Mobsessed

If you're one of those marketers who think this iPhone Apps trend is all very well, but in your heart of hearts a little well.... overhyped, you're not going to like this story very much as you're going to have to rethink your world view. Because Pizza Hut's recent iPhone App has already generated more than $1 million worth of food sales, as well as winning hundreds of thousands of branding points in the form of downloads and free TV exposure.

 

The App itself is pretty cool - I'll embed the video demo below - making full use of the iPhone functionality. For instance, you can control the size of the pizza you want to order by pinching or stretching, or you can have toppings on only half the pizza by tilting the iPhone. Pizza Hut also benefited from winning the unofficial Grand Prix of Apps by being selected by Apple to feature in one of the ubiquitous "There's an App for That" TV ads, which drives massive exposure and an humongous volume of downloads.

 

“From an income standpoint iPhone customers tend to be more affluent, and they’re in the tech-savvy 18-34-year-old demographic skewing slightly male that we tend to go after online,” [said a spokesman]. “We always saw a steady level of growth with our mobile business via our WAP site, but to be candid it wasn’t the explosive level of growth we’ve seen with the iPhone app."

 

Mobile is in the process of changing media - more fundamentally than the first digital revolution has - and the next years will continue to demonstrate this again and again and again. That's a pretty good reason to become mobsessed.

 

 

Much mobile advertising news in the last two years or so has been dominated by iPhone and understandably so. Probably more than any other single factor, it's been responsible for marketers and agencies understanding the potential power of the mobile channel for the first time, primarily because they have one themselves. At last, their own personal experience married up with what had been happening on the street for a while.

 

But iPhone's dominance in the hearts and minds of mobile advertisers might be about to be threatened by a new player in the market - Google's Android.

 

The iPhone has tight control over their product, from software and hardware design to manufacturing and negotiating distribution. Android has taken a very different approach of developing an Open Source operating system and letting it out into the wild. What that means in practical terms is that they need to persuade other branded phone manufacturers like Motorola or Samsung to integrate their software into a new generation of phones and then allow these partners to control manufacture and distribution. In theory, this approach will enable them to leverage these other giant companies' power and resources to potentially leapfrog other competitors, ranging from iPhone through to Nokia and their Open Source operating system, Symbian. The big disadvantage is that Google pretty much hand over control of the product hardware, meaning that even if their software is Rolls-Royce standard, it still might end up powering a 1975 Ford Cortina. In a market where looks are an important purchase consideration, this could be something of a problem.

 

What do we know about Android so far? Despite a pretty lacklustre handset range (perhaps we're talking a Mondeo to iPhone's BMW in terms of looks), it's clear that the software is powerful and once cool phones are in production, it's going to have some success. I'm not going to speculate if it's going to be as big as iPhone, but it's already clear that it's going to be an important channel for mobile advertising.

 

Every month, AdMob (my employer, just to be clear) produces a free Metrics report that we share with anyone who might be interested. You can see the latest copy here, but one of the trends we track is the type of operating systems that we serve our ads in. To be clear about our methodology, we serve about 10 billion ads every month to mobile web publishers and app developers globally. This means that we can't measure market share, but we can track handsets that are used more than they should be, to view mobile web pages and download and use apps.  We noticed very early on that iPhone was getting a disproportionate amount of share when measured like this and history is being repeated with Android.

 

What's also great for mobile advertisers is that Android and iPhone both offer much more creative advertising formats and that their ease of use generally mean more interaction and higher click-through-rates. Consumers are engaging with marketers via the mobile channel in very large numbers and that trend is going to speed up with more Android handsets in the market.

 

Does the arrival of Andoid complicate things for mobile advertisers? Certainly not if you just want to run ads on the mobile web or in-apps - though inventory in apps might still be a little scarce compared to iPhone. In fact, you wouldn't even notice that Android had been included in your buy, from a purely operational standpoint. The main complication would be if you wish to transfer your iPhone App over the Android platform too - this will require a little adaption by the developer. The numbers of Andoid apps available are still relatively small, certainly compared to the 100,000 iPhone Apps, but then competition to attract downloads is also small, so now might be a good time to make the leap.

 

Like mobile advertising, Android is here to stay, is going to be growing quickly and will be dominating mobile marketing chatter for a while. Brands who pride themselves on being innovators should be taking a look at it right now.

If you're not from around these parts, Morgan Stanley's Mary Meeker aka "Queen of the net" is a highly influential securities analyst, who regularly holds forth about the state of the economy and the digital industry. This time, her presentation was as interesting as ever and focused on the mobile web. If you're still a mobile sceptic, make this your must-read publication of your week. It all makes fascinating reading, but the mobile section starts on page 28.
Mary Meeker's Internet Presentation 2009Even if you missed the digital boom, or joined in too late, you must get into mobile now as it's already changing media and advertising and we're only at the beginning.

