Archive for the ‘Mobile Search’ Category

Tamome – Mobile Affiliate Advertising Marketplace launched by Founder & CEO Christian Louca

www.tamome.co.uk

Calling Partnerships

As Founder & CEO of Tamome I announce we are open for partnerships within the mobile affiliate advertising market sector.  The Tamome team have been quietly building our technology since February of this year and we are now live with major clients.  We are looking to extend partnerships with advertisers, affiliates, publishers and app developers. The time has come for the birth of mobile affiliation, a massively overlooked market segment that warrants some attention.

We have strong ambitions to drive this froward;  with all our knowledge, insight, motivations, passion and general love of the industry we hope to disrupt the market through creating exciting opportunity for all our partners and partners customers alike.  We invite you to participate in the next generation of mobile advertising.

A little bit of vision

With smartphone and tablet penetration accelerating across the globe and with more and more people using this as their means to stay connected with the world; always on, always connected and always with us.  This has become the preferred method of; communicating with friends, family, colleagues, TV Shows, entertainment,  finding out what is happening in the world, sharing content on a global scale in seconds,  navigating our way around the worlds cities and towns, letting our utility suppliers know how much we owe them, staying in touch with what is important to us, researching, understanding perceived value of anything through to buying digital goods, products or services and making payments.  It is no wonder that in such a short period of time where this is happening right in front of our eyes, we still cannot even begin to imagine where it will take us in the future.

Technology is so powerful; it has allowed the human race to advance in ways that were just simply not even conceivable before its time. ‘Before its time’…I am not sure what I mean by that.  Since technology has been around longer than the human race.  It seems strange even writing that; but I believe the reality of technology starts with life itself and the evolution of the world that we know and live in today.  Mobile technology is just one element of a whole world of biological and non-biological technology evolutions.  Non-biological evolutions need a creator, a creator can exist because of biological evolutions.  Make sense?  I think ‘technology’ is an almost impossible thing to define but I think we have to split this in these two pieces.

Biological Evolution of living technology

‘Technology that were Creators’

Biological evolution of the Human Race

Non-Biological Evolution of non-living technology

with the biological evolution of technology that were creators

‘technology that was created’

Technology that was made by technology that were creators

So it should be clear now that mobile sits within the Technology that was made by Technology that were creators space. Why is this important?  We need to understand the context of the bigger picture rather than just looking at mobile.

Technology evolution depends on its creators.  That is you and I. Creators evolve according to their natural evolution (remember we are biological technology).  Now the lines start to blur because you could ask ‘are we evolving according to the technology that we are creating?’  Anyway, another time for that one.

We have since life began carved, manufactured, developed, created concepts of technology to ultimately make our existence on earth enriched, easier and healthier.  The internet has enabled us to put all our thoughts, ideas and concepts all into one place, like a giant brain.  Thanks to mobile technology this brain is now accessible to us all across the connected world like being on a drip.  We can open it and close it as and when we feel.  Its always there, its always on but we are in control as to when we use it to make our days enriched, easier or healthier.  This is the power of mobile and why like no other industry it is growing at a rate that we have never seen before anywhere else in our time.  I am proud to be part of such an amazing evolution of technology and communication  that is simply extraordinary.

Christian Louca

Posted By }  guardian.co.uk,

The explosion in the popularity of smartphones and tablets has led to mobile advertising revenues nearing £500m in 2012. Photograph: Lee Jae-Won/Reuters

The explosion in popularity of smartphones, tablets and the app revolution has fuelled a more than doubling in mobile advertising to £500m this year – just four years after the sector struggled to attract £25m.

UK mobile advertising grew a staggering 132% in the first six months of this year to £181.5m, according to the latest Internet Advertising Bureau (IAB) report conducted by PricewaterhouseCoopers.

Breakneck growth is continuing in the second half – fuelled by the popularity of Apple and Google’s app stores as smartphone ownership nears 60% of the UK’s adult population – with forecasts putting UK mobile spend at as much as £511m for the full year.

In 2011, the IAB put mobile ad spend at £203m.

