It was a bit strange to wake up this morning, groggy from a long day at ad:tech, to see Mobile Marketer’s subject line this morning: Branded apps are not marketing: ad:tech panelist.
At first it didn’t register that the panelist Giselle Tsirulnik was referring to was, well, me. Given the online conversation that’s followed the session and subsequent article, I thought I’d be clearer about what I meant to say at yesterday’s session titled What Marketers Need to Know about Mobile Apps and the Mobile Web.
Early in the session Thom Kennon from Wunderman asked an interesting question: is mobile causing more change and innovation in business model or human model? What surprised me was the consensus of the panel, which seemed to think mobile business models were new. I disagreed, as I see mobile having a much bigger worldwide impact on how we live our lives than how companies make money.
Take a look at the business models on yesterday’s panel, none of which are new:
• MSNBC: makes money through advertising, same as web and TV
• GetJar: makes money through paid placement, same as Google, supermarkets, and the Yellow Pages
• Cielo Mobile, Zumobi, and Context Optional: make money when people pay us to build something for them
But look at the way mobile is forever changing the human model:
• Phones are tied to people not places
• People are reachable all the time
• A device knows my location at all times
• Services can be offered based on my location
• The device is sensitive to the world around it: movement, sound, direction, and physical surroundings
• Augmented reality adds layers of meaning to the world
For these reasons and more, it seems to me mobile innovations affect how we live our lives more than how our companies make money.
On the panel we also discussed how popular some branded apps had become, such as how often people read news on their phones and how Facebook’s mobile applications are the most often downloaded mobile apps. Our panel was discussing the popularity of these apps in the context of marketing, and I just don’t see these applications as marketing; instead I see them as product extensions and accessibility.
• Facebook’s app came up, as it’s one of the most popular downloaded apps from GetJar. My opinion is that Facebook’s app is not a marketing exercise. Facebook is an online service that connects people. Most people access the service via Facebook.com, but really Facebook is agnostic as to which screen or device you use to access your friends. Facebook’s popularity as a mobile download does not prove to me that branded applications are successful for marketing; it tells me that people want to stay in touch with their friends all the time. And mobile is an extension of Facebook’s mission to keep people connected, and a key element of Facebook’s growth strategy, not a marketing program.
• MSNBC was on the panel as well, along with Zumobi, who built their application. The MSNBC app may be awesome, but to me it’s awesome in how news becomes accessible all the time, not for how it markets or provides branding (MSNBC shows ads, like they do on TV and on the web). Moreover, I suspect most users download the MSNBC app because they already like watching MSNBC on TV and reading MSNBC on the web. Realistically every news network has mobile distribution, and having a mobile application is not a marketing strategy, it’s a required product offering that more deeply engages an existing audience.
I read Mobile Marketer that morning, as I do every morning, and the contents of that morning’s newsletter were top of mind for me when Thom Kinnon asked us why we don’t see more mobile-centered campaigns. While the panel reasoned it was because agencies are still getting their heads around mobile, and it’s therefore incumbent upon us to educate them about the advertising opportunity, it seems to me a problem of scale. If you’re a major brand, and you read the headlines I saw in the morning, are these branded applications going to get you excited enough to launch a mobile initiative?
• Remy Martin mobile campaign attracts 1,200 SMS opt-ins
• Chicago’s Field Museum mobile campaign sees 7,000 interactions
These campaigns aren’t offering the kind of scale most advertisers seek, particularly for the center of a campaign.
Most successful applications from brands are extensions of products and services, not marketing vehicles.
• Take for example Kodak, which was also featured in yesterday’s Mobile Marketer in Kodak enters mobile arena with iPhone app. This innovative new product ties together mobile cameras and digital frames. In the context of the panel conversation we had around innovation, this new product changes how I share pictures with loved ones (human model), but has a familiar business model (selling a product) and is not a corporate marketing program.
• Think about other popular apps, like the ones mentioned in today’s story from amNY A big App-etite: Apple now counts 100,000 applications in its store. The applications referenced and pictured in the article – Google Maps, Yelp, Fandango, Lonely Planet, FedEx, Urban Spoon – are all awesome apps that change how people live their lives, but none are marketing initiatives for brands.
On the panel I mentioned REI’s Snow Report. The application, built by Zumobi, provides valuable utility to REI’s core skiing consumer by providing them information on ski conditions. Brilliant! But there aren’t many of those good examples compared to all the hoopla, and that was my point.
I do think there is opportunity for brands to successfully market using mobile applications. In fact six months ago I gave a talk at ad:tech titled Building Loyalty through Mobile Branding and Community Building. But sometimes brands and marketers trick themselves into thinking people love to connect with brands on their phone. It was certainly a theme at ad:tech yesterday and top of my mind from reading Mobile Marketer in the morning (Consumers want more marketing messages: Study). I don’t believe it. Instead I think that successful marketers will engage their audiences by connecting them with something of value.




