Las nuevas comunidades inquietas e inteligentes

Partiendo de la base de que Internet es a nivel conceptual, de operación y comportamiento, una red de computadores interconectados, debemos incorporar a su definición que es al mismo tiempo un espacio para la articulación de conversaciones respecto de un sinnúmero, tal vez infinito, de tópicos. Entre sus potencialidades, Internet permite que las personas en el mundo real puedan conocerse, compartir experiencias, promover aprendizajes y trabajos colaborativos, usando esta red de redes para innumerables iniciativas.

Con el correr de los años y la disminución del valor de las tecnologías, un mayor número de personas puede compartir sus ideales comunes, surgiendo de manera cada vez más frecuentes los denominados Smart Mobs (www.smartmobs.com), o articulaciones sociales que usando estas plataformas tecnológicas, dispositivos móviles y redes inalámbricas, poseen un comportamiento “inteligente” gracias a la posibilidad de compartir la información disponible.

Estos movimientos ciudadanos se comportan como una campaña comunicacional en un target acotado y buscan organizar la vocería unificada de sus miembros en pro de un objetivo en común. De esa forma, los participantes naturalmente se sienten con el derecho de participar –técnica y comunicativamente- propagando sus mensajes y reclutando a quienes estimen, para que sean sus potenciales integrantes. En un Smart Mob entonces, no sería requisito que exista un líder formal, tal como en las organizaciones ciudadanas tradicionales (políticas, comunales, etc.), pudiendo cada integrante ejercer ese rol.

Otro factor que describe la creación de una movilización de este tipo, es su explosivo crecimiento y articulación gracias a la apertura de los códigos de programación y a las tecnologías de publicación de contenidos hoy disponibles. Los denominados Social Media, permiten a sus usuarios generar, publicar y sobre todo compartir contenido de manera asombrosamente sencilla, sin los conocimientos técnicos antes exclusivos de los miembros en el mundo de la programación computacional. Hoy en día generar un blog, un podcast o iniciar una creación de un documento en plataforma wiki, no toma más de 10 minutos, desde la intención hasta ver sus primeros resultados.

En un espacio de Social Media además, cada usuario generador de contenido puede citar la creación de otro y remezclarla, como lo hace un músico en un cover de otro artista. Puede incluso, crear colectivamente –o colaborativamente según la tecnología- en una lógica que habla de una inteligencia o sabiduría colectiva, tal como lo indica James Surovieki en The Wisdom of Crowds. Estas creaciones colectivas se plasman tanto a nivel discursivo como estético. Las ideas de un movimiento son discutidas por los participantes, su representación gráfica es producto de aportes y posterior elección de sus integrantes, siendo el resultado un manifiesto de una comunidad, respecto de un afán común.

En Chile, estos movimientos han surgido hasta ahora principalmente desde la comunidad tecnológica, cuando ésta ha tomado conocimiento de iniciativas gubernamentales que estarían diseñadas bajo la exclusiva lógica del mercado tradicional, a saber, programas de socialización y gasificación de las tecnologías que están articulados sólo por algunas marcas o representantes del mundo corporativo. Este rechazo nace por la masificada tendencia de compartir y presentar las alternativas más eficientes desde el punto de vista tecnológico. El movimiento Open Source, o de Código Abierto, que propende el desarrollo de programación computacional por parte de sus propios usuarios, es intrínsecamente un contrapunto al quehacer de las grandes corporaciones de software y hardware.

“Mi primer PC pero de verdad”, de agosto de 2005, surge como una de las primeras y espontáneas respuestas a la iniciativa del Gobierno llamada “Mi Primer PC”, para ofrecer un proyecto de computador a bajo precio, orientado a la familia, a fin de tender a disminuir la brecha digital. “Mi Primer PC” consideraba la unión de compañías de hardware y software –como Microsoft, Intel y Olidata- y grandes tiendas. Los equipos estaban instalados con software de Microsoft, como la enciclopedia Encarta Standard 2005, Picture lt 1.0, Cork 8.0 y con sistemas operativos como Microsoft (XP Home Edition o Starter Edition). La blogósfera chilena no se hizo esperar ante este anuncio y en sólo algunos días, “Mi Primer PC pero de Verdad” vio la luz. Organizado por un grupo de periodistas online y diseñadores, este Smart Mob articuló no sólo la creación de una imagen corporativa de la campaña ampliamente distribuida en los blogs chilenos, sino la entrega de más de 7.000 firmas en el Palacio de La Moneda. Además, generó una propuesta concreta en contraposición a la del gobierno, organizando un producto que competía con el de la autoridad, pero esta vez con Software de código abierto (Linux), con hardware de menor precio y además con un mejor rendimiento y performance de la máquina estacionaria. La iniciativa ciudadana fue capaz de mediatizar su proyecto y durante algunas semanas estuvo presente en la agenda de los medios de comunicación tradicionales, validándose como movimiento creado y articulado en Internet, pero con capacidad de intervenir una propuesta tecnológica del gobierno.

