There has been an interesting development in the world of advertising this week as Google has been granted a new patent. The new patented technology allows for more targeted smartphone advertisement based on weather conditions and background noise detected by the device.
Targeted advertising is nothing new, but the methods available to advertisers are becoming much more specific. Facebook advertising allows you to target specific demographics based around a number of options. For example a wedding dress maker could target specifically female users whose marital status is ‘engaged’ within a specific radius of their shop.
This not only benefits the advertiser, but us as consumers. Adverts we see are more likely to appeal to us. As a single man I would have no use for a wedding dress and such an advert on my Facebook feed would just be seen as an inconvenience. However, with Facebook’s system I am more likely to receive cool gadgets, Star Wars merchandise, and general geeky items based on the pages I ‘like’. Although I rarely if ever click on the ads that I see, some of them do catch my attention in a good way.
This new technology by Google is an extension of what Facebook has already started. For example users will be more interested in ice lollies or a cold refreshing beer on a hot day than in the middle of winter and likewise products like Cup-a-soup will be better targeted at users in the cold. These are just basic ideas but no doubt advertisers will have already started thinking up clever and intriguing ways to harness this technology when it becomes widely available.
The concern comes in the amount of information advertisers have readily available. It could be argued that when you share your personal information on a social media site such as Facebook that it’s free game, but many users don’t see it that way. This new technology takes it one step further, picking up on noise and weather conditions means that they’re taking an active step in finding out your situation, rather than simply working with what you’ve presented. No doubt the technology will incorporate an opt out system but how deep will that be buried?
Is this another step to the ‘big brother’ level of control we’ve been brought up to fear? In ten years will we be presented with adverts based on words muttered in the comfort of our own home? Already we get ads on Facebook based on the status update we’ve just posted, or the photo we’re looking at. Will our passing conversations be secretly recorded by our devices, sent over wi-fi and stored on a government database? Honestly? Probably not, but the technology that would allow such things already surrounds us in our everyday life.
Where do you stand? Do you think that this environmentally targeted advertising will work better for us as consumers, ensuring we are more likely to get adverts that are of benefit to us? Or is this level of targeting something we should be wary of? We’re interested to hear your thoughts – leave us a comment below.
As a gamer and all round geek I have grown up with the name Nintendo. I remember getting the original Game Boy for Christmas at the age of about 5, I remember the Pokémon fad as it swept my school, and I remember hitting refresh repeatedly to land a Wii console from Amazon’s last batch for launch (yes I got one). So for me, and many others, the thought of a world without the iconic company is quite a depressing thought.
Nintendo as a company have been around a lot longer than you may think. They were initially founded in 1889 producing Hanafuda cards. The company then went on to experiment in a number of markets, including a taxi company and a love hotel, before becoming the big name in the games industry we know it as today.
In recent years Nintendo have tried to capture new market segments. Both the Nintendo Wii and DS have attempted to target the casual game market by making their games easy to pick up and play. Soon after the launch of the Wii lots of videos of mothers playing on them flooded YouTube. I uploaded a video of my own mother which ended up on a gaming website – she didn’t speak to me for a week. It also spawned a number of YouTube legends such as the video below. The video itself has to date had close to 11.6 million views. The woman in the video has gone on to make a number of TV appearances and has had her 15 minutes of fame.
So where is it all going wrong for Nintendo? Well sadly there are a number of factors that are mounting up.
First lets look at the handheld market. It’s dying. Nintendo launched their 3DS back in 2011 and they’ve struggled to shift it since. The concept in theory was a good one; 3D gaming on the move without the need for glasses. However such a system isn’t cheap to produce, launching with a price tag of $250 in the states. For a handheld gaming device this is a steep price to pay. Even with the new marked down price of $169.99 Nintendo are struggling to shift units and are making a loss on every one they do sell.
Similarly Sony have recently launched their new handheld the PlayStation Vita in the UK at a cost of £197, already a drop on the usual cost of £229.99, for the Wi-Fi version. The drop is no doubt a reaction to the reception the product has recieved and an attempt to try and pursuade more consumers to pick up the device, but it does seem that the company may already be fighting a losing battle.
Price tag aside, handheld gaming these days is dominated by smart phones too. Most users are content to play games on the go using their phones and why not? With addictive games like Angry Birds along with major titles such as FIFA and Grand Theft Auto readily available why would you need anything else?
Now lets look at the casual gamer market. With the constant development and improvement in browser gaming, casual gamers feel they have little reason to shell out for another piece of hardware, especially as their Wii is probably now sat collecting dust. This issue is partly Nintendo’s fault. A combination of few Nintendo staples and a mass of poor 3rd party titles has left most Wii owners with only Wii Sports in their collection (the game bundled with the device) and after 4 years we’re all sick of tennis and bowling.
The rise of Facebook hasn’t helped Nintendo either. Take my mother for example. When the Wii first launched and it sat pride of place in the living room she’d be there for hours playing tennis. These days however I find her sat playing Bejeweled and other Facebook games. With so many titles readily available, and usually for free, whenever she does get bored she simply tries a new game and she’s not alone in this. Companies like Zynga are quickly becoming household names. That coupled with the rise of indie development is definitely changing the gaming industry. You can read Lewis’s thoughts on indie development here.
