Posts Tagged "Google"

Today’s news was all about the debut of Google’s mobile phone, Nexus One, and also Apple’s acquisition of mobile ad network Quattro Wireless for $275 million.  The timing of either announcement cannot be coincidental.  Google and Apple appear to be converging on the same opportunity; mobile devices as platforms for advertising.

Yet read between the lines and you could imagine each company’s approach complementing one other very well, providing marketers with a variety of effective and measurable approaches to reaching consumers.

While there is nothing to prevent Google from developing a large screen tablet mobile device such as is expected of Apple shortly, a larger screen should serve as a higher value advertising basis than handheld devices.  This January 4, 2009 article about Nexus One on The New York Times website says as much:

“…some surveys show that users are wary of ads that could clutter the precious real estate on their small cellphone screens.  And phone users seem more willing to pay a few dollars for applications or content than PC users, potentially reducing the importance of advertising.”

Handheld devices lend themselves much better to simple advertisements akin to those seved by Google in association with its search engine or even by recently acquired AdMob.  This article speculates:

“(Apple) could develop ad units and formats that it thinks are way better than the tiny banner ads already on the mobile web.”

Apple’s reputed tablet device may be the ideal basis for such higher value ad formats.  Marketers will soon be faced with having to decide among different approaches for reaching their customers via mobile advertising, but should not neglect the need to engage customers directly using mobile marketing techniques such as those offered by Interactive Mediums.

With advertising focused almost entirely on acquisition and loyalty a constantly moving target, marketers require compelling engagement capabilities to rope customers into fulfilling experiences that encourage consumption.  That’s what Active Customer Engagement is all about.

Several different articles came across my screen today, all relating to mobile couponing but from unique perspectives.  What’s interesting is that mobile couponing has yet to really “take off,” yet retailers may already be looking past couponing to higher value mobile applications.

This article today on eMarketer.com cites research into mobile coupon redemption (chart pictured in this post) suggesting real “hockey stick” growth after 2011.  The article also mentions consumers tend to be less interested in couponing than in using their mobile devices for product research “on the go” – such as “scanning images or bar codes with their mobile phone to get more information or coupons for a product.”

That quote is interesting in light of another article, this one about Google again making a move into QR, or Quick Response codes.  QR codes are two dimensional bar codes that when scanned with the camera function of a Smartphone present a variety of information about the code – the company or store it represents, links to a website or any number of details helpful to a consumer, including special offers or coupons.  Google’s strategy is to place 100,000 QR code stickers in businesses across the U.S., all of which do not require specialized software – a limiting factor in prior trials of QR codes which often required proprietary reader software.

Google’s efforts are well aligned with trends suggesting consumers are more interested in product research than coupons – even if QR codes can serve both purposes.  Widespread QR adoption may be just what retailers are seeking, based on this article today from Retailwire.com.  Although coupons are a logical mobile application, this viewpoint reveals the “necessary evil” aspect to couponing:

“The downside of mobile coupons is the back-end cost of redemption, which makes a successful promotion increasingly expensive.  Coupons are also the most basic of triggers for shopper engagement, with little long-term loyalty benefit.”

The article poses the question, “what’s next?” and goes on to suggest retailers build mobile strategies geared around an enhanced shopping experience, in and outside the store.  It’s apparent that retailers will benefit most from strategies geared around creating positive mobile customer experiences for their customers.

Widespread QR codes are just one element that will help connect consumers with retailers in value added ways – including couponing – but the greatest value will stem from targeting customers at the point of device to drive sales, cultivate loyalty or increase brand affinity – otherwise called Active Customer Engagement.

A couple days ago we speculated a reputed move by Apple to offer free, ad supported iPhones could force Google into the device business.  Yesterday it was reported Google was in fact getting into the device business but with a voice over internet protocol (voip) phone which would access data networks only.  Apple’s recent patent filing may have nothing to do with Google’s plans but it’s hard to imagine this is purely coincidental.

