Chris Bourke is Managing Director of veteran mobile advertising agency, Aerodeon and long time a long time MobHappy reader. Some new research commissioned by his agency points to some interesting conclusions, which Chris shares below.

If you have an idea or opinion you’d like to share, drop us a line. In the meantime, enjoy what Chris has to say:

I’ve been an avid reader of MobHappy for many years and have found myself guessing (as Russell and Carlo religiously do at the start of each New Year!) what might be ahead in the mobile future. My particular area of interest, as a founder of a mobile advertising agency, is mobile media so my ears always prick up whenever I read posts about AdMob or any other firm driving the development of this new media. I’ve always believed that mobile advertising will surprise us all. That, because of its unique characteristics, intimate relationship with its user and of course mobile nature, mobile advertising models will develop that will be unlike anything that we have seen in previous mediums.

Don’t get me wrong; mobile banners and text based ads will develop into a healthy subset of the mobile media pie; in the advertising game one finds that if there is space for media it generally gets filled. You only have to look at the petrol nozzle cover when you’re next filling your car up at your local station to see this up close.

But what I am most excited about are the advertising models that will define the mobile medium and distinguish it from others before it. And it’s crucial that mobile does distinguish itself, particularly from the web, if we are to convince advertisers to divert some of their digital budget to it. We need to tell advertisers why mobile is more effective, or more responsive, or more economical either alone or in conjunction with other media. Advertisers love simplicity; give them a list of compelling logical reasons why mobile can help them reach new consumers, more efficiently and they’ll sit up and listen.

So what advertising models will define mobile? We’ve heard about many in this blog over the years; mobile content download interstitials; idle screen; peer-2-peer SMS. I suspect these models will have some success but I am not sure they will define the medium. Of course I don’t have a crystal ball and the medium is moving too fast and in too many directions for me to pin a tail on any one approach. I can however take a stab at the general direction I think it will head.

We recently published a large research study that examined the attitudes and usage of mobile advertising across 1000 British consumers aged 18-64. Naturally there were lots of interesting findings but what took me most by surprise was that a significant proportion of users and non-users of the mobile internet want to receive a text message in response to clicking on a banner or text ad in WAP page. They don’t want to be taken to a WAP destination site, receive a java or video download or receive a voice call back. They simply want a text in their inbox with more information about the product of service that they were curious enough about to warrant them clicking the ad.

This is analogous, on the fixed web, to receiving an email in response to clicking on a banner ad. This would be a curious phenomenon, but imagine for a moment if you had to lug your PC around all day; perhaps then it wouldn’t be so odd. If you had to carry your PC around all day, certainly your browsing behaviour would change especially when on the move. You would likely ‘snack’ on content far more rather than deep surf. And if you saw any banner or text ads you would likely not click on them as you would not have time ‘on the go’ to look at the advertiser’s destination site. You might not have time to bookmark the destination site or make a note of the offer. No, in such a scenario you would likely prefer an email sent to your inbox. You could then read this email back at the office or at home and assuming the email had links in it, you could explore the advertiser’s web sites in more detail.

I suspect that the reason then why so many of our respondents said they wanted to get a text when they click on a banner is that they simply don’t have time, on the move, to look at the advertisers. But by clicking it is implicit that they have demonstrated interest in the offer and so want to store details about it in the simplest and most efficient way possible and that (to the consumer anyway) is a text message sent to their inbox with links to the advertiser’s WAP site.

Mobile phones are not going to get any smaller but they will get smarter and faster and we’ll rely on them more and more to consume, manage and organise our media on the go. Based on this and coupled with our research findings, I suspect that mobile advertising will develop to accommodate the unique context that mobile users find them selves in. The challenge for advertisers is how they might reach their consumers effectively if they are only browsing mobile media slots for ten to twenty minutes a day. And if they reach them how do they manage the apathy to click through to WAP destinations? To help advertisers address these issues I suspect we will see models that will combine the best of display advertising - high impact, attention grabbing rich media - with that of direct marketing - concise, targeted and relevant. SMS will play an increasingly important role as it becomes tightly integrated with display advertising. If operators can join the ends together, then we will reach advertising nirvana; the ability to deliver a relevant, personalised SMS to a consumer in response to clicking on a display ad would make most brand managers giddy. (Ok, I concede that this may only be nirvana for customers on contract tariffs only…..:-)

Let’s hope then that this gives many of the mobile advertising product managers who read this blog food for thought. I suspect trials in this area would produce fascinating results and if they ever get off the ground they may very well be the seeds of the advertising model that will define mobile media.

