An article in Marketing Week, 14th January 2010 – “Google, Apple deals show major potential of mobile” suggests that whilst these deals highlight the mobile marketing opportunity they will not offer advertisers the type of benefits that the operators can. True or biased?
Well, the idea hangs on the premise that operators:
1. have access to more channels
2. know their users’ interests
3. can offer incentives such as mobile services in return for receiving ads
Access to more channels?
Numerous third parties offer access to all mobile channels and they do this by going through the operators themselves or through mobile service aggregators. The advantage that the operators have is that they can make it unnecessarily hard or expensive to access these channels. Location based services is an example of this. However, they still make revenue where request for access to these channels is via a third party so I can not think that they will be too concerned.
Know their users?
What do they really know? They know what handsets we use, how often we use them and the tariffs that we are on. They know what services we use, when we are most likely to use them and how much we spend. For newer customers, the more forward thinking operators may know which mobile websites we have visited and which social networks we interact with but will have no idea what we thought of the banner ads that might have been presented.
Unless we use our mobile phones to engage in mobile commerce transactions, operators are unlikely to know which brands or advertisers I might like to hear from with a view to completing a transaction which is one of the things that an advertiser would like.
Opting in to receiving specific alerts and information from brands or advertisers is not the same as opting in to receiving information about brand categories.
Can offer incentives?
Blyk, albeit an MVNO proved that this would not work. Does more need to be said?
So What Do Mobile Operator’s Really Know About Us? Not As Much as The Brands and Advertisers Already Know
On balance, operators do not by themselves have enough information to deliver, on a consistent basis, relevant ads or information to most of their customer base.
Drawing up a set of algorithms that can take what information operators do have about their customers and converting this into accurate data about the brands and advertisers that we have any affiliation with or the lifestyle that we lead is someway off.
Friday, 15 January 2010
Thursday, 14 January 2010
Google vs. China - Business vs. Censorship?
In a week when Google (NASDAQ:GOOG) announced that it was potentially going to close down its China operation, ITV, Britain’s largest commercial broadcaster announced that it was moving in through a partnership with Chinese state broadcaster Hunan Satellite Television. Chasing lucrative business opportunities in an environment where government censorship and control is high continues to be a fine balancing act with many affected business preferring to remain silent. Google has decided to buck the trend. Why now ? Why this way?
A Tale of Two Industries
Both Google and ITV cited government censorship and state control in their relevant announcements. For Google, the recent targeted attacks on the gmail accounts of some of their customers has triggered a publicly declared rethink of the terms and conditions under which they should continue to do business in China. Google has not said that these attacks were Government sponsored but on a personal level they are concerned with the particular group of people that were victims of the attacks. On a broader basis, the sustained and systematic cyber-attacks that are said to originate from China have given Google an opportunity to go public with its general feeling on the Chinese market. Simply put, Google no longer want to do business where the government continues to require censorship of search results and content despite having agreed to those terms in 2006.
On the other hand ITV are following the line that Google took back in 2006. They recognise China’s continuing rise in global importance along with the market opportunity that it presents. They want a piece of the business available and are prepared to operate under potential terms of censorship. No doubt, ITV will keep an eye on developments that relate to infringement of civil rights and privacy. As to how this will affect the way in which the Hunan / ITV partnership develops only time will tell.
What Has Changed For Google?
Certainly the conditions under which Google are required to operate in China have not changed. Google have changed. They are more dominant in the markets in which they operate and have become more powerful. With that comes the ability to try and set their own terms wherever they operate and so it is with China’s continued censorship of search results and content. However, they are not dominant in China and despite gaining ground there are question marks as to whether this is at all possible.
Poiitical Change Or Market Withdrawal?
Perhaps, if they were to win this battle and be able to offer totally uncensored search, they could leapfrog the incumbent Baidu (NASDAQ:BIDU) and claim their customary first spot in yet another market. Thet also get brownie points for effecting social and poIitical change. If they do not win this battle and go ahead with the threatened closure they get to exit a market that they have not been able to dominate without the negativity associated with a high profile market withdrawal.
And The Reality Is?
Google’s Android is growing in popularity in China. Pulling the plug on that community is not an option and with mobile internet surging in popularity now is not the time to withdraw from the market. China hosts a Mobile Internet Summit in April 2010 which has been declared as a “new era for mobile internet”. This is a space that Google has made clear that it is very interested in and is therefore unlikely to stay away from this market.
Ade Bamigboye, CEO Mobile Flow
A Tale of Two Industries
Both Google and ITV cited government censorship and state control in their relevant announcements. For Google, the recent targeted attacks on the gmail accounts of some of their customers has triggered a publicly declared rethink of the terms and conditions under which they should continue to do business in China. Google has not said that these attacks were Government sponsored but on a personal level they are concerned with the particular group of people that were victims of the attacks. On a broader basis, the sustained and systematic cyber-attacks that are said to originate from China have given Google an opportunity to go public with its general feeling on the Chinese market. Simply put, Google no longer want to do business where the government continues to require censorship of search results and content despite having agreed to those terms in 2006.