 

In the words of Mary herself:

 

"Mobile related share shifts will create/destroy material shareholder wealth."

 

So make sure you end up on the right side of the create/destroy equation in the Post PC Era that I've been talking about for some time.

 

 

Last week saw a really important announcement on Planet iPhone - the extension of micro-payments in iPhone Apps to a well rounded product. It's an upgrade from the previous lite version and has the potential to be a real game-changer for both media owners and brands, who are both starting to flock to this channel.

 

Let's start off with the functionality. When you buy an iPhone, the process of activation includes opening an iTunes account and syncing your iPhone. As part of that sign up process, you need to give Apple the right to debit payments for iTunes purchases from a credit card. Obviously the original reason for this was to pay for music, but the same principle has been extended into video, ringtones and eventually, Apps. As a reminder, 2 billion Apps have now been downloaded and over 70,000 exist in the App Store. Add to the fact that there are over 3 million iPhones and iPods in the UK compatible with Apps and you have an addressable audience about the size of The Sun - it's no wonder brands and publishers are embracing this new channel.

 

However, Apple haven't stopped at just allowing you to pay to download Apps, but have used iTunes as the platform for a micro-payments systems that can be used from within Apps. At it's most basic, this allows developers to offer a free download, with increased functionality available in return for a payment - a further download is no longer necessary. Or they might sell virtual goods for use in a game. Or even sell physical goods for subsequent delivery, all with one command - inputting your iTunes password into the pop-up that appears when you indicate you want to buy content. The all-important ease-of-usability test is passed with flying colours.

 

OK, so it's great for game and App developers, but how about most of the readers of Media Week? Well, let's look at media owners and brands/agencies as the two largest constituents.

 

The media agenda has been dominated for the last six months or so by many publishers (led by Rupert Murdoch) planning to charge for content in 2010. The latest leak from Wapping sounds very plausible, claiming that much of The Sun's news and content will continue to be free but that " ....exceptional columnists such as Jeremy Clarkson, Steven Howard and the big-name celebrity 'writers' like Terry Venables, Harry Redknapp and Ian Wright will only be available in the paid-for package..."

 

If this is to prove to be an effective strategy (and time will tell if it is or not), it's hard to think of a better way to package this offering than that now available from within an iPhone App. Users can download a free App with free content that automatically updates every time it is used. It becomes a regular part of their media experience. And then if they want to read the really "good" bits, it's there waiting for them - they just need to touch the screen a few times to input their password.

 

If you consider the equivalent PC user experience, it's not nearly so compelling. Once the user reaches the point of purchase, they either have to fill in a user name and password if they've already signed up to an existing micro-payments vendor, like PayPal, input their credit card details or join a new micro-payments system. The drop-off rate at that point would be very high - how much time will people invest just to see Page 3 or read the latest thoughts of Harry?

 

Any publisher of consumer content (and probably B2B too) will be seriously considering launching an iPhone App on this news, if they don't have one already.

 

But how about Brands? Many have launched an App already and many more will be taking this step imminently. BMW's Sauber F1 Team Racing 09  is one of the few brands brave enough to actually sell one (at a cost of $1.99) although they do offer others free. This new feature would allow them to offer a free download, with the facility to upgrade from within the App once people had given it a go and found out how good it was. This would maximise downloads and therefore extend their brand footprint to include many more users.

 

That's the opportunity at its most basic, but I believe we're just about to see a real explosion of creativity hit the iPhone for brands and what they can offer with built-in payment. A film company can show a move clip and sell tickets to see it, download the film score and pre-order the DVD. The Gap, who already have an iPhone App, could sell clothes by mail order. A brand can allow users to order samples where they contribute to the Post and Packing. A railway company can give access to time tables for free and allow users to order and pay for their ticket - delivered digitally to the iPhone.

 

So that's the opportunity for publishers and brands and it's currently available only on the iPhone. Last week Nokia, the traditional incumbent, announced record losses in Q3 of $836. While Nokia tends to talk dismissively of the "fruit company from Cupertino", Apple has stolen a march on them once again and it's potentially a game changer.

A/B testing has long been used in direct marketing and as we go increasingly digital, the technique is widely used to determine the best results for anything from page design though to creative and copy testing for ads. [If you're not familiar with the terminology, it just refers to the concept of showing some of your audience one thing and the others a variant, monitoring the results and then rolling out the most successful executions.] It's something that we use as standard best practice in mobile advertising and the results look something like this

 

 However, I've never come across A/B testing for headlines before, so was interested to read this piece outlining the methodology that The Huffington Post uses to test and optimise its headlines.

