Definitely check out Deezer: http://deezer.com. I've been using it for years. Good selection, fast downloads, gift cards - it's probably got everything you need.
The issue isn't so much about which marketing channel works best (i.e. traditional vs digital) but about the psychological levers of persuassion. People don't like "conversing" and "engaging" with brands. That's why social media doesn't work. Social media is supposed to be social and not commercial.
As the article said, it's low cognitive involvement that works best, not brand loyalty. That's why advertisers are using the Low Attention Processing Model.[1] With this particular advertising strategy, brand information is 'acquired' at low and even zero attention levels using implicit learning.[2] Implicit learning cannot analyse or re-interpret anything. The information goes directly to the subconscious mind.
If so, then we are silently influenced by ambient images and messages around us. Advertisers could be affecting our decision making and even outlook on life in ways we can't perceive. This has been the driving inspiration for these posters I designed: http://subliminalzen.com.
Essentially, if anyone is going to advertise to my subconscious mind, it's going to be me. And I'd rather acquire positive habits and character traits than an emotional connection to a product.
It's not just psychological research that is deeply flawed. Only a quarter of scientific drug research is successfully reproduced as well.[1]
Carl Jung claimed one of the chief factors responsible for mass brainwashing is scientific rationality.[2] Society worships the Goddess of Reason while frowning down on "irrational" and non-verifiable religious testimony.
Now that science is proven to be systemically corrupt, what will "rational" people base their understanding on?
Definitely consider BlackBerry's Passport. It's a fantastic phone. Lots of screen real estate for reading e-books and spreadsheets. And it runs Android apps (using 1Mobile Market, Amazon App Store or a half dozen other portals).
If multiple software companies have successfully trademarked the exact same single word, does that matter or not? (They're all sharing it already.)
Yes. As someone who owns a trademark, I can tell you it does matter. Pick a new name.
I would guess that all of these matter by degree, and potential trouble only depends on an adversary's willingness to litigate, but am hoping for some help or guidance in what is a complicated (and frustrating) aspect of our business.
Trademark owners must defend their trademarks against infringement. Expect litigation, every time.
By using the exonerative voice, a liar avoids committing to a particular narrative. They can easily back away from a statement by saying "I only said baggage is subject to being searched. I didn't say they were searched."
That said, I don't think the exonerated voice is a particularly skillful one. A careful listener can easily pick up on that.
But then there is the "grimace index" experiment, where scientists at McGill University in Montreal tortured mice, increasing the amounts of pain to measure facial expressions.
There was a public outcry, but the researchers still got plenty of citations.
Actually, what happens isn't much different than a magician's slight of hand. The eyes are drawn to the underlying image, thereby suspending the critical faculties of the mind and creating an opportunity for implicit learning.
Thinking Fast and Slow is one of my favorite books. Read it twice!