MobHappy

TypePad Vs del.icio.us

We wrote last weekend about how TypePad, MobHappy's blog software/hosting supplier had 18 hours downtime last Friday. We pay to use this service, as we want reliability, so it's galling when they have persistent problems like this.

However, a much bigger issue with these things is how companies deal with problems when they come up. It's like waiting for a train to arrive, when you're sitting on a cold, damp platform. It's mildly irritating for the first 5 minutes, but then annoyance levels start to rise exponentially. Unless, the train operator has the good sense and courtesy to tell you:

1. What the problem is.
2. When it will be resolved.

Then, if the resolution doesn't happen as and when they say, they continue to keep you updated and informed.

This doesn't remove the passengers' annoyance, but it does manage it far more effectively. If they know what's happening, you can manage their expectations accordingly.

What many people found so frustrating about the TypePad incident was that this communication simply wasn't forthcoming. What little information they did deign to let us know was via a less than prominent page on their site, was simply a blandly worded status - yes, guys, I can see your site is down, but what's the issue and when will it be resolved do you think?

This situation has been compounded by subsequent further communication issues in that they've still failed to write to all their customers to apologise (and offer compensation, if appropriate). I did raise this point on Niall Kennedy's blog, when he interviewed Anil Dash, a VP of Six Apart, on Friday night.

In fairness to the poor bloke, he does seem to be caught in the middle of a situation not of his making ie he's neither in charge of tech nor the TypePad product, but did have the courtesy to make himself available and is obviously concerned. But when I raised the issue of an apology, he wrote:

I do expect you'll get formal communication from Six Apart as a whole on Monday, with the goal there being to make sure we've got a full understanding of everything when we communicate formally.

Let's leave aside that such an email should have been sent over the weekend and not waited for the luxury of a working day to organise this. Monday has come and gone and no such apology has arrived.

Ahh...maybe as a blogging company, they'll at least use their blogs, right? Wrong! Mena Trott, founder and poster child of the company has not only ignored the issue, but hasn't updated her blog, Mena's Corner for about 5 months.

Typepad have lost touch with the "community" they so proudly talk about.

Contrast this with my other mission critical (and free) blogging software, del.icio.us. Note that while still young, they've already joined big business by selling to Yahoo! They were also hit by an outrage yesterday and did everything right. Their blog spelled out the detailed situation, was constantly updated and was open for comments all the way through.

The blog was written live by their founder, in person, who was also up to his eyes in resolving the tech issues - horribly stressful, though this undoubtedly was. The community (and there really is one here) was wonderfully supportive. In the main they were also quick to stamp on anyone less than 100% behind the team.

TypePad need to look at del.icio.us and apply this kind of action plan to their next crisis management scenario. In the meantime, the word on the street is that some leading players in the 6A management team will jump ship imminently, rather than risk further sullying their personal reputations by association with further communication and management incompetence.

They need to take some radical and powerful action, as a matter of urgency, to resolve their technology, communication and leadership issues.

Analyze This

There's the old saying about lies, damn lies and statistics -- it could pretty easily be adapted to fit plenty of analyst predictions as well. I saw one fly past my RSS reader today that says location-based services "may finally realize its potential in the Asia/Pacific region in the upcoming five years" (via Mobile Analyst Watch) because there's a lot of consumer interest in them. Of course, consumer interest has never really been the problem, it's all the other stuff the operators have screwed up that's held LBS back.

Let's suspend reality for a moment -- since that's apparently okay, what with the dearth of any compelling LBS, and their continued failure to take off in any meaningful way -- and imagine what else "may" happen over the next five years. I may discover a new career as a professional football player and lead the US to World Cup victory -- twice. We may have phones implanted in our heads, negating the need for handsets and/or Bluetooth headsets. Angelina Jolie may split with Brad Pitt and may decide that she's got a thing for dudes that write about mobile phones and live in Texas. I think you get the idea.

Obviously this stuff comes out of a press release that's intended to do little more than sell copies of the $3,000 report. But the underlying point is that these predictions really don't help anybody. I'm not saying there aren't analysts that do good work, I've known several of them. But these top-down one-way predictions have very little value in an information society that's increasingly based on conversation. Believing that whatever market you're entering is going to be worth a bajillion dollars a year in 2010 isn't going to make your product any better.

Dial That Number

On a recent visit to an über trendy friend, my 10 year old daughter wanted to use their phone. The problem was that she couldn't work out how to do it.

This is a kid who uses tech stuff everyday. She can use a PSP, GameBoy, PlayStation, computer, mobile phone, video camera, digital camera and (awesomely) can even record stuff on a 5 year old video recorder - don't ask me how. She can do Finger Frenzy in 7 seconds - a curiously addictive game where you type in the alphabet as quickly as possible. Not so easy!

So why was she flummoxed? They had a retro-phone on their landline, which was a dial-up version. Thus, a skill that had been esential for what? 3 or 4 generations is redundant.

We still talk about dialing a phone number, but for how long, I wonder?

Image from Ritilan.

Narnia is an Allegory - Shock

I took my kids to see The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe recently and was intrigued by the way the film worked on two levels.

My kids obviously saw it on a basic level – a simple saga of right versus wrong, with an overt Christian subtext.

For adults though the message is very different. As the story unravels, the Witch can feel her power ebbing as the 100 year winter draws to a close. As the great thaw sets in, she still continues to try to travel by sleigh, despite the fact that it’s now impossible, but even her close advisors are afraid to point this out.

After all, she’s always traveled by snow sleigh, so why should she change?

How clever of CS Lewis to allegorise the end of the record and advertising industries like that.

Smart Marketers Go Black

eMarketer points to some work by Solutions Research Group (SRG) suggesting that in the US, Black and to a lesser extent, Hispanic mobile users are far more likely to use advanced (ie non voice) features of their phones.

37% had downloaded a ringtone in the last month (as opposed to 26% average), 48% had sent an sms (29% average).

Another study by Yankelovich Monitor found ownership and intention to purchase WAP phones was also higher in the black community and use of P2T was three times higher.

This means that these groups are important - and not just as markets in their own right. It's because very often, especially in youth culture, what starts in the black community, crosses over at some point to their less stylish white bretheren. Many music trends start Black - rap, hiphop, Jazz, even rock and roll. Fashion too - where do you think having your arse hanging out of your trousers started? Ditto sports.

And so, I have long argued, it's the same with mobiles.

Smart marketers focus their attention on mavens - people who will spread the word about their products. Getting one maven on board and on message is worth 100,000 lesser folk. So if you've got limited resources and budgets for your mobile content, handset or app, go find some black kids who like it. They'll do all the marketing you're ever going to need.

Palm and Motorola: Same Situation, Different Predictions

The Wall Street Journal's had two articles this week about Motorola and Palm, highlighting their current situation and giving an outlook for 2006. What's interesting is that both companies are coming from a similar situation -- their success in 2005 has been driven by one device (the RAZR and the Treo) -- but the WSJ's stories take opposing viewpoints on their futures:
- Analysts See Palm Rebound at Hand
- Can Motorola Ride RAZR's Edge?

The articles reiterate points I made earlier in the year, wondering if the switch to Windows Mobile would help Palm, and saying Motorola needed to follow up the RAZR with more successful handsets. The WSJ says the Windows Treo will give the company a big boost, but I'm more skeptical. Using the Palm OS was the Treo's differentiation; now, it's just another Windows Mobile PDA phone. There have been plenty of them before, and several with QWERTY keyboards. To automatically assume the Treo will sell well when none of the others have been big winners is a stretch, and doesn't take into account the risk Palm runs of alienating its existing user base by changing operating systems. Keep in mind, too, that the Treo has only been a success in the US. Palm's failed to make any sort of dent overseas with it.

