Feel Wimbledon with Jaguar UK (using wearables & court sensors to gauge the mood of the audience)

Jaguar has take a wearable technology route as a part of its first ever strategy as the official auto sponsor of Wimbledon, which started on June 29 and runs all the way through July 12, this year

Throughout the tournament, wearable technology in the form of biometric wristbands will be helping to gauge the mood and emotion of the crowd. Certain select spectators have been provided the wearables that record the movement, heart rate, and location of the individuals. They work with atmospheric, in-ground sensors that will then provide the brand with data that they are able to analyze in order to gauge the energy level of the crowds, as well as their movement, and audio levels, in combination with infrared.

That insight will be implemented in a number of ways, including a sociometric component that will incorporate the worldwide fan posts on Twitter, Facebook, and Instigram. All of these various forms of technology, combined, will offer a real time understanding of the sentiment of the audience, depending on when it is and where they happen to be.

Jaguar intends to share the insights that they collect through the wearable tech and other sensors, using the hashtag #FeelWimbledon, over the brand’s social channels. According to the Jaguar Land Rover UK marketing director, Laura Schwab, “Wimbledon evokes lots of emotions and captures our imaginations in so many different ways, so we’re very excited to celebrate what makes Wimbledon so special through our #FeelWimbledon campaign.”

Schwab also went on to say that the exposure that will be achieved through this event and the insight that can be gained through the wearable technology and other forms of metrics that will be employed is considerable. She pointed out that there will be “500,000 people attending Wimbledon this year,” and this clearly offers a sizeable audience for the brand and its products.

The differences between Content Marketing and Native Advertising: ROI (Fractl, Moz) – HBR

Comparing the ROI of Content Marketing and Native Advertising – HBR.

Kelsey Libert is a viral marketing speaker and Director of Promotions at Fractl, you can connect with her at @KelseyLibert.

Many companies today rely on content marketing and native advertising to gain visibility for their brand — after all, 70% of people say they’d rather learn about products through content rather than through traditional advertising. But is either content marketing or native advertising a surefire way to boost brand awareness? And which one offers more bang for the buck?

To answer this question, we at Fractl, a content marketing firm, collaborated with Moz to survey over 30 agencies specializing in content marketing about content formats and the metrics they use to track ROI. And I’ll get to what we found, below. But first, let’s remind ourselves how each approach is different, and what each approach aims to do.

Content marketing agencies produce campaigns for brands (this is an example) and then pitch these to multiple top-tier publishers for coverage. Each time a publisher writes about a campaign, it will usually link back to the company as the source. These links increase a company’s organic search rankings, direct traffic to the company’s website, and drive user engagement for the brand via social media.

Whereas content marketing usually tries to secure dozens of media pickups, native advertising promotes content by paying to partner with a single publisher. (This is an example of a native advertising partnership between BuzzFeed and all Laundry Detergent.) Native advertising (also known as sponsored content) offers a guaranteed placement with a top-tier publisher that might have monthly unique visitors in the multi-millions.


We took a data-driven approach to compare the efficacy of native advertising versus content marketing. Here’s what we learned about how the two strategies stack up.

First, we looked at content marketing services. On average, 65% of agencies produce between one and 10 campaigns per month for each of their clients. The process for a single campaign includes idea generation, concept research, asset design, and – the final step – promotion. Once a team has completed production, they pass the campaign to a media relations associate who secures press coverage for the campaign. The goal: getting staff writers at a high-authority websites to produce a story about the campaign for their publishers.

In the early days of content marketing, widgets, and “listicles” dominated the landscape. As Google began penalizing brands for thin content pages and low-value link schemes, the industry scrambled to produce higher-quality content. Thus, like some publishers, content marketing agencies started to produce more articles and infographics than other content formats.


Almost half of clients measure content marketing success by the number of leads (i.e., customer conversions based on campaigns), high-quality links (i.e., links from high-authority publishers), and total social media shares generated by each campaign. Excluding outliers, the average content marketing campaign earns 27 links from publisher stories (media pickups), whereas the average for each agency’s “most successful campaign” is 422 links and the median is 150 links.

