2019 Top 12 OnlineTrends

2019 Online Trends

  1. 50% of the world’s population has access to the internet
  2. E-commerce sales are up 12.4% over the prior year
  3. E-commerce is 15% of  US retail sales
  4. Mobile advertising now accounts for 33%
  5. – Google and Facebook still account for the majority of online ad revenue
  6. – Amazon, Twitter, Snapchat, and Pinterest growing ad revenues fast
  7. – Google’s ad revenue grew 1.4 times over the past nine quarters and Facebook’s grew 1.9 times
  8. – 6.3 hours each day with digital media
  9. – 47 million people have installed Amazon Echoes
  10. – 2.4 billion interactive game players in the world
  11. – Cloud services revenues of Google, Amazon, and Microsoft are  $14 billion, 58% increase.
  12. – 26% of US adults consider themselves online “almost constantly”
  13. – 39% of 18 to 29 year-olds are online constantly

Richard Corriere Writing and Research

Books

  1. Going Sane [1].   1975. Citation: Going Sane
  2. The Dream Makers[2]. Citation: Dream Makers
  3. Psychological Fitness[3]. Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich. CitationL Psychological Fitness
  4. Dream and Waking: The Functional Approach to Dreams.[4] Peace Press. 1980. Citation: Dreaming and Waking
  5. The Functional Analysis of Dreams: A New Theory of Dreaming[5]Citation: The Functional Analysis of Dreams
  6. Life Zones [6].   1987.Citation: Life Zones

 

Published Articles, Presentations and Reports

1975

  1. The Transformation of Dreams. D. Thesis.  University of California, Irvine, 1975. Citation: The Transformation of Dreams

1976

  1. The Transformation of Dreams in Psychotherapy. Psychological and Physiological Studies of Feeling Therapy.  Western Psychological Association. 1976.[8]  PROFESSIONAL PRESENTATION

1977

  1. Toward a new theory of dreaming. Journal of Clinical Psychology. Journal Citation
  2. A Re-Application of the Process Scoring System for Dreams.[10]. Journal Citation
  3. Two preliminary studies on sleep and psychotherapy. Physiology and Behavior. 1977.[11] Journal Citation
  4. The Functional Theory of Dreaming. Paper Presented at California State Psychological Association. 1977[12]  PROFESSIONAL PRESENTATION
  5. The Functional Approach to Dreams in Psychotherapy. Paper Presented at California State Psychological Association. 1977[13] PROFESSIONAL PRESENTATION
  6. Toward a New Theory of Dreaming. Sleep Research, Vol. 6 BIS/BRI, UCLA. 1977. Journal Citation
  7. Longitudinal Changes in Sleep Patterns of Patients. Sleep Research, Vol. 6 BIS/BRI, UCLA. 1977 Journal Citation
  8. K-Complex changes in the sleep records of patients. Sleep Research, Vol. 6 BIS/BRI, UCLA. 1977.[16]

 

1978

  1. Two Preliminary Studies on Sleep and Psychotherapy.   1978. Journal Citation
  2. Psychophysiological correlates of the spontaneous K-Complex. 1978  Journal Citation
  3. Effects of Psychotherapy on REM Time and REM Latency. 1978. [19] 
  4. Applications of the Process Scoring System to Waking, Dream and Therapy Reports. Association for the Psychophysiological Study of Sleep. 1978.[20]  PROFESSIONAL PRESENTATION
  5. Re-Application of the Process Scoring System for Dreams. Association for the Psychophysiological Study of Sleep.  Journal Citation
  6. Applying the Functional Approach to Dreams. Masters Thesis.  Cammer, S.[22]

1979

  1. The Functional Analysis of Dreams: A New Theory of Dreaming. Journal of Clinical Psychology.Journal Citation

[1] Hart, Joseph; Corriere, Richard; and Binder, Jerry.  Going Sane.  Aaronson. 1975.

[2] Corriere, Richard and Hart, Joseph.  The Dream Makers.  Funk and Wagnalls.  1977.

[3] Corriere, Richard and Hart, Joseph.  Psychological Fitness.  Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.  1978.

[4] Corriere, Richard; Karle, Werner; Woldenberg, Lee and Hart, Joseph.  Peace Press.  1980.