Mobile display and video advertising almost doubled in the first six months this year to £50m, with mobile search soaring by more than 150% to £132m.

Mobile search accounts for almost three-quarters of all UK mobile ad spend.

Total UK internet advertising spend rose 12.6% year on year in the first six months to £2.59bn, comfortably on track to pass £5bn for the year. The total digital display advertising market, including mobile, rose 10.6% in the first half to £591m.

One of the biggest beneficiaries of the rise of digital display advertising, albeit not on mobile, has been Facebook. Enders Analysis puts Facebook UK’s full-year ad revenues at £236m, a healthy 35% year-on-year rise.

However, these figures actually represent a cut of 18% on more bullish estimates made earlier in the year.

Enders analyst Ian Maude said the downgrade is the result of factors including a steeper-than-expected slowdown in the rate of Facebook’s ad revenue growth, marketers reassessing the value of ploughing money into gathering friends and likes to brand pages, and the social networking site’s well-documented struggle to make money out of mobile.

Jamie Matthews, chief executive of Initials Marketing, believes the scope for growth for mobile marketing remains massive.

“The £500m mark is just the start,” he says. “Facebook is racing to develop a mobile ad strategy to tap into its 550 million monthly mobile users, and more than half of big companies do not yet have a coherent mobile marketing strategy. I would expect mobile advertising to continue to grow at a staggering rate for some years yet.”

The biggest segment of the internet advertising market continues to be paid-for searches, which are dominated by Google.

Spend on search advertising rose 16% in the first half to crack £1.5bn, a 60% share of the overall market.

The rise of mobile ad spend in the UK

2008: £25.45m

2009: £37.6m, up 32% year on year

2010: £83m, up 116% year on year

2011: £203m, up 157% year on year

2012: £181.5m in the first half, up 132% year on year.

Via: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/oct/09/mobile-advertising-500-million-pounds-2012?newsfeed=true

My Comments on the below:

I am a bit late finding this article but there you go.  I find the stats really interesting.  Despite the fact they offer shoes for all, I am guessing here that their main user base is made up of Women.  I can instantly relate to their experience.  If I look at my partner who since purchasing her an android phone (6 months ago), who by the way is a kind of techno-phoebe, has moved from a 0 to a 10 user of the mobile internet (0 being not at all and 10 being everyday more than once).  However, despite this amazing change of her use of phones not once has she been bothered by apps.  This is not because she is not aware or has not tried them but she is used to searching for content when she wants.  She finds it easy.  She already knows which sites she has interest in and what sites she would buy clothes/shoes and whatever other flavour.  It is interesting as her peers also share the same thought process, yet their male counterparts and very engrossed into both mobile internet & apps.  In fact the more I think about it especially apps that help them not have to think for themselves or games of course!  Anyhow, before I digress, this supports the experience shoes.com has described.  As women, being the main demographic (again this is an assumption) of shoes.com, they are comfortable and familiar with SEARCH (and aren’t we all, no matter our gender) hence making more purchases via the mobile site than apps.  Therefore, as long as the e-commerce site is mobile optimised and the URL re-directs are in place then their customers will happily discover and purchase via the mobile internet site (as we in the industry call m-commerce, a transaction made via the mobile device).

In the early adoption days of mobile internet we saw that many publisher, media owners and e-commerce sites were receiving anywhere up to 5% of their users online coming from a mobile device.  Whilst with one hand this was positive news, with the other it was bad. As the sites that were not optimised for mobile you can start to work out the potential loss of revenues and/or damage to the brand/media owner by delivering a poor user experience and/or no real payment flow.  Traditional publishers and media owners quickly woke up when they saw these stats.  However, the retail industry was very slow to react.  It wasn’t until Steve Jobs created the iPhone and apps that they retail sector started to take the space semi-seriously.  It is great to see now how retailers or e-commerce sites are starting to understand and experience this space better and as the article suggests ‘not just jumping on the app-bandwagon’.

Posted By ] Rimma Kats

Shoes.com's mobile site

SAN FRANCISCO – A Brown Shoes Co. exec at the Mobile Shopping Summit said that 85 percent of mobile purchases come from the shoes.com mobile site and not its applications, proving that retailers should focus on having a Web presence before jumping on the app bandwagon.

