As anyone reading Russell, Carlo or any of my writing already knows, none of us feels that unsolicited messages of any sort are appropriate EVER. Unless you are telling me something that is going to save my life, prevent dismemberment or keep me from getting arrested, please keep your message to yourself! In short if I don’t know you I don’t want you putting content on my phone.
The massive adoption of DVR’s should give a hint to our preferences, as should the incredible numbers of people willing to PAY for radio. We don’t like being blasted 24 hours a day on all sides by companies trying to hawk their wares. While I have no objection to a polite text ad running along the edge of my display, when that same ad jumps up, obscures what I am reading and announces that I should switch to improved “Huggies” it has crossed the line. (I am perfectly happy with my Original Huggies, thank you very much).
Clearly, consumers are willing to pay a premium to be LEFT ALONE. It seems to me there isn’t any question at all as to how something as disruptive, invasive and disrespectful of consumer privacy as advertising directly to cell phones will be perceived. It will be loathed, reviled, disliked and generally hated with a vehemence reserved only for people that cut off Los Angeles drivers during rush hour making them miss their exits. In short, it won’t be liked much at all - if you get my drift.
Desperation to make an impression on consumers must be creeping up well into the red if advertisers are willing to risk the backlash that will most assuredly happen if they carry on with their plans; and an article in today’s San Diego Union Tribune makes it appear as if this “carrying on” is not only inevitable, but unavoidable as well.
According to the article:
Marketers said they were particularly excited about the prospect of eventually using cell phones, many of which are equipped with global positioning systems, to send ads to consumers based on their location. With that information, marketers could, in theory, send pitches from retailers to cell phone users who might be in the vicinity of a store.
Great. Just what we want. Not only are advertisers excited about interrupting us via the most personal communications device we access, but proving that they know exactly where we are at the same time, thus violating our privacy too. What’s next? A sample of new “papier de toilette” while I’m in the loo at a restaurant? I can see it now - not only will they be tracking our every move, but street teams will be sent to physically follow the most demographically desirable “victims” to offer real time sampling of products that coincide with the travels of the poor fellows unlucky enough to be labled “PRIME CUSTOMERS”.
Where does this all stop? With uses of the mobile devices that I project to be deeply embedded into our lives; replacing keys, wallets, primary forms of identification and more, the ability for advertisers to track us or peep into our phones is invasive in the extreme and must be avoided at all costs less the future of the mobile device become artificially limited by virtue of its very ability to be so useful.
Clearly advertisers are not goiing to draw the line and respect our privacy. Obviously the carriers are so desperate to make up for the rush of dollars that they knew in the heyday of premium per minute voice that they’ll give the advertisers access, and it seems that our Federal protectorate in the big white buildings over on 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue care far more for the checks the advertising and phone lobby writes than they do for the privacy and security of the consumer.
Perhaps you think I am over-reacting to this? Maybe. But ask yourself how you’ll feel when calls are interrupted because you passed by a Subway Store and it just so happens that at this same time yesterday you ate at one and paid using the RFID Payment system built into your phone? Think it couldn’t happen? I’m here to tell you that it could - and it will - if we allow the collecitve beneficiaries of these technologies to have their way.
The only thing that will get the attention of the advertisers and the carriers is a collective smack-down on the part of the consumer. We have to let them all know in no uncertain terms that we and we alone reserve the right to control what we do or do not see broadcast onto our phones. Of course there’s really not much choice in how we go about this. Sure, we could write letters. We could complain to the carriers. We can make some kind of stink. But the reality is that these groups only understand one thing; money.
The way to get their attention is with money. Or the lack thereof. My suggestion; if you receive an advertisement for a product or service on your mobile, erase that company from the list of vendors whom you patronize. That’s right, just cross them straight off. No second chances. No extra strikes. Just click, gone. If every consumer did this starting now, the instant negative response would have the advertisers literally sprinting to get those planned ads pulled from the carrier’s networks. The other thing to do is be sure that you’re not being charged airtime to get these ads. Imagine the insult to injury that adds to this. Not only are they invading my privacy, interrupting my peace of mind, and taking advantage of the proximity my phone has to my person at all times, but there charging ME for the inconvenience? That would simply be too much.
This is an issue that is going to go white hot in 2006. Before now the technology to deliver real advertising simply wasn’t there yet, but today it is and it is going to happen. Unless we take control of our phones, by closing our wallets I think it’s a forgone conclusion that the next killer app will be a PCR - that is a Personal Cellular Recorder.
Oh wait…that’s already been invented. Way back in the seventies! It was called an answering machine…we used to use it back when we had land lines. Remember those???
100% agreed that marketers will nail the space and advertisers will flock to the prospect of spamming anyone, anywhere, at any time, depending on their location. The much-ballyhooed “location-based services” on some recent phones seemed like an early attempt at that: hey, all of the annoyance of GPS without _any_ of the life-saving or navigation functionality!
But I’m not sure consumer choice is going to be the answer here - consumer apathy in the TV space was solved not by a consumer boycott, but by the creation of a device that made commercial-skipping a winning proposition in hand with another plus - recording a tv show for later - DVRs.
I see something similar in mobile, I’ll be making a blog post on it.
Should this nightmare scenario come to pass I have a better idea, Oliver — change carriers. Advertising and content will bring in a lot of money in the future, but it’s a long way off exceeding the revenue brought in from voice. If the carrier is implicit in the advertising and starts losing customers it’s going to put an end to it sharpish. And the negative response will be much more noticeable to the carrier than to the companies which are advertising.