[5] Corriere, Richard; Karle, Werner; Woldenberg, Lee and Hart, Joseph.  Peace Press.  1980.

[6] Corriere, Richard and McGrady.  Life Zones.  William Morrow and Company. 1986.

[7] Corriere, R.  The Transformation of Dreams.  Ph.D. Thesis.  University of California, Irvine, 1975.

[8] Corriere, R. The Transformation of Dreams in Psychotherapy.  Psychological and Physiological Studies of Feeling Therapy.  Western Psychological Association. 1976

[9] Corriere, R.; Hart, J.; Karle, W; Binder, J.; Gold, S.; & Woldenberg, L.  Toward a New Theory of Dreaming.  Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1977. 33)3), 807-19.

[10] Hartshorn, K.; Corriere, R.; Karle, W; Switzer, A.; Hart, J.; Gold, S.; & Binder, J.  A Re-Application of the Process Scoring System for Dreams.  Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1977. 33)3), 844-48.

[11] Karle, W.; Hopper, M.; Corriere, R.; Hart, J.; & Switzer, A.  Two preliminary studies on sleep and psychotherapy.  Physiology and Behavior. 1977. 19 (3), 419-23.

[12] Woldenberg, L. The Functional Theory of Dreaming.  Symposium presented at the meeting of the California State Psychological Association. 1977

[13] Corriere, R.. The Functional Approach to Dreams in Psychotherapy.  Symposium presented at the meeting of the California State Psychological Association. 1977.

[14] Corriere, R.; Hart, J.; Karle, W.; & Woldenberg, L.  Toward a New Theory of Dreaming.  In Chase, M.H., Walter, P.L. (Eds.).  Sleep Research, Vol. 6 BIS/BRI, UCLA. 1977. 121.

[15] Karle, W.; & Hopper, M..  Longitudinal Changes in Sleep Patterns of Patients.  In Chase, M.H., Walter, P.L. (Eds.).  Sleep Research, Vol. 6 BIS/BRI, UCLA. 1977. 149

[16] Karle, W. & Scott, R.  K-Complex changes in the sleep records of patients.  In Chase, M.H., Walter, P.L. (Eds.). Sleep Research, Vol. 6 BIS/BRI, UCLA. 1977. 151.

[17] Karle, W. & Hopper, M. Two Preliminary Studies on Sleep and Psychotherapy.  Psychophysiology.  15 (3), 1978, 273

[18] Scott, R.; Hopper, M, & Karle, W.  Psychophysiological correlates of the spontaneous K-Complex.  Psychophysiology.  15 (3), 273. 1978

[19] Karle, W.; Corriere, R.; Hart, J.; & Hopper, M. Effects of Psychotherapy on REM Time and REM Latency. Meeting for Psychopysiological Resarch.  Madion.  1978.

[20] Corriere, R.; Karle, W.; & Hart, J.  Applications of the Process Scoring System to Waking, Dream and Therapy Reports.  Association for the Psychophysiological Study of Sleep. 1978.

[21] Hartshorn, K., Corriere, R.; Karle, W.;& Hart, J. Re-Application of the Process Scoring System for Dreams. Association for the Psychophysiological Study of Sleep.  1978

[22] Cammer, S. Applying the Functional Approach to Dreams.  Fielding Institute, Santa Barabara. 1978.

[23] Karle, W; Corriere, R.; Hart, J.; Woldenberg, L The Functional Analysis of Dreams: A New Theory of Dreaming.  Journal of Clinical Psychology Monograph Publications. 1979.

The Fraud of Digital Advertising

Click Rates

Advertisers spend the most money on digital advertising ($111 billion per year).  Digital advertising spend is the fastest growing advertising segment.  Google and Facebook control 90% of digital advertising.  60% of digital advertising is fraud.  George Simpson in his article, Is Ad Fraud Inevitable? writes,. “Agencies and brands simply write off fraud as the cost of doing business online. That is, until someone comes along and says, you know, you’re wasting 60 cents of every dollar, or calculating that every ad dollar lost to fraud costs.”

