Guest post published on mSearchGroove 

EDITOR’S NOTE: Mobile advertising is certain the hot topic at CTIA, where Mobile Web And Apps World Forum (Ajit Jaokar’s CTIA partner event) was standing room only. (Well done Ajit!) Players from across the ecosystem are anxious to explore new models to monetize inventory, apps and services. However, as I pointed out during my panel — moderated by well-known analyst and author Chetan Sharma – there’s still is a lot of mileage left in established models such as text and MMS approaches to advertising before we focus too much of our effort on the whiz-bang new ad units and creatives. In his guest contribution, Martin Wilson – MSG columnist and owner of Indigo 102, a strategic consultancy with a focus on media and mobility and a deep understanding of the local space— argues that traditional media owners also have a lot of untapped energy and assets.

***

Advertising based on location is set to be the most valuable and highly contested sectors as players including AdMob, AOL/ Third Screen Media, Jumptap, Millennial Media, and Quattro Wireless jockey for position. Who will be in the winners’ circle? So far, traditional media owners and directory publishers appear to be the laggards and not the leaders in this race – although they clearly have the capabilities mix to dominate this space. Why are they hell-bent on missing the boat? Martin Wilson argues traditional media owners and directory publishers can still be among the champions, not the casualties, provided they act fast.

Mobile advertising has come a long way in a short time. No need to ask ourselves when it finally be the “year of mobile advertising” because the recent flurry of activity tells us mobile advertising has arrived.

First, it was the milestone acquisitions – Google buying AdMob, Apple snapping up Quattro Wireless and Opera surprising us by purchasing AdMarvel. Then it was the funding – Millennial Media led by New Enterprise Associates and Glam Media led by Aeris Capital – that sealed it. Mobile advertising has been validated.

Almost overnight our attention has turned from fixed online advertising to mobile. Now mobile – a personal device that enables brands to market to an audience of one – is widely regarded as the Next Frontier companies must conquer. Little wonder that companies – including Apple, Facebook, Google, Millennial Media and Yahoo – are lining up to do just this.

The market is crowding and muddying our understanding of what matters most.

Predictably, we want to reuse our understanding of old media (online and TV, for example) to comprehend the role and importance of mobile, the new mass media. Thus, we are fixated on size and those players with high volume inventory. Unfortunately, mobile advertising is not just the same numbers game.

Take the narrow view communicated in a controversial report by U.S. research agency Interactive Data Corp (IDC). It estimated the total 2009 mobile advertising spend in the U.S. at around $290 million, a figure based on total page impressions. It calculated market share according to share of total spend and concluded Millennial Media leads the pack with 18 percent ($51 million), followed by AdMob with 14 percent ($40 million), Google with 10 percent ($28 million) and Quattro Wireless in sixth place with 7 percent ($21 million.).

It was also reported by IDC that Glam Media counts 160 million monthly visits to the sites they control or represent, resulting in some 2.5 billion page views. Does this make them a market leader?

Maybe on paper.

However, as I argue in this column, it’s not about page impressions. That is not where the battle will be fought (or won, for that matter).

RAISE YOUR GLOVES

The money is in local advertising, or more accurately advertising based on location. That’s not just my view. Google has been clear about its interest in local online mobile content – and its intention to own the space. In its fourth-quarter earnings call, Google described local mobile advertising as a “huge” opportunity and more recently at the 2010 Mobile World Congress (MWC) claimed to have made mobile its number one priority.

Interestingly, going local (delivering advertising based on location) brings with it a whole new challenge. For one, it is infinitely more difficult to deliver relevant advertising to people
(which is the way brands must deliver advertising on a personal device such as our mobile phones). The opportunity to target an individual based on location is hugely powerful, but the room for error in these brand messages is frightfully slim. Get it wrong and the advertising performance diminishes — significantly.

Put another way, local advertising can’t be a matter of hit-or-miss. Generic advertising is a “fail” and tactical, targeted advertising is – literally – spot-on.

But it sounds easier than it is. This approach – though essential – flies in the face of how we measure advertising success. Suddenly, our singular focus on numbers and quantity (high volume and market share) is irrelevant. Local means delivering quality advertising. It also requires a totally new skillset, a whole new understanding of what we mean by context and how we should deliver relevant advertising.

WHAT IS ‘LOCAL’

If you say ‘mobile’ and ‘local’ in the same sentence, two scenarios spring to mind: ‘where I am now’ and ‘where I am going to be’. But which one is it? It depends. A common mistake is to assume your current location is important, that your location at that point in time is key.

