Bod's blog. Obviously.

First mover disadvantage

2013-06-21T18:35:00.000+01:00

So, Instagram has stolen Vine’s thunder and released a new version that includes video.

With some nice additions to that of Vine, such as (of course) filters, the ability to delete clips in a sequence, a longer sequence (15 secs) and touch focus it cranks it up a bit.

And the timing of the release, shortly after stats showing that the number of Vine posts on Twitter exceeded that of Instagram, couldn’t be sweeter.

With the weight of Facebook behind them, Instagram were never going to rest on their laurels so an update was sure to be in the pipeline and with the success that Vine was achieving, it was an obvious model the mirror.

Will we see a drop in Vine usage?

Will Instagram bring a whole new cohort of users to video sharing?

Can the two co-exist, with Vine retaining the Twitter community and Instagram remaining in it's own real, where users can share comment etc. without the need to resort to Twitter.

I am sure we’ll find out in due course but for now, it’s your move Vine…

Twitter: Your flexible friend (well, Social Network)

2012-07-27T16:58:00.000+01:00

I was asked today what I use Twitter for, and that got me thinking...

Over the course of the last few years that I have been an active Twitter user I've had more than a few discussions with friends and family about its merits, often in response to a comment such as "why would I want to know when you brush your teeth?" or suchlike - to which I've had to extol the virtues of the platform and try and explain that Twitter is what you make of it. You create your own experience based on who you follow and what you say, and it is fast becoming my default choice for killing time and exploring the digital.

So what do I use it for? Well, a bit of everything - keeping up with industry news and trends; sharing news and info with friends and family; checking up on news and travel alerts; a bit of inane celebrity watching; keeping an eye on client and competitor activity; and of course smirking at the odd cat gif.

As the London 2012 Olympic Games kicks off, we will no doubt see a slew of stats about the amount of tweeting taking place - no doubt surpassing the 15,000+ tweets per second during Spain's Euro 2012 win (there are apparently over 2,000 past/present Olympians that tweet!). You will also be hard pushed to find a digital destination that doesn't support sharing via Twitter, indicative of the fact that it has become the de facto tool for sharing (and discovering) digital content.

And is is also becoming the Marketers go-to channel with branded hashtags popping up all over over the place. As with any new marketing channel there some pretty good executions as well as some pretty poor ones, as is always the case with bandwagons being jumped on - a few people always fall over the side...

Of course with any communication medium that has such a large number of users, there is the need to take care. From a Marketer's perspective, things can easily go awry as we often see with poorly considered Facebook campaigns (some good points that reach beyond Facebook in this blog by Carat: http://www.carat.co.uk/blog/five-learnings-from-the-femfresh-facebook-debacle/), and for your average-Joe it has potentially more serious ramifications as the Paul Chambers #twitterjoketrial highlighted. Fortunately common sense prevailed and Paul was acquitted on appeal, but the whole fiasco serves as a very real reminder of the strength, and risks, of such a publicly accessible and 'open' Social Network like Twitter.

Twitter's strength is in it's simplicity and the ease with which you can both share and discover. As I said at the start of this blog, you can use it and get out of it what you want. It will no doubt evolve, and I am sure in such a way as to better support an advertising-based revenue model. But I will certainly continue to use it - for enjoyment, information and work - as I am sure many millions and millions of others will too.

Why don't mobile browsers recognise a URL?

2011-11-11T17:14:00.001+00:00

Shamed as I am to look at the last time I wrote a blog post, I thought I'd try and get back in the groove on a topic that's been bugging me for a while.

We often talk about how mobile is uniquely positioned as, not just a channel in it's own right, but also as an integrator of channels - able to connect an offline user to a digital destination. I've blogged before about how too much activity that is talked of as "integrated" is often more like "parallel" activity with two activations running at the same time and no real integration.

However, using mobile you can engage with a consumer with a poster while they are walking down the high street; from a magazine ad they see when they are on the bus; or with a TV commercial they watch whilst sitting on their sofa, and drive them to a destination where they can get more information, register an interest or even complete a purchase.

That is a far more compelling capability than it seems to be based on the prevalence of such calls to action.

But there is an issue... There is yet to be smooth and seamless way, a completely intuitive and simple call-to-action, that enables a mobile user to respond and interact. So how do we get users to hit a URL, whether that be to visit a mobisite or download an app, for example?

Well, what have we got now? In truth, there are four credible alternatives available right now:

1. Just show the URL and ask the user to enter it themselves. One benefit of this is that the same CTA can work across desktop and mobile (assuming device redirection is in place). In addition, there is no dilution of the branding on any marketing material - the URL is often included anyway. The downside is that we are asking the user to manually type a URL, beyond the fact that this is not as easy as on a desktop (although not such a chore as it is often portrayed), it is a bit clunky and shouldn't it be easier with a smartphone?

2. Ask the user to "Search". I actually quite like this as a CTA - it's simple and familiar for users and, as with manual entry, is a consistent across desktop and mobile. That said, it forces you to ensure that your SEO is flawless and potentially require you to direct budget at search if you were not already.

3. Include an SMS shortcode/keyword CTA. Familiar for users and requires little effort, with the URL returned via SMS this is clickable and so drives the user to the destination without much fuss. That said, it's generally not liked amongst creatives for aesthetic purposes and, if a brand doesn't already run SMS activity, requires that they get this in place (that's not to say it's difficult or expensive, but it is still a barrier).

4. QR codes (or MS Tags, Shot codes etc. etc.). They have their place, and for some reason some people like them (I received an email with one in recently - ask me about it if you want a 30 min rant on the nonsensical things that some mobile companies get up to). On the plus side, they are the quickest/smoothest way of driving online from ATL. That said, this is only if you know what they are and have a reader app on your device. Oh, and they are also ugly.

So the other day it struck me, why do I have to type a URL into my mobile browser?

My phone has a camera right? Jeez, my phone can translate text so there's no reason that it couldn't recognise a URL and open the URL. So why haven't Apple or Google added it as a feature to Safari or the Android default browser? Surely they can add a button that activates the camera, recognises the text as a URL (think Google Goggles but within your browser, not a different app), and then opens the page, or even performs a search.

Am I missing something?

[Bear in mind that this is possible as it's not a webpage that accesses the camera but the browser itself, which as a native app, of course can do this.]

I may be being immensely naive but having this capability would mean that both of the routes 1 (URL) and 2 (search) above become much easier. In fact, it means that anywhere a URL may appear, it becomes 'clickable' and a call to action. Doesn't this make "integrated" activity even more feasible?

So come on Apple, get a move on Google and pull your finger out Microsoft/Nokia. Why not do this...?

Google+ doesn't want to take Facebook's current followers, it's their future ones it's after...

2011-07-12T16:31:00.000+01:00

So Google+ is a couple of weeks old and having initially only let a few people into the circle (apologies for the in-joke so early in the post), it appears that the doors have been left a little further ajar and there is a steady trickle of users into the network that is far outpaced by the comments, blogs and articles about it.

Based on my first tentative steps into Google+, it does look like it is generally the tech-leader types that are heading onto it first - checking out how it compares to Facebook and the like. How fast, or indeed, how far it will proliferate into the masses it to be seen. Certainly early indications are that it is a bit of a slow burn - applying the Bedford Test, I posted a question on Facebook about it and didn't exactly get a resounding response.

So what are the chances that G+ will head into obscurity the way of Buzz and Wave?

Well, the challenge with any new social network is that unless it reaches a tipping point of users it is destined to fail... I've recently been reading an anthology of mathematical curiosities written by one of my old Maths professors from the University of Warwick, Ian Stewart. Amongst other things, he discusses Conway's Game of Life, in which, given an opening state, a series of rules define how a two dimensional grid of cells behaves over time and generations. Some reach a steady state; some grow, produce offshoots and even move; whilst others simply fade and die. Such as it is with social networks - and in this world, the odds are even further affected by one thing. Facebook.

Both Wave and Buzz are potentially good ideas that struggled to achieve anything approaching a critical mass of users. But if the figure that I saw recently of 750 million active users is accurate, you'd go a long way to compete with Facebook and as we've seen with Bebo and MySpace - if you don't compete, you fail. But there are exceptions to that rule. For example, Foursquare has reached 10 million users (I would love to see the active number mind) - but the differentiator here is the nature of the product. Foursquare is specifically location based, it's very single-minded in its proposition.

So has G+ bitten off more than it can chew in trying to stand toe-to-toe with Facebook?

And have I mixed too many metaphors in that question...? On both, there are certainly good reasons to think so, a good proportion of the Facebook user base are habitual users and maintaining two social networks is more of a pain than most would be prepared to put up with. Given a straight choice between the two, I suspect that G+ would struggle to lure over more that 10% of the active users of Facebook. At a general level, whilst the reviews of G+ are pretty favourable (given it's early days at least), it is very similar to Facebook. However, there are some nice features that are clearly learnings from some of the issues of Facebook, and it takes a more open (and Twitter-like) approach to building your network and "circles". But are these enough to make a user stop using Facebook in order to move over to G+? And of course, that is assuming that a sufficient number of their 'friends' do the same too! For some that are increasingly tired of Facebook, maybe yes. But en masse? I'm not convinced - at least not initially...

And that, I think, is the key point. Google+ may be more of a medium/long term play. And I also think that Android will be Google's MVP.

Google recently announced that they are activating half a million Android devices each day. That is a big number, and it's growing 4.4% each week. Then there is the troubles that RIM is suffering, and the continued growth of smartphone penetration that is resulting in a significant emerging market - the teen and young adult audience, that are active social networkers and a ripe demographic for mid-range smartphones.

And that is where Android comes in.

I am continually amazed when I consider that Google has gone so far as to develop a leading mobile operating system and other technologies such as Goggles and Translate based purely on driving advertising revenue. It's all about data and platforms for delivering advertising (be that display or search). It really does fascinate me.

But anyway... if RIM can achieve what it did in terms of gaining traction amongst a younger, non-corporate, audience as it did based purely on BBM then think what leverage Google+ could have amongst so fertile an audience. These are the next generation of social networkers, those that may use Facebook, but whose usage of it is not ingrained, and equally use IM, SMS and BBM to communicate. By pre-installing the Google+ app on all Android devices and prompting sign-up when the device is activated (for which I have been aware of seriously impressive opt-in figures for something similar previously) there is a ready-made user base.

500k activations a day and rising? Just 10%-20% of that would soon see the registered user count approaching something near critical mass wouldn't it?

And so Google+ does feel different to me. It feels like it may be a little more thought through in terms of features and functionality; it feels like there is a clearer route to achieving a critical mass of users and hitting that tipping point; and it also feels like it may just be the right time.

We shall see of course - and we'll probably do so pretty soon - but I feel the runes are good.

However, just a quick word of caution, Facebook has long had to face complaints about the way that they implement changes to the platform, their attitude towards user privacy and their ownership of "your" data. I for one don't imagine that it will be any different for Google who have, of course, faced similar accusations in the past themselves. Remember, pretty much anything Google does is about driving advertising revenue - and running your social network is a pretty good way of knowing just about all that they would need to...

It's not about technology, it's about the idea

2011-06-24T00:20:00.000+01:00

For those who don't know me, I'm the Technical Director of a Mobile Marketing agency, Movement. I also used to be a C++ developer; was a Senior Project Manager at Nokia; have managed Data Warehouses and CRM systems for the Jigsaw Consortium, Rank Group and the NHS Dental Practice Board; and have run the support operations for the Nokia mobile advertising network (now Navteq Media Solutions).