So today’s research fact reveals after the fraud comes the CLICK.  Overall consumers click .09%. (See the above chart)

We can now create a digital advertising algorithm to help us understand what is going on:

  • Pay to reach 1,000 shoppers online
  • 60% fraud = reach 400 shoppers
  • .09% click
  • REACH – .36 shoppers after spending to reach 1,000
  • Pay $45 per click.  Not sale.  Not customer. But click.

Local Media:  Local media has tried to compete by switching to digital advertising.  This has proven to be a catastrophic mistake.  Local media trying to compete digital advertising is like the local high school basketball player trying to play against LeBron James, the NBA superstar.

Local media

 

The Rigged Retail Playing Field

Take a look at the chart of America’s monopolies and it is not difficult to understand the the issues facing local businesses – the playing field is rigged.

Emily Stewart writes, “From cellphone providers to beer to cat food, consumers have a lot fewer choices when it comes to buying — even if they don’t know it.” Emily Stewart and America’s monopolies

Stewart shows that the big companies have gotten bigger over the past fifteen years.

In the capitalist system that is what they are supposed to do.  However, local businesses have failed to see, no less understand, the threat the growing monopolies pose to their survival and success.There are 28 million local businesses in America.  The 2019 Department of Labor Statistics confirms what everyone instinctively already knows – local businesses are under threat.  The cause is clear – shoppers have shifted their buying to online and local businesses have not responded.  Amazon has 50% of e-commerce and grows stronger daily.  Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon, ominously warned all local businesses, “Your margin is my opportunity.” Retail Business Failures

The bigger companies become the tighter control they place on wages, working conditions, and advancement.  Small local businesses NEED employees and focus on increased wages and advancement in order to grow their businesses.

The financial advantage goes to the bigger company.  The problem is then reflected in weak personal income growth because entrepreneurs are being pushed out of the game. The New Times review of the impact of monopolies

Stewart writes, “In more traditional sectors, such as hardware stores, tobacco, and railroads, concentration is on the rise. And in technology-related fields, including smartphones, social media, and cellphones, in just in the past five or so years, it’s even higher.”

Think of monopolies as movie studios that buy up scripts to keep them off the market.  The bigger a company becomes the more it needs to grow.  Growth comes from gobbling up competitors.

The #1 fact about monopolies is that as they take dominance in market share they use that power to drive up prices.The New York Times and how monopolies drive up prices.  Competitors drive down prices because their battle ground is efficiency and innovation.  Monopolies drive up prices because there is no battleground.  Steward writes, “The fewer options there are, the fewer places consumers have to shop for goods and services, and the less pressure for competitors to keep prices down.”

The big three monopolies are Amazon, Google and Facebook.

Let’s focus on Amazon which is earning an estimated $187 billion per year.   Jeff Bezos is brilliant and his team the best.  These top of the food chain capitalists have rigged the game. Amazon is smart and their focus is growing market share at the expense of every other business in the world.

Amazon’s retail strategy is to enter a business and use its technology and processes to make selling and delivery of products better, faster, and cheaper – AT FIRST.  Amazon uses lower prices to drive out competitors .  Once Amazon has market dominance it increases prices. This behavior is what monopolies do.

Consumers don’t care about monopolies and their impact on local businesses but they should.  Monopolies take money out of local communities.Money Stays in LocalThey have been convinced that convenience is important than choice.  A belief that will come back to haunt them as local communities become ghost towns where stacks of Amazon boxes on front porches.  Keep in mind that local communities need revenue to support schools, infrastructure, parks, trash pick, and all the other things that make local communities thrive and a place to live.

FACT: Amazon and the other monopolies take the financial lifeblood away from local communities.

How Amazon is destroying media companies

Amazon is destroying media companies.  The destruction goes from the biggest television companies, movie companies to the local newspaper in tiny communities.

How and why are they doing it?

The Amazon Battle Plan for destroying media companies:

1. Cut off their revenue streams

2. Use its 105 million list of Prime Members to offer advertisers better response rates

3.  Give advertisers access to the 55% of all online shopping searches that begin on Amazon.com

4. Sell products like Alexa, smart homes, and security system at incredibly Low Prices in order to take control over the future of shopping – i.e. voice-based search and AI driven “suggestions” for home and entertainment

Amazon can afford to invest in destroying media companies because it is the most successful company in the world, run by Jeff Bezos, the richest person in the world.  We all know Amazon as the online e-commerce site that controls over 50% of everything that is bought and sold online.  It may seem a bit like a “tinfoil hat” conspiracy to think about Amazon as the big bad media company.