How much does this cost? We found that 70% of content marketing agencies offer monthly retainers, and these fall into five buckets: Less than $1,000, $1,000–$5,000, $5,000–$10,000, $10,000–$50,000, and $50,000–$100,000. Content marketing costs largely relate to the scope of the projects being produced (e.g., press releases versus interactive graphics) and their reach (e.g., influencer marketing versus no outreach). We found that a price tag of between $5,000-$50,000 correlated with campaigns that generated the most links, which suggests that agencies were able to produce innovative, larger-scope campaigns, influencer marketing, and content amplification, rather than just issuing press releases. At the lower end, we did not see as much activity, and we speculate that those firms did not have the resources to generate compelling campaigns. But interestingly, at the higher end, we did not see considerably more value being created once companies went over $50,000.

Next, we wanted to see how native advertising compares. We gathered native advertising cost data from a report by Relevance, another content marketing agency, to which we added 100 additional data points to see what nearly 600 publishers charge for native advertising. We included general news publishers that tend to dominate search engine results and have a collective social following of more than 100,000 people.

At first glance, we saw that the minimum investment to partner on a native advertising is exorbitant for most brands. For example, to team up with TIME on a native advertising campaign, a client can pay up to $200,000. On average, the cost of a native advertising campaign for top-tier news publishers was $54,014.29. (For lower-tier publishers, which we categorized as having a domain authority of less than 80, the cost drops to an average between $70 and $8,000.)

Clearly, native advertising is expensive. But what’s the return? We reviewed 38 native advertising campaigns published on BuzzFeed, a leader for sponsored content, alongside 58 Fractl content marketing campaigns, to evaluate the reach (in terms of links) and engagement (social shares) of each. (Full disclosure again that my company Fractal is a content marketing agency.) Overall, Fractl’s content marketing campaigns were republished and shared more than BuzzFeed’s native advertising. For example, just comparing the top performing campaigns for each, we found that Fractl’s 11 campaigns for client Movoto resulted in, on average, 146 pickups and 17,934 social shares. BuzzFeed’s 13 campaigns for Intel resulted in one pickup on average and 12,481 social shares.

And in line with these findings, a report by eMarketer found that the most common issue cited by executives who use native advertising was of scale. Of course, you’re paying to publish content solely on the site you’re partnering with, which limits potential reach. One additional stumbling block: Google considers native advertising to be paid links, which prevents campaigns from improving the company’s search engine rankings.

With its smaller reach,  is native advertising ever worth the cost? For some firms with large budgets, the expense is worth it if it means aligning their brand with a high-authority publisher and the right niche audience. Ultimately, native advertising has been proven effective in drawing higher click rates than traditional banner ads and other outbound marketing methods, so as a replacement for those, it could make sense.

While I may be biased, these data-driven findings suggest how companies might get a better bang for their buck with content marketing — especially if they’re looking for a wide reach with different publishers and audiences. However, for those mainly interested in guaranteed placement with a big-name publisher, native advertising might be the way to go.

‘Bank of Apple’ Moves Closer With New Patent To Kill PayPal, Square (Source: Forbes)

‘Bank of Apple’ Moves Closer With New Patent To Kill PayPal, Square.


Apple AAPL -0.29% has quietly filed for a new patent which details a person-to-person money transmission method which could potentially grab market share from PayPal and Square, and hit the already beleaguered banking sector struggling to keep up with FinTech.

Apple is already banking on consumers using the wallet in Apple Pay as their central source for general payments, and having recently announced at WWDC that Apple Pay will soon be available in the UK (Apple Pay is reportedly coming to the UK on July 14th) that’s a huge additional market to tap into, especially to lure British consumers away from using contactless cards which dominate the UK banking sector. But the killer feature missing has been a method to transfer payments between people, and now Apple plans to remedy this with Apple Pay and the wallet.

Hey UK, here comes Apple Pay

According to Patently Apple, “Apple’s invention generally relates to wireless communications, wireless electronic devices, and more specifically to techniques for conducting financial transactions by communicating encrypted financial credentials between the wireless electronic devices.

In other words, an iPhone user will activate their Wallet app, chose a stored card that they want to use to make the money transfer with, and type in the amount they would like to pay. The payment would then be authenticated using Touch ID or the iPhone’s passcode. The wallet system would also let the person pick the recipient of the funds from nearby iPhone users.

Whats not clear is whether the Apple Watch will play any part in initiating a transfer of funds. Unless this arrives with the Gen2 Watch as a complimentary feature.