Another significant point of weakness for Palm is that it's never made good on its talk of creating a family of Treo smartphones, particularly consumer-oriented mid-tier devices. Going forward, this is a crucial part of the market, and for now, it's one Nokia dominates. Given that company's renewed focus on the enterprise market with its E-Series devices in multiple form factors, the Treo's going to have itself plenty more competition -- just as it loses its main differentiator.

Motorola's challenge remains the same: build on the success of the RAZR with other devices that follow in its footsteps. The SLVR candybar phone is now on sale in Europe, it looks like, while the PEBL has gone on sale too. I'm not sure if these devices will have the same appeal as the RAZR, though. The SLVR may be too much of a rip-off of the RAZR design, while the PEBL (which I think looks pretty sharp) may push the design envelope just a little too far for it to be the mass-market hit the RAZR was. Of course, the CDMA RAZR's out too. Even though it's a souped-up model, will the design be played out to consumers? And will the price wars driving the phone's cost down make it lose some of its luxury status?

To condemn or congratulate either of these companies is awfully premature. Their recent histories don't dictate doing anything other than proceeding with some skepticism (perhaps this is why I'm not a stock analyst!). But I think on the whole, the WSJ's got the tone of its stories reversed: I see a far better opportunity for Motorola in 2006. It's just that, though, an opportunity. The company's got to follow up the RAZR with more great devices -- the focus on more. I can't help but think it's putting too many eggs in one basket by positioning the phones with the annoying four-letter names as its "design" phones. Why not let the new sense of design trickle all the way down the product line -- and do something about that horrific UI while you're at it.

Increase Usability, Increase Data Usage

A new study from the UK points out that 3G users use more data services and spend more per month on average than 2G users. That's probably not too surprising, right, what with the higher speeds and everything -- but to put the increase down to speed alone is missing part of the point. Yes, the higher speed of 3G data is important, but only as an aspect of usability.

The higher speeds don't necessarily engender new applications and services -- video calling is the only one on the list that's not possible on 2G (although some of the other services, like streaming video, are undoubtedly miles better on 3G). But it certainly makes all those other existing services better. I'm not trying to make some pedantic point here, but rather that it's important to look beyond the increased speed of 3G networks when evaluating mobile data applications and services and to increasing usability as a whole. In this particular case, enhanced usability comes from the increased speed. But higher speeds aren't the only way to make things easier and more usable, nor are they the only way to get people to use data.

We need to take a step back and view the step up to 3G not just as faster data, but as one type of usability enhancement. There are plenty of ways apart from higher speeds to make mobile data services and applications easier to use, and any overall improvement stands to be just as beneficial -- if not more so -- than any arbitrary speed boost.

Why Big Media Just Doesn't Get Mobile (And Many Other Things)

Mobile video, without a doubt, is hot right now, whether it's actually sending video to a mobile phone, or merely just downloading content to a portable video player. But, like so many new media technologies before it, the traditional major content providers haven't got a clue how to handle it, and their misunderstandings and misconceptions will merely reinforce their clinging to their outdated business models and outmoded insistence on locking down all their content. The end result isn't consumers left wanting -- they'll get what they want through whatever means -- but rather yet another missed opportunity by the big content providers.

Two examples popped up today. First, the announcement by NBC that it would sell some shows through the iTunes Music Store. On it's own, it's not particularly interesting, but it certainly is when it's taken in light of NBC talking about suing TiVo a couple weeks ago for letting users download recorded shows to their iPods. Of course NBC doesn't want people to move freely broadcast shows they've recorded to a portable device when they want to charge $2 (or more) for it.

The second example are comments from a CBS TV exec that portable or mobile video is "very attractive, but it is just not likely to be a threat to traditional television distribution" (via MocoNews). Of course it won't -- and anybody that says otherwise has drank too much of the Kool-Aid. But the exec points to some internal research the network did that say people that don't have MP3 players aren't interested in buying episode downloads and some other irrelevant research about phones to try to make the point that mobile video is going nowhere, in comparison to good ol' broadcast TV. If the focus group said it, it must be true, right?

The fundamental problem is that big media doesn't understand that there's just one big content market, not thousands of tiny little differentiated ones. NBC sees the market for video iPod downloads as completely different from a market for its regular broadcasts, which is different than those evil TiVo users. CBS sees download market as one that's diametrically opposed to its broadcast network. But this is completely wrong.

Yes, they need to cater to different devices, but consumers only care about one media: that which they consider "theirs". Their music, their movies, their TV shows, their newspapers, and so on. They might consume media in different ways on different devices, and perhaps choose different content, but it's all a part of their personal media, and they're not interested in maintaining different media libraries (let alone paying multiple times) for each device. Take, for instance, mobile music services -- the songs people download through them aren't just their "phone songs", they're going to slot in with the CDs, iTunes songs and illegal downloads too. Trying to keep tracks only on the phone, or keep all the others off it, is a losing strategy, because to Joe User, it's all "his music", and he wants to be able to play it on any of his devices. Again, it doesn't hurt consumers, who will get what they want however they can, nearly as much the media companies, who won't get paid.

These two TV companies are but the latest examples, but they're a pretty vivid illustration of what I'm talking about. NBC's making noises about taking TiVo to court to get people to pay up $2 to watch something on their iPod, when they could watch the version on their DVR -- in a better viewing environment -- for free. CBS has some research saying people aren't going to buy portable video players and phones that can play video -- research that's questionable at best -- so they'll act like they don't exist. All the while, users that actually have all these devices will find a way to get the content they want without the networks seeing any benefit. Instead of sticking your heads in the sand and/or courts, embrace the new technologies and the people that use them, and figure out how to deliver a user experience that's worth paying for.

(Picture from Amazon.com, where the TV networks or anybody else is welcome to buy a Clue.)

Is Subscription the Answer?

As companies pour millions of dollars into mobile TV and video, one of their sustaining beliefs is that users will pay subscriptions for these services. I guess that they'll happily take advertising dollars if they can find any takers, but this is being seen as icing on the cake, not the business model.

So I was interested to read about a speech this week, by Chuck Porter, advertising veteran chairman of Crispin Porter + Bogusky, which if you extrapolate his point is potentially worrying for the nascent industry.

Porter was talking in the context of subscription based TV and radio shows (ie not mobile). Specifically, that while viewers love the idea of commercial-free programming, when it comes down to it, they won't pay for it - or will pay very little. This is based on extensive research by his agency.

"Every focus group we have had, people said, 'We don't want commercials on the radio; We will pay to not have commercials," he said at the Summit held in New York. "But they wouldn't, and they didn't."

Now, while it could be argued that I'm comparing apples with penguins here, it's not so very different. The bottom line is how much people value this type of content. In both scenarios they're being asked to pay for a service that they've come to believe is free and if they're not prepared to pay for something they already see/listen to, why would they for pay for it on a new channel?

There is a prevalent myth that users are prepared to pay for anything on their mobiles that they get for free elsewhere. But I think we're going to see that myth exploded in the Mobile TV arena. If it survives as a product offering, I reckon it'll be bundled in with a bunch of other stuff and sold as an all-inclusive premium package. Either that, or end up being just a cost of service of being an operator.

Off-Portal Content: US vs Europe

Back in June, Russell wrote that some 70 percent of UK mobile content is bought outside carrier portals. MocoNews today points to a story with an analyst saying that, quite conversely, 90 percent of mobile content in the US is bought from carrier portals. Quite a difference. As James point out, this makes deck placement a key determinant of success.

But, it's also an opportunity. Some US carriers have begun to open their billing systems to outside providers, and common short codes are taking hold as well. These provide the means for somebody to come in and do a better job than the carriers at selling content -- better for consumers, better for developers. After all, when a marketing manager from one carrier describes its approach to deck placement by saying, “As a carrier we look for games where the game play isn’t necessarily as good but it’s got a good title. The interesting thing is that our customers find the good games…they go to blogs and word of mouth and stuff," it could be hard for developers, particularly smaller ones, to think they'd get a fair shake.