Why would Amazon want to destroy media companies? 

Amazon’s Hidden Strategy:  Amazon wants to destroy media companies because it has a hidden strategy a to become the largest global media/commenications company.

Guess what?  It already is.  Amazon is the world’s biggest communication’s company:  “Amazon has movies, TV stations, cable streaming, music, and direct communication with over 105 US households and will soon bypass ALL of cable television.  Not one cable channel but ALL of them together. Staggering concept.   But wait!  They also own the Washington Post and they just bought MSG Cable Network.”

Amazon isn’t some big bad company that is taking over media through deception or fraud – Amazon is taking media and communications because its executive leadership is smarter than the executives running most media companies.  The major exception would be Disney, whose leadership is outstanding.

What makes Amazon’s executives so smart is they are focused on reality and facts.  When Bezos runs a meeting everyone is handed a 3-6 page type analysis of the problem to be discussed.

Everything STOPS.  Everyone in the meeting spends the next 30 minutes reading.  The meeting is then run with everyone, literally and figuratively, on the same page.  Most media companies aren’t run that way.

Fox Business News reports that Amazon has become so powerful it is “Stealing Market Share From Facebook and Google and is a threat to all traditional media companies.”  Fox News continues, It wasn’t that long ago that all the talk in the digital advertising market was centered on the duopoly of Facebook (NASDAQ: FB) and Google, a division of Alphabet (NASDAQ: GOOGL) (NASDAQ: GOOG).  In late 2017, Digital Content Next reported the pair would account for about 63% of online advertising in the U.S. last year, with Google nabbing 42% and Facebook garnering 21%. Even more telling, Brian Wieser of Pivotal Research Group estimated that the two companies accounted for 90% of the growth in the U.S. digital ads industry in 2017.”

So here is how those focused Amazon executives are destroying media companies – they RECOGNIZE and RESPOND in REAL-TIME to TRENDS & FACTS.

Before we detail out how Amazon is destroying media and communications companies it is important to look at its PRIMARY ADVANTAGE.  Amazon uses its e-commerce division to attract shoppers.

  • Amazon has over 105 million Prime Members105 million Prime Members, 55% of all product searches, and its growing grocery and fast food stores to offer shoppers AMAZING DEALS.  Amazon doesn’t care about losing money – they want to grow their LIST of shoppers.
  • Shoppers have changed.  Instead of looking at ads, 90% of shoppers begin the buying process by using their smart phones to search.  Guess what, 55% of all product searches begin on Amazon.
  • Data. Amazon has better data than Google, Facebook, and ALL other media and communications companies. Googgle and Facebook’s data is about views and clicks – Amazon’s data is about PURCHASE.  Advertisers want to know about who’s buying what.  Local and national media companies don’t have the data.
  • Voice-Based Search.  Amazon, with its 35 million Alexa voice assistants, already controls this communications channel.  Amazon is so far ahead of the voice trend in terms of advertising revenues that media companies don’t stand a chance.
  • Smart Home.  From speakers to thermostats Amazon is communicating with consumers.  Advertisers want targeted ads – Amazon is so targeted they know what music you listen to, how cool you keep your home, and when you are home.
  • Cloud computing.   Amazon is streaming EVERYTHING – music, movies, books, and podcasts. Ditto on Better Data.

THE CONSEQUENCES OF AMAZON DESTROYING MEDIA COMPANIES:

As more media companies go out of business because of Amazon – Amazon gains greater control of what news Americans receive.  With or without political bias, Amazon will homogenize the news.  American democracy is based on many different points of view.  If Amazon wins – there will be the Amazon point of view.

Facebook quickly becoming as dangerous to local business as Amazon

Facebook is entering the home services market Facebook goes after local business. Starting today, U.S. Facebook users browsing the Facebook Marketplace will be able to search thousands of home service professionals through a new feature that helps users locate top-rated and vetted professionals like house cleaners, plumbers, contractors, and others, as well as receive quotes.

