Posts filed under 'Technologies'
It’s pretty clear that engaging an audience via mobile advertising requires a different approach than through many other media. Simply sending an interruptive text straight to the device in somebody’s pocket isn’t likely to be received well; it’s likely to be seen as spam. Connecting with a mobile audience requires marketers to understand that they’re not sending users simple advertising, they’re sending them content.
Take, for instance, the SMS sent to Blyk members back in January from the UK government youth agency Connexions. The campaign didn’t just send users texts with a call to action, rather it sought to engage them by asking them to respond to a number of introductory questions as a lead-in to a conversation. Accordingly, the campaign got a 36% response rate — far higher than most standard, interruptive campaigns.
The campaign offered users something of value in exchange for their response, and that’s a key point. That in exchange for users’ attention, in exchange for access to their mobile phone, the most personal of devices, advertisers need to give users something in return. That something can take many different forms: a discount coupon, a piece of useful information, some entertaining video content, and so on. In some sense, the marketing aspect of the message needs to take a back seat. The initial focus needs to be on delighting the recipient in some way — and then you can get the marketing message across.
Marketers need to see themselves as content providers. A movie trailer isn’t an ad; it’s a piece of mobile content with the potential to engage and entertain the viewer. If it delights the recipient, it doesn’t simply make them want to go see the film, there’s a possibility they’ll pass it along. Do people pass advertisements along? Not really. They pass along content. Sometimes that content happens to be an advertisement.
Forget blurring the line between content and advertising. In reality, that line doesn’t exist.
Carlo Longino is a Las Vegas-based writer, analyst and consultant in the mobile industry. His past experience includes work for Nokia, Nortel, and a number of other mobile companies, and he blogs at MobHappy.
May 8th, 2008
Standing in the toy section of a store in the Hong Kong airport, I was fascinated by the wide array of faux laptops made for children. These machines were designed to look like laptops, but their functionality was extremely limited to a learning-based program with the graphical capability of a Tamagotchi. Faux electronics for children have been around for a while, especially in the world of mobile phones. Lately, though, technology has become cheaper and what was once faux is now real. While children’s laptops are still more hype than reality, phones for children are appearing all over the place. These “kiddie” phones are often smaller, simpler, and more brightly colored.
A few weeks ago, the New York Times reported on the tide of concern in Europe over the rise in kiddie phones. On one hand, there are questions about the long-term health effects of mobile phones. On the other, there is a parenting concern about whether young children should have phones at all. One of the experts quoted draws a parallel between the mobile phone and tobacco industries. In other words, are companies acting maliciously by addicting kids to mobile phones at a young age? Luckily, since it’s Europe, the furor is prompting a bunch of research.
In the States, kiddie phones have had a different tenor. Here, the safety concern revolves around access to porn and other “harmful” content as well as the potential for dangerous contact from strangers. (Research is not encouraged.) When kiddie phones are available, their uniqueness is less about look and feel than it is about parent-child specific features. For example, the branded kiddie cell phone service offered by Disney was a glorified parent tracking device for parents. Last fall, Disney cancelled the service, citing challenges breaking through the carrier stranglehold.
All of this makes me wonder… What is the appropriate age for children to first get phones? What should be the purpose of those phones? What regulation is necessary? What are the responsibilities of parents?
March 25th, 2008
Yesterday, Microsoft announced that it is buying Danger, the maker of the Sidekick. The Sidekick is an interesting phenomenon in the United States. The phone itself is only available through T-Mobile and it is barely available outside of the U.S. Although talking on the phone is like putting a piece of toast up to your ear, it is one of the best devices for inputting text. Its qwerty keyboard, flip-top screen, and easy interface makes it the ideal device for sending text messages an IMs. While getting a data plan for the iPhone or Crackberry can be quite costly, the $30/month data plan includes infinite web, IM, email, and text messaging use. Unlike plans for other phones, Sidekick users do not need to have a voice plan to activate the data plan.
