine itself. I couldn’t even see it until it was pointed out by the Telegraph.

Not much is known how viewers will react to this new law but some professionals have suggested this is a bad idea. A report by the European Journal of Marketing found that “product placements that play a passive role... are generally perceived as less ethical” however, Ofcom’s rules make it more ethical. Product placement is a good opportunity for brands to remind viewers of products. As long as programs stick to current Ofcom regulations which state that programs need to be responsible and are not allowed to alter plot lines to fit a product then it should be fine. UK viewers are used to seeing product placement in programs that have been brought over from America so I don’t think they will be worried at all. In Glee Sue Sylvester wears Adidas all the time and even got married in an Adidas wedding dress!

The P symbol identifies programs which contain product placement. Although this could be seen as more ethical as viewers will be aware, I think this will be more interruptive of their viewing experience than the product itself. It is likely that viewers will actively look out for the product in that program rather than just enjoy the program.

The television advert that goes with this symbol is being shown on television to explain what the symbol is. I think the advert would work well without the P logo during programs. It is making sure that product placement is ethical as people understand what’s going on without the intrusion to their program.

As well as physical product placement in television in the UK, digital product placement is looking likely to become popular. Currently it is being used in other countries and there are many companies which specialise in this. A company will digitally edit a product into a scene rather than it actually being there during filming. Myriad (a company who specialises in this) discusses this on BBC radio 4. They believe this is a better way of using product placement as it will not affect viewers as the character is not referencing the product outright. They will not be obviously promoting a product which may put consumers off. It will be similar to the Nescafe machine and just be placed in the background. Digital product placement may also benefit brands as they can pay for their product to be advertised in a program but can vary each product in each country the program is aired in.

As this is new for UK viewers it is hard to predict how they will react as a result. However we can look to other countries to see what opinion may be like. Product placement has been used in America for a long time and theirs seems to be very obvious; for example Coca Cola on American Idol. If the UK becomes this obvious my views are likely to change. Having products in programs will mean that the big companies like get bigger and the small companies don’t stand a chance which will mean that monopolisation of markets will be even more prominent. For viewers however they will be more interested in if the product starts interfering with storylines.  In this case consumers are likely to get annoyed and this will be detrimental to a brand’s image.

Product placements in American TV shows have not been a problem to UK viewers before. As long as Product Placement doesn’t end up like the Truman show, I don’t believe it will be detrimental to consumers viewing.

Crowd Accelerated Innovation

The rise of internet video is creating a new way for people to be innovative and creative. Chris Anderson, the curator of TED conferences spoke about this and called it ‘Crowd Accelerated Innovation’. I think this is a fascinating idea and means that anybody can be innovative and teach others. He discusses the evolution of dance through the internet and YouTube. Dancers can upload videos of them as well as watch videos of others. They can take different aspects from videos to create innovative new dances that they can share with everybody else. The crowd is pushing people further and forcing people to be innovative to make things new and interesting. It is an online community of teachers and challengers and everybody from all over the world can get involved. Anderson calls it a ‘self-fuelled learning cycle’. Because you can see what everybody else is doing you can learn from the best.

One such cycle that is happening at the moment is the tread mill dance! There are over a thousand videos of people dancing on treadmills on YouTube. OK Go’s music video has started this trend and has more than 6 million views. Many people have tried to replicate it and outdo it.  Tracy Anderson (fitness guru to stars such as Madonna and Gwyneth Paltrow) has even turned into a type of workout!

Some people have even got their animals involved!

Before this people used to hold street dances and competitors would battle for social status. With the rise of the internet a world challenge has been made possible with anyone from any age or background challenging each other. There are no language barriers which makes it even more incredible. These people now get global recognition for their talents, however strange they might be.

Boulaire, C. et al. (2010) agree, explaining that the creative force is shown through imitation and diversification that connects people’s minds, imaginations and interests. They share their talents, abilities and skills with each other and people can learn from these. This is exactly what people are doing when sharing videos on YouTube. This is also what Tracey Anderson is trying to do with her cross trainer dance revolution.