Coke Calls for Emotional Connection from Mobile Marketing

Mobile Marketing Magazine covered today's Mobile Marketing 2005 conference and one particular quote caught my eye. Coca-Cola Marketing Manager, James Eadie acknowledged that the mobile channel was potentially powerful, if we just look at penetration among the target audience. But

Until such time as the digital platform [ie mobile] can help us connect emotionally with consumers, in the way we can with a 30-second TV commercial, we are always going to struggle.

In response to a question, he said that he didn't know when, or even if, this would ever happen.

This is a very interesting perspective and I strongly suspect is a deeply held conviction among many senior marketers on both the client and agency side. Since most marketers still think about mobile as sms primarily, let's look at that first.

The argument then seems to be, how can a text message possibly compare in generating emotion to a 30 second film written, directed and acted by the very best talent money can buy? However, think about this for a second and you realise that this is just an opinion, not an absolute.

I'll give you a few examples of how text messages can generate emotion:

"I luv u"

"ur fired"

"ur chucked"

"ur beautiful"

Is that too easy? Well, it does prove that we don't need to spend mega bucks on producing a film to get a powerful emotional message across. Millions (billions) of people experience real emotional highs and lows from their mobile every day - far more than have ever been briefly stirred by a Coke commercial. So it's not the medium that's the issue here.

OK, maybe I am being slightly unfair in comparing a commercial message to life's highs and lows bowled at us from friends, family and colleagues. So here's two brief experiences of my own, going back to ZagMe days, which considering that it was a brand created on a shoestring, managed to generate a huge emotional touch-point with most of the users.

Firstly, someone phoned a local radio station and dedicated a song to ZagMe ("for all the great texts they send me"). Seems to be that we connected on an emotional level there. Bet that hasn't happened to Coke too often either.

Then we have the famous Reebok campaign, where 50 people ran through a mall and into a store shouting, as a result of the message we had just sent them. This might not be on the level of "warm and fuzzy" but excitement and passion are just as powerful emotions that a marketer can appeal to.

And then, mobile marketing is about much more than just text these days. People play music and games, as just two examples of activities that generate a high emotional impact. By the cringe, I can still remember the moment I managed to crack Tetrus at top speed, at the highest level and that was nearly 20 years ago. I won't pretend it was an all time Top 10 moment, but it was a lot more significant than any TV commercial I've even seen.

I think that the subtext of this whole concept is that senior marketing people are waiting until they can run TV ads on mobiles. But I respectfully submit, this is completely the wrong approach. It's like thinking in the 1950's that you should make TV ads by filming the actors making radio commercials.

A new and radical approach is needed and I think Mr Eadie needs to work with an agency who can show him how Coke can take advantage of the new channel. This isn't likely to come from the big boys, set in their ways and wedded both commercially and emotionally to the 30 second ad.

And it isn't likely to come from the first generation of specialist mobile agencies, who tended to think that if you crack the tech, that's their job over.

It needs people who have mobile in their soul, who can understand the tools an an instinctive level and most important, who are creative and can apply that creativity in a marketing context. New thinkers, for the new channel, in other words.

But most importantly, these people will understand that we can solve the mobile marketing conundrum by looking forward, not back - by creating campaigns that play to the strengths of a new, important medium, not by trying to adapt what worked in the old ones.

Incidentally, the image is taken from the classic Hilltop ad of 1969, better known as "I'd like to buy the world a Coke", which for me represents to best ever Coke commercial It's also a perfect illustration of that emotional connection that Mr Eadie's talking about, Click here to see the story of the ad and follow the link to view it, if you haven't seen it before. It's a true piece of advertising history.

New Mobile Marketing should aspire to these heights, while acknowledging that this type of approach is just no longer relevant in today's world.

Here Kitty, Kitty

GPS Tracks have launched their GlobalPetFinder, which does what it says on the tin - enable pet owners to find their pets.

GlobalPetFinder works by attaching a 5 oz device (140 grams if you're a. modern b. non-American) to the pet's collar. This enables owners to track their pets and monitor the temperature of the environment, in case they get into danger that way. Maybe hop into the fridge or something.

On small animals it works by rendering them completely unable to move as their collar weighs too much. So you always know where they are - where you last put them. Actually, disappointingly, it's only recommended for animals of 30 pounds or over (13 kilos). But I think that the devices will get smaller and be able to cater for a wider range of pets.

Unlike, child tracking services, that I've criticised many times (eg here and here, this seems a very good use of LBS - actually one of the best I've come across.

Firstly, it offers pet owners a solution to their worst fears. While it's facile to compare a parent's affection for a child, with a pet owner's for a pet (especially gerbils), it is in the same ballpark of emotion. Therefore, you have a motive for people to pay for this.

Secondly, thank heavens, pets go missing much more than the average kid, so there's a very real need for it.

Thirdly, none of the privacy or breach of trust issues apply. I mean, who cares if Fido feels violated?

Finally, whereas kids will find a way to game the tracking system when they want to, pets just aren't up to it.

Nice idea, chaps.

But, the price means you have to love your pet very, very much indeed to get them one of these. $349.99 to buy the tracking device, $34.99 connection fee and then $17.99 every month. Frankly, this seems way over the top - even though they're selling via Neiman Marcus. We're a long way off seeing Homer popping one on Santa's Little Helper but there is certainly an opportunity for a more mass market variant and that's for sure.

RIM: Looking Over the Wrong Shoulder?

There have been plenty of stories detailing why Research In Motion says it's not afraid of Microsoft in the mobile e-mail space. While it's true that RIM probably shouldn't fear MS too much, there are plenty of other companies it should fear -- not the least of which are its carrier partners.

The threat from Microsoft is pretty simple on its face: a recent upgrade to some of its Exchange server software added push e-mail capability, meaning that a Blackberry server acting as a go-between from a corporate Exchange server to its users' mobile devices isn't necessary. But it's really a little more complex. Not every enterprise uses Exchange, and of those that do, not all use the version that supports push e-mail. RIM, with good reason, shouldn't be too scared of Microsoft.

But it's the emerging rivals over its other shoulder it should be worried about, led by mobile operators. Without a doubt, those that sell Blackberries are happy with the increased data spending they bring. But they don't like having to give RIM a decent chunk of change for every Blackberry subscriber, and also don't like having their users locked in to a relatively small range of devices.

Check out the breakdown of Vodafone UK's new business e-mail offering that uses technology from Visto. It's cheaper for enterprises, supports a wider range of devices, and even uses less data than Blackberry. Vodafone's giving up some data traffic revenue in exchange for (presumably) paying out less to Visto than it does to Blackberry, and also hoping for some price elasticity in that lower prices will lead to more customers. Vodafone's also bundled in a hosted low-cost device management system that should be simpler for IT departments to handle than the similar Blackberry solution.

So how does RIM compete with Microsoft's low price? By offering a better service. But how are these new rivals competing with RIM? By offering a better service, and a better price. That, not Microsoft, is what RIM should be scared of.

Selling New Mobile Phone Features

One of the big issues facing technologists is that most people don’t use most of the inbuilt features, most of the time. As an example, the vast majority of mobile owners, tend to restrict their network use to simple voice and sms (and a few non-network apps like the clock and calculator). Similarly, 70% of MS Excel users don’t know that the application can add up columns and rows automatically – they just use it to line the figures up prettily and still use a calculator.

However, getting people to use all or most of the tools at their disposal is actually a vital issue;

- How can you persuade people that they need to upgrade, when they’re not getting much more than 10% of the potential usage out of their current purchase?

- How can you expect any degree of loyalty towards your brand, when people don’t know how to use it properly?

- One of the ways technology gets adopted is peer recommendation. If your early adopters can’t “sell” your product properly to the next level of potential customers, you’ll find it really tough to get traction.

