Debunking the myths about mobile advertising

Alright; I’m back in my pavilion. I was just reading some articles on mobile marketing and this one caught my attention. The author has written something about eMarketer’s Mobile Advertising Report. The report focused on the impact of mobile advertising in the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, and China) market and its possible implications in the US market.

Now, the article says that by subsidizing mobile data plans by advertising, mobile advertisers are trying to turn mobile phones into TV sets. I wonder how on earth he came up with this correlation. Even I feel bored to say this again, but then…

Mobile advertising has something called ‘opt-in’ facility. You have to opt in for a mobile advertising campaign to get ads in your mobile phone. In other words, you have the choice to keep your phone away from ads. Do you have such options in TV? Advertisements in TV, whether you like them or not, will always be there and there’s not a damn thing we can do about it. So, please don’t compare TV to mobile phones.

Some of you must have heard about Sugar Mama from Virgin Mobile, which gives you free talk time for watching mobile ads. Now, the author even mocks this by coming up with this gem.

“I’m sure you’re ad creative is impressive, but I’d venture to guess that they went there to get free air cell phone minutes, not view ads.”

Oh yeah? People don’t watch TV to view ads either, you know?. They watch sitcoms and movies, in which they are served with ads, which they cannot escape from. The point is - It doesn’t matter. People are open to mobile ads as long as they gain something from them.

At last, he comes up with something about Americans getting tricked by mobile advertisers.

“You may have tricked us with TV commercials and OLAs, but we typically don’t fall for the same tricks twice (except for George W).”

Really?

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Bookmark this page: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • BlinkList
  • Slashdot
  • Technorati
  • StumbleUpon
  • Netscape
  • Reddit
  • IndianPad
  • NewsVine
  • YahooMyWeb

Categories: Cell Phone Advertising, Rant.

2 comments.

Damon Henry

Comment on March 29th, 2008.

Thanks for taking the to time to read my rant. I may have been a little harsh, but this is the point I’m trying to make.

I’m well aware of the opt/double opt-in process and yes users will subject themselves to ads for something in return. The keyword here is subject.

Having been involved with many online promotions, which are opt-in, unless they were truly engaging experiences, most visitors come for the prizes; not the ads. Furthermore, those that click the ads may not be the customers you most covet.

I have nothing against display ads (mobile or online), if done properly, but it’s time to raise the bar and make consumer interaction and engagement the new means of measurement as opposed to impressions.

Subsidizing mobile has enormous opportunity but only those looking to create interactive dialog with consumers will build long lasting relationships.

Again, thanks for commenting and you’ve got yourself a new follower.

Cheers

Krishnan

Comment on March 29th, 2008.

Hi Damon, Thanks for the comment. I do believe that they need to raise the bar when it comes to innovative, engaging ads and stuff like that, but all I’m saying is - let’s give them some time. The industry is still in its nascent stage and will have its share of initial hiccups. So, let’s not write it off. When done properly, this can have a huge impact all over the world and can simply change the way we perceive mobile phones. And yeah; you’ve got yourself a reader too. :)

Leave a comment

Comments can contain some xhtml. Names and emails are required (emails aren't displayed), url's are optional.





Copyright © 2007 Cellphone-Advertising.com - All Rights Reserved. Where Cell Phones Become Mobile Advertising.