Archive
You are currently browsing the archives for the Digital Media & Online Ads category.
By Karna
I was reading Mashable this morning and came across the below. These two Juggernauts are going at it for the Mobile Ad Domination! Some interesting points made in the article below. But, for me, at the end of the day, I think we’re more likely to see apple strike a deal or make some sort of standard that requires a % of ad revenue to come their way for ads that push through their devices via other mobile ad vendors (i.e. Google-AdMob). That’s guaranteed bank for Apple…but for us advertisers…it’s more likely to be higher mobile ad pricing.
But…I’d really love to hear other thoughts too!
REDISTRIBUTED ARTICLE:
“Could Apple Actually Beat Google in Mobile Advertising?”On Thursday, Apple will unveil iPhone OS 4.0. It’s not the only thing the company is expected to reveal, though. As we wrote last week, Apple is slated to launch its iAd mobile advertising platform, based off of its acquisition of Quattro Wireless in January.
If true, the move would place Apple into direct competition with Google, whose acquisition of AdMob is still pending regulatory approval. Online advertising is Google’s bread and butter. It has millions of advertisers, endless streams of data and seasoned advertising talent at its disposal.
So does Apple, whose specialty isn’t advertising, stand a chance in a duel with the Google juggernaut? The answer is a surprising “yes,” depending on what shape iAd takes and how the iPhone vs. Android battle plays out. Apple is fighting a more experienced competitor, however.
Apple Has a Head Start
While Google may have the talent and the experience in advertising, Apple has the head start in mobile, which could make all of the difference in this battle.
While very few details have been revealed concerning iAd, there are a few assumptions we can logically make. First, it will be designed for the iPhone OS — at least initially. Second, it will incorporate features that made the App Store a smash hit, such as a 70/30 revenue split or something similar. Finally, it’ll incorporate a great deal of Quattro Wireless’s ad delivery technology.
What does that mean, though? It means that Apple has a larger user base for launching its mobile platform and has greater access to mobile advertising technology than Google. The search giant can’t utilize its AdMob acquisition yet, while Apple’s had several months to integrate Quattro’s technology into its own platform. And while Android is growing, the iPhone still has greater market share.
If and when the AdMob deal is finalized, Google will have a lot of catching up to do. It also won’t have the scale of the iPhone for its launch.
How Will Google Counter?
Google threw the first punch by acquiring AdMob, but now Apple has thrown a nasty left hook and an uppercut with its Quattro Wireless acquisition and the likely launch of iAd this Thursday. How will Google counter these blows?
First things first: Google needs to convince the FTC that its acquisition of AdMob isn’t anti-competitive. The result of the FTC’s review is anybody’s guess.
Second, Google needs to move quickly to create an advertising platform for apps based off of AdMob’s technology.
Finally, Google needs to use both its technology and AdMob’s technology to create a stronger web-based advertising platform. Whoever gets ad optimization for iPhone, iPad and Android right is going to be in a far better position than its competitor.
Google’s greatest advantage against Apple is that it has more relationships and experience with web-based advertising, and it already has the technology to back it up (in fact, AdSense has been mobile for years). It’s unclear how aggressive Apple’s iAd platform will be, but my bet is that it doesn’t really focus on web-based advertising, at least initially.
So, Can Apple Win? Absolutely. But Will It?
If tomorrow Apple launched an ad platform for iPhone and Google launched a comparable one for Android, Apple would win simply because it has a larger base of iPhone and iPad users to advertise against, making it more enticing to developers and advertisers alike. That advantage cannot be understated.
That doesn’t mean Apple will win, nor does it mean that there isn’t room for two dominant mobile ad platforms. Google is not going to give up the next advertising frontier without a fight and it has the resources to turn it into a long-lasting slug fest. And, with Android’s rapid growth, it may not be that long until Apple’s market share advantage is minimized.
In the end, I think you’re going to see two dominant mobile ad platforms, one around the iPhone and one around the Android. However, the key to this battle will depend upon each company’s ability to expand their reach onto other platforms, like BlackBerry and Symbian, and who can expand the most effectively onto the mobile web. Unless Apple has some tricks up its sleeves, Google’s experience in advertising and its relationships with advertisers gives it an edge that even Apple’s head start doesn’t beat.
I believe that this will be one of the most interesting technology battles of 2010.
By Karna
A lot of attention is going towards the HTML5 vs Flash debate these days, especially since the intro of the iPad. I just read a post from Steve Jobs articulating why the apple mobile devices (iPad, iTouch, iPod, etc.) will never support flash (http://bit.ly/aiaaNg).
So…given this, and the tremendous impact these devices have on the future of mobile and digital creative (sites, apps, ads), it seems that alternatives such as HTML 5 are poised to shift Flash out of the “preferred” seat and become the next “standard” in creative development tools.
