So, Buzzfeed in May 2016 published a video to Youtube titled I Put A Payment Chip In My Hand To Replace My Wallet

The video has reached over 8.3 million views to date, with 26k down votes and 101k upvotes on the platform. So what does this tell us? It tells us 1 in 5 people don’t like this idea; and by reading a few comments I have found many of those people find this new technology kind of scary and intrusive.

Comments on the Buzzfeed video

The comments in the above screenshot bring up a good point:

1.  This sounds like something out of a dark TV show
2.  The government will 100 PERCENT abuse this technology, being able to listen into your device, tracking your location, biological testing?? All possible for them when you put a chip in your hand
3.  Well, this guy kinda has a point, at least you can take a ring off.

Although being a crazy idea and one that has come to fruition, I wonder how this has effected businesses. Some stores are still cash only; what happens when you order, go to pay with your hand, and realise you can’t because it’s cash only?

Perhaps the world of evolution in technology is moving faster than the physical world can actually keep up with. Like, are you going to be able to arrange a bank loan to credit your chip? Can you begin to talk to your chip? And will this end terribly once the government inevitably gets involved.

I wonder if business’s will allow people to put loyalty cards into their hands next, or store gift cards to be credited to your chip… that scares me, but given the current technology would not surprise me.

Personally, I would much prefer research labs focus on creating crops that can grow in drought, and increasing the worlds drinking water reserves – eradicating world hunger and improving the lives of those suffering the most, rather than putting the chip thats in our cards in our hands….I think the question is, what’s really important to us?

Thanks for following along this semester, I hope you learnt something about the digital world, your own spending and maybe opened your eyes a little.

Now you might think this title is a little bit of click bait, and you would be right… well sort of.

The new Huawei Mate 20 Pro is powered by a Kirin 980 chip, which meant nothing to me until I realised that its the same chip in the new iPhone X.

Charging the phone to 70% battery in 30 minutes, which is 160% faster than the iPhone X.

New Huawei Mate 20 Pro

Now, here is where the self charging part comes in, which is probably why you clicked on this. The Huawei and its ridiculously fast charging capability as well as long battery life enables it to charge other phones through Qi wireless charging.

Brands that offer this feature include:

• Apple
• Samsung
• Sony
• LG
• Nokia

Which are the largest manufactures in the industry.

So, if you have a phone capable to Qi wireless charging, you can suck the battery out of your friends Huawei Mate 20 Pro.

But personally, I wonder how far this technology will go in the future; and what else can we eliminate. Because when you think about it, if your phone charges as fast as the Huawei and enables you to charge other peoples phones, why carry a portable charger?

And how much do we want eliminated from our lives?

Until next time

Lawra

Kevin Systrom and Mike Krieger, the co-founders of popular social media platform Instagram left the company on Monday 24th September.

“We’re planning on taking some time off to explore our curiosity and creativity again”

The above quote is the pairs official quote as of their departure. This statement gives the impression Systrom and Krieger have outlived their time at Instagram and want to continue their passion of technology in another form.

Instagram co-founders Kevin Systrom and Mike Krieger

However, there has been speculation published by Bloomberg that the two have parted ways with the Instagram/Facebook conglomerate over management issues. Systrom and Krieger were given large creative authority when Instagram was purchased in 2012 for USD$1 billion.

Initially, the co-founders (who are now CEO and CTO) were initially given both creative freedom and management authority, however as the app grew so did Mark Zuckerberg’s interest and control.

According to the Business Insider, there was growing tension between the Instagram management, and that of Facebook. Where Instagram was losing its autonomy and image, and merging too considerably with its parent company.

So as this post comes to an end, how would you feel if you were working in Instagram? Losing the two leaders and visionaries of the app, in favour of a more Facebook style leadership?

I think business’s need to be careful when they lose such significant management figures, as this can drastically change the direction of the app, but also of the company and its profitability. From a business standpoint, how should Facebook respond to this, and should they separate the two  apps, or continue with the path they’re on, and how will this effect their users.

Until next time

– Lawra

We’ve all read a lot of Facebook blog posts. We’ve all heard about the Cambridge Analytica scandal, seen videos of Mark Zuckerberg questioned by congress, and listened to copious class discussion on the topic.

So, please stick around, and let me offer a few different perspectives and critique.

What is Facebook doing now?

“Now you can include Facebook Stories as an additional placement to News Feed or Instagram Stories ad campaigns, delivering your message in a fullscreen, immersive environment.   – Facebook

As said above; Facebook is bringing out advertisement in its News Feed function in addition to advertising in messenger. So, with the facebook side bar ads, messenger ads, and the new news feed advertisement Facebook has found multiple ways to encourage brands to promote on the network.

For businesses; is Facebook a good app to advertise on?                                              Statistics has shown People Click on About One of Every 2,000 Facebook Ads They See. To me, this seems like a really bad ROI (Return on Investment) that brands only have a 1 in 2,000 chance of having their content clicked on.