 

Readers are randomly shown one of two headlines for the same story. After five minutes, which is enough time for such a high-traffic site, the version with the most clicks becomes the wood that everyone sees.

 

Obviously the difference between a great headline and a mediocre one makes a significant impact on readership, both directly and via Search Engines and ultimately translates into ad revenue. So it's surprising that other publications don't use this technique.

 

Or do they and I've just missed it?

There seem to be two big themes these days at Mr Murdoch's News Corporation, both doubtlessly stimulated by their woeful financial results announced a month or so back. The first is that readers are going to have to pay for digital content (to turn round News Corp's dreadful finances) and the second is to attack companies that might hinder this new business model.

 

First in the firing line was the BBC with a vitriolic attack by Mr Murdoch Junior - clearly if the Beeb continue to give away free and excellent content and news, it's going to be hard to charge for something similar. Now Mr Murdoch Senior has laid into the mighty Google claiming that "the internet's Philistine phase is almost over". Without digressing too much, it's an odd choice of phrase, with Wikipedia suggesting that Philistines "..are also said to be materialistic, to favor conventional social values unthinkingly, and to favor forms of art that have a cheap and easy appeal." Is it just me, or does that describe The Sun and Fox News perfectly?

 

Google is specifically targeted in the accusation "The aggregators and plagiarists will soon have to pay a price for the co-opting of our content.". In other words, by indexing News Corp's content, Google is making money that Mr Murdoch thinks should be wholly or in part due to be paid to him.

 

The counter argument is clearly that Google and other search engines make content easier to find and actually drive traffic to publishers' websites, where they can try and monetise those eyeballs, either via advertising, getting the consumer to pay for content (good luck with that) or with some other method yet to be invented. However, even if you don't buy that argument, as Mr Murdoch claims not to, there are two pretty straightforward courses of action already available to stop Google in its tracks.

 

The obvious one is litigation - if publishers can make a case that they are suffering financial harm as a result of Google's actions, why wouldn't they sue? But if this is too well....confrontational, it's very, very easy to stop Google indexing their content, by opting out. As Newsweek writes

 

"All they have to do is go to the Web site's robot.txt file and type this:

User-agent: Googlebot

Disallow: /"

 

That's it. Google's done, the publisher's content won't be indexed and the content "plagarism" is ended.

 

Can we expect News Corp to opt out of the massive amounts of traffic that Google sends them every day now it's clear how to stop that happening? I don't think so, do you?

 

 

 

 


The story that won't seem to lie down and die quietly rumbles on as News Corp desperately continues to try to lead their fellow publishers into pay-for-content models. If they could get everyone to follow suit, this strategy may well work - hence James Murdoch's recent vitriolic attack on the BBC.

 

This area is being explored this week by PaidContent, who have commissioned a poll by Harris Interactive and asks the question if consumers will pay and if so, how much? And the answer is not encouraging in any way for the publishing industry. Firstly, only 5% of respondents say that they would pay if their favourite website began charging, with 74% saying that they would simply seek out a free alternative. 8% said that they would just read the free headlines, which is quite a clever work. The final 12% said that they didn't know what they'd do, which I guess is what happens if you include Sun readers in the poll. Only jesting, for those you Sun readers out there, but are you sure you're in the right place? Sorry, must stop.

 

If that wasn't bad enough, the 5% would said that they would pay, consistently chose the lowest possible option they were given when asked how much they'd fork out. 72% said that they'd pay £10 for an annual subscription, 71% said that they'd be prepared to cough up 25p for a day pass and 68% said that they'd pay 1 - 2p to access an article.

 

If we do some back of the envelope maths on the basis that The Sun has 30 million online users, 5% makes about 1.5 million who would pay. If they each pay the £10 annual subscription that they claim, this would generate £15 million per annum - nice to have, but hardly the windfall anticipated at only 0.005% of News Corp's turnover. Having said that, if Unique Users plummet like that, advertising revenues will quickly follow suit, so if there are any net increases in revenue, it's likely to be marginal in the best possible case scenario.

 

Rupert Murdoch also announced last week that the WSJ is going to start charging for access via mobile, a strategy I suggested here that they explore a few weeks back, so nice to see he's reading :-) However, while they haven't yet announced detailed plans, it sounds like they're going for a pretty obvious and I'm afraid, out of date, approach of sticking content behind a paywall and what's worse, they'll be charging mobile users (Blackberry and iPhone anyway) double that paid by PC users - $2 per week, rather than $1.