If more creative teams begin to harness the power of HTML 5, would it then present more interesting and interactive and technology forward approaches to mobile creative (sites, ads and apps)? It seems it opens up the innovation opportunities tremendously, and then allows us to bypass some of the barriers that have prevented mobile creative and especially mobile advertising from exploding to date.
So, the question I have is what’s stopping this from happening at an accelerated pace in the production/development/innovation world right now? Is it a matter of knowledge/skill set in the HTML 5 world? Is it something else? Would love some perspective here.
By Karna
We’ve talked about interactive TV in the marketplace for as long as I can remember. We’ve seen iterations of it in hotel rooms and the cable companies are trying to dabble with it via there set top boxes. However, there just hasn’t seemed to be anyone who has truly, seamlessly brought interactive TV to life in a meaningful way, with an elegant user interface.
In comes the iPad. I’m not sure if the capability will be created through an app or through APPLE themselves, but I believe that the iPad introduces a new opportunity to more seamlessly integrate the interactivity of a web site experience in connection with streaming of video content.
My iPad is COMING SOON. I’d love to see an opportunity for me to view a show on the iPad and be able to interact with either the show, the content, the advertising experiences that are related to it, and/or my friends while viewing. I mean, seriously, every Monday night, I sit with my TV on Gossip Girl and my iPhone in hand, texting facebook updates about the craziness of the show. Now, I can do it a LOT more conveniently via the iPad. I know that I could have done it while streaming on my desktop…but watching GG at the desk just isn’t something I’m planning to do. Just not that comfortable.
I can envision this applied to other forms of streaming content and interactivity as well. The ability to take some of the “TiVO” learnings. Watch a show that has a tune in commercial for another show…or a trailer for another movie, and be able to (1) click to tell my iPad or my home DVR box to record the show or (2) click to buy movie tickets for the film that just previewed.
Again…these aren’t new ideas for sure. I’m just feeling pretty bullish that these ideas can now come to life in a much more scalable way thanks to the capability, format and elegance of the iPad.
We’ll have to watch and see. :0)
By Karna
I was holiday decor shopping for a big Thanksgiving gathering at my house, and the 1st store I thought to buy my nic nac decor from was Pier 1. I don’t know how frequently a “loyal” shopper based on their definition visits. But, I purchase at Pier 1 about once per quarter and I recieve and open their email communications. I consider myself a pretty loyal customer. That is why I was SO SHOCKED when I went to not one…but TWO locations to shop and both were out of business!!!!
So, I’m wondering…if a specific store location is running into business trouble, couldn’t they use their email and social marketing vehicles like twitter and facebook to push a plea out to us loyalists that they are struggling and at risk of closing…if we want to keep them we need to come shop and get our friends and family to do the same?! I know it may not always work, but I TOTALLY would have rallied to support them. I’m just little ol’ Karna…so I know I can’t drive change alone. But, between FB, LI and twitter, I have a pretty decent sized network…who also have even better sized networks than me. We could feasible drive support for the cause. Use us!
And here is my other issue…YOU COULD HAVE TOLD ME YOU WERE CLOSING!!!!!!! Seriously, if you are keeping other locations open, and my most convenient ones are closing, the least you could do is email me and let me know where my nearest location now is…and oh by the way use that as an opportunity to promote great deals/specials I should check out while I’m there (might as well drum up some immediate traffic off of the communication).
By Karna
Twitter as well as other Social platforms is beginning to suffer from the “campaign” marketing approach that often exists in brand marketing. A recent story from@AdAge rightly calls out that so many brands fail to realize the potential of Twitter. This often holds true with Facebook, My Space and the like as well. In general, brands plan out their year, it includes a series of campaign pushes, and the agencies that support them are forced to define how “social” should fit into the campaign. In general, having social as a part of campaign planning that sits within a brand team or an interactive/media team presents an inherent flaw. Social is all about ONGOING DIALOGUE. It should be considered a part of the CUSTOMER RELATIONSHIP (CRM) PLATFORM rather than just a communication channel. As such, when planning for social and twitter, the first step is to consider what role it plays in a brand’s wholistic view of CRM and how the communication channels of email, fan pages, apps, Twitter, etc. all combine to deliver ongoing points of dialogue with the consumer. THEN, the campaign pushes are simply experiences and offers that can help provide relevant outbound message content. That said, campaigns often only refresh quarterly at most. As such, a CRM strategy that includes social needs to have far more frequent dialogue. This dialogue should be guided by what consumers are sharing and saying…not merely by what the brand wants to tell them.
So…to achieve all of this, it becomes a challenge when the budgets sit within a team that can only make campaign decisions or at most annual decisions. So, where should the budget and subsequently management of an ongoing social interaction sit? In the instance of the dialogue being marketing and experience driven, rather than PR driven, perhaps the budget sits with the CRM team. Or, perhaps we revisit how budgets are set entirely and map out a multi-year budget commitment to social platforms that can ensure the funds are available throughout the year and across years to ensure that the commitment to not “going dark in social” can be achieved.