Hoy, cuando el Movimiento de Liberación Digital (www.liberaciondigital.org) -surgido el año 2007 a raíz de un eventual acuerdo entre Microsoft y el Gobierno de Chile para desarrollar gobierno digital y potenciales identidades online ciudadanas- gana cada día más peso político y como movimiento propiamente tal, es prudente pensar que marca un proceso de consolidación de los smartmobs chilenos.

Entonces, es cosa de esperar un camino sin retorno en esta nueva forma de participación ciudadana. Si bien hasta ahora estos movimientos se han suscrito a una comunidad muy ligada a las nuevas tecnologías, es esperable que en el futuro cercano, la lógica de los smartmobs se valore y se genere entre grupos humanos menos “geek”. Y, por ejemplo, sean acciones en defensa de los derechos del consumidor los proyectos ciudadanos que se generen espontáneamente, a través de un simple llamado desde un celular.

* Juan Pablo Tapia es Manager del Área Tecnología de Burson & Marsteller y docente del Magíster en Comunicación Aplicada & Diplomados de la Facultad de Comunicaciones de la Universidad del Desarrollo.

septiembre 15, 2008 at 9:16 pm Deja un comentario

World´s Best Presentation

Los chicos de Slideshare acaban de publicar los resultados del concurso a la mejor presentación. Bastante buena y tiene la virtud, al igual que las otras finalistas, de que es autopresentable. En 70 clicks queda bastante clara la idea. Aprovechando que hace una semana tuvimos una sesión de presentaciones efectivas, les dejo la ganadora de este año. 

Un simple click aquí para ver el Keynote
 

Saludos

septiembre 4, 2008 at 10:32 pm Deja un comentario

Es responsable Google de nuestra estupidez

Ayer estuvimos en una interesante discusión junto al Dr Cristóbal Cobo respecto al rol de Google en la web. Más allá de su funcionalidad para todos nosotros, revisamos el impacto sobre las conductas y hábitos, de esto hay un artículo muy interesante publicado por la revista The Atlantic denominado “IS GOOGLE MAKE US STUPID”, el cual queremos compartir con uds.

 

Dave, stop. Stop, will you? Stop, Dave. Will you stop, Dave?” So the supercomputer HAL pleads with the implacable astronaut Dave Bowman in a famous and weirdly poignant scene toward the end of Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey. Bowman, having nearly been sent to a deep-space death by the malfunctioning machine, is calmly, coldly disconnecting the memory circuits that control its artificial “ brain. “Dave, my mind is going,” HAL says, forlornly. “I can feel it. I can feel it.”

I can feel it, too. Over the past few years I’ve had an uncomfortable sense that someone, or something, has been tinkering with my brain, remapping the neural circuitry, reprogramming the memory. My mind isn’t going—so far as I can tell—but it’s changing. I’m not thinking the way I used to think. I can feel it most strongly when I’m reading. Immersing myself in a book or a lengthy article used to be easy. My mind would get caught up in the narrative or the turns of the argument, and I’d spend hours strolling through long stretches of prose. That’s rarely the case anymore. Now my concentration often starts to drift after two or three pages. I get fidgety, lose the thread, begin looking for something else to do. I feel as if I’m always dragging my wayward brain back to the text. The deep reading that used to come naturally has become a struggle.

I think I know what’s going on. For more than a decade now, I’ve been spending a lot of time online, searching and surfing and sometimes adding to the great databases of the Internet. The Web has been a godsend to me as a writer. Research that once required days in the stacks or periodical rooms of libraries can now be done in minutes. A few Google searches, some quick clicks on hyperlinks, and I’ve got the telltale fact or pithy quote I was after. Even when I’m not working, I’m as likely as not to be foraging in the Web’s info-thickets’reading and writing e-mails, scanning headlines and blog posts, watching videos and listening to podcasts, or just tripping from link to link to link. (Unlike footnotes, to which they’re sometimes likened, hyperlinks don’t merely point to related works; they propel you toward them.)