 

There's an enduring myth (one of 10 discussed here) about the mobile channel that citizens will happily pay on mobile for products and services they expect for free online. They won't. So while the answer to publishers' woes might involve mobile, they're going to have to get much more creative in how they approach the problem. The old equation of

 

Cover Price + Advertising = Huge Profits

 

no longer computes in digital media. While advertising revenues can still generate a substantial contribution, publishers need to look at new and creative ways to supplement their income, not rely on business models that are more than a century old and are about as valuable as last century's news.

 

This is the penultimate post in a short series in which I've been looking at the immediate future of mobile, based on a speech I gave at the Mobile Marketing Forum in Berlin. Most of my writing so far has been looking at things we can use today and tomorrow, rather than in five year's time. But as we look at future devices, it's a little more interesting to see what's on the far horizon.

 

What that means in mobile device terms is that we'll be well into the post-PC era, where the desktop/laptop of yesteryear is, if not quite a museum-piece, certainly regarded as old and outdated technology by most people. The majority of our digital life will be via the mobile, or what the mobile evolves into and when we need better tools (like today's keyboards and larger screens for closeup work), we'll use plugin devices designed for that purpose.

 

While the Smartphone or handheld computer of today will be around for a while, I'd say that in 5 years, we'll be well into the next cycle of wearable computing, where commands will be given via haptics and gestures. If this sounds a little too scifi for your tastes, go look at what Pattie Maes and Pranav Mistry are prototyping at MIT in their recent TED talk. SixthSense allows you to do things like take a photo by just imitating the action, check out product information in a supermarket, or even see virtual information about delegates at a conference. Take a look if you haven't seen it before.

 

The tools that the MIT people used are very much today's technology and get these kind of results. But with tomorrow's technology, what will the devices look like? I'd say that that the main interface will be some kind of contact lens, which gives you three views. One will be the digital world, or the descendant of today's world wide web. For practical reasons, you'll only be able to access this view when you're stationary - to stop you bumping into things. You'll then be able to see the analogue world, should you wish to do so, although most people would find that impulse rather curious. The final way would be the real world overlaid with digital information, or what we call today AR - Augmented Reality. Take a look at Layar for an example of AR live and working today on an Android phone.

 

So what we're talking about is contact lenses replacing the AR view, currently provided by a mobile device and commands made by gesture or voice, instead of today's keypad. Despite the early indications that this is the direction that the market is going in, you have every right to be sceptical. But then, just think back to 2002 - don't you think that the iPhone would have seemed impossible? I certainly would never have predicted that kind of functionality and if you did, maybe there's a nice living in futurology for you.

 

What'll this all mean for digital advertising? Well, the first implication is that PC based advertising is going to go into terminal decline. This means that the major players are going to have to go mobile or die. For Microsoft, it's a double whammy as their core business of PC operating systems is going to disappear and that's why Redmond are still soldiering on with Windows Mobile, even though it's never going to catch up now. Look out for some dramatic moves from Microsoft, as a result.

 

The other implications are many though. Interaction with ads will be completely seamless and User Interface design will be one of the most important skillsets of the modern ad agency. Consumers will have access to all the information in the world to hand, including scary information like reviews of restaurants annotated virtually on the restaurant itself - bad news if you own a restaurant that's anything less than perfect at meeting your customers' expectations. They'll also be able to see lots of information about the product in say, a supermarket, such a nutrition, ecological impact and employment conditions among the workers who made it.

 

My final thought is that in this scenario, advertising will have to rethink its role in relation to consumers and will have to really add value in a meaningful way to their lives. Most of what passes as advertising today will be as archaic as cigarette TV advertising.

 

I'm continuing a series of posts looking at the immediate future of mobile, based on a speech I gave a couple of weeks ago at the Mobile Marketing Forum in Berlin. This time, I'm going to look at measurability in mobile.

 

Unlike many traditional media, mobile is ultimately measurable - a characteristic that it shares with its slightly older cousin, PC based advertising. One reason why mobile is powering through the recession is that it's highly accountable and leaves clients in absolutely no doubt if a campaign worked at all and if so, exactly how well. This can be a little un-nerving at times as there's no room for equivocation and flim flam as results speak for themselves. But on balance, this has to be a good thing and allows practitioners to test different executions to find out which works best and then optimise the campaign to drive the best results.

 

In the very early days of mobile, what we could measure was clicks, or the start of the engagement with the consumer. This was fine up to a point in that it was probably still arguably a more accurate measurement of success than provided by say, outdoor media, TV or print. But it wasn't entirely satisfactory as it didn't measure the all important "what happened next?". Did the consumer go on to engage with the ad, read the information and subsequently do what the objective required. Did they book a test drive, download the App, click to call the call centre and the myriad of other options they might be presented with?