Although the move hasn’t been confirmed by Google, the article notes that “the carriers won’t love this,” no doubt because doing so subverts their immense sunken costs in traditional cell networks.  Even so, AT&T has supposedly lined up to provide data network access, because if they don’t surely another will.  With Google Voice offering phone service over data networks, Google will effectively have a tightly controlled alternative to any other mobile phone, and one that could be given away free if supported by built in advertising – that Google also happens to provide.

Long term, moves like this could render voice networks irrelevant.  On the device side, should Apple and Google move toward free, ad supported devices, traditional makers like Motorola will struggle to manufacture hardware at anything approaching a profit, no matter what operating system is used.

As a follow on to yesterday’s post regarding mobile application compatibility issues among different Android-based phones, today I came across two more articles – one coming at the issue from the same direction, another from a different one.

This post titled, “Developers only now realizing Android is not a platform” expands on comments recently made around problems facing open source software used in customer facing applications (versus the back office, or closed environments closely monitored and managed by IT staff and developers).  It’s a sobering point of view that if publicized further may discourage application developers and marketers from investing in Android mobile applications.

The other, titled “Microsoft: mobile apps aren’t important” cites claims just made by Microsoft Chief Software Architect Ray Ozzie (remember Lotus Notes?) that apps are not important unless developers are able to write a single application that runs across many devices.  He implied that the operating system itself and its built in features would be the key to this future – a line parroted by Microsoft for years, but historically more around its desktop operating system.

Both of these points of view may drive an even deeper wedge between Apple’s consumer friendly, yet closed approach and more open or device/OS centric approaches to mobile applications.  Unfortunately for anyone but Apple, the mobile customer experience is very personal and so the winner long term is likely the one who recognizes the large market opportunity is about ease of use and friendliness.

Comments such as those of frustrated Android developers and Microsoft (who has its own issues around mobile) make it more likely that iPhone app alternatives will be relegated to purely B2B applications, as in the case of sales force automation or field service support.  Basically, tightly controlled, back office solutions.

Today I read something I had not heard about previously, speculating on Apple’s strategy for its iPhone and related businesses via analysis of a recently filed patent application.  Today on MobileMarketingWatch.com an article titled, “Apple’s Secret Plans For Mobile Marketing- Ad-Supported Hardware Possible?” describes something called an “enforcement routine,” which when implemented would require users to receive, view and acknowledge advertising messages before accessing a device’s functions.

While that sounds cumbersome and unappealing, the implication is that Apple may be seeking to subsidize in part or fully the cost of iPhones and other devices via “ad supported hardware.”  The article cites recent word that Apple was in discussions with AdMob before it was acquired by Google as evidence the company is interested in moving in this direction.  It’s also tacit acknowledgement that the real money is in advertising, ala Google, as opposed to creating costly proprietary hardware and software.  With ownership of its ecosystem, Apple would seem positioned well to execute on this strategy.

Should this happen, it would be very hard for device makers like Motorola to earn a profit.  You might imagine Google getting into the device business at some point, following a similar strategy.  For marketers, it would offer a much more visible presence on consumer handsets, elevating the value of such advertising to levels seen in the wired web world.

This question came to mind as I read a November 16, 2009 article on Wired.com titled, “Android’s Rapid Growth Has Some Developers Worried.”  Seemingly the darling of developers as much as the iPhone is to marketers, Android’s attractive openness may cause more problems for developers than it solves.  For marketers the situation will undoubtedly cause some hesitation as they look to Android as a platform for apps otherwise intended for, or in addition to, the iPhone.

Statements like these will make it hard for developers and their salespeople to claim an Android app offers access to the rapidly growing base of Android device users:

“A slew of problems have made managing Android apps a ‘nightmare,’ they (developers) say, including three versions of the OS (Android 1.5, 1.6 and 2.0), custom firmware on many phones, and hardware differences between different models.”

