On the contrary, I think it is completely fine to learn for the sake of learning. It doesn't preclude future action, in fact, it greatly helps it. And at young age, with probably limited responsibilities? A no-brainer the way I see it.
What would you recommend I focus on? I personally work on compilers as part of research, so that's "focus". My current broad goal is to learn all the parts of math that I feel might wind up becoming useful for applied math in the next 50-60 years. So no arithmetic geometry, yes algebraic geometry.
The thing that blows my mind is how "influencers" will routinely be paid well into the six-figures for sharing a photo of themselves using a product, and apparently that's the most effective way for these brands to use their marketing budget.
You might be interested in reading the 1928 book "Propaganda" by Edward Bernays, the so-called "father of public relations". It describes at length how, among many other techniques, paid influencers are effective for making people value your product more (e.g. invite the top fashion blogger to wear your hat at an event, then the secondary influencers will take note, and then the proles will note after the secondary influencers, etc.). Quite creepy but eye-opening book.
What he probably did not predict is just how many of today's influencers are famous for very little besides getting paid for influencing.
I guess we all are a bit guilty of giving our attention in part because we'd like to be like those who receive it, and getting money for what others have to pay for, . It's most visible in networks with a follow/follow-back economy like Instagram, but bloggers, conference speakers, anywhere a personal brand has wider reach than friends and family.
Not saying ad spend on branding is a very optimised area in general - but the prices of billboards / tv ads etc are sky high and have a much lower degree of targeting. There is an assumption that their prospective and current customers will take note of the fact that the celeb is using their particular product and this will influence a purchase or reduce churn to a rival brand. It may be an effective channel for them.
Bonkers when you take a step back. But logical given the context.
Marketing departments have a budget and they have to spend it. The connection between A (spending the money) and B (people buying the product) doesn't have to be that well supported. A lot of advertising is just "brand awareness". A company wants their brand the last one you saw when you walk into a grocery store.
I suspect this is comparably easy to measure since it's often a single event? I know some YouTube sponsors do so because they see the traffic/sale spike, which lets them estimate the effect.
You may recall some books spiking up the best seller lists because Oprah recommended them.
In the case discussed here (celebrities pumping ICOs) it would be easy to manage because they likely have affiliate links or specific urls. Even without those, the ICO could watch incoming traffic over a certain time and see the spike of IG visitors after a post.
In my original comment, I was more referring to advertisement like Tide putting up a billboard. How do they know it works? Well, I'm sure they do market surveys "Have you seen this billboard?" but it's probably full of bias. But in the grand scheme of things, it's just for market awareness as I said. Keep Tide on the minds of consumers.
A single one-off photo or video of an influencer with a product would rarely if ever produce enough revenue to justify a 6 figure spend, even with the largest influencers (Selena Gomez, Ariana Grande, etc.). Those deals with high per-post prices are usually for several posts/videos/stories. For example, a $1 million deal for 10 posts spread out over a few weeks or months with someone that has a massive following may have a reasonable chance of generating positive ROI, while a one-off deal for $100K is almost certain to lose money. It isn't just the exposure that makes it effective, it's aligning the product with the influencer. Doing this dramatically improves the conversion rate among their followers. I'd much rather have a 10% conversion rate on an influencer with 10K followers than I would want to have a 0.5% conversion rate on someone with 100K followers. I'll spend far less on the 10K media buy, and make twice the revenue.
Dan Bilzerian, for example, generated over $500K in marijuana prodct sales on black Friday, largely because of his social media posts. But he has aligned his entire Instagram account and his perceived lifestyle around the brand (he owns the company). That figure represents the culmination of months of posts surrounding his brand of marijuana products. The same with Kylie Cosmetics - it has become something that Kylie Jenner is synonymous with.
Due to their lawsuit with FB in the USA. I imagine those documents were obtained by court order. Pretty bold move by the UK gov. Looking forward to the leakage of said documents.
This wasn't the UK government, though, but Parliament through its Commons Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee.
Parliament doesn't allow government ministers to be members of parliamentary committees, only backbenchers, as Committees are one of the main ways that Parliament holds the government to account.
In American usage, "the government" is the totality of the body which exercises sovereign authority. All MPs, minister or backbencher, are part of the government, because Parliament is a government body. Similarly, any official action by any part of Parliament is an action of the British government.
In British usage, the government is strictly the executive. We don't have formal separation of powers, and the courts and Parliament are very clear they aren't part of the government. You can see this from Parliament's insistence on using 'parliament.uk' rather than .gov.uk, and the judges similarly with judiciary.uk.
Bluntly, Parliament is Parliament. (Her Majesty's) Government overlaps it, but is not the same. The DCMS committee in particular scrutinises government, but isn't part of it. I guess you could describe Parliament as being able to exercise (a few) State powers, but they really aren't a branch of government on the US theory.
In the UK context the government is a body of Parliament, not the other way around.
A committee is not of government as it will include MPs from all sides, and seeks non-partisan balance no matter which party is currently in government. The Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee currently has 5 members from each of the main parties and one from the LibDems.
Committees can, at times, be quite strident in their criticism of government.
I believe it's normal to use the language of the context/subject, that a brand new Congressman is part of the US government but the chairman of a Parliament select committee isn't. Other times that chairmain could be considered part of the government, such as when he follows the whip on a vote.
It's normal for everyone to use their own language. We refer to the Chinese government, not the Chinese zhengfu. And the same criteria that let us know that the Chinese "全国人大" is part of a "government", despite the Chinese preferring not to use that word, also let us know that the British "Parliament" is part of a "government", despite the British preferring not to use that word.
I would say people like me who have serially owned Macs are the MOST disappointed with the new design choices. It really seems like Apple is losing their vision with these "innovations"
Like a pressure release valve for Mark and Sheryl. I do think the pressure for Mark to step aside will grow stronger in the coming year. Even though the class structure prevents a hostile removal, the social pressure will be substantial.