Dean Bubley’s Disruptive Wireless: Don’t ditch your landline if you’re teetotal:

16% of US homes are mobile-only (but this being the US, cable connections are usually considered separately and not considered ‘fixed’ lines). This number has been increasing consistently.

[snip]

Oh, and I love the statistic that wireless-only users are more than twice as likely to binge-drink than landline customers. Now if only someone had an explanation for cause-and-effect here…. does dealing with mobile customer service agents drive you to drink? Or do people cancel their landline subscription when they’re drunk, and wake up in the morning wondering what happened to their dialtone?

I guess that’s the sort of thing you find out when the Centers For Disease Control start doing surveys about phones.

Nicolas at Pasta & Vinegar has an interesting piece quoting from a story that ran in Italy about the effect of the Google Streetview project in Rome. Streetview is where a fleet of Google cars cruise selected areas of the planet filming continuously. The film is then uploaded to Google Maps allowing users to get a street view (that must be where they got the name from!) that you can zoom in and out of, as well as view in a 360 degree panorama. It’s pretty cool, if you haven’t used it.

But all is not sweetness and light and the service has attracted a fair share of controversy, mainly from people and organisations concerned about privacy issues.

In Rome though, the cars seem to be provoking realtime behaviour, as pedestrians are actively trying to avoid being filmed as if the black cars are some new and sinister breed of predator stalking through the streets.

“On cue, pedestrians shuffled off the street and into bars, out of sight of the offending vehicle, no doubt wondering if these are the new intrusions that must be endured after a sudden shift to the right [Italy has just voted in a right wing government]. Your correspondent managed to snake through a queue of cars at a traffic light to get a better look at the vehicle that upset so many mid-afternoon espressos.
(…)
Just then the Google car swung left and I followed, in a very slow pursuit. The identical scene unfolded before me: Romans stumbling into shops and bars, hoping to be out of view of the camera’s lens“

It seems a little insensitive for the cars to be black - it really does pander to the 1984 or Cold War kind of atmosphere, as they slowly drive around, silently filming everything around them. But it also seems that we need to be talking a lot more about how this kind of operation provides benefits, how peoples’ privacy isn’t going to be compromised (assuming this is true) and that it’s generally a cool and froody thing for society.

Of course, that’s all very well. But if regime change were to happen, or if the wrong kinds of people ended up running Google, or if Google (or any other organisation which collects and stores data about individuals) was forced to hand over this information to less wholesome third parties, this beneficial project could have very sinister implications indeed.

My concern though, is that we’re just letting all this happen without having a proper debate about it. We may very well decide that projects like this are great. But surely we should make that decision and not have it made for us.

The picture is from the Netherlands by Lars van de Goor. But it’s hard not to project some kind of menace into this shot. And you can see why they might make people nervous or even afraid.

Report: Mobile Web 2.0 Worth Over $22 Billion by 2013:

According to a recent report from Juniper Research, the global market for Mobile Web 2.0 could be worth as much as $22.4 billion by 2013, up from its current figure of $5.5 billion. The research firm says that among social networking, user generated content, mobile search and mobile IM, Mobile Web 2.0 “provides a framework for delivery of collaborative applications,” further enhanced by location-based services.

1. What is mobile web 2.0? To that end, can we even agree on what mobile web 1.0 is?

2. How is it already worth $5.5 billion per year? Any mobile web companies out there that can vouch they’ve received their share of this?

Updated: There’s a mess of inline updates to this story, provided by one Manny Ramon in the comments. Mr. Ramon says he was “SEOColumbus” on Twitter (though that account now looks to have been deleted), and that he provided “SEO expertise and tips” to a friend that worked on DSW.com, but otherwise has no connection to DSW. There are a lot of strange coincidences here, though Mr. Ramon says it’s just a case of mixed online identities.