This has massive implications for a number of reasons:

  • A direct swipe at PayPal, Square and others for simple money transfer could impact their services if successful
  • As traditional retail banks struggle to offer quick and easy services for customers this could be another nail in the coffin for those who can’t provide innovation in the current account space
  • As Barclays and other banks experiment with wearable tech for contactless payments, Apple could kill off other R&D projects waiting in the wings at other institutions unwilling to take the risk
  • With £3bn in funds being transferred in the UK alone via banking apps, Apple is hoping to tap into a huge payments market for P2P transmission

This method is nothing new in terms of simple money transmission. M-Pesa was launched in 2007 allowing for funds transfer and borrowing without bank branches all via mobile.

Apple credits Senior Director of Apple Pay Engineering Timothy Hurley who came to Apple from Citibank for the new idea.

When, or even if, Apple decides to implement this is anyones guess at this point in time. Apple has a history of patenting many things that never see the light of day. But one thing is for certain; if it does hit, it will only hurt other FinTech wallets.

Of course, Apple is well known for locking in users as much as possible in their ecosystem, this is just another play to make sure you never leave the fold. To find out what I mean, read how Apple just makes us all complacent.

69% of Mar­keters (EMEA) believe that internet-connected devices enable mar­ket­ing to per­me­ate every aspect of con­sumer life (source: Adobe Digital Roadblock Report 2015)

inShareBy Mark Zablan on 2 July 2015 

Changes—whether they be envi­ron­men­tal, emo­tional, behav­ioral, etc.—have been a source of dra­matic uncer­tainty since the begin­ning of time. Debris on the motor­way affect­ing your morn­ing drive? Air tur­bu­lence chang­ing the com­fort of your recent busi­ness trip? Your mother in law’s pres­ence chang­ing the dynamic in your house­hold? The frus­trat­ing road­blocks that too often crop up in life can almost always be pin­pointed on some ele­ment of change.
And so too for mar­keters, as I’m out every day speak­ing to top brands across Europe, the resound­ing theme I hear time and again is how busi­nesses will be able to adapt to and suc­ceed amidst change. New and evolv­ing tech­nolo­gies are too often to blame for the dig­i­tal road­blocks fac­ing Euro­pean mar­keters today—and as the leader in dig­i­tal mar­ket­ing technology—Adobe has once again taken the pulse of mar­keters across Europe to bet­ter under­stand how they are being impacted by these dra­matic changes.
In the Adobe Dig­i­tal Road­block Report 2015, we sur­veyed 1,311 mar­keters across the UK, Ger­many and France—with top insights emerg­ing around:
Mar­keters are see­ing their indus­try trans­form­ing at a rapid pace – the face of mar­ket­ing is changing
Roughly 5 in 6 mar­keters (86%) feel the pace of change is accel­er­at­ing and over half (58%) believe mar­ket­ing has changed more in the past year than in the pre­vi­ous 5 years.

7 in 10 mar­keters believe mar­ket­ing is entirely dif­fer­ent today than when they started their mar­ket­ing career and that dig­i­tal tools and pro­lif­er­a­tion of chan­nels are fun­da­men­tally chang­ing the nature of marketing.

The reac­tion to these changes is over­whelm­ingly positive
Seventy-two per­cent agree they are at the start of a golden age of mar­ket­ing and most see this is an oppor­tu­nity rather than a threat (87%).

Mar­keters describe feel­ing chal­lenged (56%) and opti­mistic (55%).

Marketing’s busi­ness influ­ence and impact is seen as increasing
Seventy-three per­cent believe the mar­ket­ing func­tion has increased in influ­ence in the past 5 years and mar­ket­ing is seen to strongly influ­ence over­all busi­ness strat­egy (65%).

Sixty-nine per­cent agree that mar­ket­ing is increas­ingly respon­si­ble for rev­enue contribution.

New tech­nolo­gies are trans­form­ing how mar­keters inter­act with their audi­ences; mar­keters must mas­ter these tech­nolo­gies to stay relevant
Mar­keters believe that internet-connected devices enable mar­ket­ing to per­me­ate every aspect of con­sumer life (69%) and mar­keters must become skilled in mobile 2 (70%) to reach these consumers.

