After getting the presidential election wrong, some top ad executives are advocating direct communication and a greater reliance on emotional pleas over reasoning.
0 Comments
Facebook has repeatedly insisted that the fake news stories which spread across its social network during the presidential election did not impact the results. Mark Zuckerberg recently went so far as to say the idea that fake news on Facebook "influenced the election in any way is a pretty crazy idea." Now a new report from Gizmodo claims the company chose not to take steps to suppress fake news earlier this year because it would have "disproportionately impacted right-wing news sites by downgrading or removing that content from people's feeds." Facebook may have been scared of provoking a backlash from conservative users of the service in the wake of an episode earlier this year in which contractors employed by Facebook reportedly suppressed conservative-oriented news articles from the trending news section. Citing anonymous sources, Gizmodo alleges that Facebook employees planned an update to the News Feed that would hide fake news and hoaxes earlier this year. But when Facebook realized the update "disproportionately" affected right-wing publishers, the update was reportedly shelved. Facebook denied Gizmodo's claim in a statement shared with Business Insider. "The article's allegation is not true," a Facebook spokesperson said. "We did not build and withhold any News Feed changes based on their potential impact on any one political party. We always work to make News Feed more meaningful and informative, and that includes examining the quality and accuracy of items shared, such as clickbait, spam and hoaxes." A recent BuzzFeed investigation found that 38% of posts shared from three large right-wing politics pages on Facebook included "false or misleading information," and that three large left-wing pages did the same nearly 20% of the time. A follow-up investigation by BuzzFeed revealed how teenagers in Macedonia create fake, pro-Trump news stories that are designed to go viral on Facebook. President Obama recently called out Facebook's role in spreading fake news for creating a "dust cloud of nonsense." Despite the backlash, Mark Zuckerberg has remained adamant that fake news represents a small portion of what is shared on Facebook. "Of all the content on Facebook, more than 99% of what people see is authentic," the CEO wrote in a recent post. "Only a very small amount is fake news and hoaxes. The hoaxes that do exist are not limited to one partisan view, or even to politics. Overall, this makes it extremely unlikely hoaxes changed the outcome of this election in one direction or the other." SEE ALSO: Facebook is being blamed for Trump's election - but Mark Zuckerberg's response is tone deaf Join the conversation about this story » NOW WATCH: A Facebook bug was telling people they died Last month, AT&T shocked the industry by announcing that the monthly price for its new streaming TV service, DirecTV Now, would be just $35. Why was that so surprising? Because for that price, when DirecTV Now comes out this month, it will give you 100+ channels - delivered over the internet, no cable box or satellite dish required. It's your big pay-TV bundle with its price chopped down. It's a gamble for AT&T. AT&T reportedly thinks that DirecTV Now will be its primary TV platform by 2020. That's likely why its willing to give up an insane amount of its profit margin to try and get out ahead of a shift toward âstreamingâ TV (and away from cable and satellite). While the deals AT&T makes with networks won't be less expensive, AT&T says one way it will improve the margins on DirecTV Now is by ditching legacy equipment like satellite dishes, and drastically decreasing its customer acquisition costs. Still, the company has said the margins will shrink. At a recent Goldman Sachs conference, CEO Randall Stephenson said DirecTV Now will have âthinnerâ margins than the company's current pay-TV products, but not âthinâ ones. âThis is a very, very low-cost customer acquisition product,â he said. But exactly does Stephenson mean by thinner? An analyst note from Deutsche Bank's Matthew Niknam, distributed Monday, puts that into perspective. âGross margins don't look great,â he wrote. âA simple analysis ($35 monthly rate less estimated content costs/sub) would indicate gross margins for DTV Now are no higher than single-digit percentages, significantly below an estimated ~45% for the traditional video business. But, we also believe this may be underestimating the potential for advertising revenues, which could add another ~$5/month in ARPU. With that in mind, the DTV Now (OTT) gross margin improves modestly to the high-teens, but is still less than half of traditional linear video.