1. I start following the CEO of big US online shoe retailer Zappos.com on Twitter.

2. He tweets: “Weird, just found out through a PRESS RELEASE that DSW [a bricks-and-mortar shoe retailer that just happens to have launched an online store)] filed a lawsuit against Zappos. Maybe phone call, letter, or email more productive??” followed later by “Just checked with Zappos legal team and haven’t received any communication (phone call, letter, email) from DSW, just press release. Weird.” (Here’s the release about the suit.),

3. I tweet that it sounds like marketing-via-lawsuit, and later that I imagine it has to do with third-party sites not owned or controlled by Zappos, but are in its affiliates program.

4. I get a pro-DSW Twitter reply from one “SEOColumbus”. I check out his Twitter page and there are more of the same, as well as others talking up DSW’s newly launched site and talking smack about Zappos.

5. My shill radar starts going off, so I Google “SEOColumbus” and “DSW”. I find a LinkedIn profile for a guy, listing one of his current jobs as “Manager - E-Commerce Operations at DSW”. (Update: One Manny Ramon, an SEO Columbus employee, stops by in the comments below to clarify things. He says that he is “SEOColumbus” on Twitter, and that the person in the LinkedIn profile is somebody else unrelated to this episode.)

6. This starts bouncing around Zappos’ well-developed community of Twitter users. SEOColumbus says he used to contract at DSW, but the profile is “outdated”. (Update: Again, Manny Ramon/SEOColumbus on Twitter says in the comments that the LinkedIn profile belongs to somebody else unrelated to this episode, and that he mistakenly thought the link was to his own LinkedIn profile.)

7. LinkedIn profile disappears. Thanks to the magic of Google’s cache (hat tip to The Stalwart) and screenshots), you can still see it. (Update: Again, Manny Ramon/SEOColumbus on Twitter says in the comments that the LinkedIn profile belongs to somebody else unrelated to this episode.)

8. Another Zappos community member passes along a blog post from March (hat tip Julie), from the person, which references “the new gig at DSW where you will soon be able to buy shoes online”. (Update: Just another reminder that Manny Ramon says this blog — the link to which I removed — belongs to this other person.)

9. Zappos, which has done an awesome job of building its business through social media, smart marketing, and great customer service, looks like they’re getting attacked — on Twitter and with a lawsuit-cum-marketing vehicle — by a rival who was terribly late to the online game. This person on Twitter says he doesn’t work for DSW any more, but that’s not really relevant. By not disclosing his connection to the company (previous or current), DSW looks bad. Zappos has cultivated a strong online community of passionate customers; now they’re not just pro-Zappos, they’re anti-DSW. How does that help DSW’s business? Oh yeah, it doesn’t.

So the moral of the story: people expect and demand transparency and truthfulness in social media. If you can’t give it to them, you’re better off just staying out of the conversation.

Today, the Mobile Marketing Association announced the results of the EMEA Board of Directors election, held back in March and for which I asked for your support here at MobHappy.

I’m delighted to announce that not only did I get elected in the face of some very tough competition, but that I’m going to be Chairman this year, which is pretty damn cool. So if you voted for me or lobbied anyone in any way - thank you very much and I’ll do my best to do a great job.

Congrats to the outgoing Board, ably chaired by Vodafone’s Richard Saggers, who will be a hard act to follow.

This year is a great team including representatives from Orange, Google, O2/Telefonica, Nokia, Turkcell, Coca-Cola, T-Mobile, Yahoo! and AKQA. It’s hard to believe that a little startup called AdMob would appear in such a prestigious list after only two years.

If you have any ideas about how you’d like to see the MMA improve or just have some general comments, I’m hear to listen and I promise my colleagues are too. Let me know (in complete confidence if you like) and I’m happy to throw it into the melting pot to help the MMA really rock this year.

And if you’re not already a member, but you’re in this space, isn’t it about time you joined and had a voice in the development of your industry?

It’s a sign of things really taking off when a mainstream publisher starts taking an interest. So it’s great to see Mobile Internet For Dummies being launched.

Even better is that I know a few of the five authors (Dan Appelquist of Vodafone, Michael O’Farrell of the dotMobi Advisory Group and James Pearce of dotMobi) and was asked to write the section on Advertising on the Mobile Web, though I’m not sure that it made the final edit.

Go buy a copy.

