Mediaboss Marketing

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla., June 13, 2012 /PRNewswire/ -- MMAX Media, Inc. (MMAX) is pleased to announce that PayMeOn has been selected by Foss Manufacturing for the launch of its Antimicrobially-Protected Baby Blanket. According to Ed Cespedes, CEO of MMAX and PayMeOn, "We are very pleased that a Company of Foss' stature recognizes the value of the PayMeOn platform. Mothers are especially passionate about sharing great products on the PayMeOn platform and we think this product is special. To learn more about the Foss Antimicrobially-Protected Baby Blanket launch, please visit: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/12/idUS119742+12-Jun-2012+BW20120612.

The PayMeOn presentation completed on Thursday, May 31, 2012 at 5:00 pm EST can be viewed here: http://paymeon.com/05.31.12%20PayMeOn%20Presentation.pdf . We encourage investors and customers to review the presentation carefully and in its entirety, which highlights the business strategy and current milestones, including:

Forward-Looking Statements

The statements in this press release that relate to the Company's future expectations are "forward-looking statements" within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These statements are subject to risks and uncertainties. Words such as "expects," "intends," "plans," "may," "could," "should," "anticipates," "likely," "believes" and words of similar import also identify forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements are based on current facts and analyses and other information that are based on forecasts of future results, estimates of amounts not yet determined and assumptions of management. Readers are urged not to place undue reliance on the forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date of this release since they involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors which are, in some cases, beyond our control and which could, and likely will, materially affect actual results, levels of activity, performance or achievements. We assume no obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements in order to reflect any event or circumstance that may arise after the date of this release, even if new information becomes available in the future. Additional information on risks and other factors that may affect the business and financial results of MMAX Media, Inc. can be found in the filings of MMAX Media, Inc. with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Contact:

MMAX Media, Inc. Investor Relations: 1-800-991-4534 ext 101

http://www.paymeondeals.com http://www.paymeonmerchants.com

Continued here:
MMAX Media Selected as Exclusive Launch Partner by Foss Manufacturing; Highlights Recent Data Presented to Public on ...

The hot media marketing strategy of the moment: land the rights to new Internet domain names.

Several major media corporations spent big on applications for new generic Top Level Domains, including three of the four American broadcast networks, the BBC and the Boston Globe, according to documents released Wednesday by ICANN. Included in the massive list of more than 1,900 applications released by ICANN on its "Reveal Day were submissions for .abc, .cbs, .fox, .hbo, .bbc, .boston and .showtime by the relevant companies. Guardian News & Media, the London-based publisher, spent the most, applying for four gTLDs: .guardian, .guardianmedia, .observer and .theguardian. Xinhua, the Chinese state news agency, applied for two gTLDs in Chinese characters.

Most are defensive registrations, said Ron Jackson, publisher of the domain name trade publication DN Journal. Any of them would be crazy to move off the .com, but I could see them using their next brand extensions for specialized marketing campaigns and that sort of thing. A lot of major corporations, including Internet companies, did not see the need to own their brand name as a domain extension. Facebook did not apply for .facebook or any other TLDs.

The companies gave clues in their applications about how they might use the new domain names. Several suggested that they might use them internally as a safer, more secure way for the particular company to use the Internet.

ABC wrote that it might have a Revenge.ABC domain featuring new and/or promotional show content with an easy-to-remember domain name address. Fox suggested that Simpsons.fox and Avatar.fox may be coming soon, telling ICANN that it might use the .fox name for characters, news anchors or other individuals associated with the Fox Businesses, e.g., MARGESIMPSON.FOX, BILLOREILLY.FOX. CBS laid out a four stage rollout of .cbs and .showtime. The company would begin by using them internally, perhaps following up with strategies to potentially migrate traffic to CBS Domains new gTLDs, .CBS and .SHOWTIME. If it works,it may begin pushingits Web traffic away fromits .com sites, the company said. The applications also provided some insight into how these companies view their old-world assets in the digital age. ABC, for instance, wrote: Although it is unknown how the mobile-computer-TV viewing model will evolve, the company believes a crucial component of marketing and consuming ABC content will continue to involve and be built upon internet models and protocols.