- In a mobile context, there’s another big issue. If people don’t know about a feature or how to use it, they’re not going to create lots of profitable network traffic for the operators. MMS is a great example.

Despite its importance though, this area is often ignored by technologists, other than to subscribe to the theory (rarely mentioned aloud) that most of their customers must be pretty dim if they can’t work it out for themselves or read the bloody product manual that’s so thoughtfully included.

Whereas the real problem is that there’s no such thing as a stupid customer, just bad design and bad product manuals. I won’t start on manuals today, apart from to say isn’t it sad that a whole multi-million dollar industry exists to publish better product instructions than the product makers themselves can be bothered to write and print? Can you imagine buying a new car and having to buy a book called Saab 2005 For Dummies? Err, actually, I might have hit on something there!

So, it was nice to read about Samsung’s new Scandinavian campaign, reported by Martina at Adverblog. Purchasers of the D600 handset are invited to participate into, what looks like, quite a compelling interactive game and successfully complete 5 tasks. Each task in cunningly designed to also demonstrate how to use different features of the phones.

And of course, the game is also something cool that owners can use to show off their new toy to their mates in the pub with. This isn’t a flippant comment at all. More mobile phones are “sold” in the pub and other social situations, than in all the mobile phone showrooms combined.

So well done to this week’s Clever Clogs, Samsung for taking user-centric design to the next level. We’re going to see a lot more of this sort of thing as technologists realise that they’re damaging their businesses badly by ignoring post-purchase product feature sampling. Maybe we’ll start seeing a radical rethink on manuals too – about time, if you ask me.

Phones to Be Distributed Computers - says Nokia

We've been saying for some time at MobHappy that the future of mobile is as a thin client, with much of the processing, storage and grunt work being undertaken by the network's servers. This is to do with speed and power use mainly, as storage gets ever smaller and cheaper.

So when this line of thinking is confirmed by Bob Iannucci, head of Nokia's Research Centre in an interview with VNU, it confirms that we're on the right lines.

At the same time, they promise more open platforms that we can configure to how we want, with the handset becoming more of a gateway to third party services.

Naturally, the operators might have a different vision about this direction. Much as the handset makers and mobile users want "open", operators tend to want "closed", despite the historical evidence that closed systems tend to crumble and die.

Social Navigation - the Ultimate Mobile Search

Jan Chipchase works on User Research for Nokia and also writes a pithy blog - Future Perfect - posts normally just consist of a photo and a line or two that make you think.

Yesterday, he wrote a typical post about Wayfinding, which is finding out from a location feed on your mobile where you are and getting a map showing where you want to go.

As he says: "It's easier to just ask someone".

Asking someone the way has been termed as Social Navigation and is yet another barrier to the implementation of mobile local search, I posted about yesterday. For all the high tech available, it is indeed simply easier to ask a colleague, friend or stranger how to get somewhere or where the nearest x is.

Actually, it's easier to phone someone on your mobile for this info, thatn use the phone itself to get it.

This will change as phones get better, but right now Social Navigation is the best form of local search there is, in terms of accuracy, speed and usability. This needs to be taken account of when we're thinking what successful mobile search will look like.

Is Mobile Search About Local?

There seems to be an assumption that Mobile Search will be all about trying to find local information. Is this right? I'm not so sure.

For instance, Marketing Week's Technology Weekly, features an article by Terry Parsons, CTO of Touch Local. Touch Local are apparently "one of the UK’s largest online search directories".

The article starts off by saying the penetration of mobile is much higher in most developed countries so:

"The ability to locate a nearby pharmacist during your lunch break or a corner shop on the way home from work to pick up those last minute grocery items for dinner is very attractive. It becomes even more attractive if you can not only locate businesses by type or name, but can also find specific products or service providers with particular personnel skills."

In other words, there's a big leap of logic here and I wonder if he's actually right.

Firstly, lets take his two examples and let me ask you a few questions:

1. Where's you nearest pharmacist to work and to your home?
2. Ditto your local grocery store?
3. Have you ever used Yellow Pages (the non-digital equivalent to local search) to find either a pharmacy or a grocery store?

If you know the answers to questions 1 and 2 and responded "never" to the last question, you see my point. Most people actually know the area they live and work in pretty well and don't need our assistance to find out everyday stuff like this.

Could it be that Mr Parsons is so convinced that local search is the answer to how we use mobile search that he's some up with some poor examples?

Well, that's certainly a possibility. But I think mobile search will be driven by another variable altogether and that's N2KN - or the Need to Know Now factor. The N2KN factor may indeed have a local element to it from time to time, but Local won't be the factor that actually stimulates the Search. In the short to medium term, when mobiles are so much slower and clumsier to use than computers (or even Yellow Pages), being motivated to use mobile search is going to depend on how urgently you need the information and how important it is.

As this graph shows, the upper right quadrant is the true home of mobile search. As an example, this could be "find my nearest" local search, but bear in mind my point that most people don't need these things most of the time. But it could as easily be nothing to do with the local environment at all - you may need to know what specific track of music you've just heard is (Shazam is still mobile search), what the names of the 7 Dwarfs are to settle a $20 dollar bet or what price pork bellies are trading at.

The left hand upper quadrant shows where computer (or non-digital) search will remain strong. You're still motivated to find the answer, but it can wait until you get back to your computer. Whereas the lower two quadrants will probably result in you forgetting to do anything about searching at all, as it's just not important enough.

Obviously, these scenarios assume that when you get the urge to search for something, you're out and about at the time and not sitting in front of your computer. We can also assume that the picture will change as mobiles get easier and faster to use.

If this analysis is right, companies looking to enter mobile search had better take note, as focusing on location, rather than user motivation, could well be a blind alley. It's also vital to get the focus right if Mobile Search is to be monetised successfully. This is because, if the Need To Know Now Factor is crucial to motivation, the business model is much better exploited by the user-pays model, rather than trying to shove a square advertising peg into the round hole of mobile search, just because it works online like that.

I'd welcome some debate and feedback on this, as I'm not aware of this issue being raised elsewhere (though it probably has been!). Please leave a comment and have your say.

Shopping by Mobile Java App

I've been looking at the UK-based mobile shopping engine, Reporo. The app is free to download to Java-compatible phones, but if you want to see an online demo, there's one here (click on "What Does it Look Like?").

Once you've opened the application on your mobile, you can either search for a product or browse one of their retail partners. Retailers are split between Bricks and Mortar (eg Boots, Currys, WH Smiths, PC World, Oddbins) and established online retailers (eg CDWOW.com, Firebox.com, Figleaves.com). Once you've made your selection, you order via Reporo's payment engine (PIN protected) and the transaction is deducted from your credit card details that they store for you.

It seems to be nice usability, pretty easy to navigate and intuitive to use. If I have slight criticism, it's that the app perhaps tries to be too comprehensive in terms of choice, leading to too many options in the drop down menus at times. As a user, I'd expect it to be a "lite" version of what I could do online, rather than the full monty.

Reporo's business model is that it's free to use and Reporo take a commission on every sale generated.

This concept is one which has been tried online many times - a shopping portal or virtual mall. BarclaySquare springs to mind, as one example, started back in the late 90's, which in turn started a rush to build similar sites. This was funded by Barclay's Bank and never really took off, perhaps somewhat counter-intuitively. After all, bringing together a bunch of retailers in one place works offline, so why wouldn't it work online? Shoppers didn't see it this way however, seeing no rationale for using the site in an age where distance was suddenly dead.

So the two big questions about Reporo are; can the virtual mall concept work in mobile, when it's already largely failed on the fixed-line internet? Secondly, will people use their mobiles to shop like this, when it's always going to be easier to wait and use your computer, when you have access to it?