The Sidekick’s user base is rather unique and quite passionate about the device. For a while, the Sidekick was THE device for hip-hop stars and celebrities. Paris Hilton’s use of the device became well-documented after someone managed to socially hack their way into her data. The device appeared in all sorts of music videos, without prior consent from the company behind it. While it’s hard to know whether the egg or the chicken came first, the Sidekick became extremely popular amongst urban youth in the United States. (While youth are the most visible users of the SK, deaf and hard-of-hearing users are also passionate about the Sidekick, particularly because it supports IP-Relay and i711 services which allow deaf users to make phone calls using an operator as a go-between.)
When I interviewed urban teens about social media, I consistently heard about the Sidekick. Some teens told me how they learned to IM through the Sidekick; others told me how the Sidekick was their first non-school device for accessing the Internet. Amongst certain circles, those who didn’t have one wanted one because it was seen as the “cool” thing. It was a guaranteed way to communicate with friends no matter where you were, no matter how badly you had gone over your minutes. As Shean (17, LA) explained: “When you have your Sidekick, you can text message so fast – and it has AIM. And everybody has AIM. And all my friends have Sidekicks so it’s like the new network for kids or teenagers and people, like, everyone wants a Sidekick because it’s easier, rather than just getting on the phone to call people.”
I started using the Sidekick in 2003. When the iPhone came out, I thought about switching… but then I tried typing on it and found myself completely frustrated. Many of the teens who were addicted to the Sidekick felt the same way I did - the iPhone sure was pretty, but it wasn’t as useful as the Sidekick. Given Microsoft’s tiff with Apple, there’s no doubt that this is part of the appeal.
There are certainly problems with the Sidekick. Danger’s relationship with T-Mobile has been a complete disaster for the product. T-Mobile won’t let users upload their own programs to the device, making it a non-generative technology even though the APIs for the OS are available. T-Mobile has refused to launch new versions until years after they’re finished, meaning that the device is always outdated at launch. The web capabilities are dreadful and many of the applications need a breath of fresh air.
All that said, I can’t help but scratch my head at Microsoft’s acquisition. Most of the original Sidekick team had long since left Danger for Google. (They are the folks behind Google Android.) The Sidekick doesn’t really need an operating system; Danger’s OS is hands-down the simplest phone interface on the market. (Personally, I dread the idea of Microsoft inserting their wonky mobile OS into the device; this will be the end of my personal SK use.) Danger is completely hogtied to T-Mobile making it impossible for the phone to be used on other carriers.
I respect that Microsoft wants to get into the mobile space, but what does this acquisition mean for the passionate youth userbase? Will Microsoft manage to break this deal or are they going to continue to let T-Mobile dictate the terms of what goes on the phone? Will Microsoft force the carriers to allow people to develop for the SK? Will Microsoft implement their UI on this device or learn from what Danger did right? Will Microsoft help launch the SK outside of the U.S.? Will Microsoft work to get the SK in the hands of youth outside of urban settings? Or will Microsoft buy it and squash it?
I still can’t make sense of this acquisition. Anyone have better insights into what’s going on?
February 13th, 2008
I admit it. I’d been wishin’ and hopin’ and prayin’ that Google would launch some new phone that would change the landscape of mobile telephony. Instead, with the Open Handset Alliance, it seems as though we got a vision and a committee.
Of course, I’m being a bit harsh here. What this alliance is trying to do is really important. Philosophically, they’re saying that the current paradigm is Dysfunctional with a capital D. Without a platform and standards, developers cannot efficiently build software that users want. I couldn’t agree more. It’s simply depressing to think of what creative developments could emerge if only there weren’t so many barriers to interaction. Yet, I’m having a hard time getting my head around why a Google OS is the answer.
There are no standard operating systems in the world of mobile. Microsoft has their mobile OS. Then there’s Palm. And lots of companies build their own OSes with varying options for trying to build software for them: Nokia, Motorola, iPhone, Danger, etc. Some require handset signoff of apps and most require carrier signoff. Even more problematically, it’s just downright ugly to write software for most of these phones. Google wants to change that. And it looks like for some phones, it will. But not all carriers are in. And not all handset makers are in.
So will this actually bridge anything, or will it only introduce another segmentation into the market that makes it more difficult for users to interact with one another?
Right now, honestly, I can’t read between the soft and fuzzy marketing lines to make heads or tails of where things are going. But the Android Challenge will certainly make a few geeks happy.
November 13th, 2007