 

This gap in the market was quickly identified by a bunch of companies, providing free or paid-for analytics tools. Among the players are Bango, Amethon and AdMob (my employer) - check them out and make your own choice, but the important point is that these tools are now available to measure engagement.

 

There's a bunch of myths floating around about Mobile today, so don't believe that one about not being able to measure results - it's bullplop as our American cousins apparently say.

 

The other great potential for mobile phones is to interact with other media in a highly measurable way.So, you might use your mobile to send an sms short code in response to a TV our 48-sheet poster ad to get more information, find your nearest stockist or order a brand sample. Or you might use the camera in the phone to take a snap of a 2D barcode to take you to the mobile website. This latter technique has been slow to take off (outside Japan), largely because the handset manufacturers can't agree common standards and won't pre-load the software necessary to read barcodes onto their handsets. This means that the consumer has to download the reader before being able to interact with the ad, which is plainly asking too much.

 

Lobbying for common standards and ease-of-use has become the focus of the powerful trade association, GS1, which has members drawn for the largest brands and retailers in the world, including the likes of Nestle, Tesco, Wal-Mart and P&G. It'll take time, but with these kinds of giants pressuring the mobile industry, it's only a matter of time before these techniques become commonplace.

 

This development actually might be a little unpopular with other media, as it really leaves no room to hide behind some of the woolly measurement phrases that they have to fall back on in the absence of something more concrete. In the future, it'll be very clear whether the consumer elected to engage with the brand and what happened next.

 

As I've been writing for 5 years or more, the mobile phone will become an analogue mouse, connecting us and allowing us to interact with the digital universe. Who ever would have thought it?

This post is one of a series about the immediate future for mobile, which is based on the speech I gave at the Mobile Marketing Forum in Berlin last week. This one covers formats for mobile advertising and if that sounds a little dry and geeky, bear with me as it's not really and more importantly, could stop you wasting all your budget on your mobile activity.

 

Before we get onto the waste side of things though, let's remind ourselves that the hot topic in mobile is Apps at the moment. If you were one of the 11 brands speaking in Berlin, you'd have been unusual if your presentation didn't include "..and here's our iPhone App" and that ranged from Coke to BMW to Lufthansa. If you haven't been reading all my posts here, that might sound a little niche, but to put it in perspective, there are over 3 million iPod Touchs and iPhones in the UK, which is about the same addressable market as The Sun these days.

 

Another debating point among these iMarketers is whether Apps are here to stay, or if the mobile web will eventually take over. Is it a short term marketing initiative, or will Apps be around for a few years?

 

I'd argue pretty strongly that they're going to be around a lot longer than other pundits might think. One of the major reasons people like Apps is because of the speed of interaction they offer, which operator networks can't compete with today and won't for some time in the future. So even if next-gen handsets can do everything Apps can, they'll still do it slower. A further reason is that Apps give a sense of "ownership", which is really important, especially for the paid-for ones. Getting people to purchase the rights to say, a game over the mobile web feels completely different to selling them the actual App, even though the outcome is similar from a practical perspective.

 

At some point (maybe 5 years) Apps might evolve into little more than bookmarks to launch mobile web services, but for the immediate horizon they're here to stay and therefore worth thinking about and perhaps investing marketing dollars.

 

So what have formats got to do with wasting your investment in mobile? Whether you run ads on the mobile web (very sensible) or within applications (great idea) and the consumer clicks on your ad, you need to think about where they go next - the Landing Page. The Post-Click experience is actually at least as important as your original creative as if the consumer gets there and can't interact, you've just wasted the opportunity to engage altogether, as well as the money you spent on the ad.

 

There's an awful lot of learning in the post-click activity, so it's worth talking to someone who knows what they're doing before you kick something off. However, one thing is clear to anyone with mobile experience; you need to optimise for mobile and you can't just send them to the same page as your PC activity. At the worse case, the page won't load at all or will partially load - this is when the PC site is built using Flash. Look what happened to this advertiser when they delivered their hard-won potential customer to their PC site.

Not only that, but it's a very poor user experience.

 

It's not just about Flash though. Compare the Market and the lovable Meercats has been one of the great digital marketing success stories of recent years and you can bet that their PC website represents state-of-the-art direct response, with numerous clear calls to action, depending on why the consumer is there in the first place. This approach just doesn't work in the mobile world. 

