Bangalore: Twitter has come out with an intelligent way for the social networking savvy to check their tweets all the time without actually looking at twitter. The replies feature has been updated and is referred as mentions.
In the Twitter sidebar, the users will see their own @username tab and after clicking on it, they will see a list of all tweets with a reference to their account with the @username convention instead of only at the beginning, which is how it worked in the past.
The users will receive a notification by an account they follow whenever they get mentioned. This latest feature, known as push notifications, has been launched for @mentions. It enables the users to know every detail about what is happening regarding them on the site. The handset owners would be curious to know who spoke about them or to them. The conversation can be continued also by the users, as is revealed by the official twitter blog.
The latest version of Twitter for iPhone will initially send Notifications for @mentions through SMS. Those who need to download the latest variant of the app can head over to the App Store. Not to slip by, push notifications are also sent for Messages to Twitter for iPhone.
The Twitter blog elucidates the company is working on the Android and Windows Phone variant of this feature. Users may turn on SMS notifications by accessing twitter.com/devices and selecting Text message notifications, these notifications settings can be altered anytime, anywhere.
Bangalore: 'Don..." say Shah Rukh Khan, flipping open his stylish black Motorola cell phone. "Le zandu balm hui, darling tere liye" sings an irresistible Mallika in the hottest bollywood number of the year from Dabangg. With the protagonists using Apple laptops and drinking branded aerated drinks which are so covertly yet visibly placed at different scenes in story, brand placement in mainstream movies and TV soaps are no more unintentional depictions but a deliberate and strategic branding and marketing technique.
I may assert that you would have at least noticed Coke's perfect placement in Rang De Basanti or Marlboro's placement in 'Swadesh' (remember SRK asking heroine to hide the cigarette pack) or many mobile brands including Blackberry and Motorola featuring in many recent movies you have seen. If you think it's there just for the sake of being there or an accidental part of the script, you are probably wrong. Brand Placement in movies has been a gizmo devised and identified as a potential marketing tool during early 80's when Spielberg hid the alien from outer space inside Reese chocolates (for which the company paid later) in his landmark movie 'E.T'. And with the new concept in India's advertising world that is gaining traction, the 360-degree marketing, one may wonder while watching the recent Bollywood movie 'We are family' why plastic tubs seem to feature as much as the celebrities who star in it. Two-thirds of the film was shot in a kitchen made by German kitchen brand Poggenpohl for which the film's budget got paid of course.
The common practice of doing 30 second or one minute ads in Indian channels doesn't seem to be doing its trick in the market clutter ( come on, Indians have enough choices on channels and technologies to skip through). And advertisers have moved to films and TV soaps where they can display their brand which cannot be ignored in the process of viewing. While a few brands like Nike gets there product placed in movies at no cost by supplying goods like shoes, bags, jackets etc to the movie company, some other brands get the script tailor made for placing their products. Technology brands like Apple have been doing this kind of a 360 degree branding in umpteen numbers of Hollywood movies. Tracing back, one can find that Apple have been doing brand placements in movies all the way like Independence Day (1996), Fight Club (1999), Sex and the City (1998-2004)etc.
So how does this really work? Sometimes a brand placement simply happens. Sometimes it's arranged, and a certain amount of the product serves as compensation and sometimes it's arranged, and there is financial compensation. Usual kind of deal is a simple exchange of the product for the placement. For example, the production team wants lead actor to display a quirky affinity for a particular type of beverage. This will come across rather strongly over the course of the program which means the chosen product could get a lot of air time. So the production people approach a particular beverage company folks with a proposal and a deal is made; in exchange for the airtime, the cast and crew are provided with an ample supply of the beverage at work. Now you remember Hritik drinking a lot of Bournvita in the Movie 'Krish' right?
So what should the audience do? Nothing, simply grab your popcorn, lay back on the seat and enjoy the movie. Feel happy when you spot the brands as they appear with or around your favorite celebrities and as the marketers expect, recall them at the point of purchase. Or maybe you can rate them with a Filmfare award for the best brand that starred in recent movies later.
I may assert that you would have at least noticed Coke's perfect placement in Rang De Basanti or Marlboro's placement in 'Swadesh' (remember SRK asking heroine to hide the cigarette pack) or many mobile brands including Blackberry and Motorola featuring in many recent movies you have seen. If you think it's there just for the sake of being there or an accidental part of the script, you are probably wrong. Brand Placement in movies has been a gizmo devised and identified as a potential marketing tool during early 80's when Spielberg hid the alien from outer space inside Reese chocolates (for which the company paid later) in his landmark movie 'E.T'. And with the new concept in India's advertising world that is gaining traction, the 360-degree marketing, one may wonder while watching the recent Bollywood movie 'We are family' why plastic tubs seem to feature as much as the celebrities who star in it. Two-thirds of the film was shot in a kitchen made by German kitchen brand Poggenpohl for which the film's budget got paid of course.
The common practice of doing 30 second or one minute ads in Indian channels doesn't seem to be doing its trick in the market clutter ( come on, Indians have enough choices on channels and technologies to skip through). And advertisers have moved to films and TV soaps where they can display their brand which cannot be ignored in the process of viewing. While a few brands like Nike gets there product placed in movies at no cost by supplying goods like shoes, bags, jackets etc to the movie company, some other brands get the script tailor made for placing their products. Technology brands like Apple have been doing this kind of a 360 degree branding in umpteen numbers of Hollywood movies. Tracing back, one can find that Apple have been doing brand placements in movies all the way like Independence Day (1996), Fight Club (1999), Sex and the City (1998-2004)etc.