Tech­nol­ogy is con­tribut­ing to the change in con­sumer expec­ta­tions – con­sumers now expect imme­di­ate responses (78%), com­pelling con­tent (77%), uniquely tai­lored mar­ket­ing (69%) and 24/7 engage­ment with brands (65%).

Mobile is most impor­tant to mar­keters now. Wear­able and the inter­net of things will be cru­cial in the future.
72% believe the rise of mobile and wear­able tech­nol­ogy has taken mar­ket­ing into new ter­ri­tory and 52% believe mar­ket­ing today is all about mobile and internet-connected devices.

While mobile and mar­ket­ing for com­put­ers will con­tinue to be impor­tant 3 years from now, it is wear­ables, IOT, and embed­ded screens that will see the largest shift in impor­tance for marketers.

Tech­nol­ogy has changed how mar­ket­ing effec­tive­ness is measured
Nearly 3 in 5 (58%) believe new tech­nolo­gies are chang­ing how they reach audi­ences and ana­lyze mar­ket­ing effectiveness.

60% agree cap­tur­ing and apply­ing data to inform and drive mar­ket­ing activ­i­ties is the new reality.

59% agree that data (met­rics from dig­i­tal ads, cam­paigns, web­site, etc.) are infor­ma­tive in evolv­ing their company’s mar­ket­ing creative .

Mar­keters are open to imple­ment­ing tech­nol­ogy (64%), and tak­ing risks (57%) – how­ever there is reluc­tance around adopt­ing tech­nol­ogy that is not yet mainstream.
Change is imper­a­tive. Mar­keters expect to adapt to tech advance­ments to keep pace with the indus­try (74%).

Although these changes are wel­come and many feel opti­mistic, there is still con­cern around both their com­pa­nies and their own abil­i­ties to meet these changes
66% say their com­pany is some­what to very well set up to deal with changes – of those only 10% say it is set up very well to do so.

Being tech-savvy – an early adopter of tech­nol­ogy – is seen as key for an ideal suc­cess­ful mar­keter (57%), yet only 30% describe them­selves in these terms.

Mar­keters see their com­pa­nies as per­form­ing well on tra­di­tional mar­ket­ing activ­i­ties, but they are under­per­form­ing on activ­i­ties mar­keters iden­tify as most crit­i­cal in the years to come, (big data, IoT, endemic mar­ket­ing, and mobile mar­ket­ing). These areas are also among those found to be most chal­leng­ing for marketers.

I think we can all relate to these themes and, at Adobe, our job is to help knock down the dig­i­tal road­blocks of today—partnering with you to build a dig­i­tal roadmap to help you cap­i­tal­ize on marketing’s golden age. Check out the full report below for more infor­ma­tion, and let’s con­tinue this con­ver­sa­tion as we com­bat dig­i­tal change

David vs Goliath: Les champions de la grande consommation sont en panne de croissance (source: OC&C Strategy)

Nestlé, L’Oréal, Danone, Unilever, Procter & Gamble… Les 50 plus grands groupes mondiaux de la consommation ont vu leur croissance et leur rentabilité reculer en 2014, selon une étude du cabinet OC&C.

Les temps sont durs pour les plus gros fabricants de produits de grande consommation, les “Goliath”, qui ont vu leur croissance fondre en 2014 sur leurs nouveaux marchés, et sont débordés par des “David” plus flexibles et locaux, selon une étude.

Ainsi, le TOP 50 des grands groupes mondiaux, parmi lesquels une majorité de géants agroalimentaires, du tabac et de l’hygiène-beauté – Nestlé, Procter & Gamble, Pepsico, Unilever, JBS, Coca Cola …- ont enregistré une croissance de 1,7% contre 2,9% en 2013, selon un travail du cabinet de conseil en stratégie OC&C publié jeudi.

Si cette contre-performance s’explique en grande partie par un “impact négatif des taux de change”, les auteurs notent aussi que les volumes commerciaux ont atteint “leur deuxième plus bas niveau en 13 ans”.

Surtout, ces “50 champions mondiaux des produits de Grande Consommation” (d’après le titre de l’étude), les “Goliath”, selon le terme des auteurs, sont talonnés par des acteurs de moindre envergure, des “David” généralement locaux, plus flexibles, en particulier chez les Bric émergents – Brésil, Russie, Inde, Chine.