Panelists during the “Mobile Roadmap Part I: Key Evaluation Criteria For Developing Your Initial Mobile Platform – The Keys To Mobile Merchandizing” session discussed the challenges and success their companies face with mobile. The panel was moderated by Marci Troutman, CEO of Sitminis, Atlanta.

“We had a strong ecommerce platform,” said Pete Hogan, vice president of ecommerce at Brown Shoe Co., St. Louis. “We were seeing a lot of agencies contact us about mobile and there were few players in the game two years ago.

“Eighty-five percent of our mobile sales come from the mobile Web and not apps,” he said.

Future of mobile
According to Mr. Hogan, the company’s long-term mobile strategy will involve the use of HTML5 to provide a richer experience to consumers on their mobile devices.

For companies that are looking to develop mobile sites or apps, it is important to keep the consumer in mind and try to make the overall mobile commerce experience as seamless as possible.

“Think about your business and how many times people touch your business,” Mr. Hogan said. “If you’re Starbucks then it’s daily, if you’re McDonalds it’s weekly.

“If our customer is a registered customer, we wanted to make sure we auto filled their shipping information,” he said. “That’s where you help them save time.”

A majority of consumers who download applications to their mobile devices do not use most of them.

A mobile site is an ideal tool to capture that consumer at the point-of-sale, per the panelists.

However, companies wanting to enter the application space should make sure that their apps provide a different experience than the mobile site. A lot of the time, mobile apps are geared towards loyalists, pushing deals and alerts to them daily.

There needs to be an incentive for consumers to click on that app icon when they want to shop instead of going to the company’s mobile site.

The mobile site, on the other hand, is an access point for existing and potential customers and should be treated with that in mind.

Brown Shoe first developed a mobile site and then an iPhone application.

Currently, the company has three iPhone applications, three mobile-optimized sites and three Android apps.

According to Mr. Hogan, the company’s mobile site mimics its ecommerce site and now features personalized recommendations and ratings.

“We tried to add most of the bells and whistles,” Mr. Hogan said. “However, there are still a few missing things.

“Tracking is also important – we can see when customers are coming to our mobile properties,” he said. “The ROI is trackable.”

Mobile extension
Dale Monson, senior vice president of operations at The Sportsman’s Guide, said that the company is currently working on a second version of its mobile site.

Although the company has a mobile presence, Mr. Monson said that it has not invested in marketing efforts to promote its applications.

“When we launched our iPhone app, we wanted to make sure we were in the market,” Mr. Monson said. “The main challenge we had was a lot of items on our Web site and it’s difficult to push that into the mobile and have consumers shop easily.

“However, we have not had a good marketing program yet to push the downloads,” he said. “We have not invested in marketing efforts for our apps.”

Via: http://www.mobilecommercedaily.com/2011/04/28/shoes-com-85pc-of-purchases-come-from-mobile-web-not-apps

Rimma Kats is staff reporter on Mobile Commerce Daily and Mobile Marketer. Reach her at rimma@mobilemarketer.com.

Posted By ] Ronan Shields

The growth of mobile search ads outstripped desktop search ads during March, according to figures from digital maketing agency Latitude.

The research revealed that arbitrage opportunities from mobile search continue, with mobile costs per click 37% cheaper on average than the desktop. This is despite click-through rates for mobile search ads rising 4.9% in March compared with 3.3% for desktop search ads.

Latitude also found that approximately one in 15 paid search clicks came from mobile during the first quarter of this year.

Alex Hoye, CEO of Latitude, said, “User adoption of mobile search is exceeding advertisers’ adoption of the channel, continuing to give those targeting mobile a cost arbitrage.”

The increasing popularity of smartphones sold with data plans has driven the demand for mobile search, with brands from the automotive, gaming and retail sectors most eager to take advantage.

Gaming operators accounted for 9.5% of mobile paid search clicks during March. Automotive brands accounted for 7.4%, primarily offering users test drives and repairs.