The purpose of that self-aggrandisement was purely to add little bit of credence to the title of my post. I'm a techy bloke. I have always been on the techy end of the marketing stick and it's what I enjoy doing - especially as the last few years in Mobile have seen a swathe of technological advances. Catalysed by (but not restricted to) the increase in smartphone penetration and the proliferation of apps, we've seen advances such as the following:

Better cameras and HD video capture
3G networks providing faster browsing and (mostly) reliable data connectivity
Voice recognition
The embedding of accelerometers and compasses in mobile devices
Touchscreen and multi-touch support
Image recognition
Auto-translation (of both voice and images)
Augmented Reality (AR)
Location Based Services (LBS), be they GPS, WiFi or cell based
Near Field Communications (NFC)
Machine-to-Machine (M2M) technology
The advent of Cloud computing

And of course the next few years are going to see a shed-load more. I've seen comments, rumour, speculation or prediction suggesting all the following could be in the market in the (relatively) near future:

Flexible screens
Nano-technology, allowing devices to morph in shape and dimension
Sensors that respond to eye movement, and possibly even thought
Self-cleaning hardware
Evolutions in power cells and energy technology that decrease the size of, or even do away with the need for, batteries

Of course, how are we to know? Who would have predicted the evolution of technology and memes that has occurred over the last couple of years even, and I'll write a post about my thoughts on many predictions of the mobile market next.

But I digress, the point is that there is some pretty cool shit out there right now.

And that background provides the context of this post. Because however cool or exciting or innovative the technology is, it is how you use it that is important. In an industry such as Mobile, that is very much technology-led, there are any number of interesting concepts and tweet-worthy innovations. Which is great. But for these to deliver a real benefit, they need to be applied in an appropriate way.

I'm considering this mainly from a Marketing perspective (it's what we do after all), but that is a little bit irrelevant - from any business or commercial perspective, the starting point needs to be the objective. Once you understand this, and any key measures on this, you can look at how best to deliver that and more importantly, how to know if it is successful.

Let's look at the tiresome mobile app vs. mobile web debate. I get bored of the same arguments being trotted out time and time again, with various industry stats being used to support the argument on either side. Surely there is no real answer - for example in a case where broad reach is relevant (e.g. providing additional information off ATL) a mobisite is likely to be the best option. Whereas, if the objective is to provide a rich experience, utilising device features such as the camera and GPS, for brand advocates then an app is bound to be the appropriate route to take.

Again, you need to understand what you want to achieve before looking at how to do it, and even when looking at how to meet a given objective, you should think in technology agnostic terms first.

Far too often I see examples of a technology-led solution. The mobile tail, very frequently, wags the mobile dog.

The advances in mobile technology and device capabilities have provided marketeers with a tool kit that they would never have imagined 10 years ago. But that does not mean that they need to use them (unless the objective is a headline in the NMA of course). The beauty of mobile, and why I will never tire of working in the sector, is that is can serve so many purposes. It can be used to inform, to engage, to interact, to respond, to promote and importantly to support and augment other channels. And used in the right way, with an objective and idea led approach, it can be the most effective medium at our disposal.

I just wish that I saw more stand-out examples of its use...

Was IAB Engage for Mobile evidence that Mobile getting there?

2011-06-16T17:21:00.000+01:00

Anyone following my Twitter feed may have noted that I was at the IAB Engage for mobile event on Tuesday. There was a pretty impressive line up with representation from the likes of Google, Microsoft, Orange, M&S, Sky, Telegraph Media Group, Navteq, P&G, Unilever and the COI on the stage, in addition to the impressively intelligent Brian Cox.

The day took the usual form, albeit nicely presented with a "Mastermind" theme, with plenty of stats and brand case studies on show.

What was particularly significant was the scale of the event - the largest mobile event in the UK I understand - and commanding the attention of c.500 delegates in the room and more via the live stream, for the entire day (last year was a half-day affair). Typically, mobile industry events tend to be a bit of a circle-jerk, with the usual names and faces, talking about much the same things, to the rest of the mobile industry. This has been a frustration for a while because it is often very much a case of preaching to the converted, we (Mobile industry insiders) all know just how effective Mobile can be - it is the brands and agencies outside of Mobile that we need to get in the ears of. Now I don't know how many of the audience were indeed "outsiders" who were new to mobile, but I hope it was a fair few (that would at least make up for the "formulaic" nature of some of the content).

In the order that I noted them down, some of the big/interesting stats that I came out with were (no warranties will be made as to the voracity of any of these!):

- By 2014, mobile devices will be the primary channel for accessing the internet
- 10% of all Bing searches are made via Mobile
- The typical "purchase funnel" (from search to purchase) is 1 hour on mobile vs. 1 month online
- 50% of mobile internet users start with a search
- 79% of Google's advertisers do not have a mobile optimised site
- Between Orange Shots and O2 More there are 4m opted-in users
- 65% of CEOs say that mobile is on their agenda
- Android tablets, whilst making up 14% of the market consisting of over 100 devices
- 97% of all purchases are made in a physical retail location

You'll also be able to see a shed-load more comment and stats by searching for the hashtag #iabmobile on Twitter.

Now you can pick the bones out of all of that - and I am sure that many people will be for a while to come - but it all adds up to one thing for me.

You see, I consider myself lucky that I am involved in a market that is on the up. Mobile is receiving the kind of attention that would have been unimaginable back in the early 1990s and there are many factors that are converging to make that the case - be it device penetration, technologies such as NFC, HTML5/CSS3, cloud-computing, LBS, changing user behaviour or the support of digital behemoths such as Apple, Microsoft and Google.

But a word of warning. There still exist barriers to brands fully exploiting the market... There is still a lack of understanding across brands and agencies (be that traditional or digital) which can often foster a reluctance to engage with the medium and internal issues, such as the recognised challenges with measurement and a lack of skills, can hinder growth and investment. These will be addressed, but they should not be ignored.

But overall, if IAB Engage for Mobile did nothing else, it demonstrated how far Mobile has come in only the last 12 months.

Maybe we'll be at the Wembley Exhibition Centre in 2012.

Nomophobia? No fear...

2011-06-06T18:13:00.000+01:00

Hello again! It's been a while... well... over two months since I last posted a new blog. So apologies to my regular readers: "Sorry mum, dad - I'll try to be better in the future".

My slackness on the blogging front has been testament to nothing more than being busy both on the work and personal front - indicative of both the traction that Mobile (and more particularly Movement) appears to be gaining with brands, and the perennial swathe of weekend commitments that come from being of a certain age and with a family come the onset of Summer.

There are two occasions that come to mind as I think about my absence from the blogosphere (having typed it, I realise that I hate that word and as such will never use it again). Both of these involved me being without the kind of mobile connectivity to which many of us have become used and, dare I say, have taken for granted. More recently I was on holiday with the Bod-brood in Spain but is is the first of these occasions that felt more significant.

I work in Mobile. Indeed I am one of those people who are rarely further than 5 feet away from their phone - I talk, message, browse, chat and generally while away hours each day using my phone. So I can tell you that I wasn't expecting to be without any kind of connectivity, mobile or WiFi, at a wedding in Shropshire... And I can also tell you that I had (slight) palpitations when I pulled up in the family minibus and did my customary check of the phone for messages/notifications:

What do you mean no signal? This is England. Just. Barely. But it is definitely still England. How dare there be no signal!

Was I suffering from a case of nomophobia? Well, if I was, it soon passed...

As it turned out, being without the use of my mobile for the best part of two days did not result in anything other than a mild sense of liberation. I did not lose track of what was going on in the world because I was unable to check the BBC mobile website; I did not suffer from a sense of alienation because I could not re-tweet jokes mid-ceremony; there were no repercussions from me not being able to text my mates that weren't at the wedding; and I did not lose any sleep about the inability to post pictures of me wearing a chefs hat and apron with a cock drawn on it to Facebook during the reception.

I survived. And moreover, I did so handsomely. So I have let that be a lesson to myself and I am trying to be a little less reliant on my mobile; to be comfortable with leaving it on the table whilst I play with my kids in the garden; and to not think to check my emails as soon as I wake up in the morning.

And I certainly feel better for it. Go on, try it. I dare you...

Mobile is the key to truly effective through-the-line marketing

2011-03-22T16:27:00.001+00:00

I've blogged before about how marketing that does not use mobile will struggle to be truly integrated. How can you effectively drive a consumer from seeing a poster to visiting an online destination without something in between? That "something" can most effectively be Mobile.

Similarly, guiding consumers into the funnel via exposure to above-the-line marketing and through the other end at direct below-the-line communication, necessarily needs that consumer to have interacted with the ATL, either directly or otherwise. And there is the marketers challenge.

And that is where mobile can play a fundamental role.

Yesterday I sat for 5 minutes looking out of my office window, onto Garrick Street:

View Larger Map

And in that 5 minutes, I saw a total of 138 people. 26 of those, just under 20%, were holding their phone in their hand - some on calls and some just looking at it. You can be pretty certain that the vast majority (if not all) of the remaining 80% of people had their phone within easy reach (many clearly had Apple headphones in so are likely to have been listening to music on their iPhones). Now I know that a 5 minute snapshot of a Central London street is in no way representative of the wider population, but it does hint at the great thing about Mobile...

If you can produce a poster, ad or piece of guerilla activity compelling enough that people want to respond or react to it, and if you include an appropriate and intuitive mobile call-to-action, then you can drive consumers to interact and initiate a dialogue with you there and then - in the moment - when their interest is piqued and they are most responsive. Confirm and acknowledge their contact and maintain the dialogue, or if more appropriate, do so later that day or the next.

Either way, you have in the space of a minute or two, moved the consumer from being an anonymous viewer of your ATL to being a real prospect that you can have a direct, and one-to-one dialogue with.

That's pretty impressive isn't it...?

O2 More #JAPAN #FAIL

2011-03-16T18:17:00.000+00:00

I've written about O2 More previously and, to be fair, have had both good and bad experiences - from being sent a Maternity wear offer and then receiving an apology, only to get then get the same message again, twice; to receiving an MMS, with a uniquely discount voucher and the address of the nearest store to me that I could redeem it at.

Unfortunately, the day after it is announced that O2 More have hit 2 million users, this post is about one of the poor ones...

We all know what is going on over on the other side of the world right now - it feels like Armageddon over in Japan and I think we can all see that the scale of the devastation and destruction. Given this, there are of course a number of efforts being made to raise support and money to aid the relief efforts - which should of course be applauded. So my following criticism isn't in the act itself but, as we see way too often and from those who should know and do better, the execution of such.

So... I received an SMS from O2 More, asking me to donate.

All good there? Well, not really. This is from a mobile network. A carrier, who owns the network and is responsible for all the data, voice and (relevantly in this case) messaging. So why is the call to action not "reply" or "send a message to"? Why have O2 not set up a premium SMS route (and waived all their fees on it)? Surely a message such as "If you want to donate £5 to the Japan Tsunami appeal text DONATE to 20502" would allow them to to hit a broader base and illicit a greater response?

I know that this message has been delivered to by a different part of the O2 behemoth than that which would be responsible for setting up such a route but surely this is an obvious conversation to have...

Ok, so I am one of the minority of people likely to click on the link in order to donate. What do I see?

Yeah. I know. And it isn't much better in landscape:

I am trying to avoid sounding churlish and criticising something that is, inherently commendable. But I can't help thinking that it could have been so much more effective were the site that you click through to be mobile optimised and ideally allow on-bill donation.

But ultimately, it should have been an SMS mechanic - we've seen with previous appeals how effective these can be and if anyone should be doing it, O2 should.

Shouldn't they...?

I'm falling in love with Ocado

2011-02-14T16:47:00.000+00:00

It may be that I'm getting caught up in the general romantic atmosphere that prevails today (and I thought that I was past all that!) but I think that I am falling in love with Ocado.