THE NET-NET. FACEBOOK GAINS DIRECT CONTROL OVER LOCAL SERVICE PROFESSIONALS. JUST LIKE AMAZON, WHO FACEBOOK USERS FIND WILL BE DIRECTLY LINKED TO HOW MUCH $$$$ EACH LOCAL SERVICE PROFESSIONAL SPENDS WITH FACEBOOK. Facebook after local businesses

When users click on one of the prompts, they’re walked through a form to fill out other relevant data in order to find matching home pros. The service pro who follows up will respond on Messenger.

THE NET-NET. FACEBOOK DIRECTLY CONTROLS THE CUSTOMER/SERVICE PROFESSIONAL INTERACTION. FOLLOW THE MONEY.

Amazon expanded into this category several years ago with Walmart quickly following.

THE NET-NET. LOCAL COMMUNITIES DON’T PROSPER. MAIN STREET BECOMES A GHOST TOWN. ALL THAT WILL REMAIN ARE THE TECH GIANTS AND THE GIANT RETAIL CHAINS.

Apple, Facebook, Instagram, Google, and Amazon’s Addiction Business Model

Apple, Facebook, Instagram, Google, and Amazon’s Addiction Business Model

Apple, Facebook, Instagram, Google, and Amazon’s Addiction Business Model

The world, albeit slowly, is waking to the Tech Giants’ Addiction Business Model. See Chamath Palihapitiya a former Facebook employee who has begun to blow the whistle on social media addiction. Their model is simple – provide a platform which requires no expertise, is self-administered, offers unlimited self-involvement, and membership in a cyber world that requires ZERO real world action.

In 2001 a powerful study titled, “Repeated self-administered cocaine “binges” in rats: effects on cocaine intake and withdrawal.” One of the keys to addiction was self-administered. Self-administration addiction.

On January 2, 2018 two powerful Apple shareholders told Cupertino to better protect children from the dangers of its addictive gadgets. In a 2017 Study researchers found, “Using Many Social Media Platforms Linked With Depression, Anxiety Risk.”

Adolescent research from UCLA, the American Psychological Association, and Harvard Medical School found that teens’ overuse of smart devices and social media leads to higher rates of depression, sleep deprivation, weight gain, poor self-image, and a lack of empathy.Negative effects of social media on teens

The Tech Giants are selling something better than cocaine. They are selling self-administered cyber addiction. The tech addiction is based on taking action that the addict believes in some way or other influences a desired outcome: Status, Need gratification, Social currency, and membership in a non-existent, unreal cyber community based on the assumption that “everything about me” is relevant to the cyber community. People belong to cyber communities, not to listen, but to emote, post, and highlight personal mundane events.

In the cyber world the mundane is seen by the self-involved as important. Reactions replace thought and participation replaces real-world action. There is no time or room for understanding, perspective, and another’s POV when the addict fears being left out of the narrative. It becomes essential to the addict to be online at all times. The tech giants want teens and adult addicts online in order to sell advertising and collect data.

There is however an even far greater negative impact from the Tech Giants model and that is what it has done to local media, local business and local communities. The Tech Giants control online search and online advertising. They control who sees what. Keep in mind, few online visitors ever get past the first page of any search. Who appears on the first page is controlled by MONEY. Money that local businesses cannot pay.

The Tech Giants control the cyber world. Addicted teens are simply collateral damage when hundreds of billions of dollars of revenue is at stake.

Google, Facebook & Amazon’s threats to local business

Google, Facebook & Amazon’s threats to local business

2017-2018 Facts
• Online sales will account for 17% of all US retail sales by 2022. Think about any small business losing even 10% of current sales to online = failure
• Compete in new ways. Active communication about products, sales, sales, coupons, and online.
• In 2017 Facebook and Google account for 84% of new digital advertising and 96% of its growth.
• Amazon captured 50% of black Friday sales and 44% of all online sales in 2017. They reached 38% in 2016.
• Google controls 90% of all online searches
• All local businesses are under life threatening pressure from Amazon, online giants and mega retailers

By Max Hastings for the Daily Mail // Published: 2 January 2018 // RC edited
1984. Almost 70 years ago, George Orwell wrote a nightmare into our language when, in his novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, he imagined a future in which ‘Big Brother’ scrutinizes an enslaved society with an all-seeing eye. More recently, civil libertarians have warned ubiquitous CCTV and Government surveillance, born out of the fight against terrorism, have begun to fulfil Orwell’s prophesy. Yet both the fictional fantasies and daily realities pale into insignificance alongside the threat posed by social media. Scarcely imagined a generation ago, they have become a monstrous, intrusive presence in almost all our lives, especially frightening because of their influence upon children.

