Aritst indirectly benefited by free flow of their music?

According with the Institute of piracy innovation concluded that global piracy represents the great losses to the music industry and the IRS. An estimated $12.5 billion of global economic losses every year, 71,060 U.S. jobs lost, a loss of $2.7 billion in workers' earnings, and a loss of $422 million in tax revenues, $291 million in personal income tax and $131 million in lost corporate income and production taxes. 

One aspect that makes tackling this issue even more complex is that piracy is not something that happens just within the United States, beyond national borders piracy in developing countries is illegal but barely enforced. It is even much harder to enforce non piracy on music something that is intangible and copying it is not perceived as a crime. In most developing countries the issue of music piracy is not even debatable and policy makers argue there more important issues they should focus on. On top of that law makers are not willing to give up popularity for enforcing a legislation the general public is going to repudiate.

What will happen with the music files once they are in procession of an individual, I mean there many electronic devices that music can be uploaded and what about if you decide to share your music file with a friend? Is that illegal as well?  

I just think that it is important to highlight the indirect benefit that artists and their teams get from a free file sharing economy where their music is flowing everywhere with no barriers. Isn’t that what artists want?

I am no expert but I think, music is how artist make themselves known, letting music spread is how they become famous and thus they don’t necessarily make the big bucks from the sale of CDs or music online. Record labels and artists have other means to get advantage of their names trough presentations, shows, concerts, sponsors, media ads, etc.

In the United States music piracy is much more enforced. It is much harder to find pirate CDs in the street but there still many weak spots such as illegal download and upload of music.

Online Privacy violation??

Online Privacy violation??

Which one represents a greater privacy threat? Internet Service Providers Vs search engines like Google, Yahoo, Bigs.

Google as the major search engine can track your web habits most visited web pages, shopping preferences and even locations. This information allows Google can target you for selected advertising depending on the greatest percentage of web searches. So they are basically following your moves and collecting that information in a seamless manner for good or for bad. Google puts it as a positive thing to preselect advertising on things that you actually would like to see and might even be interested rather than bombarding you with advertising that might not be targeted for you.

This information is also store in your computer, also known cookies. By deleting these cookies periodically you can decrease the amount to tracks and information stored in the hard drive of your computer, but it is probably not the most important factor to erase your tracks.

Internet service providers might be the biggest threat to online internet privacy. They can basically track, profile, monitor and categorize the online behavior of their users. They have the ability to see chunks of information that are generated from your computer, from key strokes, to complete file downloads. Organizations have put pressure to ISPs to protect the customer’s information and whether they have the incentive to actually access that information is another talk but what it is clear is that they have capacity as of now to obtain that information.

Now it is very unlikely that ISPs would look at your information individually unless someone has a particular interest on you, they might be interested on the general information or deep packet inspection as stated in the article that allow ISPs to collect and sell this information to behavioral advertising firms. Fortunately law makers in Washington have adopted measures to this issue and force behavioral advertising companies like NebuAd’s Inc to change its privacy settings and allow customers to opt in instead of opt out to allow them to collect their information.

So now that we know that both Search engines and internet service providers have access directly or indirectly to our preferences and habits, it is of to us and our policy makers to continue to allow this and have preselected advertising or reinforce our right of privacy.

LivingSocial, Groupon's Biggest Competitor!

Some of main reasons that people shop online, it´s for the convenience, availability, wide range of product selection and lower price. E-commerce the revolutionary way of making business online addresses this factors and companies like Groupon and LivingSocial have identified this hidden potential market and created virtual platforms where discount hunters, can find awesome deals on based on their localities. This type of venture is call contract assurance market that works with a very simple business planLivingSocial has broaden spectrum of deals available for purchase. Unlike its competitor LivingSocial does not require a minimum number of subscribers for the deal to kick in. What is very interesting, once a customer makes the purchase it is provided by a link that can be refer to three other people and if they make a purchase using the link your deal is free.

Groupon sends a daily deal to its subscribers from a local business. There is a threshold that has to be met for the deal to be effective that is a certain number of people will have to subscribe and the deal is becomes active and purchasable. The company will take a cut of the revenue of the deal. This business scheme is very similar to LivingSocial but to set the difference

LivingSocial is Groupon closest competitor taking the lead in the amount of internet traffic for the July 2010 Media Metrix. What it is also interesting as mention in the article is that Groupon remains with the top revenue in the industry. It raises the question. Why LivingSocial with more traffic has not been able to reach Groupon Revenue? It could probably be due the large number of links referred that are available for people to access, or the fact that LivingSocial also counts with an application on Facebook which is a door to five hundred million users.

Living Social CEO Tim O'Shaughnessy wants to increase the revenue of the company to 100 million for 2010. Although Groupon growth has been impressive it seems as if it would not bother them to lose the first position in the market. Could that be due to Google’s plan to acquire Groupon?

Subliminal Marketing

The first thing that people generally think when they hear about subliminal messages is the government or corporations trying to get ideas into our minds and it can be part true. Subliminal message is information that an individual can be exposed through the senses such as images, audio, smells and touch. In most cases the information is perceived indirectly and the person may not have consciously acknowledged the intended message.

 Some Heavy Metal lyrics were belief to have hidden malign messages and several occasions criminals try to shield themselves blaming the lyrics and the alleged pressure to commit the crime, of course this has not been proved to be of substantial weight by the court. But what about corporations how have they incorporated this type of approach to gain customers or create an image? It is not new to business to try to merge a whole different type of factors appealing to the human senses to make them came back for more or make their experience fascinating. Abercrombie for example uses a particular fragrance they produce themselves in their stores, making it very characteristic and probably one few things a customer will remember from walking in the store.

 According to experts the human brain is more likely to remember and bring back live memories if it exposed to familiar scents. What is the first thing that comes to your mind when you walk into a place that smells like pop corn? Most people will quickly associate with a movie theater, or a particular movie, a person you went with or a moment craved in time. This is exactly what market researches try to create in your mind when you are exposed often an image, scent or audio. The Question is then, is it moral to induce people to remember a brand o unconsciously signal to stimulate their desire to consume a good or a service. Well in the 1974 some networks and professional association along with the FCC banned the use of subliminal advertising.   

If the question remains open about the effectiveness of these practices since they have not been proof to work 100 percent of the times, why this the consumer protection took the time to ban such a practice? A very similar effect can be found at bakeries and restaurants, where just by walking in front of them, a power aroma will kindle your appetite and invite you in to consume and enjoy their experience. But it is similar because although the message is indirect the individual is actually conscious of its reaction to the stimulus and willingly decides to shift its path.

I think it is very interested to find out until what point are we actually able to have control of our decisions and be sure that they are inherently our will and are not viciously infected by other intentions.