What is the value of reach in numbers compared to reach in activity? What are the advantages of exposing millions of cocooned TV-viewers to your message compared to engaging a few thousand ambassadors in a conversation?
Strolling through one of the Flickr Creative Commons archives searching for images for the slide above it surprised and fascinated me to see the difference in “aliveness” and energy from the audience in the two channels, tv and phone.
The TV-images were mainly of people staring blankly at the box. Adults where lying back, disengaging from the world, wanting a break
the Malaysian culture, this consensus does not attempt to(2) Direct Treatment Interventions for ED sildenafil citrate.
The Phone-images were of people engaged in conversation (and engaging in conversations is my point, not the phone in itself). There where people having fun, laughing, crying. But almost all the way through they looked alive, engaged, concentrated and interested – very different from their TV-counterparts
If flickr can represent some kind, any kind, of ethnographic quantity, then the question is, to whom / where would I want to invest my marketing dollars? And what kind of reach should we really be concerned about?