Finally Nintendo’s biggest problem is it’s upcoming addition the Wii U. Announced last year, fans and critics were less than impressed with the system’s design and concept. After the announcement at last year’s E3 share prices fell almost immediately. Judging from initial feedback Nintendo will have to have a good launch line-up or they’re in for trouble.
It’s hard to imagine a world without Nintendo producing consoles, but it’s fast becoming a real possibility. You only have to look at SEGA. For years they dominated the console market alongside Nintendo, only to hit trouble when they launched the Dreamcast. Looking back it’s suprising that a console that was ahead of its time in so many ways (capable of online gaming, for instance) ended up killing a once great hardware producer. If Nintendo do fall on hard times it’s likely that they’ll adopt the same path as SEGA; producing games for other systems.
As a fan of games and the gaming industry I think we need companies like Nintendo to push the boundries. Without innovations like the Wii we probably wouldn’t have the Kinect, without the SNES we wouldn’t have the PlayStation and without Mario we wouldn’t have Sonic. I hope Nintendo can weather the storm but only time will tell.
As a Web Developer I’m obviously interested in developments to the laws that police the web’s use. Therefore back in 2010 I was particularly interested in the Digital Economy Act (DEA).
At the time it was being discussed web users such as myself were very interested to see what the Government had planned. Twitter was filled with heated debate over the topic under the hashtag #DEBill. Personally I was and still am against the law, but more on that later.
In the end the talk didn’t seem to matter. I watched on as the bill was passed late one night with few members present to witness its creation. The whole situation gave me the feeling that it was a law passed by those who knew little about the Internet from a technical perspective and what ramifications it could have in the years to come – a similar feeling I get whenever a digital based law is passed (the age old ripping a CD to your personal computer scenario springs to mind).
So why am I against the act? Don’t get me wrong, I understand that piracy is a crime, but it’s everything else the act stands for. Monitoring what we can and can’t access is a dangerous game for the Government to start playing. I for one don’t like the thought of my Government having control over the media I can and can’t access. Where is the line for what’s acceptable and what isn’t and will that line be moved as time goes by?
At this moment in time the DEA has yet to come into effect. The last I heard it was sat in Brussels waiting for the European Commission to approve changes. BT and TalkTalk have challenged the DEA but it looks like it has been in vain.
The day the act was passed I felt was one step closer to the Government’s hold over our media. It felt like another loss on the fight for free speech. I wait with anticipation and concern over where this leads us next.
Mark Heward November 23, 2011
PETA – A hair too far?
The group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) have never eschewed controversy in their pursuit of animal rights. Whether you agree or disagree with their stance, I have to say their latest action has left me a little stunned. Their target was not fur coat manufacturers, the meat industry or even the local McDonald’s. Strangely their latest quarrel is aimed squarely at everyone’s favourite plumber, and Nintendo’s mascot, Super Mario.
Mario wearing his Tanooki suit
The group’s anger is aimed towards the plumber’s Tanooki suit, a power-up most gamers will be familiar with. Originally introduced in Super Mario Bros. 3 way back in 1990, the Tanooki suit has been a favourite of Mario fans for over two decades.
With the launch of Super Mario 3D Land, Nintendo decided to return the cult favourite to the series, which sparked hatred from PETA members almost immediately. In retaliation PETA have created their own Mario adventure, in which a skinless raccoon tries to get its fur back.
Now having played these games it has never crossed my mind, or most gamers I imagine, that Mario would have skinned a raccoon to obtain his power-up. I don’t think at the time of creation Nintendo gave it much thought either.
PETA aren’t the first group to point the finger at video games and I’m confident they won’t be the last. Over the years I’ve found myself shaking my head at countless news reports citing Grand Theft Auto as the reason behind various violent acts. As a gamer I’ve never felt the urge to go out and kill after playing a few rounds of Call of Duty and I certainly haven’t felt the need to skin a raccoon after an hour or two of playing Super Mario Bros. 3.
Attacking a cultural icon, such as Mario, was always going to cause controversy and has most definitely got people talking about PETA again but for all the wrong reasons. The vast majority of feedback from the campaign has been against PETA and for Nintendo. It is my opinion that although PETA’s goal was to get animal rights back in the media all they have done is generate more animosity towards themselves. Now that is a shame.
If you’ve read my blogs before you may have read my article discussing the rise of Google Chrome. If not you can read the article here. The article discussed Google Chrome’s rise due to its strong ad campaign, and its attempt to break Internet Explorer’s dominance in the browser market.
Latest reports indicate that Google Chrome has continued to establish itself as a contender for the web browser crown. According to Computerworld, Google Chrome is set to surpass Mozilla Firefox as the second most popular browser by the end of November.
The stats referenced, provided by StatCounter, show that Google Chrome has gained 8 percentage points since the start of the year which equates to a 50% increase.
If these browsers continue on their current path, Google Chrome will end the year with 26.6% market share while Mozilla Firefox will have fallen to 25.3%.
Of course, the question is: are you still using Internet Explorer 7? Why not Browse Happy?