‘We are a social species and spark off each other’. The internet makes this so much more possible. I believe that this form of many to many communication has the potential to be a massive source of innovation; discussing ideas with people from all over the world with different experiences who share common interests can only be a good thing for creativity, new ideas and innovation.

Mobile marketing: Creating opportunities for consumers or just an invasion of privacy?

In our technological society a lot of people feel like it is important to take advantage of this technology by getting the latest mobile phones. Gong et al. (2008) believe high GDP means a higher mobile adoption rate, which means most people in the UK should have a mobile phone. Unlike heavily politically controlled countries like Japan and China, we in the UK can use our mobile phones for anything. Gong et al. (2008) also believe that it is countries with higher median age that have higher levels of mobile phone adoption. I can see how this may be true because older people have secure jobs and can therefore afford the new, more expensive Smartphone’s. However, just because a countries median age is high it doesn’t mean that it is older people that are using mobile internet.  I believe that it is younger people who are most likely to adopt the mobile internet revolution as they have that such a strong connection with their mobile phone. They also want to keep up with trends by having the best phones. Mintel also agrees stating that ‘16-24-year-olds are the most likely to access the mobile web daily (31%) - double that of 25-34-year olds.’ It goes on to explain that this is because of the high adoption rates of Smartphone’s by young people and their reliance on the internet for social interactions.

Young people are constantly using their phones, whether it is texting, calling or using the internet. This is a massive opportunity for advertisers to reach such an unpredictable audience. Even though advertising on mobile phone’s can be annoying, the adverts can be beneficial to consumers. Using apps such as Google search, Google Maps and Google Mail means that as a consumer you are getting free use of these applications. You know as a consumer that in turn you will be shown a few advertisements but don’t really mind as you believe that the benefits outweigh negatives.

However is all this advertising an invasion of privacy? Do you know that Google is collecting information about you every time you use one of their apps?

But how much do marketers actually invade the consumer’s privacy? And who decides if they are? Whilst discussing this with my friend she said that she doesn’t like the idea of GPS tracking and people always knowing where she is. She doesn’t like the idea of Augmented Reality (AR) and believes that this is making people lazy and people are not finding their way around by exploring anymore. This has made the world a less interesting place. If you always know where you are going how will you bump into and find out about new amazing things and places?

I think that consumers can use new technologies such as Augmented Reality to their advantage. If you can see everything around you on your mobile phone you can find the best deals. You can for example compare menus and prices of restaurants and get the best deal for yourself.  This means that restaurants may become more competitive, offering the consumer better prices and deals than were offered before.

Even though this technology will be a huge benefit to consumers it will take a longer time to persuade them of the benefits. I believe that the early majority will be reluctant to adopt these technologies due to fears of control and privacy. Laws in the UK mean that companies can give personal information to ‘selected third parties’ however a consumer doesn’t know who these third parties are. They could be anyone! Japan has a specific law against this meaning that a company cannot give your personal information out. I think that this is why mobile internet is growing so fast there. My only real concern is that each time I use my phone companies such as Google are storing information about me ready to use or to sell to other companies. I think if laws were introduced people would feel a lot more comfortable using mobile internet. However, by the time the legislation has been passed, the technology will have moved on!

Global Mobile Awards

Best Mobile Advertising and Marketing Campaign 2011

Winner: Unilever Cornetto Multiplayer Interactive Wall Projection Mapping Game

Just wanted to add this to the blog because I thought it was really interesting example of interactive advertising and marketing. The main aim was to get young people to eat more ice cream. Last summer Cornetto joined up with Mobilera and projected a game onto the wall of Taksim (Turkey’s equivalent to Times Square). Leaflets were handed out and outdoor interactive screens were used to promote the event to get as many people there. When people were there they could text or phone in to play the game. They controlled the characters with the keys on their mobile phones. The aim was to collect three Cornettos in less than 45 seconds and everyone was trying to catch the same ones. If you won you got a free ice-cream! It created a massive Buzz and was all over the news. Even the mayor said it was incredible and said ‘we should even broadcast it live on TV’.

I love this way of advertising a product as it is so exciting and people can get involved. If people are involved in the campaign they are more likely to share their experiences and the brand name gets spread with all of the positive comments which create an awesome positive brand image.