My take on the mobile virtual mall is that it might just work, although it might only be a short term thing. If you've got the app on your phone already (ignoring that this will be a significant challenge for the company), Reporo will be easier to browse and buy with than any alternative - the start point for other shopping on the mobile is to find a retailer's WAP site in the first place, assuming they have one and assuming that it works. It's just much easier to fire up Reporo and go from there.

In the longer term however, retailers will have a WAP site and it will work, which might just leave Reporo with a BarclaySquare #2 on their hands, unless they can change their model to suit that new climate.

The second question though is more fundamental. Are people ready to shop via their mobile? I can certainly see a niche developing for impulse purchase of things like books, CDs and gadgets. You read a review in a magazine, brochure or via RSS on your phone and want to order it before you forget. You don't need to see a picture or find out much more about it, as a book is a book is a book. So you open up Reporo and order with a few clicks.

The question really is, how big is this niche and how quickly will it develop?

Because revenue generation is only one half of the battle for Reporo - in order to be successful, they need to keep their retail partners happy. And the only way to keep companies of this size and calibre happy, you're going to need to shift real volume or else they'll simply withdraw from what they'll see as a distraction.

Like any start-up, Reporo faces its fair share of challenges. But I think they might be on to something here.

Wither Mobile Marketing?

One of my predictions for this year was that despite a lot of chatter, mobile marketing still wouldn't really take off in 2005 and this seems to have been born out as we approach the end of the year.

Mobile marketing is nowhere near mainstream yet, despite some big brands flirting with the medium and a load of specialist agencies attempting to corner the market. We've even had Andrew Robertson, CEO of the world's second largest ad agency, BBDO, with his headline-grabbing claims that mobile will soon be the most important channel....as he settled back into selling yet more 30 second ad slots.

It's hard to argue that mobile isn't potentially important - two billion people carrying what are essentially Personal Media Players, capable of receiving calls and messages in real time, playing music, watching film, streaming Tv and radio and hosting games. Not only that, but we're promised that these devices will soon be self-aware enough to know where they are in the world, and in relation to other users - and let interested parties know this information (with the user's permission).

So it's not the medium itself that represents the challenge for marketers. It's bleeding obvious that it's attractive. At least if you don't work in a traditional agency.

The problem that everyone's struggling with is what the marketing itself might look like.

The marketing industry itself is still wedded to the interruptive marketing model - whether we're talking about interrupting your TV programme, your film, your web surfing, your email time, your shopping trip (with in-store displays, on-pack promotions et al), your life (direct mail) - I could go on, almost endlessly. All these techniques work on the premise of grabbing your attention as you're doing one thing - and then trying to get you to do something else. The way they interrupt you may vary from entertaining you to pummeling you into submission and all variants between, but interruption is the name of the game.

The breakthrough with online marketing came, not with (interruptive - again) banner ads, but a spin off of the dear old Yellow Pages business model. Yellow Pages offers a free listing for all businesses, so it can claim to be comprehensive, but it allows businesses who pay them money, to increase their prominence in the publication. And millions of small businesses throughout the world have made that decision to upgrade their presence and largely benefited from it. This was years before the Long Tail was ever mooted, excellent concept though it is.

Google borrowed and adapted that idea and allowed businesses to get in front of people when they were searching for information that was relevant to a need that the business might be able to help them with. This meant that Google were offering a channel that no longer interrupted people as they went about their daily lives, but helped them get more from what they were doing at the time - namely a better search experience.

I believe that this points the way to how marketers will need to treat the mobile channel. Simply bombarding people with interruptive messages, via sms, mms, video or even voice recordings at the start or middle of a phone call, is going to be a very short-term strategy indeed.

Even when initial permission is given for these types of interruption, when it doesn't take into account what the recipient is doing or where they are, it quickly becomes unwelcome spam. For instance, I might give my favourite band permission to let me know about forthcoming gigs and album releases. But if I happen to be on holiday in a different time zone and the incoming message wakes me up, or even in the middle of an important business meeting, I'm suddenly going to see it as interrupting and annoying.

This is even more so than other forms of permission-based, push marketing. If I get emailed from the band, generally speaking, I get interrupted when I choose (ie when I'm doing my email -unless I'm on a Crackberry), not when they do, so the interruption isn't nearly so extreme.

While the promise of location-based marketing can overcome this to an extent, I still might not like to receive a message when it arrives - I might just not be in the mood, or might have just purchased the ubiquitous Starbucks' Latte when asked if I fancy one.

So is Pull-based marketing the answer? In other words, should marketers wait for customers to ask them for a marketing message? Well, this certainly sounds cool, but I also know from ZagMe that the majority of people simply forget, even though they would dearly love to communicate at that time, if they had remembered and remembered how to. So to rely solely on this technique seems to be doing a disservice to both user and marketer, as far as I can see.

These annoyances will (eventually) lead to permission being withdrawn and then that means for ever. Mobile Marketers can't even ask for a second chance, as they've been banished from the mobile channel altogether, as far as that customer is concerned.

So the key to success in this new channel will be for marketers to ask themselves how they can add value to what the user is doing at that time. In the same way that AdWords help the searcher, how can the marketer help the mobile user or enhance their mobile experience or indeed, their lives at that moment?

Further clues lie in the increasing ease that users will be able to pull down information with their phones when they want to, via virtual graffito links (whatever the underlying technology) and the fact that most people still use their phones primarily to make voice calls and do sms - in other words, it's still first and foremost a communication device for person-to-person interactions.

The marketers who take the time to understand these important issues will inherit the mobile channel and thus, the most important medium to emerge since TV, over 50 years ago. Those who seek to merely apply outmoded interruptive advertising are doomed from the start.

Free Calls for Advertising

Another sign of the current bubble is all the models emerging claiming to be able to offer cheap or free mobile calls, subsidised by advertising. It really takes me back to 1999 when we had ideas like free computers for everyone - all the lucky computer owners would have to do was expose themselves to X ads a day. Or when Buy.com's business strategy was to sell goods below cost and make their money from (you guessed it) advertising.

The latest that's been floating around is advertising ringback tones - actually it's been around for a couple of months now. A company called Perceptive Impression thinks that we'll all be able to enjoy free calls in return for giving permission to advertisers to use our ringback tones.

Just in case this isn't perfectly clear, when someone phones you, they won't hear a phone ring, but a soundtrack advertising some product or service.

It's one thing to agree that you'll expose yourself to advertising to get some kind of subsidy, but it's another entirely to inflict it on friends, family and colleagues. I can't think of a more effective way to declare that you're a cheapskate, utterly uncool or unattractively impoverished.

If anyone signs up for this kind of programme, I suspect they'll be the poor and the desperate - exactly the kind of target audience who will be the most unattractive to the advertisers that might be persuaded to trial the service.

A further problem is the cost per call. If we take the average at what (?) 10 - 50 cents a call, if that's to be covered by advertising, we're talking $100 - $500 CPM (Cost Per Thousand). By way of comparison, you'd be doing well as an online advertising media owner to be charging in the region of $10 CPM - very well indeed actually.

So I can't see this having legs, quite frankly.

MMS - Cautious Reasons for Hope?

There's a new survey by SmartTrust (via TechTree), which seems pretty comprehensive in both scope and conclusion. It was conducted across 6,800 mobile users in 15 countries (UK, Sweden, Germany, Netherlands, France, Russia, Brazil, India, USA, China, Hong Kong, Japan, Korea, Australia and New Zealand - if you're a "need to know" kinda person).

The findings will be depressingly familiar to anyone who reads MobHappy regularly:

"consumers are struggling to keep pace with the rapid deployment of new handset features and data services, as well as complex pricing structures and poor usability."

And if that's not enough, our old bugbear of wrongly configured phones is a big problem too.

But, in a "half full" view (not taken by SmartTrust, as they want operators to buy their systems) the findings go on to say that 43% of MMS-capable handsets have sent an MMS, but that only [my phrase] 15% of them had problems with sending. Of those that had problems, 72% said they would use it more if these problems were resolved.

