[x+1] Research: Only 3% Of Marketers Find 'Good ROI' In Mobile

Marketing technology company [x+1] is gearing up to release a research report comparing how marketers and consumers perceive the value of certain ad types, and the company's VP of marketing John Haake gave RTM Daily an early look at the key findings. Chief among them: only 3% of marketers are finding "good ROI" in mobile.

The data is part of a research study [x+1] co-commissioned with Research Now, and the full report is expected to be released within a month. "What we were trying to do is understand where marketing budgets aligned with effective advertising as defined by the actual consumer," Haake said. The data comes from 250 consumers and 200 marketers and the survey was conducted in mid-July.

While only 3% of marketers reported "good ROI" in mobile, Haake believes all signs still point toward mobile becoming a bigger part of the marketing mix. "It takes a long time for the dollars to actually flow to where the eyeball is," he pointed out. He added, "The interjection of programmatic techs and better targeting data has created something of value in [mobile] that may have not existed for consumers in the past."

Even though marketers are responding to consumer behavior by budgeting more for mobile, Haake noted that "clearly it is something that we haven't found the right combination for. No one, including consumers, is particularly satisfied with the type of communications that are occurring there."

Recommend (14) Print RSS
8 comments about "[x+1] Research: Only 3% Of Marketers Find 'Good ROI' In Mobile".
  1. Jeremy Geiger from Retailigence , August 26, 2013 at 7:11 p.m.
    Advertisers are handcuffed by their organizations, designed for an earlier era. If a branding ad inspires a consumer to want to buy, why wouldn't the ad offer an option to help them find the brand or product? Answer: Because that would be DR and would be another department's budget and could cause arguments or wasted time internally.
  2. Ned Newhouse from Conde Nast , August 27, 2013 at 11:01 a.m.
    Could it be that is because mobile is not a direct marketing tool? Stop trying to make it so. You're not going to win the Indy 500 on a bicycle either. Consumers are spending an average 3.6 (non voice) hours per day on a smartphone. Maybe markers need to think and apply to the consumer rather than us fitting into an antiqued media push model of direct coloration ROI that is not possible to measure. Or of course you could wait and watch your competition kill your business when they work to inspire 2 Billion people that have already have smartphone.
  3. Ned Newhouse from Conde Nast , August 27, 2013 at 11:51 a.m.
    As a man with 30 years of media experience in newsp, TV, magazines, desktop and now mobile, people expect to be entertained on their smartphone whether its a chat with a friend, a game, facebook, even an ad. Today >95% of all mobile ads are static, layed there for dead. That is why mobile falls short. Even IF perfect targeting, geo fencing, context matching in the world existed together in one ball- it will NEVER do more than what "human inspiring" creative will achieve. The best and key investment that needs to be made vs all the other "stuff" is to make is in a rich media ad. Cost ~$2.5K per. Mobile ads that contain one or more of the following inspiring features THAT CONSUMERS CAN CHOOSE to engage with... a video, a slide show, a social link, a store locator, a sweepstakes a discount are proven to generate engagement rates above 10% (celtra study). Marketers today have mobile reach and are actually expecting consumers to engage with static ads that put people to sleep, passed right over. Would you run a 15 sec spot on TV with a static image and no voice over? Reason- people expect to be engaged. Fix that and call me in the morning- signed, the doctor.
  4. Matt Cooper from Addroid , August 27, 2013 at 12:54 p.m.
    @Ned_Newhouse - Agreed and speaking of static ads on mobile: did you know the both IAB and MMA have not defined a spec for in-banner video on mobile? This is the reason that mobile is a vast wasteland of static ads. An an industry we served or first static banner in October 1994. Today what we are doing is delivering that same antiquated tech from 20 years ago yet we're bitching about ROI? I think we can do better.
  5. Gene Keenan from TCF , August 27, 2013 at 12:56 p.m.
    The title is backwards: It should read; "97% of brands and agencies have not a clue what they are doing when it comes to mobile." Sounds about right.
  6. James Smith from J. R. Smith Group , August 27, 2013 at 2:31 p.m.
    If I recall the stats back in my early days in direct marketing, a 3-4% pull rate was normal for some "lists."
  7. Geoff Simon from Simon Search Marketing , August 27, 2013 at 5:24 p.m.
    But that's not accurate, it says that 3% find good ROI on mobile, not that their conversions were 3% on mobile. Doesn't say what "good roi" is though.
  8. Domenico Tassone from Viewthrough Measurement Consortium , September 1, 2013 at 8:48 a.m.
    Interesting article and comments, it would be great to see the research or a summary of the findings in detail. More independent analytics or academic research on mobile performance should help the industry advance beyond hype and me-too logic.