â Here is a chart from Deutsche Bank that shows how DirecTV Now will likely compare to linear TV: Deutsche Bank points out, however, that when considering DirecTV Now through the lens of a return on investment, it starts to look a bit sweeter financially. âDespite the (estimated) gross profit margins of DTV Now coming in less than half of traditional video, we believe the product screens relatively better on a return on capital perspective, as it does not require the very costly upfront spend tied to truck rolls, tech. labor, and set-top boxes at the customers' premise,â Deutsche Bank wrote. âSimilar to other OTT products, sign up and activation are a relatively simple (and capital efficient) process, also (likely) eliminating the need for multi-year contracts (as is often the case with traditional video) to lock in customers.â So Deutsche Bank, at least in part, agrees with Stephenson: Cutting out the legacy hardware will save AT&T some money and allow a faster clip of customer acquisition. How many new customers are we talking about? A recent report from MoffettNathanson estimated that DirecTV Now could snag 11 million subscribers eventually. Here's the potential breakdown: 2 million cannibalized from DirecTV, 6 million from other pay TV, and 3 million "cord-cutters." Using competitor Sling TV's rollout as a barometer, Deutsche Bank notes that DirecTV Now could get 650,000 subscribers by the end of 2017. And DirecTV Now has several advantages over Sling in gaining new customers, including its nationwide retail distribution (for wireless) and a lower price point for the amount of channels. SEE ALSO: NFL execs are considering cutting back the number of ads in games - as ratings tank Join the conversation about this story » NOW WATCH: Watch the first trailer for Disney's live-action 'Beauty and the Beast' starring Emma Watson Taco Bell has a new location that's completely different from your average fast-food joint. On Monday, the Mexican fast-food chain debuted a new restaurant on the Las Vegas Strip, which will serve as Taco Bell's flagship location. The location is the chain's fourth Taco Bell Cantina, offering a more upscale menu that includes alcoholic beverages. However, the Las Vegas location takes the evolution of Taco Bell's brand a step further, with trendy architecture and and entire retail line. Taco Bell CMO Marisa Thalberg told Business Insider that the flagship location attempts to give customers a chance to experience the "whole lifestyle of Taco Bell." "I think when people feel something for a brand, they enjoy having a little slice of it, because... we think about brands as parts of our identity," Thalberg said. "When I'm holding that cup of Starbucks, it says something about me." Here's a look inside the Las Vegas flagship location. The two-story restaurant is located on Harmon Corner on the Las Vegas Strip.The menu is different than what you'd find at a typical Taco Bell location, and includes tapas-style shareables like nachos, quesadillas, and chicken fingers. Food is served in open baskets instead of foil or paper wrap.One of the most striking aspects of the location is the "freeze wall," with eight frozen drink taps. Customers have the option to add tequila, rum, vodka, whiskey, or spiced rum to create "Twisted Freezes."See the rest of the story at Business Insider The trailer for Scarlett Johansson's sci-fi mind-bender 'Ghost in the Shell' is beyond cool11/14/2016 In the making since Steven Spielberg acquired the rights in 2008, the beloved Japanese manga and anime franchise "Ghost in the Shell" is finally getting a live-action adaptation. In the new film from director Rupert Sanders ("Snow White and the Huntsman"), Scarlett Johansson plays The Major, a cyborg policewoman in a near-future Japan who is on the hunt for cyber-terrorists. Though the movie doesn't come out until March 2017, it has had to deal with some negative press. In April, reports surfaced that the film did visual-effects tests to make actors in the movie look more Asian. This is on top of the negative internet reaction to Johansson, a white American, being cast in the lead role (who is supposed to be Japanese) instead of an Asian actor. Nevertheless, excitement for the movie is building, especially with the stunning visuals being shown off. Paramount went live with the first official trailer on Sunday, and it's already been viewed over 2 million times. Based on what we can see, Johansson's "Ghost in the Shell" follows the general outline and scenes of the original 1995 "Ghost in the Shell" anime film, which is legendary among fans - in particular recreating one shot. But the modern techniques, and Johansson's steely gaze, certainly add another dimension. Watch the trailer below: SEE ALSO: 23 documentaries on Netflix right now that will make