I’m hoping — and there is some evidence to support the hope — that mobile advertising will be non-intrusive, that marketing messages will be on an opt-in basis only. True, the advertising industry hasn’t shown restraint in the past, but it may begin to. Especially if the operators try and force them. The big problem will be people who find out how to take advantage of the mobile internet to send unwanted ads or malware.
Oliver,
I agree. As a pre-launch company in the mobile social software space, let me just say this: Mobile Spam will come. Marketers, at least the ones scoring lower on the empathy-ethics scale, see phones less as a personal communication device and more as advertising space. Phones are an information medium and thus they can be advertised on. Their argument basically goes “you don’t complain about ads on your TV, do you?” We don’t have to go into the fundamental difference of an always-on, portable and highly personal communication device and a broadcast box for displaying entertainment. The programming on the later is financed by ads, while the communication on the later isn’t.
Spam on the internet is a big market for three reasons: 1. It’s dirt cheap. No comparing with the price of address database, paper, envelope, printing and stamp for traditional direct marketing. 2. It’s difficult to trace. Spoof addresses and hackable SMTP servers abound. It’s a network founded on trading bandwidth and pipes are either full or they’re empty. They’re around and traffic on them is (virtually) at marginal cost 0. 3. Legislation has been slow. While that’s changing, too few people are sent off in cuffs. Let’s make spam a serious offence.
Mobile spam will be different for exactly those reasons. 1. It’s not dirt cheap. It’s cheap (relative to how intrusive it is), but there’s still an economic cost. No penis enlargement SMS in the foreseeable future. 2. It’s easy to trace. There’s no way people will be able to spam without the knowledge of a mobile operator. People do complain and they complain to their MNO. If this stuff is really unrequested, we will see aggregators and spammer shutting down in droves. Furthermore, I see ICSTIS (in the UK) and MNOs themselves starting to make mobile marketers jump through considerable hoops to send even permissions-based marketing. The reason for that is simple: churn. Look at Finland or Denmark, where MVNOs and MNOs are engaged in cut-throat competition. The era of single-digit revenue growth is looming. The financial focus at operators is on capital-return, proof being the recent share buybacks of Voda and DoCoMo. MNOs cannot afford to be the network people run away from. 3. Legislation. Spam legislation will be applied to mobile as well. Let’s see the first people in government getting spam on the mobiles they use for their day-to-day affairs. They’ve been relatively insulated from internet spam in their official lives. They won’t be as lucky.
So yes, I agree it will be a nuisance, but it will be light compared to the internet, though the end user will experience it as more intrusive. And they will complain, loudly, to their MNO.
I still think there’s a case to be made for permissions-based marketing to mobile. There are some things I would really like to receive (given an easy way to turn it off and on), e.g. local event listings, cinema, etc. Basically the same stuff I get in my inbox. However, there should be a way to separate this from P2P communication. E.g., make it a dedicated WAP page on my portal or some such thing.
I think there’s a huge market for requested and relevant and valuable and well-timed mobile marketing, just like there is for correct email marketing. I just don’t think SMS/MMS/WAP-Push or Voice is it.
Wow, this has gotten very long. Might cross-post on http://blog.incrediblinc.com
[...] But am I the only one? Oliver Starr for one, is livid about it: Great. Just what we want. Not only are advertisers excited about interrupting us via the most personal communications device we access, but proving that they know exactly where we are at the same time, thus violating our privacy too. What’s next? A sample of new “papier de toilette” while I’m in the loo at a restaurant? I can see it now - not only will they be tracking our every move, but street teams will be sent to physically follow the most demographically desirable “victims” to offer real time sampling of products that coincide with the travels of the poor fellows unlucky enough to be labled “PRIME CUSTOMERS”. [...]
[...] In Coming to a Pocket Near You; Advertising to Mobiles Threatens to Annoy Billions, Olive Starr at MobHappy explores with some passion (which I think we all share) an issue that he says will be “white hot” in 2006. Oliver proposes a “smack-down” by consumers, which means you and me along with everybody who uses a mobile phone. The post describes a looming problem and suggests some answers. I was glad I read it as useful background for the 2006 life of mobilist. This post reflected some good news that kick-off 2006: Oliver Starr joined MobHappy from the Mobile Weblog. On behalf of the MobHappy team: WELCOME OLIVER! [...]
[...] Following Oliver’s post earlier in the week about advertising and my own about mobile TV has got me wondering about a few things. [...]
I am not sure what all the fuss and the rabid comments are all about. Did it not occur to anyone that perhaps there are billions of people out there who want to recieve mobile advertising. There is no better way to find out what is available where, when and at what price than a mobile phone. We live in a modern connected world deal with it.
Pedro,
Perhaps there are as you put it “billions” which today would equate with 100% of the 2 billion people world wide with mobile phones of some kind, but I think you’d be hard pressed to get even 50% of people interested in having their lives interrupted by marketing sent directly and uncontrollably to their cellular phones.
I for one am vehemently against any such intrusion. If I want information I go to a mobile or PC browser and I seek it. I don’t need random crap broadcast to me and every one else. The personalization that would be required to serve me ads I want goes far beyond the contextual advertising Google offers, to do the same context driven advertining on a phone would require that the advertiser is literally “listening in” on your conversationsa nd broadcasting you advertisements based upon when you said or what you sent in your text messages.
Is that somethiing you’d like? The phone company listening in on your life? Wait…silly me! They already are…or will be if the White House continues to have its way. If so, advertisers certainly won’t be far behind. Can anyone say voice driven context sensitive advertising? that’s right, I knew you could…