Saturday, August 11, 2007

Mobile Commerce Zones

Today, my channel of choice is mobile marketing via the Internet. It’s a bit of a departure from my usual channels discussion, but customer discussions have me thinking about mobile marketing, and the Forum Oxford has me thinking about community, so here I am.

The holy grail of mobile marketing is to push offers to consumer mobile phones when they are in proximity of a merchant’s location. So today, after creating a demonstration coupon service supported by 5o9 Context Manager software (my shameless plug for my company) all the pieces fell into place. Granted, to make this happen some big players would need to come together in the co-marketing initiative of the century, but if they did, the benefits to all involved would be huge. So here’s the idea:

Pull together two giants – Microsoft and Sprint – to target commercial districts across the country. Microsoft sells a community Web server (or perhaps partners with local ISPs) for a shopping district, such as LODO, Cherry Creek, Downtown Boulder or 29th Street in Colorado. Wi-Fi or Wi-Max access points are installed by Sprint in these relatively defined areas (could also work in shopping malls). With a little help from coupon generation software and online campaign management tools supplied by Microsoft ISVs, and with location and shopper data supported by 5o9 software, consumers in the vicinity of a Mobile Commerce Zone could either search for coupons and specials from the local merchants, or give the local merchants permission to push them offers while they visit the area. Users can define a 1 mile, 2-mile or 5-mile radius from which they are willing to receive offers, and each consumer can determine if they are willing to receive all, some or none of the offers based on category or interest (dining, music, beverage, clothing, household, etc.). And they could even get walking directions to the store or restaurant based upon their current location.

Push marketing via the Internet. Supported by any phone with an Internet connection. Delivered via high-speed Wi-Fi or Wi-Max networks. Supported by local advertising. Backed by respected industry leaders. Driven by consumer choice and permission. Closed loop, time-restricted, measurable marketing for local businesses. A social, mobile shopping community. Everyone wins!

And of course, this can be extended to other countries based on infrastructure partnerships with top mobile network providers there. And it can also be extended to other communities, such as theme parks, ski and beach resorts, city museums/botanical gardens/zoo complexes, or even college campuses.

The only question that remains, is will companies like Microsoft and Sprint take a leadership position to demonstrate the power of how the Internet can support both community and commerce by giving consumers control of their contextual data via the Web-connected mobile phone? The technology exists today. We as commercial entities simply need to relinquish a bit of control back to the consumer in exchange for accelerated adoption of mobile marketing, and cost-effective, targeted, measurable, affordable mobile marketing for local businesses.

Wednesday, June 13, 2007

Pairing Content and Application Distribution

This was a post to discussion thread on the Oxford University Next Generation Mobile Forum I felt it had good applicability to the differences and similarities of mobile vs. internet and physical distribution channels.
(Select iTunes as an Application Distribution Mechanism discussion)


Ajit - good question.

I do think that content supported by apps (or more accurately, apps supported by content) increases the value of downloading the application, but so much depends on the content, the application and its practicality/benefit on mobile.

In the case of Apple, the question remains whether or not there is benefit to provide downloads of anything that does not support the sale of more Apple Store content – a basic business decision they will make. Media players, media editors, graphic/video manipulation tools, media generators - all of these applications should have great appeal to both Apple and Apple consumers, however these tools are often ill-suited for mobile. Content creation is doable on a mobile - photos & videos, but editing is very difficult on the small screen - both control manipulation and presentation/review is less than ideal. A face twisting widget may be fun, mobile song-sharing or group podcast software or services work, but something like mobile Garage Band, or Photoshop may be tough to translate to mobile. Application developers will certainly need to get creative to make it worth theirs and their customers’ time.

I'm not convinced that this model will necessarily work for other app developers, content providers, or even the carriers, as their user bases are often much more diverse, so marrying apps to content is not as simple for Apple and the number of app vendor/distribution relationships a carrier would have to have to make this profitable could be thousands and require an update to their evaluation, distribution, and relationship management processes. Apple, by keeping a media focus has a limited number of licensing/reselling agreements with media companies, but just like the carriers, they will have to update their operational/staffing infrastructure to support application vendor contracts, management, reporting etc. It can be done, but it is costly and takes time. (Ask Ingram Books, Ingram Entertainment or Ingram Computer Products Distribution).