The Interactive Consumer; Friend or Foe?

Communication used to be one-to-one or one-to-many but now it has moved to many-to-many where consumers from all over the world can discuss ideas with each other. This model shows new interactive media communication:

Interactive media and the power of web 2.0 means the convergence of everything, for example, wiki, blogs and social networking. The internet is not just a source of information any more; it is now used for communication and consumer participation. It has given the consumer a chance to talk back. ‘New Traffic Lanes’ have been made for the convenience of consumers however marketers are finding new ways to take advantage of these tracks. As a result of this many companies have jumped on the digital bandwagon creating blogs, Facebook pages and Twitter accounts without really knowing why.

A good reason for brands to do this right is so that they can create awareness and ‘Buzz’amongst consumers online. One of the best ways of doing this is by creating a video advert, launching it onto the internet and hoping it will go viral. T-Mobile have done this really well with their flashmob at Liverpool street station and the one done at Heathrow in October last year. 

A good viral spreads so quickly and so far. This is a massive benefit to brands because consumers respond better to these viral adverts because they actively seek out to watch them. They don’t see it as advertising directly to them so are therefore willing to share it.

Having an online presence is hugely important for brands as they can use advertising techniques such as retargeting; when a consumer is browsing the internet, visits a retail site and moves on, a brand will know this and be able to target them later. Many consumers don’t realise this is happening; however this is extremely beneficial to the advertiser. All Saints revealed it had generated £21 for every £1 it had spent on retargeted advertising. As a result, many other retailers want to get involved with this type of advertising, for example; Game, John Lewis and French Connection are embracing the approach. 

There are challenges for brands in this new web 2.0 environment, such as competition with trading sites such as Ebay, Craigslist and Gumtree. These mean that consumers can buy from and sell to each other without the need for retailers at all. This could be problematic as people are buying second hand products from other consumers rather than buying new full priced products from the company directly. ‘Companies see resale as competitive with the first sale’.

Consumer’s online interactivity can also damage a brands reputation as they are becoming more in control of information. Brands need to remember that consumers are more likely to spread bad news that good news (REF) and with social networking sites, blogs and sites such as Twitter and YouTube, this means that information can travel faster, further and reach a lot more people than ever before. Consumers have a huge amount of power online as they outnumber brands by a huge amount. With sites such as Wikileaks, consumers are more knowledgeable than ever.

However I think the best way for brands to take advantage of consumer’s interactivity is to get them involved with their brand online. Make it fun for consumers to interact with your brand and they will spread the positive image of the brand for you. Brands that have done this well are the OfficeMax ‘Elf Yourself’ campaign who used an opportunistic marketing strategy to link into Christmas. Another brand which is doing this very well right now is Channel 4. They have created a multimedia campaign called ‘Twist Our Words’. People can go onto the website and click different words to create a sentence. Different channel 4 celebrities will then read out your message. I think this is a brilliant way of getting the audience to interact with and remember your brand. I have had a lot of fun with this already and have passed this on by word of mouth and now I’m passing it on to you. This is excellent free publicity for Channel 4- a great incentive for other brands to take advantage of the interactive consumer. CHECK IT OUT!

Has internet killed the video star?

Digital Convergence is when ‘TV, publishing and computer industries would combine to create multimedia hardware’ (McStay).  Old media is absorbed by emerging technologies. When convergence first came to be recognised it was seen to be destroying current markets as products could be compared a lot more easily and consumers have a lot more choice.  More recently mobile convergence had taken off with Android phones and the Apple iPhone. The internet, camera and video camera, face to face calls, music, maps, movies, books and games have all been made to fit into one phone which is an amazing feat.

Although more and more companies are moving online, some were sceptical of turning to the internet because of the dot.com bubble bursting. I think any that haven’t yet embraced the internet need to get their foot firmly in the door or they will be left behind. Although I can understand why they would be cautious; many companies lost billions and shut down such as Boo.com, Startups.com and Freeinternet.com who all went bankrupt.