you smarter Join the conversation about this story » NOW WATCH: The first trailer for Marvel's 'Guardians of the Galaxy' sequel is here Google looking into grossly inaccurate top news search result displayed as final popular-vote tally11/14/2016 A Google representative told Business Insider on Monday that the company was looking into an issue that displayed an inaccurate source of the popular-vote tally for Tuesday's US election in its top search result. The most recently updated popular vote tally, according to the Associated Press, shows Hillary Clinton with a lead over Donald Trump. Though Clinton leads in votes by 61,039,676 to 60,371,193, Trump secured the presidency by winning the Electoral College. The top Google News result for searches of "final election count," however, linked to a WordPress blog called 70 News that said Trump won the popular vote by a margin of almost 700,000 votes. It cited Twitter as its source. Originally posted on Saturday and updated on Sunday, the post is titled "FINAL ELECTION 2016 NUMBERS: TRUMP WON BOTH POPULAR ( 62.9 M -62.2 M ) AND ELECTORAL COLLEGE VOTES ( 306-232)...HEY CHANGE.ORG, SCRAP YOUR LOONY PETITION NOW!" The author wrote that the information came from "Twitter posts." "Except for the twitter posts, the popular vote number still need to be updated in Wikipedia or MSM media - which may take another few days because the liberals are still reeling and recovering from Trump-shock victory," the blog said. The WordPress blog also shows up in the top Google News results when variations of the search are entered in, like "final popular vote." Other areas of Google, however, reflect the accurate numbers: With approximately 7 million votes left to count - many of them from solid blue states like New York, California, and Washington - it seems that Clinton may end with an even larger victory in the popular vote. SEE ALSO: Trump tweets message of unity amid continuing protests Join the conversation about this story » NOW WATCH: How election forecasts got the results dead wrong The last thing Snap Inc. wants is for its new Spectacles to become the next Google Glass. Google released Glass in 2013 to much fanfare in the tech industry. Some thought the head-mounted display, which projected information like phone notifications and the weather over a glasses lense, would usher in the future of augmented reality computing. That didn't happen. Google Glass was a complete flop. Those who wore them were called "Glassholes." Google never iterated past a $1,500 developer prototype, and quietly killed the project two years later. A pair of Spectacles is like the anti-Glass. For starters, there's no fancy augmented reality tech that displays visual information on top of the glasses as you wear them. People close to Snap say that kind of technology is part of the company's future roadmap, but it's a long way off. Instead, Spectacles are ultra-simple and designed to look like a quirky pair of Ray-Bans. They record 10-second clips of video that get sent straight to the Snapchat app. They only cost $130. This simplicity is very much by design, and it's why Snap CEO Evan Spiegel called Spectacles a "toy" when they were first announced. Snap employees are terrified of Spectacles being perceived in the same kind of creepy, nerdy way that Google Glass was, according to someone familiar with their thinking. It's why that Spectacles light up around the camera while recording - to help people feel like they're not being constantly monitored. And it's why Spectacles are marketed like this: And not like this: Snapchat is already beloved by young people. By selling Spectacles through bright yellow vending machines that pop up in one city for 24 hours and then disappear (like messages in the app), Snap is setting itself up its glasses as a cool, exclusive status symbol out of the gate. And by all indications the approach is working. While the glasses have so far only been on sale for in Venice Beach and Big Sur, early reviews are overwhelmingly positive. Pairs of Spectacles are reselling for thousands of dollars on eBay. People are frantically tweeting about where to find the next vending machine pop-up. It's still too early to tell if Spectacles will be a success, but they already have the cool factor that Glass never had. And as long as Robert Scoble doesn't wear them in the shower, they have a shot at staying cool.
SEE ALSO: Everything you need to know about Snapchat's Spectacles glasses, including how to buy them Join the conversation about this story » NOW WATCH: Here's how Donald Trump can function on barely any sleep - and why you shouldn't copy him Newman's Own gives all its profit to charity, but that message on its labels didn't seem to stand out to a generation known to favor companies with social consciences.