On the other hand ITV are following the line that Google took back in 2006. They recognise China’s continuing rise in global importance along with the market opportunity that it presents. They want a piece of the business available and are prepared to operate under potential terms of censorship. No doubt, ITV will keep an eye on developments that relate to infringement of civil rights and privacy. As to how this will affect the way in which the Hunan / ITV partnership develops only time will tell.
What Has Changed For Google?
Certainly the conditions under which Google are required to operate in China have not changed. Google have changed. They are more dominant in the markets in which they operate and have become more powerful. With that comes the ability to try and set their own terms wherever they operate and so it is with China’s continued censorship of search results and content. However, they are not dominant in China and despite gaining ground there are question marks as to whether this is at all possible.
Poiitical Change Or Market Withdrawal?
Perhaps, if they were to win this battle and be able to offer totally uncensored search, they could leapfrog the incumbent Baidu (NASDAQ:BIDU) and claim their customary first spot in yet another market. Thet also get brownie points for effecting social and poIitical change. If they do not win this battle and go ahead with the threatened closure they get to exit a market that they have not been able to dominate without the negativity associated with a high profile market withdrawal.
And The Reality Is?
Google’s Android is growing in popularity in China. Pulling the plug on that community is not an option and with mobile internet surging in popularity now is not the time to withdraw from the market. China hosts a Mobile Internet Summit in April 2010 which has been declared as a “new era for mobile internet”. This is a space that Google has made clear that it is very interested in and is therefore unlikely to stay away from this market.
Ade Bamigboye, CEO Mobile Flow
Sunday, 3 January 2010
Google's Nexus One - Game Changer But How?
There has been much speculation over the last few months regarding Google’s plans for their branded smart phone. Rumours have turned to ‘leaks’ and there is strong indication that the pricing models will not be that disruptive after all. At a time when many analysts agree that the ingredients to support rapid growth in mobile enabled services are largely in place, an entry by a player such as Google will most definitely change the game for many of the industries existing players.
Business As Usual?
Operators and hand set manufacturers who feared the worst need not worry after all. It is business as usual, or is it?
Google’s planned purchase of Admob (announced at the end of 2009) signalled their belief that the size and potential of the mobile value added services market is relevant and of interest to them, that they intend to take a large slice and do it quickly.
The AdMob purchase, if it goes through to completion, will provide Google with a huge and immediate presence in the mobile internet marketing space to which no doubt they will add their own internet marketing technology and know-how. Launching their own handset /mobile operating system is the quickest way of gaining traction in the mobile apps and services space dominated by Symbian driven handsets. This does depend on the growing army of Android app developers to add value to Google’s proposition in much the same way that the iPhone app developers have done for Apple but it will happen.
For Google, these initiatives are simply a natural extension of what they have been doing since their inception, proving information access tools to the masses as well as a platform for vendors to promote their products and services. It just so happens that the “masses” are going mobile and so too must Google.
Market Growth Will Reduce The Impact On Existing Players
However Google take their slice it will be at the cost of existing players or combinations of players who despite being involved in this space from the outset did not innovate sufficiently with either technology or business models to become truly entrenched.
Luckily, the market for smart phones and mobile enabled services is growing. For those that do loose out to the Google / HTC combination in the short-term it might not be too painful and they might even have a chance to regroup and innovate.
Looking Ahead - Reconfiguring The Value Chain
The market for mobile services outside of voice calls is still in its infancy. There is a long way to go. Google’s entry on the mobile scene is not nearly as important as the impact that they will have on business models as the industry gains clarity over what works and what does not and as value chains become reconfigured to better support innovation in technology and services to provide consumers with what they want, relevant, affordable services.
Business As Usual?
Operators and hand set manufacturers who feared the worst need not worry after all. It is business as usual, or is it?
Google’s planned purchase of Admob (announced at the end of 2009) signalled their belief that the size and potential of the mobile value added services market is relevant and of interest to them, that they intend to take a large slice and do it quickly.
The AdMob purchase, if it goes through to completion, will provide Google with a huge and immediate presence in the mobile internet marketing space to which no doubt they will add their own internet marketing technology and know-how. Launching their own handset /mobile operating system is the quickest way of gaining traction in the mobile apps and services space dominated by Symbian driven handsets. This does depend on the growing army of Android app developers to add value to Google’s proposition in much the same way that the iPhone app developers have done for Apple but it will happen.
For Google, these initiatives are simply a natural extension of what they have been doing since their inception, proving information access tools to the masses as well as a platform for vendors to promote their products and services. It just so happens that the “masses” are going mobile and so too must Google.
Market Growth Will Reduce The Impact On Existing Players
However Google take their slice it will be at the cost of existing players or combinations of players who despite being involved in this space from the outset did not innovate sufficiently with either technology or business models to become truly entrenched.
Luckily, the market for smart phones and mobile enabled services is growing. For those that do loose out to the Google / HTC combination in the short-term it might not be too painful and they might even have a chance to regroup and innovate.
Looking Ahead - Reconfiguring The Value Chain
The market for mobile services outside of voice calls is still in its infancy. There is a long way to go. Google’s entry on the mobile scene is not nearly as important as the impact that they will have on business models as the industry gains clarity over what works and what does not and as value chains become reconfigured to better support innovation in technology and services to provide consumers with what they want, relevant, affordable services.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