Can you fall in love with an online grocer you may ask? Well... maybe not, but they are certainly ticking as many of my boxes as it is possible for an online grocer to do, and my wife is becoming increasingly jealous of the way I talk about them so maybe we can have a future together...

Ok, so maybe I've over-played it slightly but I've just seen another great example of why Ocado seems to "get" mobile and is integrating it into their activity so nicely. I've already talked about their use of SMS notifications, to remind their customers about a delivery and advise them of the details of the delivery (including the driver's name and the van they'll be driving). They were also one of the first retailers off the mark in releasing transactional apps for the iPhone (store) and Android (store) devices. In fact, considering the general service and quality of the food (I'm sure covered in blogs/articles elsewhere) the one blemish that I can note is their lack of a mobile optimised site - they have retired their 'lite' site, stating that because of "huge improvements in mobile technology" most customers shop with Ocado "via our main Ocado website".

I think that this is a bit of a missed trick as a mobile site would better, and more appropriately, support the mid and lower range smartphones. Certainly, they realistically have the majority of their potential mobile traffic (and indeed revenue) tied up with the iPhone/Android apps and yes, other phones can use the main website, but it would be good to see a mobile optimised site nonetheless.

Anyway, the latest tick in one of my boxes came along this afternoon:

An Ocado delivery truck, with an SMS call-to-action, whereby new users can get £15 off their first shop.

Sure enough I gave it a go and received an SMS back with a unique code that can be redeemed online. A simple mechanic to set up, executed nicely, and driving new users from ATL to online and with tracking of unique codes to prevent mal-redemption and ongoing analysis.

Doesn't it make you wonder why more companies don’t do the same...?

Nokia played the fiddle while their platform burned

2011-02-09T15:36:00.001+00:00

Ok, so I'm mixing metaphors (or something like that) but in light of Nokia CEO Stephen Elop's leaked memo to his staff (which is looking increasingly plausible by the minute) it feels very appropriate.

You can read the full memo, and the Engadget take on it, here. To save you some time, the key points that I have taken from it are:

If you're in unavoidable trouble (the "burning platform") then you need to take drastic action (jump off the platform) to avoid the inevitable peril.
Nokia have lost the top end of the device market (mainly to Apple).
Nokia are starting to lose the mid-range market (mainly to Google).
Nokia are starting to be squeezed in the low end of the market too (by Eastern manufacturers).
Nokia have historically been crap at executing.
Nokia have ignored the way the market has evolved.
Nokia are at "crisis point" and need to catch up and catch up very quickly.
To catch up, Nokia need to do something 'different'.

For me to cover off all of my thoughts about Nokia, what I think of the memo and and why I think they are where they are would take an awfully long time. So I'll try not to ramble on too far - I know from reading a couple of Tomi's blogs that once you see how far down the scroll-bar on the right goes, you soon start skim reading. I'd also like to state the context of my position early on - I used to work for a Mobile Marketing and technology company, that was acquired by Nokia as part of their shift into the services space in 2007, and then worked for them for two years. So I am no Nokia expert but I certainly have an understanding of how the business works and, more importantly, how they were executing in a digital ecosystem. However, I also have no "agenda" against Nokia (as I know some ex-Nokians do). Indeed, I would much rather they succeed than fail as the market needs a credible alternative to the fast-becoming Apple/Google duopoly.

To be honest, the content of the memo is pretty damning stuff - especially considering that this is from the CEO of one of the largest, most respected, most trusted and most successful multi-national businesses out there. That it is the most read story on the BBC News website also says something about it's significance.

Unsurprisingly, ex-Nokia executive turned author, public speaker and (way too verbose - which coming from me, says something), blogger, Tomi Ahonen has had his say in a blog post that both suggests the memo is a fake and then provides a range of, primarily semantic, rebuttals to the points in Elop's memo. Ahonen's position is nothing less than symptomatic of the internal issues that Nokia has faced for a number of years. Nokia became a victim of their own success - I have talked previously about how Symbian (their proprietary operating system) was the Woolly Mammoth of operating systems, unable to adapt to the changing ecosystem. Well, for "Symbian" read "Nokia"... So I won't dwell on Ahonen's points here because, to be frank, I don't see that they are that relevant.

Nokia was the undisputed king of mobile devices with the largest market share and foothold in pretty much every market and device category. As many Nokia-philes will go to great pains to tell you, they pioneered many of the features that other manufacturers have subsequently emulated and bettered, such as mobile browsing, mobile applications and touchscreens.

And this, in itself, tells the story...

Nokia did things well, and they did them efficiently and on a large scale (they are ultimately a very good manufacturing company after all). But then they seemed to be content (dare I say arrogant?) with this position and the market evolved around them, not least catalysed by the growth of the digital channel in general and the emergence of the iPhone. Nokia's response was to try and move with the market, but to do so in a way that was poorly judged and poorly executed - their higher-end devices were roundly criticised and their ecosystem (Ovi and services) was a hotch-potch of acquisitions and (often duplicated or competing) internal development projects all shoved together with (apparently) little strategic thought. But that was just the top-end of the market, Nokia could still rely on the mid and lower end (such as emerging markets) couldn't they?

Uh oh...

They could... but of course those markets changed too. And Nokia (apparently) still refused to see what most people outside of the business have seen for a while. Nokia became like King Canute, convinced that they could hold back the inevitable tide. Until they did away with their previous CEO, Olli-Pekka Kallasvuo, and brought in ex-Microsoft man Stephen Elop. The significance of this is that they recruited from the outside rather than, as was usually the case previously, internally. Now it seems that the fresh pair of eyes, directed internally, is starting to realise that significant action is needed in order to get Nokia back into it's stride.

And so what should they do and how can they address this?

Well, there have been persistent rumours that Nokia will buddy up with Microsoft (Elop is ex-Microsoft after all) and run Windows Phone 7 in some of its devices. Whether that is instead of, or alongside, Maemo and Symbian remains to be seen (indeed, the WP7 thing is still only a rumour of course). There has also been talk about Nokia partnering with Google to run Android in their devices instead but I don't even see this as a starter to be honest - there are too many areas in which Nokia and Android compete, not least with mapping (i.e. Nokia Maps vs. Google Maps), that there would be undoubted friction in such a relationship. After all, services, and the advertising running on them, is where the money is. That is not so say that there isn't overlap with WP7, it's just that Microsoft also seems prepared to compromise given its need to re-gain a foothold in the market (witness the partnership with Yahoo for search). Perhaps the two, much-maligned, former-behemoths would form a formidable partnership, capable of competing with Apple, Google and the plethora of mid/lower-range competitors in the mobile space. Only time will tell if it even happens and whether, if it does, it will be a success, although Google's VP of Engineering seems relatively unconcerned with the prospect, tweeting "Two turkeys do not make an eagle", as reported by Ewan at MIR.

One thing is for sure, the entire market seems to be waiting with baited breath for an announcement that is reportedly due on Friday and whatever other news comes out at Mobile World Congress next week.

And we thought 2010 was an exciting year, jeez 2011 is getting interesting already...

One man can't lift half a piano, but two men...

2011-02-07T17:10:00.000+00:00

As I start writing this, I haven't made my mind up about the title of this post.

This is mainly because I'm not 100% certain where this post will lead itself (a slightly damning enditement on my writing, I accept). I opened up my thinking by wanting to talk about the affective use of multiple channels, something that we've talked about quite a bit to existing and potential clients, and is a pet peeve of our Client Services Director, Sarah Cantillon. However any piece talking about the use of different channel needs to not just reference how channels can co-operate, but also how they should integrate.

But that said, I've written a few times before about how mobile can act as the "integration-glue" between offline and online and also how we in the digital industry, need to understand that whilst we recognise the differences between mobile and online, consumers don't, meaning that we should be taking a more holistic view and so, cater for the user who mainly reads his email on an iPhone; or who uses their mobile device for messaging but doesn't have a data bundle and so will only use their home PC for browsing. So I'll try my best to not drag myself off on a tangent and focus on the point in hand - using different channels for each others mutual benefit and the use of appropriate comms that support and compliment each other.

Basically... channel sequencing.

Unfortunately, too many comms programs are black and white - there is a preferred channel and underneath that a hierarchy of alternatives. This may be that Direct Mail is used if they hold your address and you have opted-in, or if not, will contact you using email, or then outbound call, and then maybe mobile if nothing else is possible. However this plays out, the last choice channel will most likely get the poorer "quality" consumers and so suffer from a lower response rate and be seen as less effective (note that this isn't a pop at the lack of use of mobile, just the lack of using multiple channels effectively).

This could be symptomatic of a number of things - one being a company using different agencies, each responsible for a different channel and so with vested interests in pushing their own at the cost of others; or maybe lazy thinking on behalf of the brand and their planners; or maybe both of these. In any event, what seems clear to me is that, to effectively use multiple channels is to do so by using each in a coordinated, consistent and (a word we use a lot here) appropriate manner.

Why not prompt the consumer, who's given you the email address of the account that he checks once a fortnight, that you've just sent him an email with some exclusive offers by sending him an SMS, or even an MMS (which can compliment the email content and design) and so improving open and possibly click-through rates?

How about sending an email to a customer, letting them know that they'll be receiving a DM piece in the next week with details about changes and new feature to their account, so that they are less likely to file it in the bin without opening it?

And why the devil not send a text to a customer, asking them when they would be able to receive an outbound call and so reduce hang-ups and non-answers?

Channel sequencing is an evolution and extension of using each channel in the right way - where I would always advocate using the right channel, to say the right thing, at the right time. For example, don't use SMS to introduce or demonstrate a new product - use a richer channel such as email or MMS; don't use an email to send important information that the consumer needs to retain - use DM; and don't send a discount voucher that they user needs to take into a store by email - use DM or, even better, SMS or MMS.

Of course, it's not as straight-forward as just saying it. Putting in place the capability to manage your customer communication in this way is not an overnight job - particularly as most businesses, both technically and in terms of their comms rules, are not set up to support talking to their customers in this way.

But thinking about it, why not use all of the channels available to you to support each other, making them work harder together, and generate a higher response rate, RoI or opt-in* than they would otherwise do independently and so, together, enabling them to carry the proverbial piano.

* insert relevant KPI here

Why aren't more companies using SMS notifications?

2011-01-28T10:39:00.000+00:00

My wife is what I would regard as a digital housewife.

She is an eBay veteran (on more than one occasion I have asked where something is only to find that it was sold a month ago) and does a large proportion of her shopping online. She also has an iPhone and when not sat on the sofa with the laptop on her lap, she uses any one of the number of apps she's got to shop or browse retailer apps. With two kids, she's on the go most of the time so this fits nicely with her lifestyle.

Which helps to explain why I am so impressed with what is, on the face of it a really simple thing - the Ocado SMS notifications.

So... we've got a food delivery on order and the day before, she gets an SMS reminder her that the delivery is due the next day and confirms the deadline to change it (so the reminder can act as a prompt if you now need more goods). Then on the day of delivery, another SMS that includes the 1hr time slot; the name of the delivery driver; the type (i.e. livery) and registration plate of the delivery van; and details of any missing items.

So with a couple of simple text messages, including some relevant information, it makes an online and remote transaction into a more comfortable, reassuring and personal process.

Ocado aren't the only guys that do this - my wife has had similar notifications from Sainsbury's and the Home Delivery Network.

And one of my local taxi firms also does the same thing - I called to order a cab and then received one message straight away to confirm the booking and then another a bit later to tell me the car was a couple of minutes away; that would pick me up; and the name of the driver. Great if you're a single female.