If you look at physical world distribution, people choose where they will purchase based on several factors - convenience, price, affiliation, trust/expertise, exclusivity. The carrier or Apple may be convenient for some people, affiliation may come into play with Apple (media stuff), expertise - probably not so much – no real support for that. Companies like FeedTribe are trying to address simplified billing (think mobile PayPal), so that users can conveniently purchase content or applications on any site and not have to be tied to a walled garden distribution/payment network for app or content purchase. Specialty distributors exist everywhere – CE products, entertainment (video, DVD, games), books, software, hardware, storage, soft drinks, alcoholic beverages, etc. It seems likely the reasons for creating this diverse distribution and retail structure in the physical world and the Internet, will also apply to mobile. (Ajit – I think it was you who addressed this issue of affiliation in a post a few months back).

So while Apple may take the lead on music media content distribution and be able to drive some supporting application sales, this may not be extensible to other content/application categories. Smart application vendors and content providers will continue to do what they do – deliver their products through all the channels that customers want, as long as they can make money doing it. The risk of the walled garden approach is that the more successful the gardeners get, they have a knack for biting the hands that feed them. Margin squeezing, poor service/reporting, difficult evaluation cycles, etc. make it more expensive and/or inconvenient for the media/app suppliers to distribute through that channel. And since water flows along the path of least resistance, other tributaries are likely to present themselves over time.

The good news is that the market is so large there is room for many winners. The key will be to make it relevant, easy, and convenient for the consumer, AND keep it easy, convenient, and profitable for the content/app creators and distributors. Both the supply chain and the value chain have stakes in this game.

Liz



Tuesday, April 17, 2007

A Picture is Worth a Thousand Ad Dollars

The purchase of Double Click by Google is a confirmation that Google has two core competencies – search and advertising. Search is what they do, but advertising is how they make their money. The fact that Microsoft and others were bidding the business talks to the driving power of advertising within the interactive media channel. The acquisition news this week, along with several other articles about carriers, media companies and technology companies got me thinking. And then, I woke up this morning to the following picture in my in email box:

Well then, I just did the happy dance. This picture, along with some other things my company has been developing in the localization, mobilization and personalization space pulled it all together for me.

Mobile has limited real estate. On-screen navigation of Web sites is difficult on most devices. And the mobile phone is viewed as much more personal than a desktop or laptop computer. So as a marketer, I have to ask myself how can I get my message across quickly, effectively and in a manner that consumers will accept? As a business owner, I want a single infrastructure that will support all of my web services and marketing campaigns and deliver them efficiently to my customers on whatever device they choose to use. So what’s the least common denominator to reaching them on any device using my existing infrastructure? The Browser. So let’s look at what’s working and not in the realm of mobile data services and advertising:

The downside to carriers – the walled garden approach – limits access to things users want

The upside to carriers – menu-based navigation – easy, intuitive, works with any device

The downside to text ads – doesn’t grab attention – may be overlooked

The upside to text ads – contextual relevance, space savings – required for mobile

So why not combine the best of all digital advertising practices and use the browser to navigate, brand, provide contextual relevance and catch the consumer’s eye. Technically, this is not an easy task, but I believe its power and practicality are undeniable. While mobile will never provide the full visual impact or amount of data displayed on a television or a 15” monitor, we can do much better than we are doing right now.