For me, as for others, the Net is becoming a universal medium, the conduit for most of the information that flows through my eyes and ears and into my mind. The advantages of having immediate access to such an incredibly rich store of information are many, and they’ve been widely described and duly applauded. “The perfect recall of silicon memory,” Wired’s Clive Thompson has written, “can be an enormous boon to thinking.” But that boon comes at a price. As the media theorist Marshall McLuhan pointed out in the 1960s, media are not just passive channels of information. They supply the stuff of thought, but they also shape the process of thought. And what the Net seems to be doing is chipping away my capacity for concentration and contemplation. My mind now expects to take in information the way the Net distributes it: in a swiftly moving stream of particles. Once I was a scuba diver in the sea of words. Now I zip along the surface like a guy on a Jet Ski.

I’m not the only one. When I mention my troubles with reading to friends and acquaintances—literary types, most of them—many say they’re having similar experiences. The more they use the Web, the more they have to fight to stay focused on long pieces of writing. Some of the bloggers I follow have also begun mentioning the phenomenon. Scott Karp, who writes a blog about online media, recently confessed that he has stopped reading books altogether. “I was a lit major in college, and used to be [a] voracious book reader,” he wrote. “What happened?” He speculates on the answer: “What if I do all my reading on the web not so much because the way I read has changed, i.e. I’m just seeking convenience, but because the way I THINK has changed?”

Bruce Friedman, who blogs regularly about the use of computers in medicine, also has described how the Internet has altered his mental habits. “I now have almost totally lost the ability to read and absorb a longish article on the web or in print,” he wrote earlier this year. A pathologist who has long been on the faculty of the University of Michigan Medical School, Friedman elaborated on his comment in a telephone conversation with me. His thinking, he said, has taken on a “staccato” quality, reflecting the way he quickly scans short passages of text from many sources online. “I can’t read War and Peace  anymore,” he admitted. “I’ve lost the ability to do that. Even a blog post of more than three or four paragraphs is too much to absorb. I skim it.”

Anecdotes alone don’t prove much. And we still await the long-term neurological and psychological experiments that will provide a definitive picture of how Internet use affects cognition. But a recently published study of online research habits , conducted by scholars from University College London, suggests that we may well be in the midst of a sea change in the way we read and think. As part of the five-year research program, the scholars examined computer logs documenting the behavior of visitors to two popular research sites, one operated by the British Library and one by a U.K. educational consortium, that provide access to journal articles, e-books, and other sources of written information. They found that people using the sites exhibited “a form of skimming activity,” hopping from one source to another and rarely returning to any source they’d already visited. They typically read no more than one or two pages of an article or book before they would “bounce” out to another site. Sometimes they’d save a long article, but there’s no evidence that they ever went back and actually read it. The authors of the study report:

 

 It is clear that users are not reading online in the traditional sense; indeed there are signs that new forms of “reading” are emerging as users “power browse” horizontally through titles, contents pages and abstracts going for quick wins. It almost seems that they go online to avoid reading in the traditional sense.

 

Thanks to the ubiquity of text on the Internet, not to mention the popularity of text-messaging on cell phones, we may well be reading more today than we did in the 1970s or 1980s, when television was our medium of choice. But it’s a different kind of reading, and behind it lies a different kind of thinking—perhaps even a new sense of the self. “We are not only what we read,” says Maryanne Wolf, a developmental psychologist at Tufts University and the author of Proust and the Squid: The Story and Science of the Reading Brain. “We are how we read.” Wolf worries that the style of reading promoted by the Net, a style that puts “efficiency” and “immediacy” above all else, may be weakening our capacity for the kind of deep reading that emerged when an earlier technology, the printing press, made long and complex works of prose commonplace. When we read online, she says, we tend to become “mere decoders of information.” Our ability to interpret text, to make the rich mental connections that form when we read deeply and without distraction, remains largely disengaged.

Reading, explains Wolf, is not an instinctive skill for human beings. It’s not etched into our genes the way speech is. We have to teach our minds how to translate the symbolic characters we see into the language we understand. And the media or other technologies we use in learning and practicing the craft of reading play an important part in shaping the neural circuits inside our brains. Experiments demonstrate that readers of ideograms, such as the Chinese, develop a mental circuitry for reading that is very different from the circuitry found in those of us whose written language employs an alphabet. The variations extend across many regions of the brain, including those that govern such essential cognitive functions as memory and the interpretation of visual and auditory stimuli. We can expect as well that the circuits woven by our use of the Net will be different from those woven by our reading of books and other printed works.

