Follow-Ups: Social Media, 'Project Impact,' and Costco/Coca-Cola

A busy week on a number of topics we've addressed here before. There was an interesting article in UK's Observer titled "Facebook now has 350m users, and there's no point in advertising to them." The author notes that Facebook is ostensibly valued at $10 billion, but has only $500 million in revenue. Twitter is valued at $1 billion and has revenues of...zero.

We've debated online advertising often here, this writer thinks it's not effective, especially in social media:

The truth is that investing in social networking represents the triumph of hope over experience. The optimism comes from a feeling that it's impossible to gather, say, 350 million people in one place and not somehow make money. In the real world, one would charge them admission and sell them hot dogs and overpriced T-shirts. But that doesn't work in cyberspace. If Facebook started to charge for membership, its population would dwindle to the number of people who think that its services are worth paying for, probably not that many... ComScore also concluded that a hard core of 8% of all internet users, christened "Natural Born Clickers," are responsible for 85% of all banner clicks on the web. Everyone who uses the web has experienced the ineffectiveness of online advertising. If it's obtrusive, it's an irritant that gets between you and the content you're seeking and you hit the "Click here to skip this advertisement" button. If it's unobtrusive, you ignore it. Either way, it's ineffective.

Target's hometown paper did a mostly positive article on how Wal-Mart's Project Impact is reshaping the rival's stores.

The strategy aims not just to make stores look cleaner and more open, but to fine-tune vast product offerings and reframe the way Wal-Mart markets itself to consumers. In many ways, Wal-Mart has become more like its top competitor — Minneapolis-based Target Corp. The strategy comes at a key time. As the recession has widened, Wal-Mart has continued to outperform nearly all retailers, including Target, as well as stores that aim for a piece of its business, such as Best Buy, Toys 'R' Us and even smaller specialty chains such as Michaels crafts store. Now the fight is on to keep those shoppers.

The article notes that, while customers like the new look of the stores, and sales have been good (especially compared to retail as a whole), Wall Street seems unimpressed:

"No doubt, Wal-Mart is executing," said Lauri Brunner, an analyst who covers Wal-Mart and Target for Thrivent Investment Management in Minneapolis, who said the stores have "never looked better." But, stock prices indicate "Wal-Mart has been a big underperformer," Brunner said. "Wal-Mart doesn't win when everyone is fighting for the lowest price, as they are now. Wal-Mart wins when prices are going up and people want to go to the low-priced outlet." Wal-Mart's stock hit an all-time high of around $70 just before the beginning of this decade, and since then, it's been trapped mostly between $45 and $60 a share.

And a final note: Costco and Coca-Cola have declared a halt to their fight. No word yet on who gave up what to get the product back on the shelves.

"Our program aligns Coca-Cola's brand and package offerings with the needs of Costco's members in a way that is fair and equitable for both Costco and Coca-Cola," (a Coke spokesperson) said.