So how does this really work? Sometimes a brand placement simply happens. Sometimes it's arranged, and a certain amount of the product serves as compensation and sometimes it's arranged, and there is financial compensation. Usual kind of deal is a simple exchange of the product for the placement. For example, the production team wants lead actor to display a quirky affinity for a particular type of beverage. This will come across rather strongly over the course of the program which means the chosen product could get a lot of air time. So the production people approach a particular beverage company folks with a proposal and a deal is made; in exchange for the airtime, the cast and crew are provided with an ample supply of the beverage at work. Now you remember Hritik drinking a lot of Bournvita in the Movie 'Krish' right?
So what should the audience do? Nothing, simply grab your popcorn, lay back on the seat and enjoy the movie. Feel happy when you spot the brands as they appear with or around your favorite celebrities and as the marketers expect, recall them at the point of purchase. Or maybe you can rate them with a Filmfare award for the best brand that starred in recent movies later.
Category:
0
comments
Bangalore: As we celebrate the 20th anniversary of H -1B visas it is always good to turn back and see what the country has benefited out of it. The H -1B discussion is always heated and sometimes even worse ' when it turns racist, elitist, subjective or just plain ugly. Even though recent reports say that H -1B visas may soon become a dream for the Indian techies still the Indian companies weep over it.The spark of hope during the recent Obama's visit which died down in hours show where is H -1B heading towards.
If you look back towards when the Congress government created the H-1B visa program, 20 years ago it sent the American IT industry into uncharted territory from which it has yet to emerge. The U.S. had an H-1 visa for foreign nationals with "distinguished merit and ability" prior to 1990, but that year, in response to warnings of an emerging "skills gap" or "skills mismatch" among U.S. engineering and technology professionals, thus the government broadened the scope of the visa.
But during the recent visa controversies Bernie Sanders, Senator from Vermont said, "The very least we can do is to make sure that banks receiving a taxpayer bailout are not allowed to import "cheaper labor" from overseas while they are laying off American workers." Over the 20 years has this lost its shine? Isn't H1B visa a skilled job visa? How can it be Cheap labor visa?
The benefits of U.S. on the H1B are a plain truth that is known to everyone. They are able to get substantially higher work quality at lower rates, more spending in U.S. hence the movement of currency etc. Since the Indian companies work on a contract basis the U.S. companies don't have to worry about the perks much.
If you look at the Indian scenario IT professionals who have been displaced from their jobs because of offshore outsourcing believe that the H-1B visa has made government a complicit partner in the shift of jobs. They maintain that the H-1B visa and offshoring have become inextricably linked, with offshore companies placing H-1B workers in client sites in the U.S. with the intention of ultimately transferring the work overseas.
Rahul Narayan an Indian techie who went to U.S. on an H- 1B visa and later shifted to a U.S. firm says that majority of the Indians prefer to shift their jobs to U.S. firms since they offer you better pay and other facilities. Employees prefer their comfort rather than being nationalist. Such a way H-1B visas are really helpful to the Indians.
Beside the Indian companies' benefits through the revenue generated from these onsite positions and the little improved spending power, has Indian economy achieved anything out of it is a matter of a question now. Can we say that some of these 'gains' are not really concessions by the U.S.? It is true that 20 years is late for analyzing it but it is always good to mourn over something that is beneficial to all of us. Should we mourn for a 'cheap labor visa' anymore?
If you look back towards when the Congress government created the H-1B visa program, 20 years ago it sent the American IT industry into uncharted territory from which it has yet to emerge. The U.S. had an H-1 visa for foreign nationals with "distinguished merit and ability" prior to 1990, but that year, in response to warnings of an emerging "skills gap" or "skills mismatch" among U.S. engineering and technology professionals, thus the government broadened the scope of the visa.
But during the recent visa controversies Bernie Sanders, Senator from Vermont said, "The very least we can do is to make sure that banks receiving a taxpayer bailout are not allowed to import "cheaper labor" from overseas while they are laying off American workers." Over the 20 years has this lost its shine? Isn't H1B visa a skilled job visa? How can it be Cheap labor visa?
The benefits of U.S. on the H1B are a plain truth that is known to everyone. They are able to get substantially higher work quality at lower rates, more spending in U.S. hence the movement of currency etc. Since the Indian companies work on a contract basis the U.S. companies don't have to worry about the perks much.
If you look at the Indian scenario IT professionals who have been displaced from their jobs because of offshore outsourcing believe that the H-1B visa has made government a complicit partner in the shift of jobs. They maintain that the H-1B visa and offshoring have become inextricably linked, with offshore companies placing H-1B workers in client sites in the U.S. with the intention of ultimately transferring the work overseas.
Rahul Narayan an Indian techie who went to U.S. on an H- 1B visa and later shifted to a U.S. firm says that majority of the Indians prefer to shift their jobs to U.S. firms since they offer you better pay and other facilities. Employees prefer their comfort rather than being nationalist. Such a way H-1B visas are really helpful to the Indians.
Beside the Indian companies' benefits through the revenue generated from these onsite positions and the little improved spending power, has Indian economy achieved anything out of it is a matter of a question now. Can we say that some of these 'gains' are not really concessions by the U.S.? It is true that 20 years is late for analyzing it but it is always good to mourn over something that is beneficial to all of us. Should we mourn for a 'cheap labor visa' anymore?
Category:
0
comments