I recently replaced my SO’s trusty old Sony Ericsson K750 with a sparkling new Samsung SGH-U600. Decent little phone, for the most part, and she seems happy enough with it. Of course part of the “sales experience” entails me moving all her contacts over. I’ve not really had a problem syncing contacts since I switched to a Mac a few years back. I’m no Mac zealot, but iSync is, by far, the best sync solution I’ve ever used.

In any case, I figured, hey, it’s 2008 — syncing contacts should be no problem.

Ha. Famous last words.

The new Samsung isn’t supported by iSync, so that’s strike one. So I turn to the excellent Zyb service. It uses SyncML over the air to suck the contacts off of the K750, easy peasy. Then, of course, the Samsung’s not supported by Zyb. Strike two.

Fortunately, Zyb lets me export the contacts into a VCF file. I export that, copy it onto a USB drive, then reboot my Mac into Windows XP — because, of course, Samsung’s PC sync software doesn’t run on Macs. So I reboot… struggle a little with Outlook Express to import the contacts from the file, then install the Samsung PC software, fiddle a bit to import the contacts into it properly, then hook up the handset via USB and hit the sync button.

That, of course, doesn’t work and I’ve got to mess with it for a few minutes more to get things done.

I get there in the end, but not without spending far too much time and way too much effort. I realize I bought this device outside the normal operator-centric supply chain (I bought it from an import shop), but still, we’re both T-Mobile customers, and it would be nice to see the operator step up and offer some sort of assistance here. There’s plenty of blame for Samsung, too, which didn’t bother to implement SyncML in the U600 in such a way that Zyb can work. It could also do iSync plug-ins for its device, like other vendors have done.

If you have a handset that works with Zyb, you’re laughing — their service is great. But I doubt many normobs get there on their own. If you work for an operator, get some deal going with Zyb or one of its competitors and provide and promote the service to your customers. After all, doesn’t it behoove you to make them happy and help them have the best experience possible? If you’re a handset vendor, take a proactive stance and make it as easy as possible for people to transfer contacts. Fully support standards like SyncML, make your PC software work on multiple platforms, take advantage of programs like iSync.

Seriously, it’s endlessly frustrating that it’s 2008 and this sort of stuff is still an issue. Sure, our phones have 5-megapixel cameras and GPS and accelerometers and all kinds of other flashy stuff, but dammit, you’re going to have to enter your contacts by hand. See my post from August 2005 along largely similar lines. Nearly three years, and not a whole hell of a lot has changed. Well, I guess at least it provides an opportunity for the likes of Zyb to come in and have some success…

I’m going to wade once again into one of Russell’s favorite topics, the separatista vs. convergionist debate. Whatever your feelings on the matter, I think we can all probably agree that there’s plenty of unnecessary convergence around. Like this handheld dictionary/MP3 player. Bet the folks at Franklin were left scratching their heads when these things didn’t fly off the shelves.

HTC, best known for its wide range of Windows Mobile devices, today announced the Touch Diamond, an update to its Touch device released several months back. The Touch was notable because of the TouchFLO UI, an HTC-created, customized user interface that ran on top of Windows Mobile. The Diamond features a new version, called TouchFLO 3D, that looks way slicker. It looks gorgeous — so much so that you might almost forget you’re using a Windows Mobile device. Check out this video:

Windows Mobile, in this case, is really just the OS, separated from the user interface by HTC. That fits with something I’ve been wondering about for a while: will the top mobile operating systems of the future be the ones that make this sort of UI customization the easiest? This is a growing trend. Apart from HTC, Sony Ericsson is adding its own UI on top of WinMo for the XPERIA X1, Asus has shown off its own UI enhancements, and there’s some other examples.

And this goes along with the continued trend of some pretty bad user interfaces. I’ve used the new Windows Mobile 6.1, which was billed as having a number of UI improvements, but they’re not much help in the overall mess of things. S60 has gotten faster and had some marginal improvements, but it’s still not the most usable interface around.

Perhaps we’re seeing a couple of things: either people viewing Windows Mobile as a decent OS if you can totally hide the native UI, or enough frustration with the state of smartphone UIs to where people are just scrapping them in favor of their own. So will the leading mobile OSes of the future be those that come without a UI, and make it the easiest for UI designers to make their own?