Sometime in 1882, Friedrich Nietzsche bought a typewriter—a Malling-Hansen Writing Ball, to be precise. His vision was failing, and keeping his eyes focused on a page had become exhausting and painful, often bringing on crushing headaches. He had been forced to curtail his writing, and he feared that he would soon have to give it up. The typewriter rescued him, at least for a time. Once he had mastered touch-typing, he was able to write with his eyes closed, using only the tips of his fingers. Words could once again flow from his mind to the page.

But the machine had a subtler effect on his work. One of Nietzsche’s friends, a composer, noticed a change in the style of his writing. His already terse prose had become even tighter, more telegraphic. “Perhaps you will through this instrument even take to a new idiom,” the friend wrote in a letter, noting that, in his own work, his “‘thoughts’ in music and language often depend on the quality of pen and paper.”

agosto 26, 2008 at 1:13 pm Deja un comentario

Nuevos Diplomados UDD

A partir de este segundo semestre, la Facultad de Comunicaciones de la Universidad del Desarrollo, bajo el alero del Magíster en Comunicación Aplicada, comenzará a impartir 4 nuevos Diplomados dirigidos a profesionales del marketing y las comunicaciones. Estos son:

Diplomado en Engagement Marketing

Diplomado en Creatividad Organizacional

Diplomado en Comunicación Estratégica

Diplomado en Planning

Les dejo el link para que puedan revisar el detalle de cada programa

Nuevos Diplomados en Comunicaciones

 

Saludos

 

Pablo Muñoz

julio 16, 2008 at 1:21 am Deja un comentario

Un Trago de la Mejor Publicidad Argentina para el Mundo

La agencia La Negra (Argentina) junto a MCOM, traen a Ricardo Corsaro, Director General Creativo a una charla gratuita (con previa inscripción de cupos limitados) para contarnos sobre la creatividad y desarrollo de campañas publicitarias regionales y mundiales que nacieron en esta agencia argentina, que maneja variadas cuentas como: Coca-Cola, Nextel, Arcor, La Campagnola, Yahoo Nite entre muchas más. 

 

Cuándo: Jueves 10 de Julio a las 19:00 hrs

Lugar: Universidad del Desarrollo, Sala 309

Dirección: Av.La Plaza 700 (Las Condes)

CUPOS LIMITADOS

Inscríbete enviando un mail a chargreaves@udd.cl

julio 8, 2008 at 5:21 am Deja un comentario

The Inside Word on Word-of-Mouth Marketing

In this interview Dave Balter explains word-of-mouth marketing. Balter founded BzzAgent in 2002. His company has provided word-of-mouth media services for dozens of Fortune 500 companies and has been featured in The New York Times Sunday MagazineThe Wall Street Journal, The Economist, and on National Public Radio. He is also co-founder and current board member of The Word of Mouth Marketing Association. Balter earned a B.A. in Psychology from Skidmore College. He recently published a book called The Word of Mouth Manual, Volume II. You can download a full (and free!) copy of the book here.

  1. Question: How often do companies successfully engineer word-of-mouth marketing?Answer: The phrasing, “engineer word-of-mouth” is very interesting. Inasmuch as it suggests “force” or “manipulate,” I’d say that no company has ever successfully engineered word of mouth. However, for those companies that guide or inspire word of mouth by empowering consumers, respecting their opinions, thanking them for sharing their input, and making changes based on consumer counsel … in those cases, word of mouth marketing is successful all the time, every day.
  2. Question: Can a large company do it—or is word-of-mouth marketing only for small companies?Answer: Word of mouth happens for companies of all sizes. The iPod and the iPhone were massive word-of-mouth phenomena. So was the Swiffer. Smaller companies, like Webkinz, may need to rely on word of mouth more due to smaller marketing budgets, but the impact is equally valuable.
  3. Question: What are the components of an effective word-of-mouth marketing program?Answer: The most important thing is that companies tap into consumer advocacy without destroying what makes it so powerful: trust. Effective programs should ensure participants are:
    1. Unpaid. Cash messes with our opinions!
    2. Unscripted. People should say what they really feel, no matter how good or how bad
    3. Open. If someone is involved in an organized word of mouth program, the people they talk to should be aware of that.