I'd call nearly 50% trial of a new (and still cutting edge) service, with abysmal product marketing, pretty promising actually, with a 15% problem rate not surprising for a new technology. Even the very best usability applications have driver error issues, so I suspect genuine problems were much smaller than this.

What would be interesting to find out is what percentage of the 43% who had sent an MMS, went on to send a second, a third and so on. How many then became heavy users?

Because I suspect that there will be a large drop off between trial and subsequent usage, in the current market.

Why? MMS is still too expensive, for sure, in comparison to dear old SMS and that's going to hold it back. But I also believe that over and above the simple photo/experience sharing, there's significant emotional usability issues standing in the way of mass market take-off. In other words, creating the perfect caption to accompany an image (let alone adding audio too) takes far more time and skill than the average person has available. So it's easier to dash off an SMS - or fall back on "look at me" type of captions accompanying photo/experience sessions.

MMS still has a long way to go in terms of usability, pricing, network compatibility and phone configuration. But I found this survey much more promising than I expected.

3G Usage Stats Disappointing... Or Are They?

The Harris Poll released results of a survey it did about 3G phones in the UK, and at first glance, they don't look too great: 41% of 3G phone users don't do anything more than text or talk, and 44% of them said 3G functionality wasn't important in choosing a handset.

Look at those from the other side, though. That means more than half of them wanted a 3G phone, and nearly two-thirds use data. More importantly, though, 76% of 2G users don't use anything more than voice and text messages -- nearly twice the percentage of 3G users. This reflects my takeaway from the Mobinet study last week: that getting more advanced phones in users' hands is key to getting them to use new services. It also goes along with the earlier stats that data, content and applications still aren't as important to users as cheap voice calls.

Probably the most interesting figure in the survey is that 14% of 3 subscribers said they didn't have a 3G phone. I don't think that users should have necessarily have to know the answer to this -- they don't need to know the specs of their phone or network, they just need to know what it can do for them -- nor do I know if lots of 3 users are just sticking their USIMs in old handsets (which doesn't always work, in any case). Remember, though, that Hutchison Whampoa chose the brand 3 because it "represents the company’s commitment to deliver on the promise of the 3G medium". 3 was supposed to be synonymous with 3G, and was its key differentiator from its rivals for a long while. The whole branding exercise was about the promise of 3G, its logo even supposed to "echo the same spirit as the tough outer shell of the 3G handsets and the cauldron of dynamic information and entertainment inside."

We've talked about 3's marketing failures before. This number would suggest we should go ahead and add the brand itself to that list.

Gates Urges Colleagues to Steer a Course through a Sea Change - In the Wrong Sea in the Wrong Direction

One of the mysteries in technology for me right now is how the very, very bright sparks at Microsoft can know in their bones that something is deeply wrong, but consistently identify the wrong issues and solutions.

I keep thinking that Bill will turn round one day and say "Aha, you all fell for my cunning plan! When I was talking about Google, we were secretly developing our strategy for mobile and it's this! We're merging with Nokia!"

Or some such thing.

So, when I read the headlines on Associated Press today about a leaked Gates' memo talking about a "sea change", my first reaction was "Here we go; Microsoft and mobile at last. What's the little tinker finally going to do?". (In passing, I wonder if Mr Gates has ever been called a "little tinker" before?).

But it doesn't even mention mobile, but focuses on web services and how Microsoft is being out-innovated by the likes of Google and SalesForce.com.

Now, yes, web services are vitally important, but only because the market is moving to thin client models, with the grunt work of applications happening over the network. BUT it'll be mobile phones that'll be the thin clients, as the day of the desk top is rapidly coming to a close. Unless you understand that bigger picture, Microsoft will remain steering their ship in the wrong direction in the wrong damn sea.

Microsoft's mobile strategy is to focus on the terminally sick PDA market, where the players remind me of bed-ridden men fighting over disco tickets for tonight. It doesn't matter who wins as none of them will make the party.

Skype and the Return of the Rabbit

Mike at TechDirt writes that Accton Technology are launching a special Skype cordless phone that connects via any wireless router available. In other words, at home you don't need your computer switched on, and when roaming you can simply connect via any open wireless LAN network.

As Mike points out, this doesn't actually seem terribly useful as you'll have to carry around a gadget that doesn't work most of the time.

Actually, it reminds me of what must be one of the classic new product failures of all time - Hutchison Whampoa's Rabbit phone (pictured above from News Wireless). The idea behind the Rabbit, was that you got a mobile receiver and made calls by logging into a base station, which were going to be scattered liberally around the UK and installed in high traffic, public places.

The reasons the Rabbit failed were much the same as that faced with the new Skype phone - no one can call you, which is at least half the point of having a phone. Plus, every time you want to use the damn thing, you need to find an access point and presumably, an open (ie not encrypted) one.

However, the humble Rabbit morphed into the mighty Orange, so there was a happy ending for Hutch in that instance. Let's hope Accton have a similar stroke of luck, despite apparently failing to learn form history.

Google and Yahoo's Opposite Strategies For Mobile

News from two search giants today: Google's unveiled its first mobile application, a J2ME application for its maps and local search services, while Yahoo will team up with its DSL partner SBC to sell a Yahoo-branded Nokia mobile phone. The Google news is straightforward; Yahoo's is a little more complex. First of all, though the phone will use Cingular's network, it's a deal between Yahoo and Cingular parent SBC, not the mobile carrier itself. It's as if SBC is routing around Cingular for mobile data and online services -- a pretty damning indicator, perhaps, of how it thinks the operator is performing in those areas. It's not an MVNO, but it's about as close as you can get: Cingular supplies the pipe, but Yahoo provides the services and access to peoples' existing Yahoo accounts, email and IM. SBC's relegated Cingular to being the dumb pipe, which is really curious, considering that's exactly what mobile operators have been fighting against for some time.

This also appears to be the summation of the ever-growing Nokia-Yahoo relationship. The two said back in April they were working together on mobile search apps, and then a couple months ago, one of Nokia's UI and software bigwigs left the company and joined Yahoo. Again, the combination of these two companies is dangerous for mobile operators -- with Yahoo services tightly integrated on a Nokia phone, customers won't really care where they buy their service. The differentiation comes from Yahoo, not from the operator, whose voice and data service is relegated to an interchangeable commodity.

Google's new application is pretty much what you'd expect, a J2ME front end for Google Maps with Google Local search functions built in. While Google's had mobile search services that use SMS, WAP and XHTML for some time, this is its first standalone app, and as such, should serve as a wake-up call for them in some ways. First is the problem of interoperability among particular handsets and mobile operators. The application officially supports a number of handsets on Cingular, Sprint and T-Mobile, but Google says it should work on "most Java-enabled phones", but of course users are already saying they can't get it to work on their device or carrier. This is a huge problem for content providers offering standalone apps -- unless the program's been optimized for every handset and/or carrier, fragmentation, and consequently supporting all the users, is a nightmare, and asking the average user to troubleshoot a mobile data application and/or connection is asking way too much. And, of course, if something doesn't work the first time, people won't come back to it.

The two announcements also reflect the companies' vastly different strategies on mobile. Google is all about the open internet. Its deals with carriers (such as with T-Mobile for the Web'n'Walk service in Europe. None of its mobile services are exclusive to any carriers (barring technical reasons like walled gardens), and while Yahoo does have some open services, it's really gone down the carrier path to get its IM application installed on phones and its services offered through carrier portals. The end goal for them? Having customers more concerned about having a "Yahoo phone" than a phone from Cingular or T-Mobile or Vodafone. They're not necessarily interested in keeping users inside a walled garden; but they want to make sure that there's a Yahoo garden for people to play in that works across the wired and mobile internet, and that users will be more attached to that garden and the content and services inside than to their operator, or perhaps even to the manufacturer of their phone.

