Inside Mobile Marketing

I created a simple thought process to help marketers new to the Mobile Channel add some structure to their mobile marketing planning.  While not perfect by any means, the process does highlight the importance of aligning your marketing objectives with how your customers might interact with your “mobilized” brand/service.  Click on the link below to access the PDF.

mobilethoughtprocess

I suspected as much, but app store data is hard to come by as Apple does not reveal insights other than  total downloads and segmented top download lists and companies like Pinch are few and far between. To date, most iPhone developers have been adding simple tracking methods within their apps on their own accord so the data available to advertisers is limited and hard to come by. Aggregated iPhone analytics is a niche “industry” whose time has come so that Media planners can get a better sense if the “channel” is working or not.  Companies to watch include -Pinch Media, Flurry, Medialets and Admob to some extent.  

From a marketing perspective, brands looking to make any real impact with an application really need to focus on the Media plan surrounding the launch of a new application to get the app ranked on Apple’s top 100 or better lists as it appears this is the make or break bar to hit in terms of a tipping point.

This brings up another issue – driving traffic to iPhone applications isn’t exactly a well known science yet.  Yes, many marketers are realizing you can deep link to an application from the Web to the iTunes page where the app resides, but others are incorrectly thinking they can buy their way into sponsoring the featured apps section within iTunes.

First off, GREAT game!  I tried to keep track of the commercials that featured a mobile component.  Here’s what I caught during the game.

1. Approx 6pm EST:  SPRINT re-ran its not-so-new NFL mobile campaign in which users viewed a call-to-action to TXT a keyword to Sprint’s 77777 shortcode for more information.

 

2. Approx 7:20pm EST:  Cars.com showed a man in his car viewing the company’s website on his “smartphone” before walking into a car dealership to negotiate for a new car (at least it was implied).  While no call-to-action to visit the mobile site and/or text message was displayed, I found it refreshing the commercial creators chose to display the interaction with the website via amobile handset.

 

3. Approx 7:43pm EST:  Monster.com encouraged users to enter a contest by texting “Fan” to 24421.  Users received an SMS with an embedded link in it taking them to mobile internet page where users could provide information to to join in on the fun.  I must admit that the mobile internet page was pretty well designed.

 

4. Approx 7:44pm EST:  United Way asked users to text “Fit” to their shortcode – I have to be honest I missed the shortcode because the call-to-action text came and went WAY TOO FAST.  I can’t imagine that too many people were quick enough with their mobiles to interact with this ad.

 

5. Approx 9:28pm EST:  The NFL encouraged viewers to vote for their game MVP choice via NFL.com on their PC or web-enabled mobile device.  NOTE the call-to-action was verbal – NO text display.

 

6. Approx 9:35PM EST:  - NFL re-ran SAME add as above.

 

7. Approx a few minutes after the game ended:  NFLShop.com encouraged viewers to call 1-866.NFL.5959 to pick up some Pittsburgh Steelers gear. To its credit, the commercial did show the complete numeric number above the mnemonic version in the initial scene, but then only showed the mnemonic version through the majority of the ad.  I wrote about this last month – the use of letters to represent numbers prevents mobile users with QWERTY keyboards from dialing or texting the correct numbers.  

 

8. Approx a few minutes later:  NFLShop.com re-ran the same ad, but I could have sworn that I did not even see the complete numeric phone number this time only the version with the mnemonic for NFL (1.866.NFL.5959).

So there it is, certainly not a lot, but then again Super Bowl advertising has always been more about building branding awareness versus asking for a direct response.   We’ll certainly see more next year.

Besides the obvious SPAM question, the issue as I see it, is that we have a double standard in play for Carriers versus marketers when adhering to established mobile marketing guidelines.

Wireless Carriers, AT&T included, strictly enforce adherence to their own mobile marketing rules and to the Mobile Marketing Association’s (MMA) Best Practices Guidelines – which clearly state that users MUST opt-in to receive messages from a marketer regardless if the messages are standard rated or free-to-end user (FTEU).  (Yes, Carriers can waive opt-ins at their choosing, but in this case they are promoting a TV program that they happen to have the exclusive text messaging voting rights to – seems to be a disconnect.)

So what gives AT&T the right to send out messages to their subscribers to promote a television program via unsolicited SMS – especially to those subs who may have never voted via SMS for the Idol show a.k.a “heavy texters”?