    A simple test is to ask yourself: would I feel ok if my eighty-year old grandma knew about this program? That will help guide you.

  4. Question: What is the difference between viral and word-of-mouth marketing?Answer: Viral marketing is typically reserved for programs where the advertising is talked about as opposed to the product itself. A good example are viral videos, where the humor trumps the brand, ala Cadbury Schweppes drumming gorilla video—humorous partly due to the Phil Collins soundtrack, of course—and the parodies which followed). Word of mouth is the actual sharing of an opinion about a product or service between consumers. Your viral marketing only works if it gets people talking about the product itself. If it doesn’t, you might create some laughter and awareness, but there won’t be a change in sales.
  5. Question: How long does an episode of word-of-mouth communication last?Answer: At this stage BzzAgents have generated north of 100 million conversations. From the data we’ve collected, each conversation lasts more than six minutes. But this isn’t like traditional marketing—it’s not a one way advertisement. Typically word of mouth dialogues includes discussions about other competitive products, personal experiences, pros and cons. It’s all of the things that help us really understand a product’s value.
  6. Question: What does a person do after purchasing a product—using word-of-mouth juice?Answer: “Word-of-mouth juice”— do you mind if I borrow that term for the title of my next book? To answer your question, this “juice” is what made the iPhone so amazingly successful. People felt obligated to show someone else. Partly out of excitement, but also to be ‘validated’ for making the decision to wait in line, plunk down the cash, and take the leap to get one. We call this the “pass along effect.” Shortly after purchase, many people generate the most word of mouth about a product—often to see how others react and to make ourselves feel good about the purchase.
  7. Question: What is the best way to reward—indeed, if you should reward—people who do word-of-mouth marketing for a company?Answer: The best reward is a sincere “thank you.” Companies are always surprised at how much advocacy and word of mouth is generated when they listen to, acknowledge, and show appreciation to those consumers who take the time to share their opinions. Products, samples, prizes … these things all help, but nothing inspires more than listening and thanking
  8. Question: What makes a new product like the iPhone become “urgent”?Answer: Steve Jobs has figured out a word-of-mouth blueprint that’s pretty incredible. When they launch a product, information is scarce and supply is limited. Before anyone even sees one, they’re talking about how they want to buy it. Of course Apple can pull this off because it makes great products that blow away expectations. Also, Apple develops tremendous advertising, which is worth talking about in itself. Word of mouth doesn’t replace great advertising, it just helps great advertising perform better.
  9. Question: How can a company make a sample of its product the most powerful?Answer: Every company wants to get their product into people’s hands. Trial is clearly an incredible way to create buyers, but a tremendous amount of sampling is wasted. Imagine you went to a ballgame and there were people outside the park handing out little packs of Tums. The company may give away hundreds of thousands of trials, but how many of the recipients needed heartburn medicine? How many of them were thrown out? Most importantly, how does the company know if people liked them or used them or thought they were a headache remedy?

    So rather than the random shotgun sample approach, companies should start online by inviting people to request a sample and then giving them a way to report back their opinion and, most importantly, how they shared that with others. The result: 100% engagement and data you can actually use!

  10. Question: Do you believe in the theory of top-down, elite influencers?Answer: I believe in Influentials, Trendsetters, Trendspreaders, Sneezers, Alphas, Bees, Hubs, Mavens. These “special people” do exist—but companies should be careful on their reliance on tremendously influential people to help spread their opinions. Often there’s a mismatch between someone’s enormous network of friends and their interest in trying a specific product and to share it with others.

    Companies should focus on finding people who really want to be involved with their product. They should focus on helping these individuals learn about what makes their product unique and special to share with their networks. However, it all starts with a great product. Few will care if a product doesn’t meet expectations.

  11. Question: What exactly does your company do?Answer: BzzAgent is a word-of-mouth media company. We have nearly 450,000 volunteers who learn about products and services through our network and share them with their friends in an open, natural way. We do our best to provide something for everyone. For example, people who dig websites and other digital initiatives can hang out in our Frogpond to find out about what’s cool. Do you like tasty food or cool cleaning products? Sign up for our network and you may get into a campaign for Back to Nature Nuts or a new plug-in air freshener, and we’ll send you out some samples to try, and then you share your opinion however you’d like! [You can see how bzzagents review websites here.]
  12. Question: What’s your assessment of Alltop’s word-of-mouth potential?Answer: When I first saw Alltop [please come back later if the site is slow or down because it's getting crushed by traffic], I was blown away by the simplicity and usefulness of the site. The web is getting harder and harder to navigate and a place you can go to find the best of the best just makes life easier. A few things that make it work so well:
    1. Alltop is worth talking about (it’s made it so easy for me to find great food sites!).
    2. The sites that get listed want to tell their own networks, so it’s naturally viral.
    3. The semi-transparent navigation bar is unique; whether you like it or not, everyone has a perspective they want to share.

