Likewise with mobile, but slower mixed sadly like everything else in mobile (I sometimes think mobile years are 7 times slower than real ones).

Probably it’s out there already…. One issue is that it needs to be easy to create and buy, like web banners are. If it is not standardised to a large extent, we’ll never get the agencies to buy it in bulk. That’s not to say there will not be one off customised excellence (at a premium). But remember that a volume market needs tools capable of handling throughput.

Great posting again, Russell. Great! I’ll borrow it (and credit you of course) when discussing the 7th Mass Media concept, where one of the main themes is of course, that on mobile (7th medium) we should not only copy what existed before on say the internet (6th media) or TV (5th) etc. But that we should innovate and create newer formats, in content and yes, in advertising, that the older media could not even support.

Great example from the internet world is Google Adwords. Early internet ads were static print ads copied to web pages (my first ad for the internet when I was employed in New York City by NY’s first internet service provider, was just that – we copied our Yellow Pages ad and placed it onto a web page; very crude and strictly a copy of a legacy media format). But yes, Google Adwords introduced an ad format that is not possible on legacy media. Great innovation.

Now we are starting to see early steps into what is called “engagement marketing” on mobile platforms, perhaps tracing their beginning to 2005 in India, where first advergames were launched. We can do advertising on mobile that is far more fun (Mob-Happy) than ads in print or radio or cinema or TV or even the internet..

Great story, I blogged about it at Communities_dominate.blogs.com and will spread the story. So the first ad was Bulova on a baseball game. Cool…

Tomi Ahonen
http://www.tomiahonen.com

Mobile web advertizing of today is directly copied from Internet banner ads, so nothing new/paradigm-shifting there. Actually very similar to the point you are making in your blog post.

Future mobile advertizing will be more interactive, using voice, SMS, MMS, the user’s location (initially cell-based of course), etc to interact with the ad itself or directly with the company. The user can also be alerted of opt-in ads whenever and wherever.

There will of course be combinations with traditional media, like responding with an SMS to ads on TV, printed posters, magazine ads etc, and in turn be able to win something or whatever.

In the above case the user sends an inbound SMS, so there’s of course a cost tradeoff when providing an SMS response to such a request, and of course also how much it’s acceptable to charge the end-user for something that inherently is an ad (despite providing some value to the end-user, in the shape of a game or similar).

In comparison a banner ad doesn’t cost anything for the end-user nor the ad engine provider (roughly speaking; there’s of course maintenance, personnel and marketing costs, but not a direct cost per ad). It only costs for the advertizer, which makes this the most cost-effective solution today.

Well actually, that’s not altogether true: The end-user pays for the presentation of the mobile banner ad via increased data cost. Per ad the cost is obviously very small, but if you consider that many sites now have ads, it accumulates. Unless of course the user has a flat-rate sub.