Of all the media companies, HBO came closest to confirming Jackson's hunch about defensive strategies. Inits application, the company wrote that its top reason to get .HBO is to secure the renowned HBO brand in this new Internet space to ensure that only applicant and its affiliates are able to register and control the second-level domain names in the .HBO TLD.

Several big media companies NBC, CNN, NPR, The New York Times, The Associated Press, Reuters and Time did not apply for new domain names.

The Guardians efforts could run into some trouble. U.S.-based Guardian Life Insurance Company has also applied for the .Guardian gTLD. If the two companies cannot come to some agreement, they may duke it out in an auction that could escalate the price. Applying for the .Guardian Top Level Domain falls squarely within Guardian News & Medias transformation into a digital-first organization, arepresentative told POLITICO in a statement.

This article first appeared on POLITICO Pro at 2:53 p.m. on June 13, 2012.

Read more here:
Media sites seek new domain names

Media affects us in interesting and not always straightfoward ways. Image: Flickr/mike@bensalem cc license

Usually when scientists wonder if something affects something else, they set up a randomized control trial some people get stuff and some people get not stuff and then they watch with bated breath and spreadsheets to see how these two groups differ. But you cant exactly prescribe a long-term course of more, less or even different media (for one thing, people who stick to the program are just too naturally different from those who wont to make any results meaningful). And so instead of randomized control trials, scientists are increasingly turning to natural experiments to explore things like long-term media consumption that you cant approximate in the lab or prescribe in life. These natural experiments just happen to split people into stuff and not stuff groups, without researchers doing the splitting.

One of the pioneers of this approach is UCSD economist Gordon Dahl. I interviewed Dahl about one of his natural experiments the data-driven observation that an unexpected home-team football loss leads to a spike in domestic violence in the teams home city for my book, Brain Trust. A recent review by Dahl in the journal Family Relations uses the natural experiments to discover how media affects families.

For example, Dahl points to a study showing that due to the happenstance of Indonesias topography, some villages have better TV signal strength than others. Independent of how far these villages were from major cities, or any other factor the researchers could imagine, citizens of cities with better TV signals had less involvement in community organizations. The papers somewhat doomsday title is Do Television and Radio Destroy Social Capital?

On the flip side, take a similar study of 180 villages in India researchers watched as some of these villages got cable television for the first time. And as cities got this digital view of the wider world, acceptance of domestic violence decreased, women experienced more autonomy and the be-cabled villages had lower fertility rates than their otherwise equal but de-cabled counterparts. This papers decidedly more upbeat title is Cable Television Raises Womens Status in India.

So the amount of media we consume certainly affects us in interesting and not always straightforward ways. But what about the content of the media we watch?

Well, in 2005 the Brazilian network Rede Globo produced nearly all of the countrys soap operas. But some parts of the country had Rede Globo and others didnt. Dahl points to a study showing that as communities got soap operas, their rates of divorce rose and their rates of fertility dropped. Children born in Rede Globo communities were much more likely to share characters names. And those dropping fertility rates? While they dropped among all young women in the viewing demographic, they dropped most among women closest in age to the soap operas main characters any given year.

So how does media exposure affect families in the United States? To answer that question, Dahl points to a recent study that looked at the intelligence of kids as television became available in U.S. counties in the 1940s and 1950s. Due to the random introduction of television, some kids had more years of exposure than others like a serendipitous randomized control trial, some kids got stuff and some kids got not stuff and there was no measurable difference between the groups except for stuff, which in this case was TV.

As youd expect it turned out that TV rots kids brains.

Actually thats not true at all. Dahl writes that, each additional year of childhood exposure to television increased test scores during adolescence by 0.02 percent of a standard deviation.

More here:
Natural Experiments Show Media's Effects on Families

SiriusXM has filed a request with the FCC, asking the Commission to reject Liberty Media's latest attempt for approval of control over the satcaster. According to The Wall Street Journal, yesterday SiriusXM asked the FCC to once again reject a filing from John Malone's company, which asked theCommission on May 31to reconsider its original rejection of the plan to take control of the company by gradually acquiring a majority of its stock.