Meanwhile, retailers are using mobile search to promote stores and drive users to their m-commerce sites, with 6.5% of all paid-for clicks booked by retailers, according to the survey.

Via: http://www.nma.co.uk/news/mobile-outperforms-desktop-for-paid-search-ads/3025678.article

Source: Mobile Commerce Ltd.

The top 100 mobile search terms of 2010:

1. Facebook

2. Google

3. Bebo

4. Youtube

5. http://www.facebook.com

6. Ebay

7. Facebook.com

8. Hotmail

9. Yahoo

10. Ebuddy

11. Msn

12. Lottery

13. you tube

14. Face book

15. Flirtomatic

16. Yahoo mail

17. Google.com

18. Lotto

19. Twitter

20. Plenty of fish

21. Plentyoffish

22. Bbc

23. Chat

24. Facebook login

25. Free games

26. http://www.google.co.uk

27. http://www.google.com

28. bbc weather

29. Gmail

30. Weather

31. Games

32. Zap

33. Google.co.uk

34. Wikipedia

35. hotmail.com

36. http://www.bebo.com

37. autotrader

38. Justin bieber

39. argos

40. Train times

41. Euro millions

42. Myspace

43. plentyoffish.com

44. Bebo.com

45. Bbc Sport

46. Cheryl cole

47. Football

48. Amazon

49. Babes

50. lottery results

51. Google images

52. Flirtfinder

53. http://www.facebook.co.uk

54. aol

55. music

56. http://www.hotmail.com

57. Goggle

58. Bbc news

59. national lottery

60. Google maps

61. Flirt finder

62. http://www.youtube.com

63. Yell.com

64. Msn messenger

65. Utube

66. national rail

67. youtube.com

68. Sky Sports

69. Facebook.co.uk

70. Zedge

71. Jls

72. Irish lottery

73. Ringtones

74. Lady gaga

75. Waptrick

76. Windows live

77. Yahoo.com

78. Free Music

79. Big brother

80. Katie Price

81. The sun

82. Free ringtones

83. Yahoo.co.uk

84. Halifax

85. Google search

86. Msn hotmail

87. Windows live messenger

88. Free

89. Megan Fox

90. Free downloads

91. Lucy pinder

92. Qeep

93. Jokes

94. http://www.yahoo.co.uk

95. http://www.ebay.co.uk

96. Barclays

97. Match.com

98. Rightmove

99. Cineworld

100. Ebay.co.uk

Written by Chris Cameron / July 5, 2010 12:35 PM

appvsweb_jul10.jpg

Last week I had the chance to attend Qualcomm’s Uplinq 2010conference in San Diego where I was able to sit it on several interesting discussions about mobile technology and its future. One of the sessions I was particularly interested in was a chat about the tools being created to improve web development optimized for mobile devices. Qualcomm engineer Bijan Amirzada showed off some interesting new capabilities within mobile Web browsers, but one assertion he made has since been stuck in my mind: will Web-based apps eventually dethrone native applications on mobile devices?

googlemobile_jul10.jpg

This same move from native applications to Web apps is happening as we speak on desktop computers. I am writing this very article onGoogle Docs because, to me, it’s just as good as any desktop word processor and it automatically saves my work to the cloud. Universal access from multiple devices is large reason why Web apps have taken off for desktop users, but native mobile applications have not yet made this same leap.

That same desire to have our data at any time doesn’t influence mobile development as much because our phones are portable and are already with us all day. Web apps for mobile will instead have to rely on other ways to attract users away from native applications. To do that they will first need strength in numbers, and that means attracting developers, and as Amirzada explained, there are several reasons developers should be excited about mobile Web development.

Attracting the Mobile App Developers

The first is the simplicity of the coding itself. Experienced Web developers are more likely to pick up mobile Web development than, say, iPhone app development. Developers can use HTML, CSS and JavaScript to create Web apps instead of learning new languages to code native applications. Native app development may not be the hardest of tasks from a developer’s point of view, but Web development is a skill they have likely already mastered and are adept at.

webnative_jul10.jpg

Secondly, as Amirzada pointed out, the mobile Web market is much larger than native applications markets. By coding for the mobile Web, app developers can reach a broader audience on multiple devices and platforms in a single stroke. Platforms like iPhone, Android and Windows Mobile (which all use unique languages and techniques to develop applications) only represent a fraction of the overall mobile device market, while the mobile Web is accessible from a much larger number of handsets.

