Twitter: Your flexible friend (well, Social Network)

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And that is where mobile can play a fundamental role.

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

View Larger Map

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Basically... channel sequencing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* insert relevant KPI here

Is MMS neglected by mobile marketers?

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

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

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

And then there is MMS.

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

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

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

So why is hardly anyone doing it?

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

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

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

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

So why should anyone do it?

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

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

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

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

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

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




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So what would I have done?

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

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

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

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

How can activity be integrated without using mobile?

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

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



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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Mobile. There's too much crap out there.

I've been thinking about writing a positional piece on Mobile for a month or so now but had never got round to starting it (the closest I got was my last post which was basically about the need for marketers to consider the channel in the same way as they do others, such as email).

To be honest, the reason that I hadn't written it thus far is that I've struggled to make my up mind how to frame it.  I've thought about the rousing ("It is up to us to make sure Mobile succeeds"), the industry-effacing ("If I hear someone say that this is the year of mobile again I'll....") and also the confrontational ("Why would you NOT use mobile?").  In the end, a discussion amongst some of the bods here at Movement hit the nail on the head for me.  To cut a long story short, we were talking about what we as a team need to do to ensure that we're producing award-worthy work, and we discussed some of the things we have seen that are the complete antithesis of what we want to achieve.  Hence the title.

In truth, all of those other statements are relevant to this - we in the industry do have a responsibility for making the channel succeed; we all know that the climate in the market right now is as conducive to success as it has ever been; and equally we all should know that Mobile is unique in its ability to operate in both isolation and (more effectively in my opinion) in conjunction with other channels - for example, it can act as the catalyst that takes a person from seeing a poster to registering an email address or visiting an online store, via a simple text-in CTA.

So, to address the title, why is there so much crap out there?!?

I am sure that most of us can think of a couple of examples of really poor uses of mobile:  the iPhone app that gets 100 downloads or if it does achieve more, delivers little/no consumer benefit and is removed by the user in a week; the SMS message that links to a poorly rendered mobile site or even worse, a www site that makes no consideration for mobiles; or the nation-wide (i.e. not just London) campaign that requires the consumer to have a device with GPS and a Foursquare account.

In a recent meeting with a digital agency we were discussing a concept they had for an iPhone app and I had the temerity to suggest that a Blackberry app or, to be honest, a mobile site would be more appropriate given the regional focus and the reach and functionality that they required.  Their response?  "Really?  But an iPhone app is so coooooooool!"*.

Dear God.

The campaign objectives were secondary to the desire to do something perceived as cool.  Personally, I think that makes it anything but, so I mentioned that the only nominated activity for this years D&AD for Mobile Marketing used the extremely passé SMS (and a rather large crane of course).

That surprised them.

I've spent a bit of time being flippant about this kind of thing, making light of the fact that marketers and agencies are on the whole still struggling to 'get' mobile, but it's not something that should be made light of.  If you've been in Mobile for a while now, you may remember the first dawning, back in the early days when brands were prepared to spend a bit of cash buying (purported) opt-in lists and sending push campaigns, running text-in competitions and maybe even building WAP sites.  Back then Mobile was the new-kid-on-the-block and had the opportunity to break new ground, but unfortunately it only managed to get itself an ASBO.  Poorly and/or dubiously executed campaigns all too often resulted in low response, high opt-out and poor RoI and, ultimately, meant that brands withdrew their cash.

Well, we're in the middle of the second dawning, and the excitement is here again.

Right now, we have all the advantages that the relentless social, cultural and technological progress of the last few years has brought us.  The mobile phone has become ubiquitous; smartphone penetration is on an exponential curve; the Apple vs. Google tussle (that is dragging RIM, Nokia and Microsoft along) is driving technological advancement; and industry bodies such as the IAB are helping to further the cause.

And so it is all the more important that we don't mess it up again.  You could argue that the pace of process is immutable and that mobile will become a mainstay in the marketing mix whatever.  I would suggest that we're in a fairly precarious position - that the market is as fluid as it has ever been and we are not yet over the tipping point.  It is important that the understanding of Mobile - how, when, why and where to use it - continues to grow.  We need to keep challenging the beliefs and perceptions of both our industry peers and clients.  We need to ensure that the marketing objective is always first and foremost - doing something that is perceived as cool or is award-winning with then follow naturally.

