#bits blog

Every hardware platform needs software to be successful. By giving manufacturers a known operating system to work with, Google’s Android Wear will jump-start the ...

Today I am going to be talking about two articles I have read. One from the New York Times Bits Blog and the second from AdAge: Media News. These two articles remind me of what I like to call the rise and fall of marketing opportunities.

The first article from Bits is called Disruptions: Impulse buys, straight to your screen. The author Nick Bilton expresses that he spent over $2,400 last year in digital media alone. At first my mind was blown. When I think about it, movies, music, magazines, books and media subscriptions add up. I’m not surprised at all that someone could spend this much in one year. I agree with Bilton when he says that the number is just going to grow in the future.

He credits impulse buys to this growth. It is so easy to buy items/services online than it is physically. Like my dad says, it’s easier to use your credit card than it is to spend the cash in your wallet. Just with a push of the button you can buy anything from anywhere with your tablet and phone. Bilton mentioned that he spent less per item, but ultimately he bought more.

This is great news for advertising, because it is so easy to make sales through these devices that are always connected to the consumer. Companies like Amazon will mostly prosper in this world.

The second article from AdAge is what I consider the downfall. It is called Lance Armstrong Blew His Last Chance, Experts Say. This article is about how Armstrong confessed to doping throughout his entire career. He cheated to every win, and in the interview he showed no remorse. He was calculated and not at all real except for his anxiety.

The brands he endorsed dropped him with good reason. Who wants someone like that to represent their brand? I’m sure Oakley and Nike don’t want people to think cheater when they browse through their items. But, this is a big problem with endorsements. Brands spend so much money on these celebrities to represent who they are, but they’re just expensive ticking time-bombs. Companies should take those millions of dollars and spend it more creatively while helping the community. People connect with brands that stand for something, and do not to rely on someone who could increase sales.

UPDATED: Brandpointe wasn't alone in questioning Instagram's impending alterations, and the changes went viral today, spawning a Twitter hashtag, #BoycottInstagram; scathing articles from multiple media outlets including Gawker, which called the maneuver a "suicide note" for the platform; and a revolt among celebs like Anderson Cooper. So if you've got some spare time after rabidly editing your Instagram photos or deleting your account, join the conversation with @Brandpointe and others on Twitter to share your opinion.

Though some may disagree with us, we're fairly certain that the only events likely to result from the end of the Mayan calendar this Friday are some wild "we survived" parties. So forget the end of the world - and start preparing for impact once Instagram follows through with significant changes to its privacy standards in January 2013.

Citing the technology experts at the New York Times' "Bits" blog, On Pointe is sharing the five most important alterations to the platform. And we'll tell you why you should add the news outlet's tips for protecting yourself and your account from potentially pesky problems to your new year's to-do list.

The Facebook Factor: Instagram's updates to its terms of service and privacy policies have one unifying goal - enhanced integration with its parent company, Facebook. Ranking first among the NYT's key concerns is Instagram's decision to share user information with Facebook, outside affiliates, and advertisers. According to the newspaper, the "potentially lucrative move" will allow businesses in Facebook’s network to infiltrate Instagram's pool of users in order to access data and details that may help the companies better target their advertisements.

Star Sightings: "You could star in an advertisement — without your knowledge," noted the NYT. How? Because the new "Rights" component of Instagram's terms of service gives the company the ability to place your pics in various ads. Specifically, your agreement with the  updated terms means that you have consented to let "a business or other entity . . . pay us to display your username, likeness, photos (along with any associated metadata), and/or actions you take, in connection with paid or sponsored content or promotions, without any compensation to you." So be careful what you're uploading, because Instagram images  could become famous - or infamous - in upcoming ads.

You're No Exception: Even those underage will not be excused from Instagram's new ad-focused policies. "Athough Instagram says people must be at least 13 years old to sign up for the service, the new terms note that if a teenager signs up, they are agreeing that a parent or guardian is aware that their image, username and photos can also be used in ads," the NYT explained.

Ads Get (Even More) Annoying: Instagram will go even further to disguise advertising content on the platform, adding a clause to its terms that clearly states ads will no longer "necessarily be labeled as ads."  In other words, brace yourself for a deluge of advertorial content parading as editorial material. 

An Impossible Escape: In case you were wondering, no, you can't reject Instagram's updates the way you may have refused a few of Facebook's past changes. The only way out, according to the NYT, is to delete your account and forgo Instagram altogether. 

A federal law intended to protect children’s privacy may unwittingly lead them to reveal too much on Facebook, a provocative new academic study shows, in the latest example of how difficult it is to regulate the digital lives of minors.

Facebook prohibits children under 13 from signing up for an account, because of the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, or Coppa, which requires Web companies to obtain parental consent before collecting personal data on children under 13. To get around the ban, children often lie about their ages. Parents sometimes help them lie, and to keep an eye on what they post, they become their Facebook friends.  This year, Consumer Reports estimated that Facebook had more than five million children under age 13.

NY Times Bits Blog:

Several security experts and media reports predicted that Monday, July 9, would be remembered as the day millions lost their Internet connections — and possibly their livelihoods. Those concerns did not play out.

Nick Bilton, writing for the New York Times Bits Blog:

After the Microsoft Surface announcement, I wrote a blog post that expressed the following: “The iPad, for all its glory, suffers from one very distinct flaw: It’s very difficult to use for creation. The keyboard on the screen, although pretty to look at, is abysmal for typing anything over 140 characters.”

As a journalist who writes in all shapes and sizes — tweets, blog posts, print features and books — I’ve tried on numerous occasions to rattle out narratives on my iPad, but I personally find it impractical at best.

Did you see what he did there? He Fox News'ed you. He rehashed his ridiculous, sweeping statement (It’s very difficult to use for creation.) and then flipped that into something much more feasible (I’ve tried on numerous occasions to rattle out narratives on my iPad, but I personally find it impractical at best.).