It is such an easy thing - there are any number of Mobile Technology providers that offer these kind of capabilities, and of course the more retail moves digital (note that I don't say "online" as mobile retail is growing too) and the more suppliers doing this, the more comoditised and cheaper it will become.

And as I mention above, a simple SMS like this (bear in mind that as a more personal channel than email, SMS can provide a more emotive reaction), can provide both a differentiation in terms of service and build a degree of consumer interaction and brand affiliation than would otherwise not be possible.

Is MMS neglected by mobile marketers?

2011-01-27T13:11:00.000+00:00

Before I go on too far, let me state my hand. The answer to the (almost) rhetorical question is "Yes, it is neglected". But I should probably explain why I believe so...

To set the context, I think that we can (probably) all agree that Mobile Marketing is increasingly becoming recognised as an effective comms channel. The use of mobile is, generally speaking, evolving in a couple of areas. Firstly, there is that which is targeted at top-end devices, smartphones. Be it QR codes, Augmented Reality, Social Network integration, NFC or rich mobile internet sites, the speed of pace of change in this channel; the degree of richness that it provides; and the levels of engagement it can encourage produce a compelling case for its inclusion in the marketing mix.

And then alongside and, in many ways, complementing this area is the activity at the lower-end of the "cool-spectrum". This is the activity which is broader and enables mass reach but, because of its nature, is typically SMS based - the beauty of which being that it can be driven through traditional and above-the-line marketing and is supported by any/all mobile devices.

And then there is MMS.

MMS is not a new technology. It provides a similar degree of reach as SMS as only old legacy devices do not support MMS at all (although there is a reliance on the device carrying the right settings). However, it can also carry the degree of richness that you would ordinarily associate with a newer, smartphone-led technology. Built correctly an MMS message can include video, static images, animated or slideshow/ frame-managed images and audio content alongside as much text content as you can throw a stick at. iMMS, which is supported on some devices, can include internal links - like a mini-mobisite on your phone. And even better, in this smartphone age, you can also utilise location-aware content that provides an additional degree of relevance.

MMS content is, by definition, rich and visual and accordingly can generate amazing cut-through - particularly in comparison to SMS. An often quoted example is of an MMS campaign run by BMW in Germany. I won't go into too much detail but there were many good things about this campaign including the timing and contextual nature of the messaging. The MMS was personalised to the recipient and the richness of the content was backed up by the brands positioning as a luxury marque. The results speak for themselves - c.$45m of revenue off the back of a c.$60k spend.

Myself and the team at Movement have probably been involved in more MMS campaigns than anyone else and so have a deep understanding of the medium (NB: vested interest admitted) and have some great example of effective campaigns. Probably the most recent was run as part of a multi-channel campaign that drove users online to claim a gift. Although the MMS needed to drive users to a different medium (mobile to online), it outperformed both email and SMS for response rates!

So why is hardly anyone doing it?

The mainstay of our clients over the 6-7 years that we have been involved in MMS campaigns have been carriers. And herein lies part of the answer - the carriers have a couple of significant advantages over brands when it comes to delivering MMS. Firstly, MMS is an 'owned' channel. It's their network and so any costs borne for the delivery of the messages are internal, or opportunity costs. Carriers are not subject to their own and the messaging aggregator's mark-up and so delivery is less expensive than it would be for a brand (I'll come back to that point later...). And secondly, they 'know' the consumer. They know whether they are a data user, or sends MMS and they know the device that the user owns (another important point I'll come back to).

So on the flip-side, the problem for brands is this lack of knowledge and ownership of the channel. Firstly, the cost of MMS has typically been prohibitive. Carriers have often been accused of not given the channel the chance to succeed because of their pricing. At a typical cost of 20p per outbound message (in comparison to c.4p for SMS) for message delivery, and with production costs being higher than the copywriting of a 160 character message, it is easy to see why SMS is the default.

Then there is the knowledge of the user and their device. This is relevant in a number of ways - if you know the consumer's device then you can optimise the creative to it. There are technologies that do this on-the-fly, but managing it at the production phase means that you can tailor-fit the creative, assets and SMIL (basically, the MMS mark-up language) rather than just re-size and or/transcode the entire message. And then there is the understanding of the consumer - MMS typically achieves a 60%-70% delivery rate, compared to the 95%-99% of SMS, and sending MMS requires the user to not just have a phone but also the right MMS settings and, in some cases, to have actively used MMS.

But even given the advantages, carriers can still do it poorly themselves - the quality of the MMS creative that I receive from O2, even though it has the real benefit of being location aware and is generally a good offer, is typically poor. And they should know better.

So why should anyone do it?

I guess I've done a fairly good job of explaining this issues with MMS... It certainly needs to be recognised that there are barriers or issues with the use of MMS. But the same applies to any channel - the trick is in understanding the issues and mitigating against or eliminating them.

Because MMS has proved itself to be an effective channel. Produced correctly, the result is an engaging, effective and surprisingly (given its age) novel message which can surprise, delight and achieve real cut through with consumers - and of course this means results.

And so given all that, yes, it is woefully underused!

2010: The Year (in Mobile) That Was Part 2 – When Mobile grew up

2011-01-06T10:36:00.000+00:00

In my last post I talked about the moving-and-shaking in the smartphone market in 2010. I lead with this topic because, although smartphones still account for the minority of devices (vs. feature phones) in the UK and global market, it is (basically speaking) the space where all the interesting stuff happens. In this post, I want to take a slightly wider look at a few of the things that I’ve picked out as being of interest or relevance in 2010. As this is my personal look and given the year that has passed, I will no doubt have omitted any number of other comment-worthy happenings, please feel free to add comment if any of these omissions are too glaring...

And so, in no particular order:

An SMS mechanic was awarded a D&AD Yellow Pencil

Produced by Isobar agency Farfar of Sweden for Nokia Maps, and not massively trumpeted (at least in the mobile space) at the time, this may seem pretty innocuous but I think it’s fantastic. This is the ultimate demonstration that doing something innovative in mobile isn’t about using the latest technology, it’s about doing something new – and that could just as easily be using something as simple and basic as SMS.

Near Field Communications (NFC) started to take a peek around the corner

NFC will be the technology that brings mobile payment into retail stores (as opposed to being via an mCommerce site). The carriers want it; the device manufacturers want it; the financial institutions want it; and the retailers want it. The key question in my mind is who will “own” it, because I suspect that there may be a little bit of a jostling for position going on right now to establish the value-chain behind mobile payments as none of the groups I’ve mentioned want to be left out.

However that aside, think about what else you can do once NFC is fully integrated into devices and peripherals – TopUp by swiping your phone across an operators poster; unlock your car, house, computer etc.; gain entry to member-only locations, such as gyms or football grounds. The list goes on and NFC will eventually be massive.

But what will happen when you lose your phone or change it...?

Location based services (LBS) become de rigueur

So Foursquare, Gowalla and, latterly, Facebook Places have been the media and (to a lesser extent) consumer darlings of the LBS space but, as with NFC, there is so much more to it than that.

One of the principle differentiators that mobile holds over other channels is its ability to tell you, and allow you to share, where you are. Location takes contextual to a new level – be that in search, social networking or other applications. And it was in 2010 that location, with the advent of GPS-enabled smartphones, became mainstream. And it is in 2011 that the questions around privacy relating to location will need to be answered...

Twitter started to find its niche

Of course Twitter has been around for a few years now (launched in 2006), but although the number of active users and tweets has increased significantly over the last few years, and whilst its users have been pretty happy following and tweeting away, it’s not really been that clear what the point of it was for brands and businesses. I’m not saying that the answer in necessarily clear right now, but what we have seen in 2010 is brands gaining a greater understanding of Twitter and stating to utilise it for their own purposes – this post from Murat is a great example.

Word-of-mouth has always been regarded as important by businesses given its impact on brand reputation and subsequently repeat and new business. It is also often quoted that is a consumer has a good experience they will tell 2 friends, but if they have a bad experience they will tell 10 (or something like that).

Given the speed with which news spreads on Twitter it is not surprising that brands have their feelers pointed at the Twitterverse.

But, with some high profile #fails already, can Twitter be widely and effectively used as a marketing tool. For me, the question is still out on that...

Brands still (mostly) failed to crack how to use Facebook

Not really a specific event, more the lack of one but given the recent $50 billion valuation of Facebook, I’ve been thinking about how that can be justified by the Social Networks revenue stream. Obviously advertisers are a significant (more likely the significant) part of that revenue for Facebook. But as an advertiser, how do you make Facebook work? Currently the options available are pretty simple – bought or earned.

Bought, is currently display ads on the site – which is pretty uninspiring so will certainly need some evolution for the sake of the brands and Facebook’s valuation.

Earned, is the ground the brands are still trying to crack effectively. There have been some good examples of the use of Facebook in brand activity but for the most part, do users follow or interact with brands on Facebook for a reason other than possibly getting free stuff?

mCommerce started to become a meaningful retail option

In the back-end of 2010, there was an undeniable movement, highlighting the opportunities that exist within mobile commerce. There is a slew of stats demonstrating the opportunity and an increasing number of examples of retailers (both digital and traditional and in some cases high-profile) that are either dipping their toes in the water or, in some cases, diving into the deep end with transactional mobisites and/or applications.

This is all pretty sensible - consumers are using their phones more and more, phones are getting ‘smarter’ and digital in general is becoming a significant retail channel. I fully expect to see this run and run through 2011 and beyond.

Tablets hit the ground running

The iPad was released at the start of the year and not long after I blogged about how it has, in many ways, both created and started to fill a new gap in the market. 2010 saw a number of other tablet devices released, announced or rumoured as Apple’s competitors try and avoid being left in the wake of the iPad as they were for the iPhone. Retail volumes for the year have shown that tablet devices are being purchased by consumers and although the way that the market will shape itself over the coming months and years – in terms of users, services, capability and price – is still for anyone to predict, what is clear is that they will only become more prevalent.

Having been in mobile for coming on 6 years now (which feels like longer than it sounds), 2010 really has been the most interesting in terms of the way the market has evolved, the technological advances that were made and the way that consumers and brands have engaged with the medium.

And I’ll be mighty disappointed if 2011 isn’t better.

2010: The Year (in Mobile) That Was Part 1 - The Smartphone Race

2010-12-23T14:22:00.001+00:00

If I had a pound for every time that I heard someone say "if I had a pound every time someone said that this is the year of mobile, I'd be a rich man", I'd be a rich man... Denying that there was, or will be, or even should be, a "Year of Mobile" has become more annoying to me than claiming that any given year was it. So given that, I will try and phrase the following very carefully:

2010 has been a year in which we have seen an unprecedented growth and evolution of the mobile market. In the last 12 months, we have seen record and increasing spend within the mobile channel as well as a slew of brands executing campaigns with an, often tactical rather than strategic, mobile element. Record display and search spending and the increasing visibility of mobile above-the-line and use of it as a below-the-line comms channel, facilitated by the pace of development of mobile technology and the consumer uptake of this, mean that Mobile is as prominent as it has ever been.

Compared to the wider digital channel, Mobile still needs to be considered as an emerging medium, if only in terms of spend, but the increasing penetration of mobile into every part of our everyday life mean that it holds a unique position. It is not just an ethereal channel such as a Social Network – in part it is a physical device, with a tactile interface, meaning that user experience is more than just a site map or user journey; and it is more than a piece of hardware used to access content – consumers carry it almost all the time; it is often the first and last thing that people look at each day; and it is used for communicating, browsing, engaging with a Social Network, playing games, finding a location and navigating to it, redeeming coupons or voucher and increasingly for making purchases.