Ruthless. Don’t take my word for it. Facebook’s former technology chief said a few days ago the site is ripping apart the fabric of society — ‘eroding human interactions’ and leaving users feeling ‘vacant and empty’. Headed by Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg and Amazon boss Jeff Bezos, these men and women are armed with the most personal details about each and every one of us such as no Gestapo, KGB or Inquisition in history ever dreamed of possessing. And all this information is being extracted every second of every day — not by red hot irons and thumbscrews, but because we are handing it over through our own actions.

Comment – there seems to be ZERO outcry when these giants work with China, Iran and other dictatorial countries to install repressive filters to block any information that the government deems undesirable.

As for the scarily addictive Facebook, five years ago, when it reached a billion users, 55 per cent of them used it daily. Today, numbers have doubled — with two-thirds updating their entries every day.

We make constant voluntary sacrifices of privacy in pursuit of convenience and social exchange, seemingly unaware of the consequences. There are 32 million UK Facebook users, and the company uploads more than 300 million images every day. Many of the young not only expose every detail of their relationships, social and working lives, but some also photograph and then broadcast images of themselves having sex. Maja Pantic, a professor of affective and behavioural computing at Imperial College in London, offers a dire warning: ‘As individuals, we must get back the ownership of our own data — we just don’t understand how bad this really is.’

Already there is a fightback. Millions of iPhone users, led by the former chief of the consumer watchdog is seeking a £1 billion settlement after falling victim to Google embedding computer codes in their Apple devices which were designed to reveal to Google the websites users visited. As for the scarily addictive Facebook, five years ago, when it reached a billion users, 55 per cent of them used it daily. Today, numbers have doubled — with two-thirds updating their entries every day. For their part, while YouTube’s bosses profess a willingness to tackle abuses (some of them appalling) and Google at least pretends to think about them, Facebook simply does not care, according to a social media analyst.

The company’s origins explain a lot. Peter Thiel, one of its inventors, formed an early fascination for a 20th-century French philosopher and anthropologist called Rene Girard who identified a phenomenon known as ‘mimetic desire’. His reasoning was that, once human beings have met their basic needs for food and shelter, they are very vulnerable to a yearning to find out what other people are doing, then do it themselves. A testy stand-off happened between the Commons’ Home Affairs Select Committee and executives from Facebook, Twitter and Google, who were lambasted for the appalling content allowed on their sites. Thus, at the heart of Facebook’s stupendous success is how it exploits the human weakness of ‘me-tooism’ (our wish to copy the behaviour of others) on a global scale. Its system empowers individuals to connect with others who think like themselves, in a way that no other medium in history has made possible.

Targeting. In both the political and consumer spheres, Facebook, Amazon, Google, Apple are constantly refining its reach by targeting users with the precision of a telescopic sight through its knowledge of their age, race, sex, shopping habits and preferences. Its partnership with Experian, a consumer credit reporting agency, has dramatically increased its information on people’s credit ratings and purchases, reaching back over decades. Facebook trumpets its benevolence in enabling mankind to connect, to ‘build communities’, as if Mark Zuckerberg was a modern-day Mother Teresa, Walt Disney and William Caxton all rolled into one.

Dangerous. Zuckerberg’s prime interest is to make money from us. Facebook is valued at around £400 billion, making it the fourth most valuable company on the planet. Zuckerberg’s personal wealth is around £60 billion. What makes him and his fellow-social media giants uniquely dangerous, however, is not their money, but their unprecedented, intimate personal knowledge of billions of people. No human can be entrusted with such data, which we should properly view as a weapon of mass destruction. There must be regulation of social media, and every government in the world ought to address itself on how best this can be implemented, without, of course, imposing improper restrictions on free speech. It must be the beginning of wisdom that we understand how wildly excessive and deeply dangerous are the powers of the social media giants, headed by Facebook. They cannot be un-invented, but they must be tamed. Should we fail to do this, these wild beasts will devour our democracies, individual freedoms, media, and local businesses.