I saw their ad in an application (not one of ours I hasten to add) a few weeks ago and clicked on it and got this:

Hmmm...what are they expecting me to do now? A mobile landing page needs a clear call-to-action, it needs to be less busy as speeds are slower than broadband and while people will fill in simple forms, this type is going to be far too fiddly. Shouldn't they have included a click-to-call button? After all, I'm on a mobile phone and that's probably the easiest way to get me to give the information they need to get me a quote.

 

Finally, where are those cuddly meercat characters, which are so central to the brand and marketing proposition. Can you guess? That's right, they should appear in that curiously empty box in the prime real estate at the top and centre. But they're in Flash, so you can't see them. [At the time of writing, the Meercats have been replaced by another, equally un-seeable Flash animation of cars and potential insurance prices.]

 

OK, it's possible that a determined consumer will be prepared to drill down and interact in this case, but it's not going to be easy and conversion rates are going to suffer.

 

In fairness to both these advertisers, it's very possible that they don't know that their ad buys include mobile and thus they wouldn't have known about the need to optimise. Some advertising networks simply bundle mobile into their clients' campaigns, but these wasted clicks are still charged for and equally importantly, the consumer's exposure to mobile advertising ends in frustration. Let's hope that this practice ends soon.

 

In an ideal world, there would be one web for all devices and maybe that'll come true some day. Until that happens though, remember that optimisation for mobile is absolutely key to success in mobile advertising.

 

I've been writing about the "Future" of mobile advertising, following a speech I gave at last week's MMF in Berlin. Today - location.

 

I've written here recently about The Mirage of Location suggesting that the technology problem has largely been cracked, especially for devices like the iPhone. Already today, we can run campaigns where say, a new film release is advertised and people can touch a banner to see the preview. Then they can find their nearest cinema and actually book tickets over the mobile web or with a click-to-call.

 

However, advertisers and agencies have been pretty slow to adopt these ideas, despite saying that they want them in principle. Advertising as an industry tends to be fairly slow in adopting new ideas, especially where technology is concerned and/or when the commercial benefits of implementation aren't very clear. It will happen, of course, it'll just take time.

 

The other major opportunity around location is couponing via mobile - the idea of sending people a coupon that can be carried around on their mobile gets many marketers (especially in FMCG) positively palpitating with excitement. This does have significant technology barriers to overcome if an automated redemption system is required - and it needs to be automated if it's going to scale. The vision of endless queues in Tesco on a Saturday as people struggle to find their coupon in their mobile is enough to get most retailers reaching for double doses of Valium.

 

Having said that, small scale testing is available today, with various opportunities in both the UK and Germany. Uptake by marketers has been slow to date, but it's only a matter of time before this happens - it's too perfect not to. Then the canny marketers who tried small tests will be a few steps ahead in a game worth potentially billions of pounds.

 

The final consideration about location based marketing are the mind numbing logistics involved, which will slow down progress significantly in certain sectors. Sure, a find-my-nearest is a pretty simple technique to implement and I'm sure we'll be seeing this as a standard element in mobile marketing's armoury. However, many argue that the real potential lies in other sectors, which have the possibility of benefiting from sophisticated yield management to boost profits. In other words, if a business operates with perishable inventory (like a cinema or restaurant), being able to sell a discounted ticket or meal which would otherwise go unsold, means that the sale price effectively goes straight to the bottom line.

 

Managing this process is pretty easy if you have only one or two sites to worry about. As an example, if you're in charge of Wembley Arena, it's easy to understand that you have say, 150 tickets to sell before the gig opens in one hour. Provided you can tell people close enough to get there in time, you can easily construct and communicate a discount offer and maximise your revenues.

 

On the other hand, if you're in charge of McDonalds and have 1250 outlets to worry about, how do you know which ones need to be promoted at any one particular time and those that already have queues spilling out into the High Street? Certainly, no such system exists today, either in terms of technology or management skill sets, and until these issues are solved it'll hinder yield management efforts for multiple retail outlets. Until then, this aspect of location based marketing remains little more than an intriguing promise of a profitable future.

 

But that's the PhD level of location based marketing - there's a lot we can do already today, albeit on a simpler and more practical level. And since it's going to happen, the wise marketer will already be running tests to ensure sustainable competitive advantage in the future.

 

I'm writing a series of posts about my speech on the "future" of mobile advertising, which I gave at the Mobile Marketing Forum in Berlin last week - here's the first one, in case you missed it. My definition of the future tends to be the immediate two or three years as longer than that tends to start sounding like scifi. That might be interesting, but it's not really the bread and butter we need to be chewing at a mobile marketing conference.