So it is in this context, and with 2010 nearing its end, that I have taken a (UK focussed) look at some of the important events that in my opinion have occurred in the last 12 months and helped to shape and define the market in 2010 and beyond. In further posts, I’ll look at how 2010 saw technology develop and brand/agency adoption increase, and what I think may happen in 2011 and beyond but this first post will focus on what is probably the most eagerly fought and exciting area of the market: smartphones.

The smartphone race

Although some commentators may say that the smartphone has been around for many years, the reality of it is that the early Nokia N-series devices such as the N70 and N95 would not go many rounds against their modern day descendents. Perhaps we should consider these the missing-link of the mobile device world – the phones that bridged the gap between those that were used only for voice, SMS, maybe some MMS and more rarely a bit of WAP browsing, and the current mini-computers-with-voice-and-messaging that are achieving increasing market penetration. In that case, Nokia does deserve some credit (don’t worry, I’ll make up for that later) but in truth, as I’ve mentioned before, the major catalyst of the smartphone era is undoubtedly the iPhone. Its first incarnation had significant limitations and is very different from the current iPhone 4, but its impact on the market is undeniable. The smartphone market is increasingly where the consumers, brands, developers and, most significantly, margins exist. And so it is this battleground that is so keenly fought over (notably from all directions like a game of Risk) by the carriers, device manufacturers and OS/service providers (I’m mainly thinking about Google here of course) – and where some companies occupy more than one of these roles.

So what has happened then? Well, where to start......?

1. The iPhone 4 and iPad was released

The original iPhone was released back in 2007 and, as I’ve mentioned, redefined the smartphone paradigm in such as way that it took until this year for its competitors to really get into a position where some of them could argue that that they are truly competitive.

I’ve commented about the release of both the iPhone 4 and iPad previously so won’t dwell on that here, but as far as the iPhone 4 is concerned, although iOS had been through a couple of updates, by this year the hardware was in need of a refresh and boy does the iPhone 4 look and feel good. My main worry about the iPhone is that now, as they are undeniably being caught-up by competitors, there is a need for iOS to be updated or they risk being left with an outdated UI. Will this be one of the stories of 2011?

As for the iPad, Apple are again redefining the rules of the game. As I’ve said, they haven’t targeted an under-exploited market opportunity with the iPad, they’ve created one - a beautiful, portable, touchscreen device for the consumption (and enjoyment) of content. This time round, however, the competition are already on the case and a following swiftly – they do not want to be left standing as they did with the iPhone.

2. Android achieved critical (and competitive) mass

Probably the most credible competition to Apple comes in the form of Google’s Android operating system. They have taken a different tack to Apple in that the OS is to a certain extent device-agnostic. This has seen a number of traditional feature-phone manufacturers (e.g. Samsung and Sony Ericsson) and emerging players (e.g. HTC) focus on producing a device and allow Google to ship their OS and, of course, services (I still find it fascinating that the strategy behind an entire OS and mobile services (such as Goggles, Translate etc.) is so finely focussed on one thing – advertising revenue). This means that Android does not solely focus on the high-end smartphone market alongside the iPhone, but reaches the mid- and lower-tier smartphone markets and in doing so addresses a larger (and typically less tech-savvy) market. Their market share (UK/all devices) as shown by comScore rose from 0.7% in Jan 2010 to 4.3% in Oct 2010*, that's a x6 rise (for reference, in that same period iPhone penetration increased from 4.7% to 8.8% and Blackberry from 4.7% to 5.2%, whilst both Windows and Symbian suffered reduced market share*).

2010 has seen the number and, importantly, the quality of apps in the Android Marketplace rise. They are still way behind the App Store, and the iPhone is still the default option for a mobile app in the majority of cases but the comparative ease of deploying an Android app and the broader nature of the market that can be addressed make it an increasingly viable option.

3. Nokia failed again to produce worthy smartphone

As I mentioned above, Nokia can probably be credited with producing the first ‘recognised’ smartphone. However, also as I’ve mentioned, Symbian (the “Woolly Mammoth of operating systems”) has lost market share. There is an argument that Nokia knows exactly what it is doing and is executing its smartphone strategy very well. Unfortunately this argument somehow fails to recognise the obvious truth – that Nokia is in no small amount of turmoil. With a change of CEO and followed by a number of other high profile departures, including the EVP and Head of their Mobile Solutions business and the Chief of MeeGo (their fabled new Linux-based OS in joint partnership with Intel), and their market share and profits in decline, I cannot imagine a great amount of cheer at their Board’s Christmas party this year.

Nokia cannot be compared directly with their traditional feature phone competitors, not just because of the scale and breadth of their operation but because of the position that they are trying to move themselves into. Equally, they cannot really be compared to Apple or Google as, again, their positioning and focus is different. And so they need to be considered solely on their results and forecasts based on current position and strategy.

They are trying to utilise their significant market share (across all devices) to drive uptake of their smartphones, and in doing so driving use of, and revenue from, their services. Put simply, the money to be made a manufacturer is limited - you need large volumes to deliver this given the low margins. Nokia has that scale, but the opportunity for growth in a saturated market of which they already had the major market share is negligible and in an increasingly smartphone focussed market, this would only be eroded.

But the smartphone market does bring opportunity if you can either focus on the high end (low volume, high margin) like Apple or services (i.e. advertising) like Google. So this is where Nokia want to be, whilst not neglecting the still-massive feature phone market (hence their restructuring of the business to separate and distinct units).

But they’re failing.

The N8 was supposed to be their break-though device that re-established them as a serious contender. Unfortunately it suffered from similar issues as its predecessors such as the N97: the hardware, although not in the same class as the iPhone, is strong; the device capabilities are also good; and, although it suffers from too few quality apps and too much content, the Ovi store is nicely integrated given the need to support so many devices in so many markets.

The issue is the operating system and the UI that is presents. Unfortunately Symbian is not up to the job of supporting a modern smartphone and Symbian ^3 is, if you pardon the expression, just the latest polishing of that turd**.

Release of their latest device, the E7, which is basically an N8 with a slide-out keyboard has been delayed until next year, capping a dreadful year for what was only a few years ago (and in many ways still is) one of the most respected, trusted and admired brands.

In my opinion, Nokia needs to take a leaf out of Microsoft’s book and start from scratch. Now that may be what they are doing with MeeGo but if the N900 (running Maemo) is anything to go by then Nokia haven’t yet learnt that they need to understand what users want and then deliver it. It unfortunately feels like many of the decisions that they make are based on false or incorrect premises and (I can say this having worked in the business for over a year) are hindered by the time it takes internally to both make a decision and then execute on it. I want Nokia to succeed. The market could do with a European business in the upper-echelons. I’m sure that they can, but I’m not really convinced that they will...

4. Windows Phone 7 was released

I have a confession - having owned a Palm Treo back in 2007, I actually quite liked Windows Mobile. The only possible explanation that I can find for this (you may consider this a convenient bit of post-rationalisation) is that it was a familiar interface. Having always been a Windows desktop owner, and wanting to browse and use email from my device, it was one of the few viable options. As a phone it was awful and the OS wasn’t great – but I kinda liked it.

That said, I was in a very small minority.

And so, following rounded criticism of their latest upgrade/release, Windows Mobile 6.5, Microsoft took the approach of starting from scratch with Windows Phone 7 (WP7). It could be said that 6.5 was very much a compromise, trying to appear to be in the game and fill some of the inevitable void caused by the revamp. In any event, 2010 has seen WP7 launched to general approval. There was not necessarily whooping from the rooftops but Microsoft is never going to generate that kind of fervour is it? It is not a perfect mobile OS and there are certinaly improvements that can be made, but there are similarly some nice features such as the live tiles, a smart look & feel, XBox Live integration and Silverlight support meaning app development is a smooth process.

Given the years of monopoly/duopoly in the smartphone space (ok a triumvirate if you include Blackberry), it is at least good to see a credible alternative from Microsoft that I hope will evolve in the coming months. It will no doubt take time for the industry to come on board but, as do Apple and Google, Microsoft see mobile as a key plank in their future strategy and so they will certainly be putting their effort behind it. And consumer uptake should grow, recent reports of 1.5 million being “shipped” should not be confused with “sales”, but are a relatively good sign nonetheless.

The good news for us all is that in any such market with competition amongst a number of serious players, innovation and capabilities are driven upwards whilst prices are driven in the other direction. I hope...

5. Blackberry shifted focus towards the consumer market

Given all the other moving and shaking that has gone on elsewhere, you could think that it’s been a quiet year for RIM but that isn’t really the case. Their UK market share remained pretty flat, but their year has been marked by challenges in international markets regarding the access to the encrypted transmissions sent via their Messenger (BBM) and email services, and a change of approach to move away from their comfort-zone of the Enterprise market to focus on the consumer market.

Blackberrys have been the business device of choice for a number of years. Whilst other manufacturers have made some inroads, and will probably continue to do so with Exchange integration via ActiveSync so straight-forward, the security controls that RIM has created around communications via/from/to their devices mean that for many large corporates, it is the only real option. This encryption has caused some issues with a number of Nations (such as Saudi Arabia) wanting to gain access to the details of and, in some cases, the content of communications for National Security reasons. Such issues rarely come to head as there is always a solution to be found but I don’t doubt that some headaches have been and will continue to be felt at BB Towers for a while.

However, more interesting to me is the way in which, seemingly almost by accident, Blackberrys became a device of choice for the younger generation of mobile owner. Blackberry Messenger (BBM) is an instant messaging/chat functionality in their devices that is free to users. Given this, it’s easy to see why it gained traction with younger users. This gave RIM a nice challenge to make their devices, pricing and marketing more consumer focussed – one that they addressed this year. Their devices certainly still have issues: the browser, for example, is in real need of improvement and the available apps are lagging well behind.

But you can’t argue that they typically occupy a top-3 position in the smartphone market, and so have to be considered – probably more than they usually are...

What it all means

Well, it means that next year will be exciting. There is still a lot to play for and whilst my next post will look at other activity in the world of Mobile in 2010 (such as the technological developments and agency/brand uptake of the medium) I will also, probably in the New Year, have a look at the future of the eco-system in 2011 and beyond and you can be sure that the smartphone arena will be a massive part of this.

* comScore MobiLens data – 3 month ave. month ending as stated

** Please note that I think Symbian is without doubt the OS of choice for feature phones

Now THAT is how QR codes should be done!

2010-12-17T11:26:00.002+00:00

What? Is Bod banging on about bleedin' QR codes again? Will he let it lie - we get it, he doesn't like them...

Ok, so the last couple of times I've commented about QR codes I've been critical of their execution, but that is not because of a problem with QR codes per se, just their execution in those examples. So you know what? Sod you all. I'm going to flip-reverse it and talk about an execution of QR codes that I really like. You see, I don't dislike QR codes - they are a really effective way of driving users to a destination (or indeed to provide them other information such as contact details). The caveat being that they rely on the user having a smartphone; having an appropriate app to decode the code on their phone; and being savvy enough to understand what they are and how to use them.

QR codes have been around for a good few years already. They were massive in Japan in 2007/2008 and there have been moves to try and establish them over here for years (anyone else remember the attempt by The Sun a couple of years back?). The issue in the UK has always been that the penetration of smartphones (and installed apps) didn't support their use as an effective call-to-action. It's for this reason that I've had to talk a client down from using them on more than one occasion - not because they are not effective, but that they are only effective under the right conditions, to the right audience and when executed in the right way.

And blow me, I've only found an example...