The statistics above indicate that people do click on Facebook Ads, however, only 34% have enough interest to track down the item. Brands have a higher chance of increasing sales if they were to stick with traditional media marketing rather than using Facebook.

Keeping in mind, even though the click statistics for Facebook aren’t profitable for businesses, whenever Facebook gets itself into a scandal- brands that are advertising on the network are affected by association.

Where’s this going?

So, where does Facebook go from here? Personally, I would not advertise on Facebook. If brands want to use social media to advertise, then using instagram or youtube ads offer a much better ROI.

I open the floor to you guys reading this, would you purchase Facebook Ads? Or is Facebook cancelled?

Until next time

Lawra

Imagine being able to walk through the living room you’ve designed without having to buy all the furniture first, how would this impact your purchasing? Would you change the cream couch to drill grey? Repaint the walls before putting the furniture in?

Well at Macy’s, now you can.

The Market @ Macy’s allows consumers to view products from 150 e-commerce brands that rent a pop-up style space from the department store. These brands will market new products, demo services and offer unique experiences currently unavailable. Facebook, unsurprisingly, is in partnership with Macy’s on this venture. Promoting the use of its platform for marketing small businesses.

Macy’s new pop-up venture – The Market @ Macy’s

As part of The Market @ Macy’s, they have partnered with Marxent- a top visual reality company that specialises in VR. The use of VR technology for furniture is initially being rolled out in 69 stores within the United States by November. From the first round of data released, the quantity of returns has reduced to less than 2% of total sales.

New VR capability in Macy’s store

This comes from consumers being able to see how the product would look in different positions and when surrounded by other pieces to create a cohesive space. Furthermore, keeping large amounts of furniture on shop floors is not financially beneficial- as most people do not buy shop samples and prefer having new ones ordered in for them. However, by using VR, sales assistants are able to showcase more products to buyers without having to have the couch, chair or lounge set physically in store.

In addition, the company offers a “Visualize Your Space” experience on its app. Allowing customers to take photos of empty spaces in their home and add furniture from Macy’s to the screen. Being able to evaluate how a new piece would look amongst the current furniture without needing to go in store to see the offering or buy it to see how it looks in the home.

Macy’s are changing the way we shop for products and the way we perceive department stores. Stores such as Myer and David Jones are struggling in Australia, closing down many locations due to a lack of revenue being generated. Perhaps these companies need to use these international stores as an example of innovation in order to survive in the Australian market.

I know this one was a little less controversial, but I hope you learnt something.

Until next time

-Lawra

With the rise of technology we scroll through thousands of pages, images and information on a daily basis. But, companies continuously drive us to click on their websites and purchase their products through the use of clickbait. Clickbait is when journalists and companies use enticing links to encourage traction, often targeting curiosity of consumers and views.

Just like this title, what you’re winning is the knowledge of how to avoid these links or at least being made more aware of whats being offered.

A researcher at Cardiff University’s School of Journalism, Damian Radcliffe, has hypothesised that its now part of the job for journalists to write “better or snappier headlines”. But what does this mean for you? and any business’s you ever work for?

Clickbait example found on Facebook

The above example of clickbait pulls on the emotional heart strings, that these affordable blankets can bring a mother to tears, and can be used daily. These type of advertisements often attract people as they are emotionally enticing, where as simply stating the benefits of the blanket may not lead to increased traction like this form of advertising does.

Now, you night feel slightly underwhelmed reading this blog post, however this feeling is reminiscent of the one many consumers experience having clicked on an enticing article or video and finding the media has only a loose relationship to the catchy title.

This is a common problem on the platform YouTube, where creators are paid by a video sponsor and/or by the platform per thousand of views their video receives. Because of the saturation on YouTube, with over1 Billion active users content creators need to increase the quantity of interaction on their channels; and unfortunately having a clickbait title is the easiest way to do this.

This isn’t his sister, she’s also not 13, and she is a YouTuber

The above image is crazy!! Content creators think that acting this way will earn them views and likes. Then again, the caption is boarder line pornographic and so is implying she is 13. Personally, I think this clickbait culture has gone WAY too far, and platforms like YouTube should not encourage this behaviour. And yes, they cracked down when Logan Paul Logan Paul posted a dead body online, BUT IT TOOK A DEAD BODY FOR THEM TO CHANGE THE RULES.

I get it, I get why these titles work and why creators do it. Everyone needs to earn their coin, but it gets frustrating getting half way through a 5-10minute video and finding out that the title and the content of the video do not align. You almost feel betrayed by the person you’re watching.

So, in a business regard, would you use clickbait in advertising? And do you think it’s an effective tactic to increase sales, or does it only make consumers curious enough to click the link?

And I guess on a personal note, am I the only one who gets annoyed at these titles or just think they’re crazy and extreme? I think the line needs to be drawn way before dead bodies and advertising child pornography to get views

Until next time

-Lawra

Brands pay thousands of dollars, some times millions to be promoted to the mass followings of Instagram influencers. However, sometimes these deals are not all that they seem to be.

