Blog dedicado a la formación en todos sus ámbitos: presencial, online, a distancia
Hola:
Una infografía con 29 usos de las Redes Sociales para profesionales y empresas.
Un saludo
29 usos de las Redes Sociales para profesionales y empresas
Hola:
Una infografía sobre Cómo aumentar tu señal WiFi. Vía
Un saludo
Cómo aumentar tu señal WiFi
Hola:
Una infografía con las 18 extensiones más populares de Google Chrome.
Un saludo
Car dealerships are always looking for the next great way to get potential customers to look in their direction and think about maybe buying a shiny new car. Balloons, air dancers, signs: any way that they can get our attention. One way to get some attention: toss some cars in a dumpster. That’s what Pacific Nissan in San Diego did, and the promotion is working out for them.
Reader Ashi in San Diego spotted a striking display outside of a local Nissan dealership and had to stop and take a picture. “Only in America do we throw cars in the trash,” he observed. Is that what the display is meant to say? Where did this thing come from? Are those cars even real? We had to find out.
First, we had to track down the dealership where this was. Ashi identified the dealership as Mossy Nissan, and so did Redditors when a photo of the same display was posted to /r/mildlyinteresting, a popular subreddit, a few months ago. It’s not. We used the street signs visible in the photo to track down the identity of the dealership. The display is at Pacific Nissan, not Mossy. VP of Marketing Andrew Hagstrom cleared up some things about the car dumpster for us.
“We were trying to think of a way to get some eyeballs on us and and attract attention,” he says. The dealership is on a strip surrounded by other car dealerships, and Mossy dominates the Nissan market in that area. They aren’t the first dealership to ever put together a display like this, but they did make it themselves. The cars, Hagstrom says, are real cars that were traded in but that didn’t pass safety inspections and wouldn’t sell for much at auction. The team removed the oil, water, and other fluids so they wouldn’t leak when the cars were turned sideways. For the record, the cars in the dumpster aren’t old Nissans.
The display is meant to get attention, and to make people think about trading their old cars in (if not necessarily tossing them in the trash.) “We’ve had people ask about it, and ask if they can have the cars in it,” Hagstrom told Consumerist. You know, because they’re just throwing them out anyway.
The display will probably stay out there for another few months. They will probably not give you the cars when its run is complete.
Hola:
Una infografía sobre cómo Google rastrea e indexa las páginas.
Un saludo
Hola:
Una infografía con algunos cambios del trabajo en los últimos 30 años. Vía
Un saludo
Algunos cambios del trabajo en los últimos 30 años
Ad Age reports that Gillette paid the dating app, which heavily relies on first impressions, to test the theory that unkempt facial hair wasn’t as desirable on Tinder as a clean-shaven or well-groomed face.
The two companies worked together to anonymously analyze 100,000 male Tinder users to see which group scored more positive responses from suitors.
According to Gillette, the study found that well-groomed men received 74% of the total right swipes (in Tinder world that means they were desirable) and 37% more matches than men who displayed photos sporting facial hair. The results of the Proctor & Gamble razor brand’s study can be found online at shavetest.com.
Despite the fact that Gillette didn’t purchase traditional advertising from Tinder, the dating app was still compensated, although an exact figure wasn’t released.
“Tinder is obviously something that’s really connected to that college audience,” Kurt Iverson, senior communications manager for Gillette, tells Ad Age. “It’s where our user is right now. They live to see who’s given them the swipe right overnight. When we started talking to them, it was a little edgier, more of a hookup app. But I think it’s gone a lot more mainstream now. All age groups are aware of it.”
The unlikely partnership between the razor brand and Tinder shows the unusual ways in which apps are now raking in revenue.
IAC/InterActiveCorp, the parent company for Tinder, announced last July that it planned to start making money from the dating app at some point.
And it appears that started early this year with the app beginning to take part in native ads through a profile for Domino’s Pizza and a match-making effort for Mindy, the main character on Fox’s “The Mindy Project,” Ad Age reports.