“For users, it means apps in the store could be buggy, might not work well depending on their handsets, and could deliver a frustrating experience. Unaware of the increasing back-end complexity, they would then be more likely to leave bad reviews for those apps.”

“Instead of working on updates to our apps, we find we are trying to make each app work for multiple versions of the OS and different hardware capabilities.”

“You may build an app that works perfectly with all three firmwares, but then when you run it on carriers’ ROMs it completely blows up.”

The article draws a connection with the introduction of Java and its promise of “write once, run anywhere,” and how that didn’t really work in practice.  Google apparently offers emulators to test applications on different devices yet according to one developer these don’t work consistently, making it hard to confidently create a multi-device compatible application.

If the same holds true with Android, you will soon see charts of device market share split across different Android-based devices as opposed to one monolithic category – especially when talking about the market for mobile applications.

Apple must see these as good signs and validation of their tightly controlled model.  The mobile web is another story, and it looks as if Android is a great platform for developing a rich, user friendly web experience.  Emerging statistics like these November 17, 2009 ones on eMarketer.com bear that out.

Yesterday my colleague John Wood pointed out challenges Google Android faces versus the iPhone while also noting that Android has a lot going for it, mass distribution and low price among them.  With so much attention focused on the iPhone as a consumer friendly device and the darling of marketers, it’s easy to forget that the ultimate goal of any mobile marketing activity is to drive sales.

To what extent might Android be a better m-commerce platform than the iPhone?  I’m not entirely sure, but this November 10, 2009 article on Forbes.com titled, “All Eyes On Mobile Commerce” highlighted a key difference between the iPhone and other platforms that marketers need to consider if mobile commerce is in their sights.

“Apple’s iPhone users create an iTunes account upon iPhone registration, if they did not already have one, where credit card information is stored for future one-click purchasing.  This enables over 50 million iPhone and iPod owners to purchase media or games on a mobile device, inputting their password to access their iTunes account.”

“T-Mobile, which will launch four Google Android handsets by the holiday season, has been working with Google to integrate the Android Market into its billing system by Thanksgiving.  Historically, which may or may not still be relevant, bill-to-carrier models have been less attractive to the mobile merchant due to delays in payments and the high cost.  Given the billing cycle of the operator, payments can be extended 45 days to a couple months.”

Getting paid fast is important in any transaction and so for the foreseeable future Apple’s model seems to represent an easier path toward booking revenue – for Apple at least.  You can be certain Apple is considering broadening the iTunes model to include other products given the ready-base of buyers able to transact rather simply.  Apple could become an Amazon.com like player quickly if it wanted to, slowing mobile commece on other platforms.

It’s doubtful that mobile will serve as a standalone handheld shopping cart for purchases of all kinds any time soon, given shopping behavioral differences between impulse and considered purchases.  Yet, as the article points out, all well known online stores, from Amazon to Wal-Mart, are heading in this direction, and technology vendors like IBM are gearing up their e-commece platforms for the mobile channel.

Marketers seeking to develop an iPhone or other Smartphone application as part of their customer relationship development strategies have often gone down the path of determining the iPhone is the most suitable platform; Apple does a lot of the marketing, the applications are easy to access and the iPhone user experience is very consumer friendly.  At some point leading to this decision, marketers logically ask: “Why can’t I pay for one mobile application that will work across every device?”  This question will get posed now even more as Google Android-based Devices like Motorola’s Droid gains traction and becomes a viable mobile application ecosystem in its own right.

This issue is likely to be raised increasingly by top marketers not interested in the details, but who control the dollars and wonder why the rich mobile web cannot be leveraged to achieve the same ends as with a dedicated Smartphone application.  Today I came across a great article that doesn’t seek to answer this question, but does anyway, by describing how close (or far) we are from being able to approach mobile apps with a “write once/run anywhere” promise, like was promoted by Sun Microsystems when the Java programming language debut.

This November 10, 2009 post titled “One Mobile App for Multiple Platforms Almost a Reality” on the ReadWriteWeb.com site points to three approaches which offer the potential to develop a single application capable of running on nearly all devices.  The key qualifier is the word “potential,” however, as a poor Mobile Customer Experience represents a huge gating factor.