So as mobile marketers, we just need to grab enough attention to get someone to see and select our menu item (the equivalent of a click-through). If it can take them directly to the action we want, right there inside the menu – all the better, as we limit the barriers to the desired action. We want maximum customer choices (open garden) as this leads to more marketing revenue. As long as the attention grabber fits within the context of the menu structure or mobile page content, it will be viewed as relevant and should have a higher response rate. The attention grabber can be a photo, logo or icon and can be accompanied by text, as in the first image. So if the first image, which is a bit busy, did not drive home the concept of how powerful menu-based web services and marketing and can, this one, which is not quite as flashy, should:

This includes links to on-device applications, links to web sites (think favorites or bookmarks in the menu), location-based services in the menu, and mobile marketing in the menu. Now go back and add the Google logo next to the search item, a CNN logo instead of the words “CNN”, a picture of the Sun next to weather or a logo or stylized text in place of the “Your ad here” text. And as I consumer, I can add a photo or image to my application links, creating the equivalent of a mobile shortcut from my browser. Ease of use and navigation just got a whole lot easier, and marketing just got a whole lot more powerful.

As humans, we are programmed to respond to visual stimuli. Users can personalize their menus (just as I attach a photo to my contacts and many of us do to our blog profiles) and marketers and leverage menus both contextually and visually. I truly believe that what we have developed opens up a whole new world of mobile marketing, personalization and Web services. We have extended browser capabilities and addressed the root problems of convenience and size that drove the bifurcation of the Web (Web/Mobile Web). This approach can merge the two back together, making it much more cost-effective and consistent in terms of how businesses deliver their services and messages to connected consumers.

Friday, March 02, 2007

Crossing Channels

Just got back from the movies – went to see Wild Hogs. There were some funny moments, but it won’t win any awards. What it will do, is change our entertainment experience. If you want to see the movie, stop reading now…

Wild Hogs is the Touchstone Pictures (Disney) film about 4 middle-aged friends who take a road trip on their motorcycles. As expected, there is some serious product placement, courtesy of Harley-Davidson, and even a cameo appearance by the Teutel’s, of American Chopper fame (no Discovery is not owned by Disney, I checked), so I’m going to chalk that one up to “product placement” for a media property versus physical product – which is news in and of itself. I took note, but it didn't send off alarm bells.

For those of you who follow both television and the movies there is a surprise at the end. For the first time that I am aware of, there is a direct cross-promotion between a film and a television show. The ABC hit, Extreme Makeover – Home Edition. Self-promotion is nothing new and characters from one television show often appear on another, but from one “screen medium” to another – or more aptly put, from one content distribution channel to another. This is a big deal (or is it an old deal borrowed from the record labels - Yellow Submarine or Help)?

I don’t know if the original script was written with this in mind, or if it was added as a marketing afterthought because the plot lent itself to it, but to me, this was a new high (or new low, depending on your perspective) in marketing strategy. I checked out the movie web site and there are plenty of games and activities to satisfy the interactive mind – expected for a film such as this. What I was surprised not find was a tie-in to Harley-Davidson for the ‘Build a Hog’ simulation, since they blatantly promoted the entry level Sportster model in the film. (although, secretly I’m glad Harley didn’t sink that low). I also did not find any tie back to the film on the Extreme Makeover - Home Edition site.

Given that, I’m leaning towards the cross-promotional afterthought theory. Why? If this was truly an integrated entertainment/marketing strategy, it just seems that there would have at least been a cross promotion online. Were we all spared, or did someone miss a huge opportunity? I welcome your thoughts…

Monday, February 26, 2007

Mash-Up or Cash-Up?

User Generated Content (UCG) has been receiving a lot of press these days. It can take the form of videos, slide presentations, photos, stories or modified commercials. In fact, some media companies and ad agencies are encouraging their “viewers” to modify the original content and share it. Why not? It’s free advertising for the original content, even if it’s in the form of a parody. All press is good press, right?

But what about content providers who are not using content to promote something else, but their content gets used in mash-ups by somebody else? Basically, a mash-up combines multiple sources of Web content (usually something original with something that already exists). Much of the Web 2.0 phenomenon and is based upon the mash-ups. It’s a low cost way to deliver something unique. My company uses this technique to demonstrate local, mobile search using TrueLocal’s search engine (with their permission). We were also using Mapquest mobile maps, until they made some changes that disabled their use.

In our case, we use mash-ups to demonstrate something back to the original content providers. We do not profit from another company’s original or licensed content. That, however, is not the case with all mash-ups and many venture capital firms are actively funding Web 2.0 mash-up, based companies – which could be a pretty risky business.

