Amplify
Enjoy the conversation.
Amplify is a place to talk about what's going on.
It's as simple as that.
   

Mike Turro | My Amplify

The days of “Mad Men” are over; we are in the age of Math Men.

The recent shift in focus over at Conde Nast is one of those half brilliant half idiotic ideas that correctly recognizes a crisis and then fails miserably in how to go about addressing it. Lucky for them AdAge has their back. This post by Rajeev Goel does a great job of laying it out all nice and plain. Advertising is still there - it's just a lot geekier than it used to be. While there may always be a place for the creative genius of a Don Draper, the real heroes of the new age of advertising will be the geeks that can parse the math. The days of the boozy easy sell, the defined rate, the specific space, are pretty much gone. Publishers need to see that they don't need to kill advertising, they need to kill their traditional notions of salesmanship. They actually need to do some math.

Amplifyd from adage.com

There is a lot of innovation in targeting, particularly in the online ad space, that is providing advertisers with better performing campaigns. Advertisers can target highly valuable audiences that large publishers -- like Conde Nast -- might have spent years attracting. Combined with the advent of more efficient ways of buying media, like Real Time Bidding, some publishers are seeing pricing for segments of their traffic increase by more than 90%.

Publishers that understand and master how to sell this growing demand of audience-based advertising will see their ad revenue go up significantly while retaining advertiser loyalty. No one is suggesting that advertising alone will cover Conde Nast's online and offline content costs (which are high compared to many other media companies) but it argues that online can make a more significant revenue contribution than it has in the past and almost certainly higher than the risky move of asking their readers to pick up the slack.

Read more at adage.com
 

Why I don’t like Wired’s “iPad” demo.

Aside from the usual problems I have with publishers getting all obsessed with output format something else about this beautiful demo really irks me: the fact that this thing will NOT run on an iPad. It's an AIR/Flash/Adobe creation and I'm sure nobody needs reminding on the current status of the Apple/Adobe relationship. So, given that status, why would Wired partner with Adobe to make an app that may never run (properly) on the 800lb gorilla of the tablet space?

The answer is simple enough - Adobe OWNS print workflow. Working with Adobe means that Wired's designers don't really need to be pushed too far outside their comfort zone. In fact the designs you see in the video below started life as InDesign docs. In some ways this is a sensible move. Yet making sensible moves in nonsensical times may not always be smart.

In embracing Adobe as their tablet technology partner Wired is taking a rather large gamble that Flash's iPhone export feature due in CS5 (which according to Apple Blog isn't working in beta - http://theappleblog.com/2010/02/16/adobe-creative-suite-5-details-revealed/) will not only be accepted by Apple, but will work without incident. I don't care how slick the design is - if the thing crashes or is slow or buggy overall experience will suffer. Based on personal past experience with Adobe's code export features in other CS products I'd say the chances of the iPhone code being usable, let alone good, is remote at best. Add to all of this the rather high profiles of Wired, their parent company Conde Nast, and Apple and you're not looking at your average everyday fail - this would be big time fail.