If you've picked up a copy of the Metro today (name-check for Mat Meir who found it and showed me) you may have seen this ad for Sky TV's Little Crackers (a season of autobiographical comic shorts from a few of Britain's better known comedians). And so what makes this such a good example of the use of QR? Well, let me explain...:

It's used in the right channel
Print is spot-on for the use of QR codes. It means that the code can be scanned easily and you can provide information along with the code that needn't be digested and acted upon in a split second.

They educate how to use the QR code
The ad doesn't just say how you use the code (scan it with your phone), but it also explains what you need to be able to do this (a QR code reader). So as well as supporting the CTA in this ad directly, it is educating the audience and so indirectly supporting the ongoing use of QR codes as a CTA in the future.

They provide an alternative CTA for those not familiar with, or unable to use a QR code
So if you don't have a QR code reader or don't want to get one, for example, you can still participate. No-one is excluded. And they don't just give you a single alternative, they go and give you two! You can either send and SMS and receive a URL back by reply, or you can type the URL directly into your browser. What more could you ask for?

Each different CTA is tracked with a URL parameter
In conjunction with providing multiple CTAs, each one uses a different URL. The one provided for users to enter into their browser is http://pda.sky.com/LittleCrackers, and the QR code and SMS URLs are distinguished by an additional parameter (source=qr and source=sms respectively). This is really important. It means that they can see how each of the CTAs is being used, including by which devices, and then integrate these insights into future activity. I am really pleased to see this kind of (simple but often overlooked) thought going into the execution here.

The use of QR is contextual
Yes, a print ad in the Metro is not targeted so everyone/anyone sees it (a criticism I levelled at the Waitrose execution). But in this case the context is clear - users are invited to preview exclusive content on their phone. The ad is for the series in general, but it is offering something additional for those that are capable and have devices that support it. This is clear in the ad so the user's expectations are set perfectly.

So in what may be my last post of the year (I'm thinking of writing a 2011 predictions piece but am struggling to decide between one that is serious and thoughtful or just outright frivolous and sarcastic - thoughts welcome) it is great to talk about something like this that I think has been really well executed.

Thank you Sky TV and may your response rates be high (I'll wager they're better than those for Waitrose or Moleskine)...

Waitrose includes QR code in TV ad. Great News! Well, err, actually...

2010-11-29T12:54:00.001+00:00

This weekend Waitrose ran what has been touted as a UK first - a TV ad including a QR code call-to-action. That's pretty big news isn't it? Well, I guess so yes. But not for the right reasons...

For those that haven't seen it, the ad shows Delia Smith (Norwich's most famous daughter) showing us how to cook Roast ribs of beef with Yorkshire pudding:

There it is. An Epiphany for Mobile Marketing. The defining point in the acceptance of a mobile call-to-action in what is, one of the most jealously guarded pieces of advertising real-estate. Mobile has reached the big-time. Everyone in the Mobile industry should raise a toast.

Well... err... I don't think so...

When I heard about this on Friday I got a little bit angry. In fact, I needed coaxing down from the light fittings by one of the Account Manager here. Why? Because it it this kind of inappropriate use of Mobile that really really riles me. As far as I am concerned, it is another example of what I mentioned in my post back in August about the number of poor executions of Mobile in marketing.

Let me explain... The ad is very much in keeping with the recent Waitrose ads - one of Delia or Heston showing a 35 second recipe which, obviously, needs a series of ingredients from Waitrose which are nicely bundled up in-store for you. As I understand it, the run has been very successful for them and an effective response to the "food as sex" M&S ads. And if you watched the video, you will probably have noticed a funny looking square in the final frame. Here it is again:

There, in the final frame is a QR (quick response) code. A 2-dimensional barcode that, when scanned by an application on a mobile phone can include plenty of information (such as a contact record) and do plenty of things (like auto create an SMS), but is most frequently used to launch the phone's browser to a particular URL.

So let me explain with why this isn't as good as it should be...

The QR code is on-screen for 2-3 seconds and, as you can see, is accompanied by absolutely no explanation. So given this, who could respond? Well, you're looking at smartphone users (c.30% of the phone-owning population) who either already know what a QR code is, or are so intrigued by the funny looking square that they do some research to find out about it, and who have (or know that they have) a barcode-reading app on their device. Oh, and they have to get their phone, open the app and scan the barcode within 3 seconds.

When it comes to CTAs, particularly mobile ones, I like to apply what I call the "Bedford Test" - I like to imagine that were I to walk into Bedford town centre (the nearest town to where I live) and ask a random selection of the people that I come across what a QR code is, would they know what to do. Well, what do you think? Does this pass the Bedford Test? I don't think so.

So, just taking the ad and the placement of the QR code at face value, I wonder who the target consumer is? If it's Digital Executives based in London then we're all good. If it's 35-45 year old females then we're not so good...

Ok, so let's assume that the consumers are savvy in this kind of thing, and are able to scan the code using their phone in the 3 seconds that is available to them (or have Sky+). What happens? Given there is no explanation, you may assume that you get pushed to the waitrose.com/christmas URL that is alongside it in the ad (and is not mobile optimsed BTW). Nope. You get pushed to a URL to download their Christmas app. It's pretty clever in that if you have a supported device (iPhone or Android only) you get pushed to the app in the appropriate app store/market. But what if you don't have an iPhone or Android device (there are more smartphones that aren't than are...)? You get pushed to a page like this:

* Sorry for the poor image quality. It was from an N97 after all...

Basically, a page called "Other phones", that says the Christmas app is not supported on your phone. Oh. Thanks for that Waitrose!

So, in short, it'll generate a low response rate and for those that do respond, a fair proportion are likely to get a poor user experience.

There's a few (kind of) counter arguments that have been levied at me over the last few days, so let me address these:

But this is great for Mobile. It's a mobile CTA on TV. Think about the exposure.
Well, I can't argue that the exposure is large. But that is the frustration - there have been a significant amount of projects that I have been involved in where we have deployed something really nice but which has suffered because the client has failed to back it with activity to drive awareness or activity. ATL media space is jealously guarded and there is often a real reluctance from the lead agency to include a mobile call-to-action. So when you do get the chance, you should use it wisely - it's like being given a test drive in a F1 car and crashing on the first corner. If the activity is going to be measured on response, then there is a danger that a poor response will result in all Mobile being tarred with the QR-brush and being consigned to BTL comms.

The exposure at image this gives to Waitrose is great.
If Waitrose want exposure in the Mobile or Digital press then fine, this may very well give them what they want. However, I've also seen an awful lot of "why oh why" type comments from the Twitterati... But I would be very surprised if there isn't a metric around response rates (this is a direct response CTA after all) and I would also be surprised if it meets it. As I argue above, if you've got the chance to include a Mobile CTA, please use it more wisely.

But QR codes are cool. Everyone is talking about them and they're going to be huge.
No they're not. And no they're not.
QR are codes are a nice mechanic, they're a quick and easy way to drive users to an online destination. Used at the appropriate time, in an appropriate way they can be very effective. But they are not widely recognised and the broad consumer understanding doesn't exist - the UK isn't like Japan (where I've seen QR code tattoos!), and the uptake of QR codes will only ever be slow. Let me dispel the thought that these are cutting edge - does anyone remember The Sun trying to introduce them into the mainstream and including a pull-out all about QR codes? In 2007! I just love the line "your technology-crazy Sun is going to be at the forefront of the revolution". If the combined force of The Sun and Keeley don't manage to bring them to the fore of the collective consciousness then I'm not sure what will...

So what would I have done?

Pretty simple really, I'd have included an SMS call to action "Text WAITROSE to 8NNNN":
- Everyone with a phone can send an SMS (it is the only killer-app for mobile) and so no-one is excluded.
- It is memorable, so the consumers don't have to grab their phone and respond whilst the ad is on-screen.
- It allows you to respond to the consumer via SMS, meaning you can set the consumers expectations with your reply.
- You start a conversation - you've got their mobile number and so can have a dialogue with them, and so engage with them in other ways.

At it's simplest level, SMS is the most democratising of channels, as everyone can engage if they want to. After all, what does using a QR code say to Waitrose's customers?

Surprisingly, I don't like knocking other Mobile activity. But equally, I do like to see it done well as, for whatever we say, it is still an industry that is fighting hard to be recognised alongside other channels. And so because of this, everything that "we" do, on whatever scale, needs to be as appropriate and effective as we can make it...

UPDATE: My latest post discusses how Sky TV have done a far better job of executing a QR code campaign: http://blog.the-bods.co.uk/2010/12/now-that-is-how-qr-codes-should-be-done.html

Is O2 More finally living up to its name?

2010-11-19T15:45:00.000+00:00

Mobile operators are in a unique position.

They hold a wealth of information about your mobile usage which means that, as consumers increasingly use their mobiles for more and more, they are subsequently able to derive greater insight into the individual, their habits, and preferences than ever before.

Typically this information is jealously guarded by the mobile operators - it is, after all, one of their key differentiators in an ecosystem where they are being squeezed by device manufacturers such as Apple and Nokia on the one hand and service providers such as Google (and Apple again) on the other. In the era of the smartphone and tablet; the hyper-connected world of social-networks, apps and data services, carriers cannot afford to sit back and watch as they become little more than dumb pipes. Mobile ISPs.

Indeed, I am sure that it is with this in mind that they consider the outlay that they would need to make in order to implement the next generation of mobile networks, LTE, as without an increase in mobile bandwidth the clamour for, and use of, WiFi with mobile devices will rise - resulting in their networks being bypassed and the data available to them being reduced.

Of course, the carriers have recognised that they need to share some data in order to help to stimulate the market. Without the insights for media planning that is provided by GSMA Mobile Media Metrics, the pooling of mobile browsing data from the five UK carriers, it would be difficult to convince media planners of the viability of the medium. However, it is important to note, that this information is completely anonymised, meaning that insights are aggregated to a level well away from the individual.

Which means that the carriers retain their differentiator. Consumer data.

And so some of the carriers are turning this information into a revenue stream by using it, and any explicit preferences that have been provided, in order target marketing messages to their subscribers - indeed, this was the founding premise behind the MVNO Blyk when it was launched in 2007 (although this turned out not to manage to sustain them well enough). It is important to note that carriers are not "selling" their subscriber's data, they are offering brands and advertisers the opportunity to market to their base with defined defined targeting parameters (e.g. males, in London, who have indicated that they like sport). In addition, such programs are opt-in and contact rules are applied to prevent any bombardment of messages.

Beyond Blyk, the notable programs are those run by Orange (Orange Shots) and O2 (O2 More). Now, having been an O2 subscriber since I first had a mobile phone in 1999 - of course it was BT Cellnet in those days - I cannot comment on the consumer experience for Orange Shots so in this post I'll restrict myself to comment on O2 More, to which I signed up in December 2009.

Dressed up as a service for consumers "about giving you offers we know you'll love", up until the last week or so, I have been decidedly unimpressed with what I have been sent. The messages have been sent patchily, one per day for 3-4 days and then nothing for a fortnight, and pretty much all of the offers irrelevant (although of course that could be blamed on the preferences that I selected). The absolute nadir of my experience came when I was sent an offer for maternity wear (I certainly didn't opt in to that!). To be fair I was sent an apology message, but was then sent the same message again.

Twice. A week or so later.

However, the previous three offers that I have been sent in the last fortnight have all been notable - not only because of the brand and the nature of the offer, but also because of the their executions and two of them for good reasons...:

1. Starbucks

Firstly, this was the first MMS that I received from O2 More. It wasn't great - a simple static image that was not tailored to my device, but it was ok. The offer was a discount on a drink, their Via product, and the impressive element was that this utilised location. The MMS didn't just tell me about the offer, it also told me address of the nearest Starbucks from where I could redeem the voucher.

Cool.