Internet analysts estimate that Tinder will receive 20 million active users this year, a number that is no doubt desirable to brands. But only time will tell if Gillette’s investment in the Tinder study will pay off.
Tinder Gets More Brand Dollars … by Testing Sex Appeal of Facial Hair [Ad Age]
Depending on your point of view, Congress has been either promising or threatening to come up with a legislative solution to net neutrality, which would do an end-run around the current FCC debate. As of this afternoon, the first draft of the bill is out and the first hearings are on the schedule. So how does it look for fans of an open internet?
The first draft of the bill that Sen. John Thune and Rep. Fred Upton said earlier this week that they would be creating is now available.
The text (PDF), is a discussion draft, not yet formally introduced into either chamber. But it’s the draft that the House and Senate Commerce Committees will be looking at when they have their hearings and it basically exists to do one big thing: strip the FCC of its current and future authority to regulate broadband access in any way.
The first section of the bill starts out with the actual open internet rule. It specifies that, subject to reasonable network management, broadband providers:
That sounds like a lot of the FCC’s stated goals, but as analysts at Public Knowledge have pointed out, the proposal is written in such a way as to leave tons of loopholes for ISPs to engage in bad behavior in the future.
But the proposed draft bill then goes farther, and explicitly removes the authority of the FCC to regulate internet openness at all. The text rigidly defines broadband as an information service, then forbids regulators from using either Section 706 or Title II of the Communications Act — the two options the FCC has before it — to regulate broadband.
As far as the internet is concerned, the FCC instead is reduced to a complaints board, which “shall enforce the obligations … through adjudication of complaints alleging violations” but “may not expand the Internet openness obligations … whether by rulemaking or otherwise.”
Section 706 is the bit of law under which the FCC would have authority to pre-empt state laws forbidding the construction or expansion of municipal, fully or partially publicly-owned broadband networks. If the FCC can’t use section 706 to regulate broadband, they probably can’t make their move on that, either.
Massachusetts senator Ed Markey, a consistent, vocal supporter of net neutrality, municipal broadband, and related pro-competition regulation, issued a statement calling the proposal the “Big Broadband Baron Act.”
Of the draft bill, Markey said, “It is a legislative wolf in sheep’s clothing, offering select few safeguards while undermining basic consumer, privacy and accessibility protections. It would harm low-income, disabled, senior and rural consumers, and undermine competition in the telecommunications marketplace.”
But wait — what of those hearings?
Both the House and Senate committee hearings on the open internet will be taking place next Wednesday, January 21. The agenda and witness list for the Senate version isn’t out yet, but the House’s is. And among the expert witnesses the House Commerce Committee is calling to testify on the best way to protect and promote an open internet are Michael Powell and Meredith Attwell Baker.
We have written about both before. Powell (son of former Secretary of State Colin Powell) was once chairman of the FCC, the position currently held by Tom Wheeler. He is now the president and CEO of the NCTA, the trade and lobbying association that represents cable and telecom companies like Comcast and Verizon.
The NCTA this year has been very busy astroturfing and publishing op-eds about why we don’t need net neutrality. He’s also the one who admitted that usage-based pricing and data caps aren’t about alleviating network congestion, but instead are about making more money.
Baker also once was an FCC commissioner. She was one of the four commissioners (of five) who voted in 2011 to allow Comcast to purchase NBCUniversal … after which she promptly accepted a cushy new job with the newly merged Comcast/NBCU.
Baker is no longer with Comcast. Instead, she took over as the president and CEO of the CTIA — the wireless industry’s answer to Powell’s NCTA. The CTIA has funded some of the same odious op-ed arguments that its wired peer has engaged in this year.
The two will be joined by other executives representing both the established internet corporate presence (Amazon) and the scrappy modern start-up (Etsy), as well as Dr. Nicol Turner-Lee of the Minority Media and Telecom Council, a nonprofit that advocates for diversity and civil rights in the media.
The FCC is unlikely to stop its current rulemaking proceeding while Congress works on the proposal.
