Commentary

Are The Expectations For Mobile Too High?

by Cory Treffiletti , Featured Contributor, October 6, 2010

Last week I attended OMMA Global in New York, where I listened to a number of panels and presentations regarding mobile: its effectiveness, its reach and other pertinent facts. I came out of all of the sessions asking the same question: Are our expectations for mobile possibly too high?

Let me clarify first that I am a big believer in mobile as a consumer medium. I constantly use my iPhone and my iPad, and I can say confidently they are an integral part of my life. I can also say confidently that for the last 10 years mobile has been "two years away" from the "promised land" (whatever that is). I'm starting to think our expectations for what the platform can be are not fair. There are too many companies trying to pin their entire business models on the hopes that mobile will sustain them.

Mobile is a deeply personal medium. I get it. Marketing messages that can invade the mobile environment and resonate with the audience can also be deeply effective. I get it. The problem is that the messages literally have to "invade" and "resonate," which are two things at odds when it comes to mobile.

The majority of mobile advertising and marketing opportunities are invasive, and by the sheer nature of being invasive, they're not welcomed by the consumer. When you broadcast or display a message that's not welcome, you're automatically starting from a position further away from the starting line. It's more difficult to break through when you drop an ad unit in someone else's app that has no contextual relevance and is only there because of so-called demographic targeting. Say what you will about contextual relevance, but it works for billions of dollars in paid media.

There are certainly apps that get past this quandary by being self-selected by the consumer, with ads integrated into the experience to try to maintain relevance. These can be more effective, but you're typically still dealing with a space far smaller than even the smallest online ad for a standard website (even text ads on Google are larger than the majority of graphical ads on your smartphone). Even if you hold your phone six inches from your face, these ads are just not as impactful.

This also doesn't even take into account the fact that such a deeply personal medium means that when consumers use it, they're most likely ultra-focused on a task at hand and don't pay as close attention to ads and marketing messages. Those are some steep hurdles to jump -- almost Sisyphean for some.

I know there's data to prove me wrong on this, but the data and research I see are typically based on one small snapshot of a mobile campaign in a vacuum and not integrated with the rest of the media mix. That doesn't tell the whole story.

I believe mobile is a tool for consumer retention and messaging to your existing audience. I do not personally believe that it is a good acquisition vehicle, nor is it a good introductory vehicle for generating initial awareness. I feel mobile should be positioned as a secondary vehicle for marketers who are already engaging with their consumers and are looking for additional frequency and ways to stay top-of-mind. To that end, I would want to see more research dedicated to mobile as a CRM and secondary frequency vehicle.

I know there are mobile marketing companies rising up every day (and many of you email me at least once a week), but what I'm looking for is a mobile marketing company that integrates its offerings into other forms of media. Mobile is not a stand-alone vehicle. It requires partnership with other media vehicles to be truly effective. Mobile is an extension of print, it is an extension of TV and it is certainly an extension of out-of-home media. When it comes to online, mobile is a subsegment of the greater picture, because any device that can be untethered from your desk is considered mobile, and therefore cannot be planned or implemented all by itself.

I've written pieces like this before, and I'm sure I'll write them again. For mobile to meet our expectations as a medium, we need to make sure the expectations are accurate, achievable and fair. My fear is there are a plethora of companies launching in the mobile space and not being set up to succeed because they aren't setting the bar at a realistic level to jump.

You may agree or you may not, so let me know on the Spin Board!

commentary, mobile

7 comments about "Are The Expectations For Mobile Too High?".

Check to receive email when comments are posted.

Thom Kennon from Free Radicals, October 6, 2010 at 10:11 a.m.
Begging your pardon & grace in advance, Cory, but I don't think you do "get it" as you suggest in your setup here.
"Mobile" will soon likely become the utterly converged, primary entry point into EVERYTHING consumers have, do, share, connect with, consume, capture, save, buy - love etc.
It's not about whether mobile is better suited at acquisition or CRM, that's asking and answering the wrong set of questions.
Here's how I think we should be framing things: mobile will change how brands and products are born, thrive and die in the very near future. It will change everything, not just our media or marcomms plans.
So, I'd beware of those guys and gals who actually do "get it" as they will soon be sitting at the console (and it'll fit in their pockets) turning the dials which attenuate and define this brave, startling - and opportunistic - future of product and brand marketing, driving enduring consumer engagement and value for the companies we serve.
@tkennon | bigevidence.blogspot.com
Reply

Jim Lillig from Synergy Intermedia, October 6, 2010 at 10:43 a.m.

