[ rss / options / help ]
post ]
[ b / iq / g / zoo ] [ e / news / lab ] [ v / nom / pol / eco / emo / 101 / shed ]
[ art / A / beat / boo / com / fat / job / lit / map / mph / poof / £$€¥ / spo / uhu / uni / x / y ] [ * | sfw | o ]
logo
technology

Return ]

Posting mode: Reply
Reply ]
Subject   (reply to 23396)
Message
File  []
close
White-Social-Media-Icons.jpg
233962339623396
>> No. 23396 Anonymous
3rd December 2014
Wednesday 10:18 am
23396 spacer
What the fuck is digital marketing these days?

Is it the same as five years ago but 10x more browsers and social media sites to code for?

Has anyone spotted any innovation other than maybe html5, which lets be honest is just posh javascript.
Expand all images.
>> No. 23397 Anonymous
3rd December 2014
Wednesday 10:33 am
23397 spacer
I think it's that, with a well(enough) scripted bot, you can astroturf your shit without needing to (promise to) pay an army of Indians /EEuropeans.
>> No. 23398 Anonymous
3rd December 2014
Wednesday 8:22 pm
23398 spacer
>html5, which lets be honest is just posh javascript.

How can anybody be this downright fucking dense? Sort yourself out, lad.
>> No. 23399 Anonymous
3rd December 2014
Wednesday 8:29 pm
23399 spacer
>>23398

>innovation

I think they've decided that convincing people to buy stuff by tricking them is easier and cheaper than developing new ways to reach audiences through marketing.

It's all about reputation management these days, there are companies who have wage slaves behind desks shitposting on imageboards 8hrs a day about how awesome the new Bioware game is going to be.

Sage for barely relevant, feel free to ignore.
>> No. 23400 Anonymous
3rd December 2014
Wednesday 8:33 pm
23400 spacer
>>23399
>there are companies who have wage slaves behind desks shitposting on imageboards 8hrs a day about how awesome the new Bioware game is going to be
I have no idea why they do this. If they look in the right places they'll find plenty of people who will do it for free.
>> No. 23401 Anonymous
3rd December 2014
Wednesday 8:56 pm
23401 spacer
>>23400

They're not even very good at it, it seems a lot of the time they're reading off a tick sheet and shipping stock replies to key words and phrases because that is, in fact, what they are doing.

The average Joe shouldn't be able to pick up on that if they were doing their job right.
>> No. 23402 Anonymous
3rd December 2014
Wednesday 10:42 pm
23402 spacer
>>23400
>>23399

Is this even a genuine thing? Because it's simply not getting past my tinfoil filter, and I have mine set pretty lax.

Like, where do you see the jobs advertised for "professional online shill", and how do I apply? Or is it just one of those shitty rumours/myths that people unquestioningly believe for some reason?
>> No. 23403 Anonymous
3rd December 2014
Wednesday 10:45 pm
23403 spacer
>>23402

Various governments do it so I don't see why corporations would be above it.
http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/thinking-tech/online-astroturfing-gets-sophisticated/
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/
http://www.tgdaily.com/security-features/54733-us-military-says-metal-gear-sock-puppets-are-real
>> No. 23404 Anonymous
3rd December 2014
Wednesday 10:56 pm
23404 spacer
>>23402

See, the "lol where do I apply?" thing is a standard stock reply, not that I'm implying you're a marketeer. The companies exist and even show their clients at the bottom of the page. I've been to the site that does it for EA and Ubisoft, but I can't remember what it was called and I didn't bookmark it but here was one I found just by typing "reputation management" into google.

http://uk.reputation.com/

"suppress negative reviews" is the first fucking thing they mention on the page.
>> No. 23405 Anonymous
3rd December 2014
Wednesday 11:16 pm
23405 spacer
>>23404

My hatred of commercial capitalism may just have reached its zenith.

I used to enjoy the internet as a wonderful tool to discover new information, but these days I find it hard to believe a single thing I read online. Where the fuck is our society going.

Fuck it all.
>> No. 23406 Anonymous
4th December 2014
Thursday 12:56 am
23406 spacer
>>23405
I don't think that has anything to do with capitalism.
>> No. 23407 Anonymous
4th December 2014
Thursday 1:05 am
23407 spacer
>>23406
Of course it has. The operation costs them less than they'd lose were the truth allowed to prevail, and there's a provider willing to enter into a mutually beneficial agreement to carry out said operation.
>> No. 23411 Anonymous
4th December 2014
Thursday 4:50 pm
23411 spacer
>>23407
I have no idea what you're talking about.
>> No. 23432 Anonymous
7th December 2014
Sunday 3:31 pm
23432 spacer
>>23411

The cost of beneficial feedback outweighs the potential losses ensued from negative feedback.
>> No. 23433 Anonymous
7th December 2014
Sunday 6:42 pm
23433 spacer
>>23432
>The cost of beneficial feedback
"The gains", surely?
>> No. 23434 Anonymous
7th December 2014
Sunday 7:32 pm
23434 spacer
>>23433
No. Doing a better job generally requires higher overheads.
>> No. 23436 Anonymous
7th December 2014
Sunday 9:51 pm
23436 spacer
>>23434
Ok, but "The operation costs them less than they'd lose were the truth allowed to prevail" and "the cost of beneficial feedback outweighs the potential losses ensued from negative feedback" are mutually exclusive statements.
>> No. 23437 Anonymous
7th December 2014
Sunday 10:02 pm
23437 spacer
>>23436
They seem perfectly congruent to me, although I can only understand the statements in the abstract. Beyond that I'm with >>23411. They'd become contradictory if we upheld your suggestion.
>> No. 23440 Anonymous
8th December 2014
Monday 12:35 am
23440 spacer
>>23432
Surely >>23407 implies that magnitude of cost is less than the loss from negative feedback?

Return ]
whiteline

Delete Post []
Password