Now this wasn't the nearest one to my house - but the nearest one to where I was when I received the MMS (if you're interested, it utilised the behind-the-scenes pull nature of MMS to calculate my location from the network cell I was connecting to and customise the MMS text accordingly).

Location has become one of the hot-topics of mobile in recent months so it is great to see this leveraged for more than display advertising and search. A push offer that becomes all the more compelling by telling me where I could redeem it.

Unfortunately, the main criticism that I have of this is that the voucher included a generic redemption code, meaning that apart from measuring the volume of response, and being able to make some inference based on the locations at which the redemptions were made, there is little post-campaign insight that can be made.

2. Tesco Direct

I blogged while ago about the work that Tesco is doing in mobile, in many respects setting a benchmark for other retailers. It was reported on the 8th Nov, that they have launched an mCommerce mobile-optimised site for their non-food division Tesco Direct. Again, it's not the prettiest of sites, but it's there and it works.

Clearly they are supporting this launch with activity to drive traffic as I was sent an SMS via O2 More, with an offer of £5 off a basket of £25 or more. The mechanic was straight-forward - a link in the SMS, driving me through to the Tesco Direct mobisite.

What pleased me about this, besides the simplicity of the offer and mechanic, was that it was completely trackable - the offer required me to use a voucher code at the checkout. I cannot be certain but I would hope that this code was unique to me and so means that O2 are able to learn as much as possible about who redeems the code, when they do it and maybe even what they bought. It sounds a bit creepy but it is the lack of post-campaign insight that is the failing of far too many pieces of mobile activity (Starbucks included).

3. Gap

And finally, just this Wednesday, I was sent another SMS from O2 More - this time for Gap. A whopping 30% off anything at any Gap store. To be honest, other than the brand, the only thing of note about this was negative...

Firstly, it only included a generic voucher code. Your typical Gap discount that often does the rounds on email and serves only to drive footfall in store, with the only measure being general uplift and offer redemption.

And secondly, the voucher was to be accessed via a link in the SMS clicking through to a mobisite. But to redeem it, I had to print it out and take it in-store. From my mobile... Now, I may be able to work out a way of doing that, but I'm not convinced your average O2 subscriber would. This mechanic may work for email vouchers, which you receive on your PC and so are connected to a printer, but it is either laziness or stupidity (and perhaps both) not to recognise that the mechanic would need to be adjusted for mobile. Did the campaign manager at O2 not read the SMS copy and think to point out that you can't print direct from a mobile?

It does a real dis-service to the channel to use such a mechanic that is bound to under-perform and so risk alienating a brand from mobile as a result!

So I guess that for completeness, I should complete this post by answering the question posed in the title. Is O2 More living up to it's name? Is it offering consumers and advertisers, something that it advantageous to both?

Well, in theory, one should lead to the other - the more attractive the service is to advertisers, the more offers will be available and so it is more likely that consumers will be provided offered that are relevant to them.

Clearly, as brands' recognition that mobile is a viable (significant) channel increases, as will their need to advertise in the medium. And so it is then, that its capabilities begin to be utilised fully. With the location-relevant message from Starbucks; and the trackable and (potentially) immediate journey from offer to purchase from Tesco we get a glimpse at how mobile could be used in both an engaging and effective way for push marketing.

So given this, I guess my answer is: maybe.

Why have a mobile call-to-action if your're just going to ruin it?

2010-11-15T18:06:00.001+00:00

To cut a long story short, I lost my notebook and figured "Hey, I work in an agency now. I'll get myself a Moleskine". So I popped out to Ryman's and got myself one of these little beauties.

More exited than I had any right to be, I skipped back to the office and, whilst unwrapping it, caught sight of something pretty novel.

There was a QR code, right there, on the product label.

(Apologies for the crumpled label - like I said, I was very eager to open it up)

I was on the verge of explosion I got so excited. You just don't see that kind of thing, even these days - a mobile call to action on a product as ordinary as a notepad (even if it was a Moleskine). Of course, I gave the QR code a bash and sure enough, it directed me the the product page for my chosen notebook (soft cover / plain sheet / black in case you are interested) on www.moleskine.com.

Now, I can accept that this took me to their Global site rather than their UK specific site - I presume that they ship the product to numerous nations so they should err on the side of caution there. And I am also ignoring the fact that there was absolutely no explanation as to the purpose of the QR code - it was just there. But what I cannot accept is that the site that you are directed to is in no way mobile optimised. It just takes you to the same page that you'll see if you click on the link above.

So, to reference my title, why the bloody hell bother?

I can kind-of follow the thought process that says that if a user has a device with a QR code reader, then it will be more capable of browsing. But do they not realise that most (if not all) Nokia S60 devices ship with a QR code reader? Have you tried any serious browsing on one of those...? My other gripe about this site is that it had no transactional capability (randomly, unless I wanted to visit the Italian version). Why is this not a push to an online destination with the capability to purchase another (and take the retailer out of the equation and increase your margins)?

So, what I am now struggling to understand is why include a QR code at all. There is no reference on the packaging to an online destination other than this, so they clearly want/expect mobile traffic. Which just confuses me more - they are actively encouraging mobile traffic but then not providing a destination that either provides an optimal browsing experience, or the most likely functionality that a consumer would want.

So from my initial excitement, I am afraid this is a bit of a #fail for Moleskine I am afraid.

Can anyone else feel the momentum in mobile?

2010-11-08T14:24:00.000+00:00

A little over a week ago I wrote a post about how brands, agencies and the mobile industry in general needs to stop regarding the "mobile internet" as something distinct and unique, as this only serves to continue the isolationism that all too often is projected by the industry.

After all, it's just the internet.

The key point being that consumers don't differentiate so why should we? Those that are in the know may understand that there are some fundamental differences between both the way that different devices access an internet site/page and what a consumers motivation/needs are when doing so - but any differentiated treatment based on the device should be completely hidden from the user and their experience should be seemless. It's like suggesting you should drive a car differently on the basis of whether there is unleaded, diesel or 4-star (maybe LPG would be a better example) in the tank.

Increasingly, brands need to try and operate in that space that is the union of innovation and inclusivity in order to achieve this (I'll re-print my canny diagram that best illustrates this space below):

Well, blow me, Tesco are only going and helping to set the pace aren't they?

Tesco you say? Yes indeed. Tesco.

The NMA today reported that the world's third largest retailer has launched its first transactional mobile website, an optimised version of Tesco Direct, their non-food operation. This follows swiftly on the heels of the launch of the Tesco mobile apps for food purchases - currently on both Ovi and iPhone (somewhat notably, Tesco chose to launch on the Ovi, which provides broader reach, before a "cooler" iPhone version). So if you go to direct.tesco.com on your mobile, you'll get redirected to the m.tesco.com and be able to browse and purchase as you see fit.

Of course, this move sits as part of a wider strategy within Tesco as they look to branch out into other markets that are currently dominated by the likes of Argos and Amazon (both of whom have mobile on their agenda too of course), but it does serve to demonstrate how important it is to support browsers using a mobile device. Tesco have stated that 7% of traffic to Tesco Direct was from a mobile device (it would be interesting to know if this includes tablets) and that this has grown by 300% over the last year. It is that kind of evidence that all brands, not just those with the big kahunas like Tesco, will need to take heed of or risk being marginalised in an increasingly digital, and mobile device centric, future.

Note: Whilst I am very pleased to see what Tesco are doing, the fact that their main website (www.tesco.com) is not optimised for mobile devices, is a black mark I'm afraid. But maybe I shouldn't be so fussy...

It's just the internet.

2010-10-29T17:59:00.000+01:00

I'll be honest with you, I'm caught in a bit of a quandary.

On the one hand I'm a firm believer that, because of the ubiquity and democratising power of mobile, there should be no discrimination. Mobile activity should support all users irrespective of their device, carrier, location or whatever. However on the other hand, there have been massive strides over the last 18-24 months in the capabilities of top-end devices; the underlying and supporting technology (be that apps, messaging or the mobile internet); and the understanding of the medium (although, to be frank, the progress here is less impressive). With that in mind and the desire for continued innovation in the market, we should ensure that we are always pushing boundaries in the work that we, in the digital and mobile industry, are delivering.

So there's the quandary, because whilst these two positions are not necessarily mutually exclusive, it can often be different to reconcile them - particularly when there is a demanding client, limited time and resource, and finite budget.

But to address this (near) dichotomy is to miss the point.

We know, for example, that between June 2009 and August 2010, the percentage of users accessing the mobile internet increased from 26% to 38%*. So whilst we sit and argue the toss one way or the other, consumers are just getting on with it. And that is the point. Because as far as consumers are concerned there is no such thing as the "Mobile Internet" - they just want to access the "internet" using their mobile device.

The "mobile internet" is a fallacy.

And this gives us all (I mean "us" in its broadest possible term to include brands, agencies and technology providers) a real challenge because it has implications across the board. For starters, let's look at discovery. The idea of a brand's mobile internet site residing behind an m.brand.co.uk or brand.mobi domain has long held sway. Why? So consumers know how to find it.

Bollocks. Only (some of) the mobile industry gets mobile specific domains. Consumers access a brand's site via either search, typing www.brand.co.uk (or com) into their browser or clicking a banner/email link. The direct implication of this is that, for a brand to ensure that they are delivering the inclusive experience that means whatever device a consumer is using they receive an appropriate experience, they need to manage this across all of their properties.

Now this is by no means easy, but it is possible and I hold up the BBC as a great example of this. Try it now - go to www.bbc.co.uk on your PC/Mac browser and on your phone. You'll see similar content, but delivered in a way appropriate for the device you're using. The BBC are by no means providing a bleeding-edge experience for top-end smartphones, but they are providing a good one. The BBC by its very nature will always be behind the curve in that regard, but if you are detecting the device from the outset you can deliver something special for those that support it (using HTML5 for example).

And so once you get into the mindset that it's about the consumers, and what they're using to consume content - be it a smartphone, PC, laptop, tablet or featurephone - then you do need to start ensuring that you are providing both innovation and inclusivity...

So far I've only really addressed pull media, and only a small fraction of it at that. But what about direct communications? How many brands send out regular comms via email, or SMS, or both? I get quite a few, be they newsletters, offers competitions or whatever. And how often have I clicked on a link from within an email on my phone and gone to a microsite that is optimised for my mobile device? Embarrassingly few.

My colleagues at Movement will tell you that I have longed banged-on about dCRM (d for digital) as the necessary evolution or eCRM and mCRM. For some reason, email comms and mobile comms still operate as parallel and exclusive channels, with the comms often consistent but the inherent expectation that consumers only use a computer for email. Again, we know that this is quite simply not the case - over a quarter of 18+ mobile owners use their phone to access email and this increases beyond 60% for smartphone users (who are of course on the rise)*. So if you are delivering emails that cannot be read on a mobile device you are missing out. And if you have that covered but any click-thru goes to a website you are, again, unlikely to hit the mark. Why not identify the device used to click through and deliver the right content, appropriately rendered. To be honest, I get more confused the more that I think about it - surely it's just common sense...?

But if most of those consumers who read emails on their mobile device are using smartphones, why do we need to worry about it - they can access websites can't they? Well, yes, they can. But is this optimised? And is it appropriate. We know that navigating "standard" internet sites with a smartphone, particularly one with a touchscreen, is possible and in many cases satisfactory. But again, is it the best you can do? I fear that in the coming years the medical profession will need to coin a new term to sit alongside nomophobia and vibranxiety that addresses the strain caused to a thumb and forefinger caused by too much pinching-to-zoom.

At its heart it is all about simplifying things for the consumer. Again, and I can't say this enough, they don't want to worry about what they're using to access content. They just want to access to it, using whatever device they want, as simply and effectively as possible. There's nothing wrong with that is there?