The sportswear melee has only just begun. Nike's spot at the top of the sportswear pyramid seems more perilous that ever before, with a weak indicators of future sales including less orders from retails and piling up inventory in their latest quarterly report Adidas and Under Armour are making significant gains on Nike, each launching new products and new categories to carve their own pieces of the growing sportswear pie. Meanwhile, Nike's market share in both shoes and apparel seems to be declining. Which of the brands has the best chance of challenging Nike's dominance? Let's take a look at the top two competitors. The case for Under ArmourUnder Armour has been a hot company with growth in the past two years in the 30% range year over year. In the most recent earnings call, the company beat profit expectations, but warned the pace of growth will slow through 2017 and 2o18 when considering the explosive growth the company experienced since 2009. That considered, the company is a huge presence on the market and is on track to be a sportswear giant in its own right. Though its its 2015 worldwide net revenue was a mere $3.96 billion compared to Adidas' $18 billion (and both trailing Nike's gigantic $30 billion), its business is mostly in the US where its simple and technological approach to sportswear has resonated with consumers. It's 2016 net revenue is still projected to be nearly $5 billion Originally not a footwear powerhouse, its new basketball shoe line has gained some notoriety, while being attached to one of the youngest and most well-known players of the sport, Steph Curry. As a result, net revenue from footwear grew 58% year-over-year as reported in the company's latest earnings report. Under Armour, which usually sells its products under Nike's, has also made an effort to move its products upmarket with a new fashion-oriented sportswear line designed with Tim Coppens. The case for AdidasLast week, Adidas passed Under Armour to retake the spot of the second biggest sportswear company in the US. This is a huge milestone for the company, which was previously struggling to maintain market share in the country after previously losing touch with American tastes, losing sponsorship deals to Nike, and failing to make much of its $3.8 billion acquisition of Reebok in 2005. Losing market share was a wake-up call for the German giant, as it is further entrenched than its American competitor, has been around for a lot longer than UA's young 20 years of life, and has nearly quadruple its revenue worldwide. Adidas has been looking to turn that around in recent years with a refocusing on the American market started by Adidas President of North America Mark King started in 2014, and a renewed call to take on Nike by its new CEO, Kasper Rorsted. Adidas has opened a new design lab in Nike's hometown of Portland, Oregon, launched new high-priced models that gets sneakerheads talking like the UltraBoost with celebrity spokespeople, and repositioned heritage models as fashion icons - the most famous and successful being the Stan Smith. It also signed high profile partnerships like Kanye West's Yeezy line, and have been aggressive in pursuing endorsement deals for other teams. For apparel, Adidas has refreshed its offerings and leaned into athleisure with an upmarket line called Zne. US sales were up 26% for Adidas according to the second quarter earnings report, with no signs of slowing down soon. Does any of this matter?Nike still has a lot of room to run before either Adidas or Under Armour get anywhere close to catching it. The company has an ambitious plan to reach $50 billion in worldwide revenue by 2020, powered largely by a rapidly expanding direct to consumer business. To achieve this, it will expand its store base in new ways, focused on attentiveness to making the customer experience more personal, buoyed by a more robust digital pr essence in the form of its personalized digital platform, Nike+. However, if any company is shrink that gap by a meaningful amount, it would be the aggressive Adidas with its triple threat of diversity of well-received product, high-profile endorsements, and celebrity hype. Adidas is on track to continue its growth streak in the US market. Under Armour will expand sales and marginally market share, while still being meaningful threat to both of the bigger companies. But if we're talking about who has a bigger shot at taking more market share from the Oregonian giant, Adidas has all the momentum right now. SEE ALSO: People are setting their New Balance sneakers on fire because they think the company endorsed Trump DON'T FORGET: Follow Business Insider's lifestyle page on Facebook! Join the conversation about this story » NOW WATCH: We put the most popular frozen pizzas to the test - the winner was clear Joseph Gordon-Levitt: Let's turn the negative energy on social media into something creative11/13/2016 The US is heading to the voting booths on Tuesday and Hollywood actor Joseph Gordon-Levitt is thousands of miles away from home, sitting down with Business Insider in a meeting room at European technology conference Web Summit in Lisbon. The actor, who plays Edward Snowden in the recent Oliver Stone biopic, tells us he feels "paralyzed" to publicly make a prediction as to which way the vote will go. But he is prepared to talk about the frenetic discussion on social media around the election. While he admits scrolling through Twitter  to catch up on what's happening can be "cathartic," for the most part, he finds it deflating. Gordon-Levitt said: "Just reading the internet - Twitter, Facebook, YouTube - and just reading the way people talk to each other on both sides - left wing, right wing - it is so discouraging because it's just useless. It's all this energy being put into these comment threads and nothing good comes out of them. Nothing. Nothing! People don't learn anything, they don't make anything, and I find that very