“Là où les groupes locaux ont une meilleure maîtrise de la distribution, une économie d’échelle et se montrent beaucoup plus agressifs en acquisitions. Ils ont aussi souvent moins d’impératifs, pouvant s’endetter pour racheter leurs concurrents, car ils ne sont pas forcément cotés en bourse”, indique à l’AFP Frédéric Fessart, partenaire associé chez OC&C, qui a conduit l’étude.

Néanmoins, chez les émergents aussi la croissance de la grande consommation, liée au ralentissement des économies nationales, marque le pas autour de 5 à 6% pour le premier trimestre 2015, loin des 10% des heures de gloire.

“C’est surtout vrai sur les achats premium, les gens achètent moins cher et ça impacte les géants”, reprend Frédédic Fessart. “Même le no 1 chinois des nouilles asiatiques Tingyi a fait -6% l’an dernier: son marché ralentit et la concurrence locale est rude”.

TOP 50 - OCC - 2014

Ce qui n’empêche pas un autre groupe chinois, WH Group, d’intégrer le Top 50 au 17è rang, entre Japan Tobacco et Kraft: son acquisition du premier producteur mondial de porcs, l’américain Smithfield, fait de lui le leader mondial du secteur avec un taux de croissance de 98% et un doublement de son chiffre d’affaires.

Wh est le second chinois au Top 50 après Tingyi l’an passé et Mengniu, le no 1 du lait en Chine dont Danone possède 10%, devrait les rejoindre en 2015 après une croissance de 15% en 201


Delacre ré-invente la mailbox

La Maison Delacre annonce le lancement de Mailbox, qui permet à chacun de personnaliser sa célèbre boîte de biscuits Tea-Time pour en faire “le messager d’émotions”. Pour créer sa Mailbox Delacre, il suffit de surfer surwww.mailboxdelacre.be et de choisir la couleur, indiquer le nom de l’expéditeur, insérer une photo et enfin rédiger un message personnalisé. La Mailbox sera envoyée dans les trois à quatre jours. Coût 25 euros, hors frais d’envoi.

Apple and Twitter and Snapchat use human editors, but Facebook doesn’t – Fortune

Apple and Twitter and Snapchat use human editors, but Facebook doesn’t – Fortune.

Using human beings to do curation or aggregation works for some purposes, but not for others.

It’s gone from one or two examples to a bona fide trend—which, as any journalist knows, occurs whenever there is least three of something. The trend in this case is the hiring of human editors to filter through the news, music, and other forms of content that are being produced and/or hosted by a variety of platforms. So Apple is hiring editors for its News app, which it announced at its recent developer conference, as well as editor/DJs for the streaming music service the company is rolling out soon.

Meanwhile, Snapchat is also hiringjournalists to report and edit content related to the upcoming U.S. election, and Twitter is looking to add editorswho can filter and aggregate tweets and links related to trending topics on the network, as part of what the company calls Project Lightning. LinkedIn also recently announced it is adding human editors to its Pulse news-recommendation feature, and Instagram has started doing some curation for its new Explore page.

There are a couple of big names missing from this list that are pretty influential when it comes to news: Namely, Facebook and Google. Facebook is launching a new featurecalled Instant Articles with partners like the New York Times, but the site’s staff won’t have anything to do with the selection of stories that become part of the program—and the choice of who sees them and when will be left to Facebook’s all-powerful algorithm. Much like Facebook, Google’s services are also powered completely by algorithms.

Of course, algorithms aren’t autonomous robots, but software that is written and programmed by human beings to have certain attributes. So in a sense, the “humans vs. algorithms” debate is based on a misconception. But it’s probably fair to say the human input in an algorithm-driven model is one step removed from the action, compared to human editing.

So if Apple and Twitter and Snapchat and LinkedIn see the value of having human editors selecting news or curating content of various kinds, why wouldn’t Facebook and Google do the same? Because each of the latter two companies are involved in content that’s on a completely different scale than Apple or Twitter—and human beings don’t scale very well.