It's an interesting bet -- after all, a phone is about access to services. What good would a RAZR or Nokia 8800 be if it couldn't connect to the PSTN? They'd be nice examples of industrial design, but pretty useless otherwise. Yahoo's hoping to convert its millions of IM and email users into Yahoo Mobile customers by offering them tighly integrated (and controlled) access to those services which they already use and are already familiar with. The access to those services then becomes the key differentiator, since you can get voice and data from any carrier, but the special Yahoo experience only from Yahoo.

Google Vs Walmart

There's an interesting piece in yesterday's New York Times by Steve Lohr that's worth checking out. The gist is that many companies are looking warily at Google trying to work out how it might affect their own business models. This ranges from telcos worried about Google Net and VoIP to Real Estate agencies concerned about hybrids of Google Maps and house listings.

Wal-Mart is cited as another potential victim of the Google effect, even though is seems amazing that a 7 year old company could worry the retailing behomoth. Wal-Mart's angle is that Google (or mobile phones generally) might empower their customers to do instant in-store price comparisons, by clicking on a product's bar code. This concept has been around for yonks actually, with Scan (now defunct) set up in the UK back in the late 90's, as one example of realising this vision.

However, once you start to think this through, price comparison apps are no where near as threatening as one might suppose, for the vast majority of products.

At one end of the scale, we have cheap, impulse buys at say, $15 or less. So you're in Wal-Mart and about to purchase a carton of milk or a couple of steaks. Are you going to go to the hassle of clicking on the bar code to find if you can save a few cents by going elsewhere? Even if you do find it's cheaper, how many people will bother to actually get back in their car and spend the potential saving on fuel to get there?

Of course, with the above examples, it might well be that there is no direct comparison anyway, as in all likelihood, these sorts of products will be exclusive to the store anyway. Plus, the cost of using the service (even just in data charges alone) might well be more than you'd save anyway.

So low cost items are pretty safe.

If you're looking to purchase a high value item - let's say $250 +, but the figure will vary with everyone - the chances are that you're going to be doing a little research before hand. You're likely to look at online product reviews and ask friends - and that's also the point at which you'll do your price comparison, if you're that kind of person. No one is going to walk into a car show room, for instance, and click of a bar code to see if they can get a new Lexus cheaper elsewhere.

So that really only leaves a a relatively small window of products in the $15 - $250 purchase range, that aren't exclusive to that store, that would be attractive for this kind of comparison shopping.

Admittedly, this price range hasn't been derived in a remotely scientific manner, but I have used the surprisingly accurate gut feel method. Clearly, the range will differ from person to person, depending on factors such as personality type and income. However, I think the principle is correct and we're not suddenly all going to rush out and start comparing prices for every purchase.

Which means that Wal-Mart really doesn't need to worry about this kind of threat.

On the other hand, what the bar code does represent potentially is a way for brand owners and brand consumers to establish a direct dialogue with each other in-store, cutting round the retailer - or Wal-Mart, in this case. The consumer can get information in-store about the product, its ingredients, forthcoming promotions and potential recipes, for instance.

This will make the likes of Wal-Mart distinctly uncomfortable, if nothing else, as they ruthlessly control the in-store experience and communication agenda. But it's hard to argue why they would seek to prevent their suppliers communicating in this way, if it was proven that that's what the empowered customer of today's marketplace wants.

And once that new communication channel is open, who knows what new and surprising applications might emerge?

Game Over for Stand Alone MP3s

TNS Research claims that an amazing 18% of people now listen to music on their mobile phones, while acknowledging that the US lags behind at a mere 4%.

I'm a little sceptical of the 18% figure actually - I wouldn't be surprised if only 18% of mobiles could play music. But if it's true, it's a validation for the Convergionists, who believe that all devices will end up converged into one - as opposed to the Separatistas, who believe that one device can't possibly do anything as well as a specialist one and that people will continue to prefer to own lots of devices to do different things.

Let's put the 18% into perspective. This means that 360,000,000 people are listening to music on their mobiles, based on a worldwide penetration of 2 billion mobile phones. In contrast, I'd guesstimate* that there are only about 150 million (maximum) MP3 players ever sold to date.

Sell your Apple shares today :-)

* I tried hard to find a stat showing worldwide shipments of MP3 players, but searched in vain. So my assumptions in arriving at 150 million are below. If anyone has a better figure, I'd be happy to use it.

iSuppli says that worldwide shipments of MP3 devices was 36.8 million in 2004, according to this article. Estimates for 2005 are about 58 million, making sales in the last 2 years about 95 million in total. This allows 55 million sales for 2001 - 2003, which I believe to be more than generous.

In fact, I'd say that there are a maximum of 100 million MP3 players in use. The vast majority of MP3s made in 2001 would have long been junked in favour of a newer model.

.mobi -- How To Make A Bad Idea Even Worse

Both Russell and I have said we don't like the idea of the .mobi top-level domain. It's the wrong solution to the wrong question -- while mobile Web usability is an issue, it's not one of mobile-only sites vs. powerful mobile browsers. The way forward is a better understanding of Web and information design for mobile users, coupled with a smart browser, that gives them access to whatever content they want -- not just content created specifically for mobile devices.

Now, .mobi threatens all that. We've questioned the idea of creating a "mobiles only" part of the Web, but now it's even worse: unlike any other top-level domain, owners of .mobi sites will be forced to follow a set of "best practices", which the .mobi administrator, mTLD, will develop along with the W3C. This could set a dangerous and, frankly, stupid precedent that allows TLD administrators and registrars to be the arbiters of content and conduct on the Web.

The implications for mobile are a little different. mTLD says the motivation for .mobi is to "enhance and improve the ease of use of Internet-based mobile data services through discoverability and predictability, as well as, speed and delivery to market." That sounds really nice, but it's a bunch of bull. Adding another domain doesn't make things easier at all for end users. All it does is add another possibility users will have to remember when hunting for somebody's mobile site -- is it mobile.XYZ.com, or wap.XYZ.com, or XYZ.com/mobile or XYZ.mobi?

.mobi really is a wolf in the sheep's clothing of usability. Look at the companies behind the proposal and mTLD: three infrastructure and device manufacturers, then the GSM Association -- the trade group of GSM carriers -- and five major operators: 3, Vodafone, T-Mobile, Telecom Italia Mobile and Telefonica Moviles. The operators will use .mobi and the usability red herring as the basis for the next generation of walled gardens.

The argument will be "We only want users to access sites on their mobile devices where they'll have a good user experience. Therefore, they'll only be able to access our own portal, and .mobi sites." Why would they do this? Because through the "best practices" owners of .mobi sites must follow or lose their domain, they can exercise control over the content people view -- and more easily bill for it. And by limiting access to content that follows the rules laid down by this supposedly impartial third party that says it's beholden just to users' best interests, they can avoid the claims of unfairness that dog letting people access content only from providers that have paid for portal placement.

"You can't access that content you want because we're looking out for your best interest," will be the party line.

It's great to act as if you're concerned about usability, but .mobi won't do anything for end users. It's just a trojan horse for operators to, yet again, try to exert unwanted control over what their users do. Having to give their users open, unfettered access to the Internet is most operators' worst nightmares, but it's the consequence of trying to be both the bit pipe and the content provider. It's so typical of operator thinking -- instead of doing anything to make their services better so people will choose to use them, they just try to eliminate the choice altogether. .mobi is a trojan horse designed to do just that.

Location Based Taxis Meets LBS Advertising

Ringo has launched a model that attempts to combine two different ones - ZagMe meets Zingo. It's not auspicious that neither predecessor worked terribly well, though both sounded damn fine ideas on paper.