discouraging." He continued: "The way these social media platforms are built, it is not designed for discourse, it's not designed for critical thinking, it's not designed for rational discussion, it's not designed for anything productive like that. It's designed to make you scroll through, and scroll through, and scroll through so you can see more ads." On his tech startup: The end goal was never to "make bank"His comments make for a nice segue into the reason he's traveled to Portugal to be at a tech conference. Gordon-Levitt is the founder of Hit Record, an online "collaborative production company" where creatives such as illustrators, producers, photographers, and musicians can work together to create films, advertisements, and other artistic projects. The company started off as a pet project between Gordon-Levitt and his brother Dan in 2005, but has now grown into a "cashflow positive" business that "pays for itself" and has earned $2 million for the creators on the platform. "There's a quote I like to say about money, which is actually attributed to Walt Disney, which is sort of ironic now, but he said: 'We don't make make movies to make money, we make money to make movies'," Gordon-Levitt said. "That's how I really see it: The end goal with Hit Record was never to make bank ... it wasn't a startup, it was just a little thing I did with my brother and it grew. It's only now that we started to realize the more we are able to grow, the more big, cool projects we are able to do, the more features we can add to the site or the app, so let's approach it as a business." Projects have included the "Hit Record on TV" variety show that was bought by Netflix, an ad for LG, and an art project with the US National Parks Foundation. Edward Snowden, the National Security Agency whistleblower who Gordon-Levitt played in this year's biopic "Snowden" even participated in a recent project. The challenge to the community was to answer the question: Do you think technology is good or bad for democracy? Below is Snowden's response. He's optimistic and while he believes there are certainly times when technology can be used for the wrong reasons - mass surveillance, for example - ultimately, he thinks it's a force for good. Meeting Edward Snowden - and his parentsGordon-Levitt met Snowden during the filming of the movie to help him get into character and get into the mind of someone who sacrificed his former life and went into exile in order to do what he felt was right for the country. The actor flew to Russia, where Snowden was in hiding, for a secret rendezvous. The first thing Snowden said, according to Gordon-Levitt, was: "Perhaps you can settle a dispute: Is it 'Hit Record' [the noun] or 'Hit Record' [a verb]?" (The answer: It's a play on both.) "Honestly, that was the first thing he asked me. I was really honored that he had heard about it," Gordon-Levitt added. Gordon-Levitt describes Snowden as a "private guy" who "sort of feels awkward about having a movie made about his life," but that they found a common bond in technology. "We really identified with a love for computers and a love for the internet. Coming from different places - him from the engineering side, me from the creative side - both of us have a pretty strong emotional identification with the internet and feel kind of passionate, on behalf of our generation, this is the mark of our generation, this is a beautiful thing, and this can be the chance to create a more egalitarian world," Gordon-Levitt said. Gordon-Levitt grew up with computers. His father ensured the house had a personal computer when they first became available to consumers. But the Snowden and Gordon-Levitt family are very different too. Gordon-Levitt's parents were peace activists, while Snowden's father was in the Coast Guard and his grandfather worked for the FBI. Gordon-Levitt jokes he and Edward Snowden found a "middle ground." Snowden's parents came to the "Snowden" premiere in New York. Afterwards, they came up to Gordon-Levitt and gave him the "most meaningful feedback" he received about playing the part. Gordon-Levitt said: "His mom took me aside and said: 'You really reminded me of my son.' And his dad looked me in the eye and said: 'I want to thank you for doing this, for standing up for him. I know this is going to be hard for you, you're going to attract criticism for doing this'." The difference between Snowden and Julian AssangeGiven his close relationship with one of the world's most famous whistleblowers, we asked Gordon-Levitt's view on WikiLeaks' role in this year's US election. The organization published a series of hacked documents related to the Clinton campaign in the final weeks leading up to the vote. Coincidentally, WikiLeaks' founder Julian Assange released a statement during Web Summit, justifying its decision to leak the emails. Gordon-Levitt pauses, for the only time in our animated conversation, and lets out a long "umm." "It's really complicated. I played Edward Snowden, so I know a fair bit about this stuff, but I learnt a lot more about Snowden than I did about WikiLeaks. There's overlap between the two because WikiLeaks [editor] Sarah Harrison was with Edward Snowden helping him get out of Hong Kong, but there's also a difference between the two," Gordon-Levitt said. "I heard someone put it this way, and I actually think both Edward Snowden and Julian Assange would probably agree with this: Edward Snowden wants to improve the system and Julian Assange wants to break it down. Maybe that's an oversimplification, but that's what it seems like, and I guess, who am I to judge which is the right approach?" SEE ALSO: 'Snowden' portrays the infamous NSA leaker as a hero, but leaves many big questions unanswered Join the conversation about this story » NOW WATCH: How to choose the best cut of steak - according to Anthony Bourdain |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
April 2017
Categories |