Many people in the Mobile Industry will interpret this action by AT&T as a double standard fueled by greed. Expect some “eyebrows” to be raised in the blogosphere and at upcoming MMA industry gatherings when the Carriers are present.

NOTE: I do support marketers having the ability to communicate with participants via SMS if the users opt-in and are clearly aware they may get marketing messages in the future from a brand.

Marketers should be cognizant of the rise of the QWERTY keyboard found on both Smart and Feature phones as the keyboard’s layout negates the practice of using only word-based mnemonics to represent shortcodes and phone numbers in marketing materials.

WHY? With QWERTY, the standard 12-button keypad and its corresponding letters that have long dominated both landline and mobile phones is displaced with a new layout and thus QWERTY users are unable to tap out mnemonic call-to-actions if the numbers are not displayed as well. TRANSLATION – QWERTY users are precluding from participating in campaigns.  Now it may not seem like a big deal, but I have seen some examples where major U.S. companies have made this mistake in their advertising (e.g. Text CHASE –  Another example would be just displaying 1-800-FLOWERS without the corresponding numbers).  

BEST PRACTICE:  marketers should always display the numbers near their mnemonics.  For example, Text CHASE becomes Text CHASE (24273) and Call 1-800-FLOWERS features (1-800-356-9377) next to it.

Interesting Side Notes:

• The NPD Group in Q3 noted, “Mobile phones with a QWERTY keyboard experienced the greatest year-over-year rise in sales; 30 percent of handsets were sold with this feature in Q3 2008, versus just 11 percent the year prior.”

• Nicholas Covey, director of insights for Nielsen Mobile, attributed the spike in messaging to the spread of QWERTY-style keypads, whose users send 54 percent more text messages than those with ordinary keypads. 

What caught my eye in the coverage of this campaign was the statement that Apple’s iPhone users could participate. How’s this I wondered, as most iPhone owners are now aware that their phone’s Bluetooth capabilities precludes them from using the radio frequency for file transfer or connecting to devices other than headsets. To solve this issue, ACE’s Chief Marketing Officer Matt Gaines explained to me that they have enabled their Bluetooth transmitters to also act as WiFi base stations – thus iPhone users would detect the signal (if scanning), connect and receive the intended marketing message or visit a particular website. (To be honest, I’m not sure what the exact iPhone user experience was yet.)

For marketers, the real challenge in a campaign like this is the creation and display of the Call-To-Action. Creating awareness for new technical applications is always a massive challenge! Unfortunately, I was not present at the parade to witness any signage and the resulting experience on my handset – so I’ll have to wait for some reader input and wait to see ACE’s campaign results.

While Bluetooth-enabled mobile phones are estimated to have upwards of an 80% penetration rate in the U.S., using them for anything but hands-free headsets can be assumed to be very low. According to ABI Research, 14.5 million Bluetooth headset units shipped in 2007 and this number is expected to hit 18M this year and 20+ million in 2009. The NPD Group had some 2007 data indicating that only about 40+% of users with the technology actually used it – and you can assume primarily for connecting to hands-free headsets.

SideNote: Nielsen Mobile estimated that there were about 3.6M iPhone users in the U.S. at the end of Q3. Nielsen also pointed out that the iPhone 3G has fared very well in NYC and San Francisco.

To the outsider, these changes may elicit a “so what?” response. To mobile practitioners these changes have a two-fold impact:

First, they reduce costs (except #4) for marketers. Significant effort is required by engineers to ensure their messaging platforms comply with the ability to deliver carrier-specific messages. It also lessens the amount of compliance review time required of marketers.

Second, and arguably most important, is that these changes (except #4) signal a willingness by a major Carrier to “play nice” with the other Carriers to help standardize a set of cross-industry, cross-Carrier mobile program regulations. This bodes well for all in the Mobile ecosystem as the biggest knock on the industry is fragmentation. Fragmented Carrier messaging just got some help. Thanks T-Mobile.

The emergence of application stores built around a specific handset and/or operating system will only continue to create additional complexity within the Mobile Marketing ecosystem and will certainly add to the costs of developing and promoting custom applications that run on the various platforms.