Content has value. Some content costs a lot to create, some took creativity that the rest of us don’t have, and of course, a lot of content is copyrighted. It appears that some early movers, like Mapquest are making changes to protect their investments and/or content property rights from what some believe is the Web equivalent of squatter’s rights. In the case of Mapquest, they license their maps from companies such as NAVTEQ and I suspect that it’s based on content usage rates. If increased map usage is not being supported by Mapquest advertisers or subscribers, than costs go up without the offsetting revenues - ouch!

I suspect that others will follow Mapquest’s lead - business, is business, after all. Will NAVTEQ and Mapquest alter their business models to support a mash-up resale channel? Will mash-up companies have to put cash up front to continue their business operations? It will be an interesting few years as the technical, legal and financial issues of interactive media usage and distribution get sorted out. It will be interesting to see if map, game, video and other original content providers adopt similar techniques to the digital image “watermark” practice in use today to discourage “for-profit” or mass distribution mash-ups of their content.

Sunday, February 25, 2007

Oscar with a Digital Twist

As I was watching the Academy Awards this evening, I took special note of the mention of yesterday’s awards for technical achievement. Coming from the technology world versus the actual content generation world I’ve watched from the wings as the “geeks” and “cool dudes” have formed a unique partnership to create some truly phenomenal art, entertainment and educational content. Special effects labs such as Industrial Light & Magic and Pixar get a lot of the attention. Very cool stuff – I even ran a computer reseller promotion back in the late 1980’s where the prize was a trip to ILM.

More recently, however, I was introduced to the American Film Institute Digital Content Lab (DCL). I had no idea the AFI had a digital content lab. And after speaking with several friends and family members in the entertainment industry – neither did they. The AFI has a broad focus on the advancement of content designed for presentation on a screen - silver, TV, and PC – and who knows, maybe even mobile… The DCL is focused exclusively on digital media ranging from interactive television, games and computer content.

The Digital Content Lab is a hands-on production lab. So if you have a digital content project that you want to take to market and are looking for mentors, collaboration partners and a supportive environment in which to get your project ready for market, I encourage you to check them out and submit your project for consideration in their next lab session.

And while the silver screen may be grabbing the spotlight tonight, who knows, your digital content may be premiering to an audience of millions tomorrow.

Tuesday, February 13, 2007

For those of you following Interactive Media Channels, I highly recommend reading this blog from Baris Karadogan at Always On. This will definitely drive some juicy discussions over the next several months...

Sunday, February 11, 2007

Advertising - The Price of Free Content

A little off-base today, but still somewhat connected to the world of interactive channels. I want to talk about local search and the advertising opportunities that come with knowing WHERE someone is. I will also preface this with the fact that my company, 5o9, Inc. has a direct interest in this topic, so forgive my blogging transgression, but this is too important to ignore. That being said…

This blog is inspired by Truelocal.com, an Australian “Local” search engine. Yeah, I know there are lots of local search engines out there, so why am I excited about this one. Quite simply, it’s the company behind the Web site - News Digital Media. If this sounds familiar, it’s because it is the digital arm of News Corp (Fox & MySpace), one of the key players in the Interactive Channels space. But that’s just the tip of the iceberg. News Corp’s holdings are global and their only real weakness is in the interactive advertising space. When I heard about True Local I was hoping to see something exciting on the local or digital advertising fronts. As far as search sites go, this one has a nice mapping feature that pops up next to the listings, but their advertising seems very weak.

This may be a function of culture, but secretly I was hoping for something ground breaking in the local search and advertising areas. Local search is achieved by typing in postal code, city or state – same as with every other search engine. The advertising was almost non-existent. To me, this signaled that Google still holds the lead in digital advertising infrastructure – the primary component that is defining the shift in interactive channel development. It's time to shake things up.

So what is the next big innovation? Local advertising – or more precisely, automatic local advertising. Particularly in the arena of mobile search and mobile social networking, the less a user has to type in on their tiny keyboard the better. This is THE technological breakthrough that that all the key players are trying to achieve. So how far off is it?