Technology analyst Ben Thompson made this point in a recent blog post, entitled “Curation and Algorithms.”There are some things that human curation is good for, and some things that it isn’t, he argues. For example, music and other emotional forms of content can be good candidates for curation because human beings perceive things about that content that algorithms might miss. So when Jimmy Iovine talked about the launch of the new Apple Music service, he said:

“The only song that matters as much as the song you’re listening to right now is the one that follows this. Picture this: you’re in a special moment, and the next song comes on… BZZZZZ, Buzzkill! It probably happened because it was programmed by an algorithm alone. Algorithms alone can’t do that emotional task. You need a human touch.”

But there are cases in which curation done by human beings simply doesn’t work, Thompson says—and Google and Facebook are two examples of that, but for very different reasons. Google’s job is to filter through all of the billions of webpages and content on the web and find the one thing that a user needs or wants to find, and that’s a task that would be impossible for even a gigantic group of human editors to accomplish (although Google does use small teams of humans to check link quality). That’s why Yahoo stopped trying to run a human-edited directory.

Facebook, by contrast, isn’t trying to filter all of the world’s information—or at least, not yet. It’s trying to find the right combination of text and photos and links and video that will appeal to every one of its billions of users, and get them to engage with the site as much as possible. So unlike Google, the supply of information it is trying to filter may not be infinite, but the personalization of that content for each of its users involves so many permutations and combinations that it would also be almost impossible to accomplish with a staff of human editors, even a large one.

“Google is seeking the single best answer to a direct query from an effectively infinite number of data points… For most queries there is one right answer that Google will return to anyone who searches for the term in question. In short, the data set is infinite (which means no human is capable of doing the job), but the target is finite. Facebook, on the other hand, creates a unique news feed for all of its 1.44 billion users… what is infinite are the number of targets.”

The news, by contrast, is something where human editors can perform a fairly useful function, and even add things that algorithms can’t, Thompson says (which is one reason why Techmeme founder Gabe Riverastopped using only algorithms to power his news portal in 2008, and started hiring human beings). The pool of information isn’t infinite, as it is with Google, but neither is the personalization required for the potential audience, as it is with Facebook. That’s why newspapers existed.

As Thompson notes, however, the risk is that human-edited services face—rightly or wrongly—much more criticism when they make decisions about what to show and what not to show than algorithm-powered networks. So Facebook and Google can to some extent argue that they don’t control what gets displayed directly, it’s just the algorithm (although there are a lot of problems with this defense, obviously).

If Apple’s human editors remove news stories about specific topics, there’s going to be a lot of negative attention. What journalistic considerations—if any—do platforms like Apple and Snapchat and Twitter have when it comes to the news? As distribution shifts to these large-scale networks, those kinds of questions are going to become even more important.

Spotify( 4/2015) 68 millions d’abon­nés, dont 17,3 millions payants (Macplus/Hautparleur)

Spotify, décrit par ses chiffres.

C’est le principal compétiteur du prochain Apple Music : Spotifydépasse désormais de la tête et des épaules les services concurrents, notamment Deezer, nettement distancié. C’est ce qui ressort d’un profil très détaillé publié par le magazine spécialisé Haut-Parleur.

Spotify, fin avril, comptait 68 millions d’abon­nés, dont 17,3 millions payants.

Aujourd’hui, le service revendique 75 millions d’abon­nés, preuve que sa progression se poursuit.

Mais où Spotify est-il le mieux implanté ?

En Europe du nord ! « En Suède, la terre natale de Spotify, le service compte donc 1 512 550 abonnés premium à la fin avril de cette année pour 987 405 utilisateurs gratuits, non encore convertis aux vertus du payant » note Haut-Parleur. La Norvège de son côté compte 800 000 abonnés payants, contre 400 000 abonnés à la formule publicitaire gratuite.

Globalement, l’Europe du nord est la forteresse du service, et le seul endroit où le nombre d’abonnés payants dépasse les gratuits.

Mais Spotify progresse très fortement aux USA, grâce à une promotion agressive, lancée aux USA en début d’année. Spotify compte près de 5 millions d’abonnés américains. La France demeure en retrait : 1,4 millions d’abonnés gratuits et seulement 240 000 abonnés premium.

L’utilisation du service est importante : « 21 milliards de streams pendant ce mois d’avril 2015, soit une moyenne 311 streams par utilisateurs (accès payant et gratuit) – et 617 streams par mois (20 streams par jour) pour les abonnés qui payent donc très cher la possibilité de tripler leur consommation de musique »