 

My second subject are was the whole issue of Privacy, which often tends to be the elephant in the conference room at mobile advertising events. However, it is an area that we need to start talking about and coming up with a positive and preemptive plan of action, before some brownie-point seeking politician seeks to regulate what is actually a very responsible industry - and one which has demonstrated an ability to self-regulate. The danger is that any form of digital advertising can easily stir up strong feelings by being accused of "big brother" behaviour, even though real culprits, such as CCTV, is allowed to flourish unchecked.

 

Advertising generally has a strong and positive story to tell - but if you're here, you probably don't need to be told that. However, in the context of mobile, we play two very important roles. Firstly, we provide consumers with free stuff, which simply wouldn't be available without advertising funding. So when consumers search the web, use social networks or download free iPhone apps, they need to be reminded that these would disappear faster than Morgan Pozgar can sms Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious (about 7 seconds) without advertising. Secondly, advertising plays a very important role in helping consumers discover cool new content, products and services which, even if they existed without our funding, they wouldn't be able to find otherwise.

 

Being able to give consumers relevant ads that they really want to see is also in their interests and we're able to do this best when they share with us what those interests might be. This can be a passive and non-intrusive process, such as allowing us to (up to a point) track their behaviour, such as the types of ads they respond to (and therefore like), or it can be an active engagement where they share certain information about their preferences. An example of this is Out There Media's Tomato Plus opt-in service that was recently tested in Serbia. There, consumers get free calls and sms in return for submitting their profile and receiving ads. Judging from the high response rates (as high as 75%), we'll be seeing this model in other markets soon.

 

As an industry, we need to start addressing these issues, as we have a great story to tell.

Last week saw the MMA's Mobile Marketing Forum in Berlin and jolly good it was too. If you missed it, I'd say that you missed the best mobile marketing conference in the last 10 years, with a chance to hear from brands like BMW, Coke, Nike and Pepsi - and to mix with these pioneering thought-leaders them too. It really felt that mobile marketing had passed its tipping point and had finally come of age. It's been a long wait, but it'll be worth it in the end.

 

My own contribution was a speech which looked at the "Future" of mobile advertising. Rather than share the whole thing in one go, I'm going to split it into a few topics so you don't get faced with one mega-post.

 

In my introduction, I showed a brief clip of the mall scene from the cult film Minority Report. If you haven't seen it, the 36 second clip can be viewed here, but the idea is that our hero, John Anderton, gets bombarded by personalised ads as he walks along. Ads call to him by name, having recognised him by scanning his rentinas(!) and - just as spooky - others which aren't suited to his profile, stay silent. Having showed the clip, I suggested that such a level of personalisation and intrusiveness would never be tolerated!

 

However, the clip was useful in exploring some areas to talk about and the first one was the role of Brands in the future of mobile advertising - in the film, Guinness and Lexus futuristic ads were featured.

 

As a brief history of mobile advertising, when we started off, it was mainly mobile content players who were advertising, such as ringtones and games. There were exceptions to this - Adidas was the first major brand to leap in, if I remember correctly - but they were very early and certainly visionary. However, as the available inventory scaled and word of the effectiveness spread, major brands started to come on board. The real catalyst was the iPhone, as suddenly agency creative directors and clients alike experienced the potential of mobile for the first time.

 

I didn't really need to labour this point with such a line up of great brands actually presenting about what they had done (as opposed to intended to do at some point), but it was certainly worth pointing out. However, it was worth highlighting that we've already passed the significant milestone of the first $1 million++ campaigns, so the days of purely experimental budgets - read "loss making for agencies" - are behind us. Or as Coke suggested, "Mobile advertising is moving from test to full integration".

 

If there was one quote that was repeated by brands pretty consistently it was "...and here's our iPhone App...", which demonstrates that mobile marketing is quickly moving beyond purist mobile advertising, which is a theme I've been writing about here pretty consistently. So if you've been ignoring my observations until now, get with the programme, or get left behind.

I'll be writing this up at some point, but if you're curious about what's happening at the Mobile Marketing Forum in Berlin, here's some of my Tweets from yesterday (in reverse order). It's the first time I've been to a mobile marketing conference with so many blue chip brands, who are now committed to mobile. Mobile has arrived as a mainstream medium.

 

Check out what brands like BMW, Lufthansa, Coke and Nike had to say.