 

 

Google and Facebook will destroy local media

Google and Facebook are in the process of destroying local media. Local media has accelerated its own demise with fifteen years of failed leadership, and failure to recognize the need for radical change. Leadership would stop competing and aligning with Google and Facebook.  Instead, they would counter attack by leverage the power of local.

In an April 27th, 2017 report Business Insider details that Google and Facebook captured a combined 77% of digital advertising in 2016, an increase from 72% in 2015.  The New York Times reports that  Google & Facebook control digital advertising and they accounted for an astounding 99% of revenue growth from digital advertising in 2016 US.

It is essential to understand the dire nature of this media duopoly of digital advertising by Google and Facebook.  First and foremost these two companies have brilliantly positioned themselves to take advantage of consumer trends and most importantly the shift to mobile.

Ineffective ads:  Readers, watchers and listeners block out the endless stream of blah, blah, blah advertisements.  Secondly, eWeek’s analysis suggests that a minimum of 30% of all digital ads are fraudulent.  The amount of money lost to fraudulent traffic surpasses $5 Billion or one-third of the total $14.6 Billion in ad spend.

Real-Time Daily’s article, “Viewability + Fraud = You’re Wasting A Lot Of Money”, argues ad fraud via bots combined with viewability the fraud is catastrophic.  The article reports that less than 50% of digital ads are even seen.

Low response rates, fraud & viewability are toxic for logical media and hint that Google and Facebook are fully aware they are charging advertisers money in a less than honest manner.

Google and Facebook have control over the revenue streams of local media companies and the industry rife with fraud and waste.  And yet, local media’s survival has less to do Google and Facebook than the self-inflicted damage found in the cultures, systems, management, and leadership of local media companies.  They are trapped in a spiral of failure, not only by their traditional way of doing business but more importantly by a failure to deliver results.  Advertising as it is currently delivered does not work.  Most importantly it does not work for the six million local businesses.

There are real solutions and new revenue streams to be found if local media companies would learn to partner with innovative companies and to recognize they are their own worst enemies.

 

 

 

The Google monopoly will destroy Local Media


Ryan Cooper of The Week states it clearly Google is dangerous monopoly, “Google is a monopoly — and it’s crushing the internet.”  Cooper supports what I have been pointing out for the past two years.   The publication, Editor and Publisher, warns that it is  Time for publishers to wake up.   Even the staid New York Times reports that Google and Facebooks control digital advertising is destroying local media.  At the time of the article their share was 85% it has now grown to 92% of all digital advertising.  Google is destroying local media by capturing its revenue base.  It is NOT going to get better unless local media is willing to fight back in unconventional ways.

Monopolies are great companies that become so large that they become predatory.  Google is just that – a predatory monopoly.

Where I differ from other thinkers is where to point the blame.  Google is destroying the revenue base of local media companies.  In this Google is wrong but logical.  It is the actions of local media companies that is illogical.  They have tried appeasement with Google.  They have failed to optimize their advantages of local and responsive.  They refuse to address the absolutely ineffective results they deliver to advertisers.

Their failures are best summarized by a failure of leadership.  Leaders see reality and take decisive action. Sammy Papert, an enlightened expert on all things media, wrote in this month’s Wormhole about this failure of leadership.

Three Papert quotes from his leadership article:
1.     “And, let’s be 100% clear – there’s often a huge chasm between someone who is higher up in the organizational structure and a leader!”
2.     “There’s a frightful dearth of leadership and it’s worrisome.”
3.     “In my experience, about 50% of bosses aren’t in the right role.  HALF!”

The consequences of the failure of leadership is the continued downward spiral of local media.  The unintended consequences of this failure is a direct threat to democracy and free speech.  Most people have no idea how the globalist at Google distort the news and search results all with minor tweaks to algorithms.