"Despite the frenzy of media coverage surrounding the importance of Black Friday in the brick-and-mortar world, we continue to see this shopping day become more and more prominent in the e-commerce channel - particularly among those who prefer to avoid crowds at the stores," said comScore chairman, Gian Fulgoni. "With Black Friday online sales up 26 percent and surpassing $1 billion for the first time, coupled with early reports indicating that Black Friday sales in retail stores were down 1.8 percent, we can now confidently call it amulti-channelmarketing phenomenon. Meanwhile, Thanksgiving Day - which has historically been a lighter online holiday shopping day - continues to gain steam and grew well ahead of the current pace as more consumers opted to kick off their holiday shopping immediately after the big meal to take advantage of aggressive retailer promotions. With Thanksgiving now behind us and most consumers returning to work tomorrow, we can look forward with anticipation to Cyber Monday, which according to norms we've observed over the past three years should be the heaviest online shopping day of the season with sales approaching $1.5 billion or even higher."

I always wonder how analysts make projections based on previous years behavior rather than looking at specific factors. What are the big-ticket items this year? How do they compare in cost to previous items? How does the stock and demand compare? Are there deals that feature these items?

I'd have to do more research to see how accurate these projections are, but on the surface of it, I'm pretty skeptical.

BONUS ARTICLE: http://www.engadget.com/2008/11/28/doorbusting-at-long-island-walmart-leads-to-workers-death/

What is wrong with people?

According to an IBM report, consumers with iPads made up 10% of all online shopping over the 2012 "Black Friday" consumer binge. This is an interesting statistic, but there's not a lot of context. It's unclear how much of this traffic translates to actual purchases. It also mentions people who shopped in-store while checking prices online on their mobile devices at the same time. How was this tracked? How accurate is their tracking method? What sites were they checking? How did this affect their purchasing?

This report seems to generate more questions than it answers.

Fitch is the first major ratings agency to downgrade Sony this low, although earlier this month the Moody's agency lowered Sony to just one notch above junk. "

If you do some research into Sony's business you may find some surprising things. For one, their entire company has been kept afloat due to their video game division. Now that sales are down for them, the entire company is in trouble. It raises some interesting questions though. With this knowledge available for several years, why haven't they done anything to remedy the situation? Ah, the unheeded benefits of research.

This article reminded me of the example in class where you had to look at more than just the numbers that stand out - such as the overall sample size. While the report says that gamers are spending less money on average, the number of gamers paying to play software is going up, resulting in a net gain overall. There's also a breakdown by platform of choice. The thing I didn't see covered by the report is that the "non-paying" gamers really only exist outside of the console market. Console game developers have been saying for some time that the glut of "disposable" free games on mobile and tablet devices will hurt the industry in the long-term by devaluing software in the minds of consumers. Whether or not such claims are accurate are difficult to determine without looking more closely at multiple factors, such as the rising average age of gamers and the amount of spending as it relates to available leisure time.

Either way, it's an interesting industry to watch!

I think images like these help to present research information in an interesting and readable way.

I thought this article was a good example of empirical data collected via research being used in a way that tries to help the planet - but still manages to make it about money.

With smaller countries using Twitter as a way to threaten each other over Twitter, it's exciting to think that future generations will be able to see exactly what was said between parties and how that effected relations and events on the world stage.

Since the Library of Congress records every tweet, there will be public records of everything that goes on between these militant social networkers.

http://wallstreetpit.com/97881-research-in-motion-rimm-upgraded-could-be-a-43-stock-in-12-months/

As I read this article, I muse musingly to myself that it might as well be in another language. This is clearly not written for "laypeople" and as I'm already not invested in it at all, the chore of gleaning any useful meaning from it is outside the scope of trying to tie it in to lessons from class. Except maybe ensuring your message is tailored for the audience who will be viewing it.

A professional musician who uses Pandora to get her music out there is demanding a way to be able to acquire data on her audience. Rather than offering to pay for these additional services, she wants it to be a mandatory part of the royalties she already receives from Pandora. I think this has interesting and potentially troublesome implications for existing data collection analysts - their brand awareness is so low for the general population that their services are being requested from their clients.

I personally think there could be some hilarious and effective marketing using the .XXX domain for a university though!

I get these emails from a survey site. I used to do a lot of them, but recently the "promised reward amount" is now basically a lie to try and get more responses.

In the last few surveys I've completed, I will spend 15-20 minutes answering fairly comprehensive questions. At a certain point the survey will inform me that "thanks anyways, but you aren't eligible for the entire survey. Your account will be awarded partial reward credit". There is no indication why I'm not eligible, and a $4 survey will give you around 10 cents. By doing this repeatedly it has negatively influenced my opinion of the represented brands in the questionnaires, despite the blame likely falling on the E-Rewards site.

This article is tracking the Video Game Industry and is saying that this year will be one of the worst ever. It looks at a lot of the factors affecting the current market compared to last year, but it may not be looking at the whole picture.

Many analysts believe that the game industry is coming down from a temporary boom due to the rise of the casual game market. This market raised sales levels to unprecedented heights, but due to the transient nature of this type of consumer, the market is once again settling back down. In addition, the industry is currently nearing the end of one of the longest console cycles in history - the time near the end of one console before the next generation system launches.

Neither the article nor the research addresses whether or not the people clicking the Facebook voting link were already planning to vote. There's no real way to show that Facebook is directly responsible for getting "a third of a million" extra people to vote. There is simply no evidence that they wouldn't have voted if they hadn't seen the link on Facebook. It's reminiscent of the scenario from class with the computer software that was used by the three companies who saw increases in customers. There's no causal evidence.

The best thing to come of this article in my opinion is the term "social contagion" which I feel best describes Facebook.

Hmm.

As I became increasingly mystified by the research questions, I began amusing myself with some of the responses. Do I think of Barack Obama as tired? Do I think he's cold? Why yes, I'm pretty sure he fell asleep in a snowbank, now that you mention it. Also I am a Jedi.

This is related to our in-class discussion about questions making sense and also the perils of making questionnaires too long. Those filling them out get bored and your results suffer.

"24/7 Wall St. reviewed Interbrand's Top 100 Global Brands 2012 report, which measures the period from July 1, 2011, to June 30, 2012. Included in the valuation of each brand were the strength of the brand, the financial success of the parent company and the extent to which the brand plays a role in that company's success. 24/7 Wall St. also obtained the financials of each brand's parent company, including market share and company revenue."

This article talks about gains and losses sustained by these brands based on financial and market share changes. It's curious that they don't look at other implications, such as increased competition, research and development, or product launch dates.

It's definitely an interesting article, but I don't think it gives the whole picture for these brands, many of which have a whole host of factors that determine their brand value.