 

  1. #MMF009 ComScore's Herve Le Juan sums up first day: Over 1 million searches on AutoTrader in 08/09
  2. #MMF009 We're no longer an industry talking to ourselves. We were right and mobile is starting to go mainstream. O ye of little faith!
  3. #MMF009 It's the first mobile conference I've been to that feels as if things are really changing, not will change at some point.
  4. RT @PaulBMMA: #mmf09 Lufthansa there will be a Mvolution as mobile replaces functinality on other channels
  5. #MMF009 AKQA launches location-based iPhone app, with local coupons and sharing from what clothes look like with friends
  6. #MMF009 RT @MobileZeitgeist 11% of all Lufthansa travellers check-in from their mobiles
  7. #MMF009 Ben Scott-Robinson of We Love Mobile (and old colleague) up next. We Love Mobile is a mobile agency, who work with eg BBC
  8. #MMF009 Deutsche Post: iPhone app allows you to also take photo with app, combine text and upload to deliver snail mail.
  9. #MMF009 Deutsche Post - also have a great iPhone app, location enabled and has 110k downloads in 4 weeks.
  10. #MMF009 Deutsche Post - sms them to get back a code you can write on an envelope instead of a stamp
  11. #mmf009 P+G: sampling via request from mobile reduces distibution costs by 80%
  12. RT @MobileZeitgeist: mmf09RT @hneidhardt Überflieger! 80% access to Lufthansa mobile portal by iPhone and blackberry #mmf09
  13. RT @PaulBMMA: #MMF09 Lufthansa are adding mobile to every part of the customer journey
  14. RT @kershaw: Heard at #mmf09 Buy a ticket on Lufthansa, pay with PayPal, get a mobile barcode to checkin.. over your phone. In 2 mins flat

  1. #MMF09 BMW about media and marketing "If you cannot track it, kill it"
  2. ##MMF09 BMW new iPhone app is G-Meter. Records savable journey stats, especially for racing nuts
  3. #MMF09 BMW: 37% of M-community members have iPhones, which is very representative of whole customer base
  4. #MMF09 BMW: M-community about high performance cars
  5. #MMF09 BMW: new F1 App in Apple approvals process and live next week?
  6. #MMF09 BMW 4 million users of .mobi site per year (unpromoted)
  7. #MMF09 BMW: Have own iPhone app. What, you mean you haven't?
  8. #MMF09 BMW: People made own unique versions of Z4 film and put up on YouTube - with no encouragement
  9. #MMF09 BMW Film for Z4 - iTunes beats mobile TV and web seeding
  10. #MMF09 BMW: Mobile (and online) is the only media that is relevant to whole sales cycle!
  11. #MMF09 Coke: Research "Life without my mobile phone would suck" Interview with Russian kids 16 -18
  12. #MMF09 Coke "Mobile moving from test to full integration"
  13. #MMF09 Coke: Mobile web campaigns lead to strong uplift on brand health indicators and consumption intent
  14. #MMF09 Coke: Banners on mobile web is best way to drive traffic to mobile sites. Obvious, but worth stating again...and again..and again
  15. #MMF09 Coke: Mobile web campaigns help build brand equity and brand love
  16. #MMF09 Coke got 5 Milliion OTC (Text and Win) responses in India, incl 111k in one day
  17. #MMF09 Coke: UTC (Under the Cap) is the generic term for Text and Win. New piece of jargon for me :-)
  18. #MMF09 Coke: "Text and Win" still drives highest consumer engagement. I wonder how long before mobile web takes over?
  19. #MMF09 Coke: tremendous success with iPhone, with 3 branded apps so far. 500k downloads with no promotion
  20. #MMF09 Coke In 2001, teens spend 25% on web. 2006 47%.
  21. #MMF09 Nike says that mobile marketing is key to their future plans
  22. #MMF09 Nike also partners with iTunes to distribute Podcasts
  23. #MMF09 Nike finds voice messages via MMS from celebrities a very powerful way of engaging with audiencet

  24. #mmf09 MMA announced partnerships with BVDM to form local chapter in Germany
  25. #MMF09 Speakers told to avoid cliches like "people have their wallet, keys and mobile on them at all time". Other mobile marketing cliches?
  26. MMF09 Nike, Coke, Lufthansa, P+G all presenting this morning
  27. At MMF in Berlin. Follow hash tag MMF09 for latest about mobile marketing from top brands. Please retweet of Mobsessed.
  28. Flying to Berlin for MMA's MMF. Over 10 brands speaking and I'm doing a session on the future of mobile advertising

 

I'm attending the Mobile Marketing Association's Mobile Marketing Forum in Berlin for the next two days. I will be sharing my thoughts at some point, but if you want a more immediate commentary, a bunch of people are Tweeting using Hash Tag #MMF09. Or you could just follow me on Twitter: russellbuckley.

 

That's assuming that Twitter doesn't fall over again - which it seems to have done right this moment.

Page 1 of 2 (30 items)
1 2  Next
 
 

ADVERTISEMENT