The third and possibly most important reason developers should be attracted to mobile Web apps is that the Web is an open platform. Developers don’t have to spend weeks on an application only to see it rejected for increasingly strange reasons. Steve Jobs can’t censor the Web like he can the iPhone, and there is no waiting for applications to be approved.

Hurdles to Overcome

Unfortunately for mobile Web app fans, these benefits also come with equal and opposite disadvantages. While coding for the Web may be simpler than creating native apps, the native platforms allow the apps to take advantage of the device’s functions and features. From a user perspective, native apps are more appealing because of this. I would rather use an app that felt like it belonged on my phone rather than use a Web app that seems shoehorned onto my device through HTML.

cappuccino_jul10.jpg

Another problem with Web apps is their performance when compared to native apps, which are streamlined to run as efficiently as they can on the device they are designed for. Amirzada said that this is changing, however, as HTML5 improves on the infrastructure of the Web and makes applications faster and more functional.

He also demonstrated how using open-source JavaScript frameworks, like Cappuccino, on Qualcomm’s Brew mobile platform can give developers access to various device sensors to create richer Web-based mobile apps. The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) is also working on bringing mobile Web apps up to speed by creating astandard for Web-based push notifications.

But the question still remains – will mobile Web apps one day outpace native applications? The largest push in this direction seems to be the openness of the Web, as closed platforms have turned many developers away from popular native platforms like the iPhone and iPad. But those developers could just switch to Android or Windows Mobile. Once we reach a point where mobile devices have the computing power of our desktop machines, mobile Web apps could make a run on native apps, but that is still likely a few years out.

Let us know what you think about mobile apps versus native apps in the comments below!

Disclosure: Qualcomm covered the author’s travel costs to attend Uplinq 2010.

URL Link:

http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/will_mobile_web_apps_eventually_replace_native_apps.php

What the duel between Google and Apple’s operating systems means for brands

Posted By, - Joan Voight, June 27, 2010

No question, placing ads or branded apps on mobile phones promises to be the Next Big Thing. The problem? People have been saying that for the last three years. Or, has it been five.

For mobile marketers, the hurdles are still everywhere. First, there’s market penetration. Even though it might look like everybody and his uncle has a smartphone, the truth is that less than a third of Americans (30.6 percent) are mobile Web users, according to eMarketer. So while brands like the idea of wireless marketing — nearly 65 percent said they plan to invest in mobile apps this year, also per eMarketer — they have reasons to be wary, too.

According to eMarketer, U.S. mobile ad spending is forecast to be a relatively skimpy $593 million through the year (up from $416 million in 2009). And a study by Worthington, Ohio-based BIGresearch released late last year revealed that 52 percent of Americans consider mobile advertising to be an invasion of privacy — and that number is growing.

There are also technical issues. For instance, when Dockers decided last year to reach fashion fans via their smartphones, it had to create two different mobile initiatives: one for the iPhone and one for the BlackBerry. (The iPhone had an interactive, motion-sensitive ad that ran on game apps; the BlackBerry, which sponsored the launch of the Pandora Radio app, offered users a link on the app to a coupon on its Web site.)

But new technologies and devices are paving the way for marketers to be both more efficient and more effective in the mobile space. As a result, mobile marketing seems to be getting closer to the promises made in 2002, when the first BlackBerry hit the market, for a powerful new revenue stream that could change the way most companies market their brands. Today, researchers at Borrell Associates in Williamsburg, Va., predict that mobile could well account for up to 60 percent of online advertising in the next five years.

It seems the Golden Age of Mobile Marketing is approaching fast. But its entrance is being accompanied by a dustup at the gates: the rivalry between Google and Apple over advertising on the former’s open-source Android (the upstart Google purchased in 2005) and Apple’s proprietary iPhone-based operating systems. But the question of which will be bigger and better is perhaps less important to marketers than a clear sense of which operating system will be the best platform for their brands. While some say Apple, with the introduction of iAd, which allows video/interactive ads to be placed inside apps, will lead companies to the promised land, others claim they can see the future — and apps are not in it.