Ringo allows you to order a Taxi based on your location. You dial "*TAXI" on your mobile. Ringo then tracks where you are, identifies the nearest free Taxi to you and sends it round to collect you. Great idea!

Then while you're in your cab, it sends you advertising for businesses in the immediate location. This is based on the frankly rather gimmicky "Cost per Radius" concept ie the closer your taxi's drop off point to the advertiser, the more the advertiser gets charged. So if you're within 351 feet or more of the advertiser, you get charged 5c, ranging up to 25c for within 50 feet. Advertisers can specify both the maximum cost per ad they want to pay and a daily budget (like Google's AdWords, which they invite comparison to).

Ads can be sent to the phone or printed out in the taxi, if the advertiser wants a paper-based fulfillment option.

As I say, all this sounds terribly logical. Except that Zingo - another service that allowed you to order a location-based cabs - essentially failed, being sold off for £1 after millions were spent developing the system. You can read my analysis, subsequently validated by the founder here. But the basic problem was failure to sign up enough drivers, leading to serial disappointments on behalf of the users. Once users have been let down a few times, they simply give up.

For this sort of model to work, simultaneous critical mass of users and suppliers is crucial. Users need to know that when they order a cab, it arrives. Cabbies need to know that it's worth their while doing, as there's lots of users gagging for the service. This simultaneousness is incredibly difficult to achieve.

ZagMe (which I was involved in founding) was a location based marketing play, that did achieve much success before running out of funding. It didn't help that we ran out very soon after the 9/11 thing either. Having said that, we recruited 85,000 users and ran 1500 campaigns for some blue chip and independents and learned a lot about location based marketing. Sorry, if you're sick of me writing about it, but if it has escaped your notice, ask for my free white paper on the whole story.

The main trouble with ZagMe was that it was far, far too early - it's still too early in my view, which if I'm right doesn't bode well for Ringo's secondary business model.

But, the key issue here is recruiting enough paying advertisers to make the business model work. Where the Ringo model does make sense is that the users are primarily travelling in a Taxi, as opposed to waiting with baited breath for an ad to arrive. Therefore, user acquisition isn't such an issue. Although, presumably, they will have to get users to agree to accept the ads and offer some kind of targeting over and above the location.

As an example, if I agree to get an ad and it's for women's shoes, it's going to piss me off for wasting my time, more than encourage me to rush into the store. Result; pissed off customer who won't use the service in the future and pissed off advertiser who has just wasted the cost of the ad and pissed off Taxi driver who won't be sharing the thousands of dollars of commission she was promised.

Edward DeFeudis, is the President and CEO of Ringo, and has been dreaming of boundless wealth being delivered by the Ringo model. Here's his calculations:

"Our revenue estimates project that our vehicles will each print one coupon per trip with 10 trips per day at an average of $0.15 per coupon. Assuming that we achieve our goal of 100,000 vehicles, our CBR ad model will generate an extra $150,000 per day or $54.75 million per year in addition to our basic taxi and tow transportation services increasing our total projected annual revenues to over $127 million."

As any wet-behind-the-ears VC knows, this is not a remotely feasible way of calculating revenues. There are four HUMONGOUS hurdles to this;

Finding enough advertisers - it's going to be unbelievably difficult to find local businesses who understand enough about marketing to get this concept. Based on my experience, it simply won't happen.

Cost - even if you find advertisers, they won't pay this kind of cost to start with.

Location - even if they have a raft of advertisers, if you factor in time and location, the chances of the taxi dropping off someone within 350 feet anywhere in the US, that has an advertiser signed up on the correct tariff and who wants the traffic at that time of day, must be millions to one against. The math is far too complicated for my humble brain, but I'd go so far to guess that it's actually billions to one against.

Taxis - how are they going to get the 100,000 vehicles he blithely mentions? Zingo struggled to get 1,500 in a city the size of London.

So, I'd say likely revenues will be in the region of peanuts for the foreseeable future from the location element. Maybe they'll have better luck with the Taxi-calling side of things, but unless they've worked out where Zingo went wrong, that doesn't look too promising either.

Sorry, I can't be more positive about Ringo. But shoving together one failed and one inconclusive business model just means a greater chance of failure as far as I'm concerned.

So, WAP isn't Crap After All

According to the BMRB Internet Monitor 49% of 20 - 24 year olds in the UK have used the internet on their mobiles and 21% of all users have bitten the bullet.

This is pretty amazing considering:

- Many, many phones still come with the wrong settings. This means that the purchaser either has to change them or just give up at that point. Be very afraid if the head of engineering at an operator ever switches career and starts designing cars - you'll be expected to put the wheels on yourself.

- WAP marketing promised the earth, such that even a broadband type of speed and experience would have been a little disappointing. The sloooooow speeds and painful waiting around was just awful.

- Even now, there's actually surprisingly little content that looks good and is easy-to-use over WAP. The vast majority on web pages aren't optimised.

Now admittedly the survey is only looking at sampling - in other words, users may well have tried it, only to die of boredom during the process. However, the Mobile Data Association shows around 1.8 billion page impressions a month now and this is still growing at abut 24% year on year, so clearly many are finding the service useful enough.

With 3G speeds, the mobile internet is not only going to get better, but it'll really start to resemble a small screen version of a broadband connected computer. At that point, someone of any age will be unusual if they didn't use the mobile internet.

The way this scenario will eventually play out is that the mobile will become the primary way most of us access the net and I think this'll happen within 5 years.

Via The Big Picture

Ads on 3

Continuing the "ads on devices" theme, Tom Hume writes that 3G UK network operator, 3, are planning to become an advertising channel as part of their new strategy, in addition to the See Me TV move that Carlo reported yesterday.

The idea is to open up their 3.2 million users to targeted advertising, which might include Push as well as Pull.

Previous experiments with downloadable video ads for the iPod and cult film "It's all gone Pete Tong" led to 100,000 and 160,000 downloads respectively. (By the way "Pete Tong" is Cockney Rhyming Slang for "wrong" - it wasn't a documentary on the DJ, as some reported).

This represents about 3 - 5% of the user base, or even as high as 8% if there was no duplication between the two, which admittedly seems unlikely. However, it's also worth nothing that the novelty effect will have inflated results and the more videos are available, the more competition there'll be. So I'd expect average response rates to fall off pretty dramatically. Of course, skilled advertisers might still achieve even better numbers if the ads are truly great and have real viral potential.

This level of pull-based response is pretty impressive, even though, as I wrote earlier, the number of brands who can create this kind of work is going to be pretty limited. In particular, making ads exclusively for a channel that gets 100,000 views is going to severely restrict production costs, unless it can be proved that these 100,000 are super-sneezers. In other words, they go out and show it to all their friends, who transfer it to their phones (via an unrecordable channel like Bluetooth) and they go on to do the same with their friends.

Having said that, while it may pain ad agencies hugely, we don't have to look at high production values to produce an effective ad, especially given the medium. How much do you think Ringtone Dancer or Numa Numa cost to make? I'm guessing nothing in either case, though admittedly, they weren't hampered by a brief to sell product.

So much for pull based stuff, but 3 claim that they're going to look at push based marketing too, or that's what I take this to mean; "customers willing to receive communications that correspond with their interests could be targeted directly".

This is a dangerous game to play if it's not done incredibly well - it's not something they should attempt half heartedly. Even assuming permission is granted, wrong targeting or poor timing of the message quickly turn it into Spam. And if they're perceived to be spamming, permission is withdrawn permanently - there are no second chances in mobile marketing.

At the very least I hope they've read my White Paper on this area :-) Drop me an email using the link on the top left, if you'd like a free copy.

Original story via The Guardian.

Ads on the iPod

There's been tons written about the launch of the iPod with video and especially the deal with ABC to sell popular TV programmes via iTunes for $1.99. You can download episodes like Lost and Desperate Housewives the day after broadcast.

On the surface, this seems like a clever move for A