    Plain and simple: It’s worth yapping about.

     

    Guy Kawasaki. How to change the world

junio 20, 2008 at 8:31 pm Deja un comentario

Google Trends Comes To Web Sites: Trends For Web Sites

Google has launched a major addition to Google Trends named Trends for Web Sites. Trends for Web Sites extends Google Trends by enabling you to search for web site addresses, as opposed to just searching for trends by keyword.

R.J. Pittman, Google’s Director of Product Management, told me that by entering a domain name into Google Trends, Google will return traffic, search and geographic visitation data for that site. Trends for Web Sites will show sites related to the domain name you entered, it will also show searches that are correlated to the domain name and if you are logged into Google, it will show the estimated traffic for that site. In addition, you can enter in up to five domain names and Google will plot line graphs for all the domains you entered in.

For example, this screen capture shows the web site trends for seroundtable.com. As you can see, it plots “unique visitors” on the bar graph. This number is an estimate in the search volume for this site for all regions over “all years.” Here is the screen capture:

Google Trends for Web Sites

Under the unique visitors chart is additional data. The “regions” data is something brought over from Google Trends for keywords, which shows how popular your site is by searchers in specific regions. The key new data here is “also visited” and “also search for…” data. The “also visited” data shows sites that searchers also visited based on correlated search data Google has. The “also search for…” shows other searches the searcher searched for that is related to this site. Google will show up to ten data points per section, but often might show less data then ten.

You can also compare sites to other sites. For example, here is a screen shot of a comparison of searchengineland.com to seroundtable.com:

Google Trends for Web Sites

One thing that jumps out to me is that more people who visit searchengineland.com are likely to search on [smx advanced] then those who visit seroundtable.com. Why is that? SMX Advanced is a show that Search Engine Land’s parent company, Third Door Media, hosts.

How is this useful? From an SEM’s perspective, not only is this a great way to find some great keywords, but it can be a great tool for find great resources. Matt Cutts explained to me that he used it to find other sites that offer similar services for a service he was looking for. Matt’s example was yousendit.com, a service that let’s you give people a URL to a large file for them to download. Matt wanted to find other services that were similar to yousendit.com. So he typed it in and found sites such as sendthisfile.com, mailbigfile.com, sendit.com and so on. Very useful, indeed!

Now, if you think like a link builder – you can use this tool to find sites that are within your “neighborhood” or industry. So if I want to find link partners for the Search Engine Roundtable, I enter in seroundtable.com, look at the related sites and ask all of them for links. Then I go to all of those sites and see who is related to them. You can, theoretically, keep expanding that list, as far is it makes sense.

The useful applications for a tool like this is pretty extensive. One thing you should keep in mind is that this tool basis its data off Google search data, aggregated opt-in anonymous Google Analytics data, opt-in consumer panel data, and other third-party market research. In addition, the search volume numbers are estimates and Google only shows ten search phrases for a domain name.

Trends for Web Sites is a global product, available in the US and worldwide but the only supported language is English. In any event, I am personally very excited to play with this new product. I am even more excited to hear about new features that will hopefully be launched in the upcoming months.

Trends for Web Sites is a global product, available in the US and worldwide but the only supported language is English. In any event, I am personally very excited to play with this new product. I am even more excited to hear about new features that will hopefully be launched in the upcoming months.

 

http://searchengineland.com

junio 20, 2008 at 8:25 pm Deja un comentario

Entradas antiguas


“Una estrategia de comunicación aplicada debe llenar el entorno de contenidos cargados de significados relevantes, haciéndolos vida en una interacción simbólica entre marcas y personas”

Proceso de postulación 2do Semestre 2008

Ya hemos iniciado el proceso oficial de postulación para el segundo semestre. Los interesados pueden descargar el formulario desde la sección de documentos y enviarlo completo por correo a mcom@udd.cl
julio 2014
L M X J V S D
« sep    
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031  

Seguir

Recibe cada nueva publicación en tu buzón de correo electrónico.