To understand what this all really means, however, we first need to scan the smartphone landscape.

In Q1 2010, the number of smartphones sold worldwide jumped 49 percent from a year earlier to 54.3 million units, per technology research firm Gartner. Sales of Android-based phones increased a staggering 707 percent in North America (more than a dozen vendors use the Android OS on more than 30 different devices), with more Android smartphones shipping in this country during the first quarter than iPhones. NPD Group found that Android phones took a 28 percent share of the U.S. market for units shipped in Q1, ahead of Apple at 21 percent. (A version of the iPhone operating system is also used on the iPad, which was not counted.) Globally, however, the iPhone operating system was still ahead of Android by more than 3 million units during the first quarter.

Race for penetration aside, Apple is ahead in the swagger department, and not just because its iPhone and iPad tablet have added sizzle to the industry while also being highly user-friendly. Now, Apple is using its iAd mobile-advertising platform to sell interactive ads embedded in the iPhone’s apps.

“With cool new stuff … Apple is driving clients to allot money for mobile, and making them eager for a mobile marketing strategy,” notes Alexandre Mars, head of mobile at Publicis Groupe and CEO of  mobile marketing agency Phonevalley.

But Apple’s iAd platform isn’t cheap. It computes its prices both on CPMs (cost per 1,000 views) and click throughs. A campaign with a 1 percent click-through rate, for example, has a CPM of about $30. Other mobile ad networks usually charge one or the other.

Insiders say that four of iAd’s inaugural clients will spend up to $10 million each — more than some clients’ entire digital budgets. (Earlier this month, Apple reported that it sold iAds to brands including Nissan, Citi, Unilever, AT&T, GE, Target and Best Buy.)

Google, on the other hand, offers inexpensive search, banner and expandable video ads and analytics tools for various phones. For instance, AdMob (which Google not only uses, but recently acquired) charges, on average, a $10 to $15 CPM and doesn’t add costs per click.

Higher costs aside, however, some say Apple’s strategy could juice up the entire mobile industry — raising both ad rates and quality simultaneously. According to Tom Bedecarre, CEO of agency AKQA, Apple is reaching out to leading ad agencies (including his own) in hopes of securing about a dozen inaugural advertisers willing to spend over $1 million each.

“Apple has a clever strategy to feature iconic brands like Target, Nike and Gap to generate solid case studies supporting mobile marketing spending,” says Bedecarre. To date, there have been few such notable case studies. “The creative messages in these inaugural ads will be tweaked and optimized by Apple to ensure quality, to remove any bugs and to give iPhone owners a quality experience with brands they admire,” he says.

Bedecarre adds that if Apple’s plans work out with category-leading brands, it could have a trickle-down effect. Because the experimental nature of mobile advertising still causes many companies to look warily on spending money in the space, successful case studies “will help legitimize mobile ads for the whole category,” he says.

Another potential game changer: the quality of the iAds themselves. When a user clicks on a banner ad within an app, he or she will see the screen fill out with a variety of interactive options. Essentially, says Richard Ting, ecd of the mobile and emerging platforms group at R/GA, brands can create mini branded apps. Clients can provide richer, more emotional experiences, giving them and their agencies a simpler alternative to building out a mobile app or mobile site platform, says Ting.

“Up to now, advertisers have not been able to have an Apple-like user experience in an online ad unit,” explains Keith Johnston, head of digital at Butler, Shine, Stern & Partners. “The iAd offering provides more interactivity and more engagement than what has been out there — an advantage for lifestyle brands.” The agency plans to use the platform for sports apparel client Columbia Sportswear later this year.