Marketers already struggling to keep up with MMA/Carrier off-deck compliance regulations, application testing guidelines and emerging technologies will now be tasked with familiarizing themselves on who to turn to have custom app work completed on their behalf.  Perhaps more importantly, marketers will also need to uncover the best ways to advertise their new apps across the various distribution outlets.  Other considerations will include;

• SDKs, SDKs, SDKs= $$$ in terms of acquiring in-house development talent
• Analytics – reporting from the various storefronts will differ – some firms provide app usage analytics.
• Accounting for the disparate revenue-share agreements 
• Application maintenance, QA and hosting costs
• In-application advertising – how it works, what it costs, etc..
• Merchandizing costs at the various outlets
• Nuances of storefront vetting process – especially with Apple.

SIDE NOTE:  I have heard anecdotally that custom iPhone app development can run into the low six-figures.  

So now that pretty much everyone in the Mobile industry has heard that Verizon Wireless (VZW) has told its U.S. messaging Aggregators that starting November 1st 2008, they will be charging them 3-cents for every standard and premium MT (outgoing message) that goes over their network for off-deck programs – let’s take a closer look at the situation:

1. SPRINT has long stated that it would charge 3-cents per MT, but has yet to enforce the policy to date. Will they wait to see what falls out of this VZW news OR follow suit?
2. T-MOBILE has charged for MT messages for some time now, but their charge is definitely less than 3-cents and may feature tiered-pricing depending on volume of messages. Will this change?
3. AT&T to my knowledge has never charged for off-deck messaging program MTs. Will they follow Verizon’s lead OR wait out the maelstrom?

Other questions…

MMS – Most of these aforementioned Carriers haven’t determined what their Standard or Premium messaging rates will be for MMS programs. Not that there are a lot of MMS programs running in the U.S. today, but will this 3-cent rate be tacked on to these forthcoming delivery charges? Hell, those companies trying to get MMS-MO programs off the ground (aka User Generated Content) may have to hold-off even longer now.

FTEU – I have written about this topic previously– the industry is still waiting to see what the economics will be for running these types of programs in the future. VZW states that 3-cents will not apply to FTEU programs, but how will the 3-cents charge influence the per message fees that will be associated with FTEU?

Senate Oversight Committee – Will Senator Herb Kohl and his gang of anti-trust committee members throw this development into the mix of items to investigate? Probably will, especially if other Carriers follow suit.

SMTP SMS – will companies start to seriously look at sending SMS via SMTP to consumers as viable option? I would think that the Carriers will anticipate this move and enhance their filters to watch for it and potentially block it. An argument can also be made that the SMTP option will make things worse for wireless subscribers due to SPAM and lack of MMA/Carrier compliance regulation.

Direct to Carriers – will this force large enterprises like Google, Yahoo, Visa, etc,etc that are sending millions of messages on a monthly basis to negotiate preferred rates with the Carriers or Aggregators?

PREDICTION

With the industry backlash that is swirling on the internet now, I am predicting that VZW will pull back on enforcing this policy until further notice. They will need some time to listen to ideas/pleas from other ecosystem players before moving forward. Heaven forbid they do go forward with this and they start losing subscribers to other Carriers because their subs complain of not being able to use ChaCha or vote for their favorite dancing star because the program provider can’t afford to support VZW.

WOW! That’s quite a lot of text messages, however a couple things are worth noting as a Mobile Marketer:

• If you look at data from either comScore/MMetrics, Nielsen Mobile regarding the percentage of U.S. subscribers that actually send at least 1 text message within a month, than these aforementioned numbers are essentially generated by approximately 50% of the total wireless subscribers in the U.S. (Note: Jupiter Research states that approx 62% of wireless bases uses text messaging)

• These numbers are DOMINATED by peer-to-peer messages versus messages generated through participation in a shortcode program (aka Application-to-peer). comScore/MMetrics has stated the following:

Just 6% of teen mobile users responded to a poll or contest via short code–i.e., voting for an “American Idol” contestant–in the past month, slightly higher than the overall population (4.5%) but still not a critical mass. Even fewer teens responded to a text-message ad (1.6%), in contrast to the 2.4% of overall mobile users. And just 1.5% of teens responded to an offline ad that directed them to text a short code in.

• Also — VeriSign’s wireless aggregation business stated that A2P, such as news alerts, ring tones, promotional video clips, and enterprise messages sent to mobile users rose sharply in Q2 2008, from approximately 186 million messages in Q1 2008 to approximately 249 million (A2P) messages in Q2 2008, an increase of close to 33 percent. NOW, Verisign processed a total of 52 BILLION messages in Q2 2008 – which would mean that less than 1% of these SMS being sent were A2P or marketing-based (in some sort of fashion)