Page Title: Social Media Marketing 4 Business | Thoughts on Social Media, Innovation, and Higher Education

  • This webpage makes use of the TITLE meta tag - this is good for search engine optimization.

Page Description: Thoughts on Social Media, Innovation, and Higher Education

  • This webpage makes use of the DESCRIPTION meta tag - this is good for search engine optimization.

Page Keywords:

  • This webpage DOES NOT make use of the KEYWORDS meta tag - whilst search engines nowadays do not put too much emphasis on this meta tag including them in your website does no harm.

Page Text: I tweeted the Superbowl commercials for my social media classes #SMM4RU and for Wharton Future of Advertising #WhartonFOA. I am glad that I did, as I might not have stayed for the fourth quarter heroics otherwise! I rated the four worst commercials as: T-Mobile: 50 shades of stupid T-Mobile: 50 shades of stupid II KFC Gold: I didn’t understand the message and didn’t care Busch: When you swallow those bubbles they have to leave somewhere… 50 shades of gray wasn’t really that cool two years ago. And the SuperBowl is still family programming. What was it like to explain those ads to your 10-year-old? My takeaway: Verizon is DOMINANT and T-Mobile is desperate. Maybe Busch should have teamed up with Fabrese…. There were two commercials that really attracted my attention,  but whose sponsor I cannot remember. Who was the domain company for JohnMalkovich? Who brought up the issue of 4 years of bad hair? I appreciate the entertainment, but there may be a problem with an ad if I find it memorable but don’t know the sponsor. Finally, who were the worst performers as companies? I argue that two stand out: Anheiser-Busch: by my reckoning with three expensive fails: Busch – passing wind; Spuds M. – back from the dead (eerie but not a zombie); and Roots – the guy who founded our company before his offspring ran it into the ground and sold to foreigners… came over from Europe (a current issue, get it)? T-Moble: We are being dominated but don’t like it. The Justin Bieber commercial seemed to appeal to some viewers, though. Mark Schaefer posted an article that called the A-B Roots ad “pandering .” I had been considering it an ineffective example of newsjacking, but I think pandering works better. How can major companies spend 8 (or 9?) figures sums on efforts like this? I should note that there is certainly room for disagreement. ABC News declared that Budweiser and T-Mobile were among the winners of the Superbowl. The companies – and their ad agencies – pouring over the analytics will have the best sense of what worked. So what do you think? Did I leave a deserving bad one out of this discussion?? Join the discussion on #WhartonFOA next year…

  • This webpage has 352 words which is between the recommended minimum of 250 words and the recommended maximum of 2500 words - GOOD WORK.

Header tags:

  • It appears that you are using header tags - this is a GOOD thing!

Spelling errors:

  • This webpage has 6 words which may be misspelt.

Possibly mis-spelt word: really

Suggestion: really
Suggestion: rally
Suggestion: regally
Suggestion: realty
Suggestion: re ally
Suggestion: re-ally

Possibly mis-spelt word: Bieber

Suggestion: Bier

Possibly mis-spelt word: SMM4RU

Possibly mis-spelt word: Schaefer

Suggestion: Schrieffer

Possibly mis-spelt word: JohnMalkovich

Possibly mis-spelt word: WhartonFOA

Suggestion: Wharton

Broken links:

  • This webpage has 2 broken links.

Broken image links:

  • This webpage has no broken image links that we can detect - GOOD WORK.

CSS over tables for layout?:

  • It appears that this page uses DIVs for layout this is a GOOD thing!

Last modified date:

  • It appears that this page was updated on the Sunday, April 17, 2022 which is within the last thirty days - this is a GOOD thing!

Images that are being re-sized:

  • This webpage has no images that are being re-sized by the browser - GOOD WORK.

Images that are being re-sized:

  • This webpage has no images that are missing their width and height - GOOD WORK.

Mobile friendly:

  • After testing this webpage it appears to be mobile friendly - this is a GOOD thing!

Links with no anchor text:

  • This webpage has no links that are missing anchor text - GOOD WORK.

W3C Validation:

Print friendly?:

  • It appears that the webpage does NOT use CSS stylesheets to provide print functionality - this is a BAD thing.

GZIP Compression enabled?:

  • It appears that the serrver does NOT have GZIP Compression enabled - this is a NOT a good thing!