Some mobile marketing experts note that the iAd platform is a good option for upscale, cult brands, as well as for advertisers that have a reputation for innovation. Rachel Pasqua, director of mobile at search marketing agency iCrossing, says iAd is well suited for “brands with household names that are similar to Apple in spirit and brand allegiance — for instance, a Whole Foods type of brand that targets suburban moms who use smartphones.” Such an advertiser, Pasqua notes, might want an in-app ad that would make it easy to find stores, learn of events and check local inventory. “If you want to reach the kind of person who reads the The New York Times on the go, your ad on the NYT app has to be on iAd because Android  doesn’t have it,” she says.

But what happens when the novelty wears off and the iAd platform is no longer the shiny new toy of the digital marketing world? Some say it might find itself limited to high-end niche brands. Amelia Milo, director, media strategy and integration at Ansible, Interpublic Group’s mobile marketing agency, says, “The Apple OS has high barriers to entry for the average brand. [The cost is] incredibly high and metrics aren’t even close to being normalized this early on—certainly not enough to qualify for a brand seeking a specific demo beyond ‘early adopter.’”

Also, there’s the question of how much longer consumers will be enamored with mobile apps in general.

Some experts, such as AKQA’s Bedecarre and BSSP’s Johnston, anticipate that consumers love affair with apps will continue. “Applications create the opportunity for innovation,” Johnston says. “They largely free people from carrier or network limitations. They are unique experiences … tailored for specific consumers and their needs. Why would they go away?”

But, Ansible’s Milo says, “we study the target audience’s mobile persona, such as the devices and carriers they use and the content they access, and then we present a solution — whether or not that includes an app.”

And Publicis Groupe’s Mars (shown) says apps seem less relevant when it comes to the marketing plans of traditional, multinational brands. These corporations, he says, are asking his agency “to build mobile Web sites so they don’t lose the relationship with their end user when that user is mobile. With the mobile Web the reach is there; with apps, the reach is not there.”

Meanwhile, when it comes to Web-based mobile ads, Google’s open-source Android can benefit advertisers. They get Google’s distribution at an inexpensive price, along with the growing potential of mobile search, including voice-, image- and location-based searches. And many brands, such as teen retailer Abercrombie & Fitch, are learning that most of their users are on Android phones, according to iCrossing’s Pasqua.

But if Apple’s Achilles heel is its dependence on novelty and control, then Google’s weakness is its complexity. Android has multiple versions (1.1, 1.5, 1.6, 2.0, 2.0.1 and 2.1), which makes it difficult for developers to create pristine experiences across all devices, notes Milo. Because of the hardware differences and desire to create apps with quality experiences across all versions, developers say they don’t have the quality control that they’d like and are becoming overwhelmed. Also, Android phones don’t prompt users to update their software or apps as iPhones do, exacerbating the quality issue.

But more importantly, when Google can compete with its own in-app ads on the Android platform, the rivalry with Apple could shift dramatically. And Google’s acquisition of AdMob does clear the path for it to release an in-app advertising option similar to iAd, say agency experts. Those ads, however, would still face the complex technical issues. Also, a controversy is brewing over whether Apple intends to exclude AdMob from the iPhone OS.

Mobile search certainly has huge marketing potential for Google, but it’s still in its infancy, with most people searching the Web on desktops and laptop computers.

For now, cult, lifestyle and innovation brands aimed at people who use iPhones and iPads might be the best fit for the iAd platform. Android might be a better deal for everyone else, say some experts. In time, marketers will likely see Google offering in-app ads with comparable interaction and immersiveness as those on the iAd platform, and the iAd will likely be dabbling in mobile ads beyond apps.

In the meantime, mobile marketers and their agencies will have to deal with a battery of companies investing in smartphones and mobile operating systems — including Nokia, Microsoft, RIM BlackBerry and HP, the new owner of Palm.

From a consumer point of view, iPhone users will continue to see ads from Google and other networks when they use mobile search or cruise the Web, and iAd ads popping up on their apps. Android phone users will see Google Web ads also, as well as inexpensive in-app ads from sources other than Apple.

And who will emerge as “victor” in the Android versus iPhone OS war? Most agency insiders seem to be betting on Google, with its girth and advertising know-how. But they have been wrong before.

URL Link:

http://www.adweek.com/aw/content_display/special-issues/mobile-special/e3i17f324ee1f3a862abe39d40b4221ed2c?pn=3