It’s here! Automatic local search from GPS coordinates is technically feasible and is demonstrated here. Demo Instructions: (Just use the 3rd entry box and select one of the photos. Location is being pulled from the photo metadata. The demo is live, so feel free to replace the search for ‘pizza’ or ‘hotels’ with whatever criteria you like). Our use of selected search engines is entirely arbitrary and we are not endorsing one service over another.

So if the location data makes it to the Web server, then truly local and personalized advertising is now available to whoever adopts it. So who will be first to personalize interactive content, search and advertising based upon WHERE you are, WHAT device you are on and WHO you are (your personal preferences)? Google? News Corp? Microsoft? Or maybe Comcast or Cox? It’s hard to say but before the decade is out, our interactive media and the ads that pay for it will go beyond targeted, to personal.

Exciting times!

Monday, January 29, 2007

IPTV - The Personal Factor

I just finished reading an International Herald Tribune article regarding IPTV that compelled me to put down a few more thoughts on the converging media channels. This article, along with Bill Gates interview on this morning’s Today show on NBC both paint a consistent picture of IP-based interactive television coming sooner than we may all think. But are we ready? Companies like mine work feverishly to resolve the conflict between a businesses need for commerce and a user’s need for privacy. Personalization, if done correctly can deliver a great user experience and strong enterprise profits. If done incorrectly it could set initiatives such as IPTV and mobile marketing back a few years.

But who will do it correctly? Companies like Google, Yahoo and Microsoft’s Live Search are much further ahead in being able to deliver an advertising model that supports interactivity than the broadcast and cable networks. It remains to be seen if they can get the personalization factor right, so as to not be viewed as invading viewer privacy. They will also need to address the issues of professional content generation. This is the area where the networks have a huge lead. Personally, I think the winner will be a merged television/Portal organization – the only way to overcome the chicken & egg dilemma.

But as the song goes, “Money makes the world go ‘round.” Both broadcast TV and the Web are ad-supported content channels. No ads – no professional content. My money’s on the best ad engine and ad sales network that does personalization right. Doing it wrong could be incredibly damaging to the entire industry. So while money may, indeed, make the world go around, if personalized, interactive advertising ever makes me feel “uncomfortable” in my living room, I’m blocking that channel.

Tuesday, January 23, 2007

The PC in the Living Room

ABC News had a very interesting article out today entitled Making Peace with the PC. I strongly recommend that organizations within the content generation and delivery channels read it a couple of times through. Effectively the combination of PCs, media center PCs and software from companies like HP and Microsoft, and the Internet combine to form the most powerful interactive media channel to date. Yes, I know this is not new, but what is so exciting is the confluence of all these great other technologies that will soon make this common place and truly personalized and interactive.

Anyone watching television these days cannot miss Cisco’s dancing kid in the green shirt ad. Their Human Network campaign shows user-generated content on all three screens – living room, laptop and phone. Home routers and mobile are a strategic focus for Cisco and with their Linksys brand, their relationships with many of the set-top box and cable companies, and a growing distribution channel in the mobile and converged spaces they are a serious force to drive home entertainment/work connectivity to new adoption levels.

Connectivity is the key to this equation. If your “TV” is now connected to the Web and you are watching content on demand, and if you could communicate your preferences, screen size and location back to the video server mother-ship at Comcast, ABC or YouTube, think about what that does to the current broadcast TV advertising model. Holy cow! Television networks could go beyond the current local/national ad mix and deliver ads specifically tailored to me and my neighborhood, not the typical program demographic or regional cable office. Effectively it could drive a search-like advertising model into the living room.

The technology exists today to make this all happen. Adoption rates are unpredictable and a lot of human, infrastructure and process change is required before this will show up in every living room across America (or the world). But the train has left the station and in some shape or form will be arriving in your town in the not too distant future.

Whether or not you think this is a good thing or a bad thing – it is a BIG thing - and one that has tremendous implications for the content and media distribution channels. From my perspective, this is the ultimate reality TV show to watch as the decade comes to a close.