The author cites HTML 5, Adobe Flash and JavaScript Native Applications as three approaches, and each has its good and bad points.  I will get to the good points in a minute but the key issues with the first two are the potential to lose a network connection and thus have an application “close” abruptly.  This is a psychological hurdle significant enough to discourage users from these apps relative to ones which are fully operable on a device without a connection.  The latter of the three suffers from a user interface which works for many but is optimized for none; Javascript allows rich applications but that require interface technologies which are general purpose.  These lack a Smartphone app’s native look/feel which attracts consumers to mobile apps to begin with.  Now the good news:

• HTML 5: Think mobile optimized web pages with significant database access, and this offers a lot of application-like capabilities.
• Adobe Flash: Similar value to the above, maybe more so by virtue of greater visual and interactive controls.
• Javascript: Allows creation of encapsulated, self standing applications, which can run on multiple devices.

It goes without saying that customers demand more from a mobile application than they would a desktop one; it must “fit” more in line with their “on the go” behavior and so the design and user experience are as important as any other factor in a successful application.

Given limitations, real or imagined, around the connectivity between a device and the network, and the role a native look/feel has in ensuring an apps’ adoption by its target audience, we are not going to see “write once/run anywhere” mobile apps anytime soon.  Instead, marketers will have to pick their battles, so to speak, based on alignment of their customer demographics with those of Smartphones.

That seems a valid question given the image posted alongside news articles today discussing the acquisition of AdMob by Google (attached to this post).  The fact an empty space where the name of a company might fall beneath the SMS Ads image telegraphs such a move.  That wasn’t obvious to me until seeing this article today on the acquisition titled, “Is Google Gearing Up To Buy A Second Mobile Ad Network?”

Whether this happens or not depends upon whether Google’s offering around text message ads today falls short of the ideal solution.  At first, the best candidates would seem to be those who have already developed an ad network, yet in practice the value of a network relative to the technology to serve, track and measure SMS advertising should be greater.

Why do I say that?  Because unlike display ads in an iPhone application or on a website, SMS text ads are different – they align with interactive message flows between businesses and their customers.  They don’t live or render on an application interface or webpage waiting for someone to see them.  That is fundamentally a different advertising application even if at first blush it seems the same as display ads or hyperlinks appended to search results and among company websites participating in an ad network.

If Google does make a move into text messaging, it will be interesting to see who they buy and what they hope to obtain by doing so.  Players in the space are angling for a shot at being bought, if you read between the lines of vendor comments here.  Should they take the plunge, it will most certainly align the company closer with the exciting new area of Active Customer Engagement.

The big news today was Google’s acquisition of mobile advertising network provider AdMob for $750 million in stock.  In case you are not familiar with AdMob, it is among the more prominent mobile services firms, providing an advertising network and complementary measurement tools mainly for the iPhone.  They are also often “go to” people for statistics around mobile web usage, penetration and growth.

I say they bought more than AdMob, because in fact Google’s move illustrates the giant “gets” mobile, and that it means a lot more to marketers than hyperlinked words alongside search results (AdWords) or appended to websites in an ad network (AdSense).  It’s about providing a platform for marketers to reach their customers in the most relevant, timely and effective manner, based on the mobile experience.

Moreover, it’s recognition of the powerful marketing platform that is the iPhone, despite last week’s release of the Motorola Droid and what is sure to be a flood of Android-based phones in the coming year.

Oh, wait, Google owns Android too.  Hmmm, seems like they have their bases covered pretty well with the leading and arguably most effective mobile ad network used on the competitive iPhone, and the top contender to dethrone the iPhone.  Those Google people are really smart.

In AdMob, Google now has a wedge to use in its efforts to compete for marketer’s mindshare and dollars.  Over time, you can imagine those dollars spent advertising within iPhone applications will find their way into apps for Android.