Wednesday, February 27, 2013

Pandora vs. Spotify

Tim Westergren, founder of Pandora radio, announced that the company will be placing a 40 hour per month limit on free mobile listening in hopes of moving Pandora's heaviest mobile listeners to paying subscribers. Westergren said it was a necessary move because ad revenue simply isn't enough to pay royalty fees.  "Pandora One" subscriptions only cost $3.99 a year, that's roughly $36 a year for unlimited music, advertising free.  More than 80% of Pandora music listeners access the site via mobile phone, making it "the most well-indexed major media company on mobile devices" according to AdAge.

It is inevitably clear that the future of free, unlimited online music streaming is coming to an end.  With the music revenue industry now on the rise again, it is only a matter of time until these websites and applications practically force their users into paying some sort of fee in order to avoid advertisements.  I am a subscriber to Spotify Premium, and I would love to see how the two compare. I am currently paying $9.99 for unlimited music that I can access through both my laptop and my mobile phone. Immediately when I found out about Spotify it was a no-brainer to make the switch from iTunes. I have used Pandora in the past and have had no issues with it (apart from the advertisements), but I have to say I personally prefer the easy setup and social interaction aspect of Spotify. It will be interesting to see what the future holds in terms of online music streaming.

St. Jude's Boasts Largest Pool of Facebook Followers

St. Jude's Children Research Hospital was recently announced to have the most loyal Facebook fan followers, with a "Net Promotor Score" of 77.8. The next highest brand was Facebook itself, with a score of 66.6. St. Jude's claims their success comes from successfully reciprocating their fan's loyalty. They stick to a "straightforward but uplifting" theme, and it simply works.

St. Jude's launched their "St. Jude's moments" back in July of 2012, a weekly featuring of a specific patient. Facebook fan engagement sky-rocketed after the launch, with a recent February post netting an impressive 27,000 "likes". Nicole Ziady, St. Jude's director of marketing and communications, calls this an attempt to "un-market" its Facebook fans, that is, appeal to them as actual human beings before aggressively selling products or pushing donations. St. Jude's righteously states that they are "a true reflection of their patients and donors."

I found this article to be extremely refreshing as it made me view Facebook fan pages and "likes" in a new light. To be honest, I have personally never been someone who actively engages in "liking" Facebook pages, even if it may be something of interest or appeal to me. I just never took the time to understand what the point was, or even really care. Now I see that certain companies and organizations can actually use Facebook to do good and make a difference, just as St. Jude's has. The organization has really left an impact on its followers and continues to do so with a sincere and honest approach to marketing.

Sunday, February 24, 2013

Under Armour Files Lawsuit Against Nike


Baltimore's native brand Under Armour has filed a lawsuit against top competitor Nike, claiming copyright infringement. Under Armour's associated slogan dates back to 1998, when they famously quoted "I will...protect this house" in one of their commercials.  Ever since, Under Armour has used "I will" in nearly all of its advertising.  Ironically enough, Under Armour just launched its global marketing campaign called "I Will" in association with the recent opening of its new retail stores.  The accused Nike ads include lines such as "I will protect my home court" and "I will finish what I started."  Under Armour claims it is only guarding its phrase, the same way Nike does with their "Just Do It" slogan, and they are asking for monetary compensation.

In my personal opinion, I was shocked to hear this information.  I can't really fathom why Nike, a $25 billion company, would stoop so low as to blatantly mimic Under Armour, which is only a budding $1.8 billion company.  I feel that the imitation was so obvious they really can't deny copyright infringement. I don't think the lawsuit will have too harsh of an effect on Nike, simply because they are so profitable.  However, I don't think a decision like this should be overlooked. It just goes to show that no matter how successful or well-known your company may be, there are no exceptions for lack of creativity or imitation of competing brands just to get ahead in the game.