And that level of inclusivity, well, that's pretty innovative in its own right isn't it...?

* comScore MobiLens Aug 2010

How can activity be integrated without using mobile?

2010-10-11T17:20:00.000+01:00

Last week, I saw a press releases in one of the marketing email updates that I get announcing the launch of an "integrated" campaign for a particular brand (to be honest, I can't recall the activity in question but, to be honest, it could have been any given brand in any given week). As I often do, I thought "That sounds interesting. 'Integrated' they say. I wonder what mobile element they have.". Well, being a curious chap, I had a look and much to my surprise the activity had an online element in conjunction with some press/print above-the-line activity. And nothing else. Cue rant....

Above-the-line and online all too often isn't integrated, it's just online activity in parallel to ATL! How can you call activity "integrated" if it doesn't integrate...?!?

There was no logical, or seamless customer journey between ATL and online, so unless you're sat at your desk in front of your computer reading a magazine, see an ad and log on to the site, the path from initial exposure to response and conclusion (e.g. purchase) is going to be disjoint. For someone to participate in the online element (barring online discovery of course) the activity is relying on someone seeing the ATL and remembering to go online later.

And so how many people are not responding simply because of this?

How many may think "That looks good", but by the time they get home or into work and in front of a computer have forgotten the URL, become engaged in something else (be that work or another advert), or just lost their initial interest? In such a case, the ATL works purely as an awareness piece and the "integration" simply does not exist.

(* To be pefectly honest, there is no point to this image other than I was looking for a picture of David Brent with his hands interlocked like George Dubbya does above. Blow me, I couldn't find one but did chance across this beauty which I couldn't not include)

So why not allow consumers to interact there and then, when they see the ATL and their interest is aroused? Why not let them "click" on the print ad and provide them a means of responding or interacting immediately? Why not include a simple SMS (or if it's appropriate MMS) call-to-action or even a QR code that drives them to an optimised mobisite and so delivers the best experience for their device? This mobisite need not be anything spectacular - it can just act as a conduit to the online activity, bridging the gap between ATL and online, for example by capturing an email address in order to send the consumer an email that then drives online or just giving them an an insight into the online activity and so cementing it in the consumers mind and better ensuring that they will visit online.

And why not in the process, augment your understanding with information such as which media drives better response? And when? And where? Why not profile your traffic by device type and use this to inform future activity (device type is a useful indicator for socio-demographic profiling)?

Unfortunately, too many marketers fall into the trap of thinking that mobile can, or should, only be used when consumers are in a "heads down" (**) state - using or looking at their device (a symptom of the wider issue of mobile being an afterthought in marketing planning as I previously discussed here). This forces mobile into being a silo'd part of the activity, with all discovery and interaction happening in isolation in the channel or bolted on the end of an online journey.

But mobile need not be the heart of the activity. It is often at its most effective when it plays a catalytic role, operating when the consumer is in the "heads-up" (**) state, not looking at their device (but as we know with their device with them) and links the offline with the rich and engaging online. Then you really are providing an "integrated" user journey that connects print/offline via mobile to web/online.

And only then can you honestly say that you have an "integrated" campaign.

(**) Copyright Movement Digital Limited...!

[CONCEPT] Remember Tomorrow's World? They could have this one right!

2010-10-06T16:16:00.000+01:00

I remember as a kid, sitting down with the rest of the family in front of the TV and watching the likes of Judith Hann, Howard Stableford and Maggie Philbin give us a glimpse into the future on BBC's Tomorrow's World. I am pretty sure that I'm not the only one. As a young boy, I was often fascinated by some of the far-fetched and, in some cases, downright loony concepts and prototypes that they showed. However, even then, I was able to take much of what they said with a pinch of salt - I mean, just how many of the things that they showed us have actually made it into the mainstream?

And believe it or not, as I have aged, I have actually got more cynical and pay even less heed to predictions about our future world.

Well, I am pretty sure that one of the ideas that I saw on Tomorrow's World, and certainly have done since then, is the concept of a single device that allows you to control everything in your home - from the lights and heating, to the TV and video (let's say DVD player to keep it contemporary).

<< Cut to shot of immaculately coiffured man, wearing a shirt open to the belly-button displaying a dinner plate sized medallion, sat on a cream leather sofa next to an equally impressively coiffured woman in a Laura Ashley print dress - each holding a Champagne flute filled to the brim with Babycham. The gentleman is holding a black box, on which he twiddles one knob turning up the volume of Hot Chocolate on his stereo. He turns confidently to his lady who smiles back, appreciatively. Encouraged, he gives another button a twist and the lights dim. Again he looks to his lady and sees that she has relaxed back into the sofa and has closed her eyes, listening to the smooth voice of Errol Brown. He makes his move, presses the button to recline the chair and leans towards her - right onto a slap in the face... >>

I just didn't see it. In a world where the remote control is King (i.e. the living room), one remote to control them all seemed too far fetched even for JRR Tolkien let alone little old me. But then something happened. And as often seems to be the case in the world of digital, it was those chaps over at Cupertino, California who changed the rules of the game once again. I have already blogged about the impact of the iPad and how Apple have managed to both create and (partially) fill a whole new paradigm in terms of how people consume content.

Tablet computers, whilst having existed prior to the release of the iPad, were an irrelevance. Now they are hot property. With Blackberry releasing their PlayBook and a likely plethora of manufacturers releasing Android-based versions it is a fairly safe bet that this Christmas and the first half of 2011 will see the penetration of tablets in the consumer market grow at a significant pace. Whilst there is no little debate about whether a Tablet is a mobile device or not, a recent survey indicated that only 16% of iPad owners took their device out with them "most of the time" or "always". As I discussed in my post, it is a consumption and entertainment device. The implication of this is that it'll more than likely be sat at home on the coffee table, bedside table or on the arm of the sofa. In fact, precisely where your remote controls will be...!

And so it was that I was sat on a wall, outside a client's office with an insanely tall Dutchman, that I hit on my killer idea - why can't we control all the gadgets in our home using a tablet?

We know that pretty much every controller out there uses infra-red (IR). And we also know that you can pick up a universal remote and program it to your make and model of TV (for example). So, there's no reason that you couldn't develop a piece of hardware (I'll call it an "IR Hub") that operates as a universal remote for a number of productions - your TV, digital box, DVD player, iPod dock, lights, ceiling fan or digital photo frame. Hell, anything that takes an IR input from it's control!

And then once you have the IR Hub, you can develop an application (supported on iOS, Android etc.) that connects to the IR Hub using WiFi (it's a fairly safe bet that if you've got a Tablet, you're going to have WiFi at home) and interfaces with the gadget through it. You can even have multiple IR Hubs in different rooms such as your kitchen and bedroom. The app would allow you to select the relevant IR Hub and then the gadget and then show you an appropriate set of controls - be that to turn the volume up, dim the lights or recline the chair.

And "immaculately coiffured man" would no doubt avoid a slap in the face.

But why would you need an IR Hub? Surely WiFi or Bluetooth enabled TVs would render this product obsolete. Maybe, but how often do people change their TVs? How quickly will they penetrate the market? What are the chances of TV manufacturers agreeing an open standard for such an app? And what about all the other products that use an IR remote?

It may be my idea but I think that it's a pretty killer one - the only issue being the cost that it would take to firstly prototype it and then take it to market. So if you know anyone who has 50-grand or so knocking around, send them my way - and remember, you heard it here first!

NB: After having my brainwave, although I had never heard of such a product, I did some digging around and did find a couple of similar concepts - Control UI and Total Control - although, to be honest, I'm not sure that either of them are the complete package...

DIY apps. The Emperor's new clothes.

2010-09-24T14:05:00.000+01:00

I'll preface this blog post by saying that I haven't really got the time to write it. Although I haven't posted an update for a while (meaning that it is well overdue) I still have a pretty large pile of things to do instead. However, a Twitter exchange with my ex-colleague, good mate and fellow mobile enthusiast Murat resulted in me climbing so high on my soap-box that I needed to let it all out - he does have that kind of effect on me I am afraid. So we can probably consider this as a cathartic post...

Anyway.

Along with the fantastic Grapple, I was sharing a stand with the lovely Hayley (another ex-colleague) from Nokia at Ad:Tech on Wednesday. She was talking about a new product that Nokia have released, the Ovi App Wizard, which enables you to create your very own mobile application, test it in an emulator, submit it for review and (with luck) subsequently publish it to the Ovi Store - making it available across supported devices. I gave this a go yesterday evening and am pleased to say that it was a pretty smooth and pain-free process, resulting in me creating and submitting my app in little over 5 minutes.

I confess that I was pretty impressed by this. If there is one thing that Nokia (usually) do well it is process - I have had more than a few afternoon conference calls talking about "ways of working".

This follows relatively swiftly on the heels of similar platform/product releases by the likes of Kilrush and Golden Gekko (with Tino) and possibly preceding one from Google . Whilst there are variations between these offerings, in relation to their target audience, platforms and feature sets, the common denominator is the ability to create your own app without needing to do a jot of coding.

So what's the issue?

Well, I am all one for the democratising power of Mobile - everyone has one, most people understand them and their use (and usefulness) will only increase over the next few years. And I am certainly also someone who at times despairs about the way that Mobile, as a whole, can obfuscate and over-complicate in order to set itself apart and be seen as "special" - and in doing so, only succeed in putting brands and agencies off the effort.

But I do believe that there is a real danger of letting anyone create an app and put it out there. For starters, the default position of "I must have an app" is something that, as an industry, we have a obligation to redress. More often than not with questions like "Really? Why? What exactly do you want to achieve?".

There is most definitely a time and a place for an app, but this needs to have been reached through a process of assessing and analysing the brand, the objective, the budget and most importantly, the target audience. If those factors point to an app being the right choice then go for it. But until you have been through that, don't discount SMS, MMS, a mobile internet site, or any of the other capabilities that exist with Mobile.

Just producing an app for an app's sake, really is a case of the Emperor's New Clothes and my own app is a case-in-point...

I created an app that simply pulls the Atom feed of this blog.

So, it just shows this blog.

An app.

To just show this blog.

Nothing else.

No other features.

Just this blog.

In an app.

So why on God's Green Earth does it need to be an app?

Just to be clear, I really like apps and I use them all the time. They enable you to provide features that you just cannot yet do in any other way. Take my post about a day in London courtesy of Google as an example - it just wouldn't have been possible without apps (NB: mobile browser support of HTML5 will in the future address this). There are any number of apps that I could talk about endlessly. One of my favourites being the Museum of London "You are here" iPhone app - I urge you all to have a butchers! But the point is, the features that make an app so good (e.g. GPS, accelerometer, camera, compass, local storage, external or 3rd party integration etc.) are not all able to be utilised/deployed with a DIY app builder. To create a rich, engaging and innovative app you need to spend time and money developing one.

But the problem with apps is that what you make up for in functionality, you lose in reach. Not all devices (easily) support apps as we know them and, taking Ovi as an example, although in theory you get reach across a large number of Nokia devices how many Nokia users will actually utilise this? So an app can immediately restrict your target audience. This is fine if an app is part of a muti-faceted strategy and so you are achieving this reach with other activity; or if you recognise this limitation and it still delivers for your target audience.

But it is not fine if you are simply responding to the demand of "I need an app!".

An app that is as one-dimensional as a restricted RSS reader will not engage, it will not bring a brand closer to it's audience. Indeed, it is more likely to disengage and disappoint your consumers. So I would say yes, do create and app. But only if it is the right thing to do. Otherwise, harness the power of the ubiquity of mobile and look in other areas for you engagement and innovation.