Lil Miquela is a well known Instagram blogger, with over 1.2 million followers. However, Miquela isn’t real. She doesn’t type the captions of the photos. She doesn’t eat the food she is photographed with. She doesn’t attend the music festivals she promotes. Miquela is a CGI, a computer generated character created by company BRUD, who are also behind influencer Bermuda.

Lil Miquela – Sourced from Instagram

As consumers, you may feel tricked, betrayed or lied to if you purchased the products endorsed by her. But what’s the difference between her recommendations and those of other online stars who promote products they too probably haven’t tried. With social media growing and technology becoming increasingly complex, the difference is deception. Lil Miquela and BRUD intentionally aimed to mislead consumers in who they thought they were trusting.

However, as a company these CGI influencers are perfect. They cannot be caught up in scandals like other beauty gurus (eg. Laura Lee’s racism scandal). These models are a safer option for companies to promote and pay to sponsor their products.

Bermuda and Miquela at Porsche – Sourced from Instagram

However, if these accounts are hacked it could do incredible damage to the brands associated with them. Furthermore, there may be back lash from consumers; who may prefer businesses support real influencers who at least have the chance to try the product.

Low risk avatars are seemingly a great idea, and safer for businesses, would you as a marketer sponsor an avatar over a real life influencer? Or do you find it kind of weird how life like the new version of the Sims is

Until next time,

-Lawra

With the presidential election of Donald Trump, as well as increasing animosity between cultures; we as a global populous need to consider if the right to free speech should be endorsed.

Alt-right commentator Lauren Southern recently visited Australia, in response people were outraged that her “Nazi” views and that she was allowed to hold a lecture at all. In response Southern was banned from speaking in New Zealand the week after.

However, this bring into question the whole notion of free speech, and the fine line of when it crosses into hate speech.

As digital media becomes as increasingly large part of daily life, should online content that boards free speech and that of hate speech be banned. Or does banning hate speech mean that we as a society limit that which we deem free?

PHILIP WOLMUTH PHOTOGRAPHY

Individuals need to be cautious of what they are publishing online. Although sharing personal opinions is important and a “right” that we are entitled too, I believe sharing hate fuelled views is grounds to not be employed or be expelled from an educational institution.

However, the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that hate speech is categorically excluded by the first amendment. Although, it may still be punished if threatening or violent.

So my question to readers is, should individuals have the “right” to share hate speech under the guise of free speech? Because personally, I don’t think anyone has the “right” to be racist, misogynist or homophobic – no matter what they call it.

Until next time,

-Lawra

Everybody…well most everybody… knows who the Kardashians are. Building an empire off a famous murder case and a sex tape. Their ability to stay relevant and controversial is astonishing.

However, are both the image and the products they sell to the world unhealthy?

Typing “Kim Kardashian waist trainers” into google leaves you with 26 million hits; with models that are look a-likes to the celebrity. The famous family have been known to advertise these products on social media. Marketing an item that compresses the abdomen to young, impressionable girls on social media, is just, pretty low…

Teenagers have enough things to worry about, and enough outlets telling them how to look, without reality tv stars offering unhealthy compression wear as a quick fix to body issues. Furthermore, the “Kardashian Klan” have made millions off their bodies. And advertising quick ways to achieve the same results.

However, is wearing a waist trainer really going to shrink you down to a 24″ waist like Kim? Or is it the hours of personal training sessions and questionable plastic surgery that give them that result?

Instead of buying over priced spandex to shrink your waist. Spend the money on a gym membership and some organic food. Do what they do, just question buying what they promote.

Until next time

-Lawra

We grow up being taught in primary school about good grammar. Their/There/They’re. How to spell and write with clarity, ensuring we don’t make fools of ourselves in later life.

Recently Donald tweeted about his incredible writing skills, only to use the incorrect spelling; using “pour” instead of “pore”. This was jumped on by Merriam-Webster, who responded with dictionary definitions of both words.

Although President Trumps tweets are not uncommon or shocking at this point, it is interesting to note that the spelling mistake was made by the leader of the free world.

Is it possible that all of us are losing a few brain cells while scrolling, swiping and liking our way across the internet?

In an article by Nichole Maybury for Linkedin in 2017, it was found that poor grammar and spelling, as well as typos are being found in social media posts from businesses.

“Those of us who are particular about such things (and there are many of us) would be left with a negative association with that brand” – Nichole Maybury

No one wants to be the person responsible for public embarrassment by posting something with errors from a company account. So double check your posts, run them through spell check if you have too, and get a friend/colleague to proof read your work if you can.

It is vital that we, as a society keep up with good spelling and grammar, only have 140 characters can mean cutting words down and/or using abbreviations. However, being experienced and having to post two tweets is far better than cutting words down and appearing unprofessional.

Until next time,

-Lawra