In its filing yesterday, SiriusXM said Liberty's filing "attempts to create the impression that Liberty Media has firmly committed itself to take control of Sirius XM. However, it provides no specific proposal on how or when Liberty Media intends to do so." According to the WSJ, SiriusXM added thatLiberty's petition "offers nothing more than a refined menu of options for how Liberty Media might assume control of Sirius."

The filing continues, saying that Liberty"still has not stated definitively that it will convert its" preferred stock, initiate a proxy contest or buy more stock in the open market. "Liberty Media's inaction speaks louder than its words," SiriusXM concluded.

Read the original post:
SiriusXM Asks FCC To Reject Liberty Media Takeover Request

As weve mentioned a number of times, Twitter has been gradually tip-toeing further and further into the media business for some time now. It has already become a real-time newswire for many, a source of breaking news and commentary on live events, and now with the launch of curated hashtag pages like the one it launched late last week for a NASCAR event it is showing signs of becoming a full-fledged editorial operation. It may not be hiring investigative reporters, but the areas of overlap between what it does and what media companies do is growing, and so is its attractiveness to the advertisers that media entities desperately need to hang onto.

The NASCAR page may not seem like anything to be concerned about, since it appears to be just a typical grouping of tweets collected by hashtag. But there is editorial control behind it as well as algorithms, with an editor choosing which messages including photos, videos and commentary from NASCAR insiders were highlighted during the event, and which streamed by unacknowledged. And Twitter has made it clear that this kind of effort is not aimed primarily at brands (although it almost certainly will involve them at some point) but is intended for events. In other words, for the news.

Its easy to imagine a similar page constructed around a revolution in Libya, or an earthquake in Japan, or virtually any other news event. Would that be something that media companies could use to their advantage, or a competing service, or both? In some ways, it could be a much better, crowd-sourced version of Google News. Twitters efforts have at least one editor for a mainstream media outlet concerned for his job, and that of others like him in a blog post, Ross Neumann of Reuters says:

Twitter revolutionized journalism once before, and news organizations responded with the social media editor. Now it seems that the social media editor, the reaction to disruption, could be a victim of it.

Is Twitter trying to put media companies out of business, or even social-media editors? Probably not, at least not directly. But in a way, its formal intentions dont really even matter it could easily wind up doing so by accident, in the same way that Craig Newmark accidentally decimated one of the main cash cows of the media industry when he disrupted the classified advertising business. That wasnt his intention at all, but he accomplished it nevertheless.

Twitter clearly sees itself as a partner for media companies, which is probably part of the reason that CEO Dick Costolo often denies that the company is a media entity at all. And theres no question that using Twitter has been a boon for the media it allows reporters and writers to reach a much broader audience, it enables them to build their personal brand through direct engagement with readers, and so on. And new hires like editor Mark Luckie describe their jobs as helping media companies do that better:

@knash99 @AnnaTarkov I'll come up w/creative ways journalists use the platform, increase engagement and elevate Twitter use in newsrooms.

Thats all well and good, but there comes a point where a partner can start to look like a competitor if you tilt your head the right way, and I would argue that Twitter is nearing that point. Facebook is also a partner for media companies who use it to host their comments, or have brand pages there, or rely on the social network to promote their work through frictionless sharing apps. But at times it can seem as much like competition particularly for users attention as it does a partner.

Thats part of what I think blogging pioneer Dave Winer means when he warns that media companies should not see Twitter as their friend. To the extent that Twitter is offering news consumers of all kinds access to the information they want regardless of whether that information consists of user-generated content or links to other media outlets it is a competitor. And to the extent that it can offer better curation or aggregation or filtering or targeting of that content, it will win.

And that kind of targeting isnt just a threat to the information-management or journalistic aspects of the traditional media industry, as is every other digital-native media source such as The Huffington Post or Buzzfeed. It is also an arrow that is directed at the heart of the financial underpinnings of the traditional media business namely, advertising.

Link:
Why traditional media should be afraid of Twitter