The aim should be for everyone to produce work that makes contemporaries think "I wish that I did that!", because it delivers against objectives.  Nothing more.  And unfortunately, there isn't enough of that out there right now.  There is too much crap.


* Note: Extra o's added for effect.

Mobile needs to have had it's day in the sun...

How do people use their mobiles these days?

Young consumers see mobiles as an extension of self.  It's the one thing that they keep with them more than anything else.  They use it to check Facebook first thing in the morning, personalise it with ringtones (although maybe not ringback tones) and even use it to record and share a video of their latest "happy-slapping" shenanigans.

I turned a bit Daily Mail there didn't I?  Sorry.  

Flippancy aside, the young get mobile.  They're familiar with them and they use them.

So what about the not-so-young?  Well, I'm 32 now and it's safe to say that my peers are a mixed bunch - some, like me, carry a smartphone and use it as it should be; accessing the mobile internet and using apps and exploiting features such and the camera, social-network integration and bundled services.  Others are less 'sophisticated' (I use that term guardedly) - they may have a smartphone, but they use it for voice and SMS, maybe sending/receiving the odd picture message.  Others carry two devices, work and home, using the work phone (e.g. a Blackberry) for email and browsing.  

And what about the old?  If the have a phone they tend to use it for calling and maybe a little bit of texting.  My dad has an old Nokia, which still has a battery life of 2 weeks and which he won't change because he keeps the SMS and MMS that I sent him when my kids were born.

So what is the point of this gross-oversimplification of the young (mobile-savvy), not-so-young (mixed-bag) and old (mobile-luddites)?

Well initially, it leads on the question: how do marketers perceive consumers use of mobile?  From there it also leads to my (bordering on scandalous) title for this post.  But that will be explained in good time...

Mobile is generally still perceived as niche.  Yes, it is moving more and more into the mainstream - but a glance at the budgets highlight the disparity between mobile and digital, press, TV etc. etc.  Mobile is all too often still a tick-box exercise, with a small proportion of the budged hived off to be allocated to a mobile mechanic.  Often, for this to be a remora of a mechanic, clinging on to the shark that is the primary activity; or worse still, a token app!  

To compound this, even those in the digital world still don't understand mobile - just yesterday morning I had a conversation with a chap in the email marketing game who also offers mobile (paraphrased below - Alan Bennett I am not):

Me: We recently ran an MMS campaign, driving to an online destination, that outperformed email (shameless one-upmanship and plug all in one)

Chap: Really?  We're sending an SMS push for *client*.  It will push consumers onto a website. 

Me: Really?  What if the consumers accesses the link from their phone and not their computer.

Chap: Oh, we'll deal with that.

Me: Really?  How.

Chap: Our man will make sure that it is optimised.

Now, I may be doing chap and his man a disservice, but the likes of Wapple, Volantis, MIG (Kilrush) and Netbiscuits have not spent decades of development man days and a shed-load of money on solutions that can be knocked up by his man in a week.  Sure, if you were sending an email, it would be a (fairly) reasonable assumption that the user would have a device capable of rendering a microsite acceptably (I'll put aside the fact that I believe "acceptable" is simply not acceptable, and a more holistic/ cohesive/ complimentary approach, let's call it dCRM, needs to be taken to the email and mobile CRM, for now as that's another blog post entirely).  

But they are not sending an email, they are sending an SMS.  

Without knowledge of what device they are sending to.

So if the user does click through it'll most likely be a poor experience.

And as such, undermine the brand's message.

But what do I know?

So, why do I wish that mobile had had it's day in the sun?

Well, by definition, this would mean that it had become mainstream.  It would mean that all the fuss and fan-fare had passed and mobile was considered an integral channel within a brand's marketing efforts.  It would mean that brands and agencies alike "got" mobile, understanding both how consumers use it and what you can do with it; recognising it as the most personal and effective of channels - not just in it's own right, but in conjunction with all other channels. 

It would mean that marketers delivered the right message, to the right person, over the right channel and in the right way.

Or at least that they should...