The article that I’m referencing can be found on AdAge at :
Brands on Twitter: 76% of Accounts Are Infrequent Users – Advertising Age – DigitalNext.
By Karna
I’ve spent a good deal of time, recently, researching what progress is taking place in the world of driving consumers from ad exposure to purchase action (online or in store). When I look at the majority of advertising creative in the marketplace, especially offline, I’m intrigued by the gap that still remains between the call to action within the message (if there is one) and the subsequent purchase. Why does such a lag still exist? Why are we still relying so heavily on “hope of recall” to move someone from their exposure to a message through to acting on that message?
It seems that the wireless device, the always on…always in my pocket connector, could become the more immediate action bridge between ad exposure and purchase.
Assuming that retailers have taken the initial steps to operationalize transactions or content for mobile consumption, what I’m proposing for messaging is as simple as a clear, prominent mobile oriented call to action. But, as simple as this sounds, few retailers have taken the steps to operationalize mobile app/web transactions. Plus, we also still live in a world where many creatives still only use calls to action or URLs as brief required text at the end of creative, rather than a valuable step towards driving creative ROI. So, I expect it will be even harder for some to elevate the value and subsequent prominence of a mobile oriented call to action that’s REQUIRED in advertising that could be consumed on the go.
That said…how could this work? Let’s first look at a low consideration purchase like a meal from Pizza Hut. They have implemented a very savvy mobile strategy with app, mobile optimized web site and TXT options for executing on the go purchases. So…the operational challenges are a non-issue. Yet, of all the various forms of advertising to which I’m exposed outside of my home or office (radio, print, outdoor and even TV sometimes), I can count on one hand how many executions exploited the mobile technologies as the call to drive my action, versus phone number or web site. How powerful would it be for me to see (or hear) a great pizza offer and be driven to immediately purchase it from wherever I am located via my wireless device. Now, PizzaHut.com has been somewhat optimized for mobile browsers, but it certainly isn’t as easy and user friendly as their iPhone app…and it is MUCH slower. But, even with that, making mobile purchases is new to consumers…it is a behavior that needs to be constantly reinforced to become commonplace.
Now, let’s look at a more considered purchase product like a grill. Imagine I’m away from home (on the go) and I see a Home Depot print ad or billboard promoting their portfolio of grills or a specific grill. Perhaps rather than simply driving me to HomeDepot.com, which requires me to recall this ad and think about it the next time I’m at the computer or near the store, the retailer could in fact deliver a call to action within the message to go onto mobile.homedepot.com via my wireless device or text GRILL to 33768 (DEPOT) to learn more and buy now. This mobile site would offer me the necessary information to choose which grill is most relevant to me, and then complete the purchase directly from my cell phone. I acknowledge two caveats to this example
(1) a grill is a considered purchase that typically requires decision time. This example assumes I am already aware of the retailer and am already in the product consideration and research phase of the grill purchase cycle and
(2) it assumes that I’m informed enough about the product that the smaller bursts of info and short transactions will be easy and acceptable from the device.
Again, this seems so simple to me. So, I am just bothered by how seldom this is happening. We have an opportunity as marketers to drive greater transactions and ROI through something this simple.
By Karna
So, I read an interesting article on “Ad Age” about a company that is sending RSS feeds to populate a highway billboards with up to the minute hospital emergency room wait times.
My first reaction was, “What the heck?” That seems very pointless. Unless you’re in a war zone (literally or figuratively), is there really this burning need to know how long the wait time at the hospital emergency room is…up to the minute? I guess perhaps somewhere, but it seems like pretty high cost to do this.
That said, if you take this odd application of the technology out of the mix, the execution introduces yet another evolution of the digital out of home landscape, which allows for real time information updating on a high reach medium. This presents some interesting opportunities for recency and interactivity within the OOH experience.
An example of how this can be an engaging part of a fully integrated plan might include taking the TGI Friday’s Facebook Fan of Woody campaign, and extending it into the OOH space. Last month, TGI Friday’s set out to grow their Facebook Fan membership through their TV character, Woody…fast. They initiated a TV ad campaign that promoted the challenge, and offered all customers a free burger if TGI Friday’s reached their fanship goal. Friday’s could have utilized these billboards to extend the reach and frequency of the campaign by placing the RSS updating billboards in locations around TGI Friday’s restaurants. The boards could have presented up to date fan page membership numbers and reinforce the message of joining and getting a free burger when the goal was met. This not only drives the desired brand interaction…but it also then could have also driven a burger purchase through top of mind awareness around the stores.
Another opportunity for this technology to be used may be in industries where information is variable, but is still a critical driver of action, especially retail or wireless action. This could include things as basic as up to the minute interest rates or as unique as the number of Wii’s remaining in inventory at the local Target store during Black Friday.
The key to this being successful is in really considering when and where recency of information is relevant…in the right mode. On the go and at or near point of purchase are both interesting opportunities to consider.