New forms of media such as internet shopping and social networking sites have meant that the consumer has become more active. With media convergence, participatory culture and collective intelligence anyone can review, rate and give opinions on products and companies. Many consumers look to the internet for information on products before they buy anything, I know I do, especially when it is an expensive product. I want to find out what other people think of it before I pay for it. Consumer discussion about products online creates buzz and pub talk. This is where virals also work very well in creating brand awareness. Word of mouth is a lot more effective than any advertising campaign and it is free! Other consumer’s opinions are more trusted than adverts. In the electronic market online reviews have the most influence with word of mouth affecting 43.7% of purchases.

Digital convergence and the spread of ideas can create cult followings online. It is easy for one person to get their opinions out and for many others to agree, comment and spread what they have found. Adele is a good example of the benefits of internet cult followings. She created a MySpace page in 2004 and many people found her and loved her music. She also posted some of her music on Platformsmagazine.com which more people found. Through this she was spotted and later performed at concerts around the UK. Her first album got to number one in the UK charts. This is such a good story about how the internet and convergence has led to such an amazing artist being discovered.  

However, has Internet killed the video star?

Are The Limousines right? Is the internet killing TV viewing figures?

Morgan Stanley believes so. He believes that teenagers in particular (the digital natives) are watching less TV and are accessing everything online. This means that advertisers with a teenage target audience have had to think about new strategies to include online advertising. Coca-Cola have always been known for their adverts especially the ‘Holidays Are Coming’ Christmas television ones that are so successful, however their new ‘Open Happiness’ campaign has been shown online first to attract teenage consumers. An integrated campaign will be bought in afterward including TV, cinema and outdoor mediums (Marketing Week). Does this mean that Coca-Cola agrees with Stanley? They obviously do if they are using the internet to target teenage consumers before any other media. In the case of teenagers and young people I believe reaching them via the internet amongst other mediums is the best way. It would be for me anyway.  

Am I really a Digital Native?

Blogging is a new thing for me, although it has been around for a while. I’m on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn but I haven’t yet made it to blogging. Perhaps because there are so many bloggers out there and I wouldn’t know what to write, or maybe it is just that I haven’t got around to it yet. Anyway the fact is that I am starting now, with thanks to Bournemouth University and my Digital Communications Strategy unit.

I am, in Marc Prenskys terms, a ‘Digital Native’. Prensky invented this term as a way to describe people born after 1980 who are growing up in this digital world. Many people, especially born after 1990 that grow up around this technology explosion don’t know much else.

All people born before this are ‘Digital Immigrants’ who try to learn and keep up with the massive increase in digital technology. Without the advantage of growing up surrounded by digital technology these people have to make a conscious effort to learn the techniques to use these digital products.

Everything ‘Digital Natives’ know about the world and the way we interact through it has everything to do with new media and going digital technology. Everyone I know has a laptop or access to one with internet and knows how to use most of the programmes on them. They all own a mobile phone; mostly the latest trends of Blackberry’s or an Apple iphone.

However, although my friends all use modern technologies is this enough to class us ‘Digital Natives’? Are we blogging, Tweeting and communicating online as much as we are thought to? Everyone that I know around my age has Facebook, but not many Tweet or write blogs. Does this mean we are frauds? Zoe Handley discusses this in her Oxford University blog http://oupeltglobalblog.com/2011/01/20/digital-natives-fact-or-fiction/ ‘Digital Natives’: Fact or Fiction? Her argument and many of the comments are interesting to look at as she points out that students “... are not the most frequent users of technology, rather 35-44 year olds are.” (Bayne and Ross, 2007). So in this case we must be frauds! The Digital Immigrants know more about the new digital era than the Digital Natives which goes against Prensky’s argument completely!

Looking at Lara Mulady’s blog http://deepbluedenmark.wordpress.com/2010/01/25/no-such-thing-as-a-digital-native/ I can see that we are just taking advantage of the benefits of growing up in this era. We don’t have to re-learn everything but we learn as we grow up, being introduced to more and more digital information every day. So can there be a hybrid? I think there should be another word that describes the true stage that young people are at. Some are more advanced and can be labeled ‘Digital Natives’, but I think that the rest of us are, in my terms, ‘Digital Evolvers’.