"I believe mobile is a tool for consumer retention and messaging to your existing audience. I do not personally believe that it is a good acquisition vehicle, nor is it a good introductory vehicle for generating initial awareness."

Cory, I am a big fan.

The data that we generate at OfferMobi suggest otherwise. Last month we generated over 80,000 leads in the mobile space for advertisers. Acquisition is all in how you build and tweak your funnel. Mobile is proving to be a terrific way to engage users at first and then it is all about the follow through in various other channels such as email, sms and direct mail.

Jim Lillig | OfferMobi.com

Stephen Shearin from ionBurst Media, October 6, 2010 at 1:05 p.m.

'Mobile', like 'Social', is a little to broad to sum up in a single word, not matter how many conference fliers try to do it. The difference in methodology in the myriad mobile mediums are such that if you want to reach everyone, you can't plan around smart phones (as an example, and not to state the obvious.)
Will everyone be on phones for the most part? Sure. Are they there now? Not like the rest of the world. Does it work? Not as a stand-alone platform as you pointed out.
The phone is a tool. Like a pen or pencil. Yet pen/pencil advertising never took off. Other than swag. And phones will never be swag.
Time will tell, but one thing is certain - it (mobile advertising) won't be going away!

David Oldham from O-CODES, October 6, 2010 at 8:54 p.m.

Cory, I enjoyed this article. I am a big believer that mobile is a bridge between the physical and the digital worlds. Even though I can accomplish a great deal on my mobile devices, and will increasingly do so, I still interact with and consume a vast amount of information in traditional, offline settings. However, when I am exposed to information in an offline setting I want to instantly be able to act on it (save it, share it, wishlist it, purchase it, or comment on it) like I can in a digital setting. In this context, mobile technology allows me to instantly bridge the gap from the physical to the digital. From an advertising perspective, consumers can engage with the brands and products instantly from an offline exposure setting (magazine, catalog, newspaper, billboard or out of home, in-venue, etc). Traditional media can still be effective if coupled with the ability to interact with, share, and measure responses like digital media provides. This is something I am personally very passionate about, and therefore could resonate with this part of your article specifically: "Mobile is not a stand-alone vehicle. It requires partnership with other media vehicles to be truly effective. Mobile is an extension of print, it is an extension of TV and it is certainly an extension of out-of-home media." I agree completely.

David Oldham from O-CODES, October 6, 2010 at 8:55 p.m.

Jeffrey Stier from Blurts, October 7, 2010 at 6:23 p.m.

Mobile, like every other media, is what marketers make of it. In the right hands with the right execution it's a great acquisition, CRM, retention or messaging tool. It could also be terrible if executed poorly...which is the same for every other media format--always has been and always will be.

Re yours.."I'm looking for a mobile company that integrates its offerings into other forms of media. Mobile is not a stand-alone vehicle. It requires partnership with other media vehicles to be truly effective." I love this train of thought and started a company to do just that. Voice is the only mobile app that 100% of all mobile users globally know how to use. Tagging voice to other media formats (for example, here text but could be video, photos, etc.) is
one thing mobile was born to do.

Jeff tagged a blurt to his written text comment. Click to hear:
http://blurts.com/10okdf

Justin Souza from Marlin Mobile, October 8, 2010 at 11:58 a.m.

Mobile will only deliver on its promise when we are able to fully meet users expectations for experience and speed...The fragmentation across device, browser, carrier, battery, etc create obstacles in achieving that goal, all of which are compounded by the consumer's ability to discover 'contextual relevance' - the marketer's strategy of apps vs mobile sites.