Often it is not.

Mobile is about being ‘mobile.’ It’s about roaming. Mobile location can be a related to a number of things, places nearby or places close to my final destination. Deciding what is relevant is core to the success of any service or proposition delivered via mobile. I’m amazed by the number of services that get it completely wrong.

Why? Because there is more to delivering a mobile location service (let alone location relevant mobile advertising) than knowing the location of the individual. Companies need a detailed knowledge of what is really nearby.

In the U.K. alone, there are over 30,000 recognised places or points of interest. And that’s before you take into account synonyms, postcodes and street names. Linking them together in a meaningful way is no simple task. What are the postcodes or streets in London’s West End or Soho? The taxonomy is complex. When expanding a location to deliver results the relationship between places is important to get right – otherwise the service will deliver meaningless results and fail in the consumers eyes.

With so much as stake, I wonder why companies are so willing to take risks. By adding location to the mix they think they are growing the size of their inventory. In reality they also increase their chances of failure.

Currently, mobile advertising companies work on serving relevant ads based on generic attributes such as country, mobile network, handset type, time of day or theme of the page content. Add location as an attribute and everything changes. Relevancy – potentially down to a micro level – has to be on the mark. Delivering advertising based on locations becomes a mammoth task with a very different set of management challenges.

FREEDOM OF CHOICE

Advertising is content and people will pay with their attention. The structure of the content is important, and keep in mind at all times that mobile is a ‘pull’ medium. Give the people what they want and need. Provide enough information to attract, influence and help inform the decision or action.

You also need to remember that ‘local’ at a micro level is all about offering rich content – which can be challenging to deliver and scale. At the other end of the spectrum, ‘local’ at a macro level is all about providing comprehensive content – which can be challenging to deliver with added-value and competitive differentiation. A rule that applies to both types of ‘local’ content: Content gives a service credibility, interest and value if there is a valid reason (that consumers can understand) why a particular content is shown to them at a specific point in time.

Poorly targeted content is more than a potential annoyance. For many consumers, being exposed to irrelevant content (this includes advertising) on their mobile phones represents a ‘fail’ that interrupts what they are doing and – depending on data plan – costs bandwidth and money. Get it wrong and deliver the wrong content and the consequences can be severe and instant.

Content also needs to be inclusive not exclusive. If a user wants a pizza place nearby, they mean it (!) The service should deliver them details on the restaurant nearby and not the one 15 miles away simply because that business owner paid a premium for it.

Put another way, a location-based social network service should offer people loads of places people can check-in to, and not just the ones a handful of ‘power users’ know, mark and promote. Likewise, a local guide service must have all the places of interest for a town or city, not just the well—known ones in the surrounding area.

Why do local services need to be all-inclusive?

Because the consumer is empowered. They are spoilt by choice and demand the content they want. The Long Tail taught us all that one-size-fits-all doesn’t work in entertainment content. And there is mounting evidence that the same focus on the mainstream will no longer be tolerated in location-based services.

Relevance, as I have shown, is critical in content services.

The consumer’s perception of relevancy is enhanced when:

• They are offered greater choice
• They are empowered to select from a range of options
• They are ultimately responsible for the due diligence and decision

Of course, offering a broad choice of content (in this case, location related information and location relevant advertising) requires the service provider has a stockpile of content to start.

WHAT REALLY COUNTS

Above all, a location-based service has to pass the toughest road test there is. It has to show the consumer what they know is there. Put simply, consumers judge the true accuracy and relevancy of a local service by its ability to offer breadth, choice and insight into the places and businesses they know are nearby.

If the service can pass the test, it earns consumer trust.

Thus, a shopping guide needs to list the shops nearby and not the ones across town. It needs to drill down to the hyperlocal level and present up shops in the area – even better if lists the shop they can see in the distance. Then they can feel secure knowing the service is up-to-date and mirrors the real world around them. (And isn’t that what we all expect of a service that professes to offer local information?)

The same goes for mobile advertising. A guide to city nightlife should be chock-full of bars and clubs and their promotions.

How do service providers get their hands on all this content and advertising?

They partner with companies that have it as their stock in trade.

Take the directory publisher Yell in the U.K. It boasts over 2.3 million business listings –that satisfies the requirement for basic core and structured content. Yell also has over 200,000 searchable online advertisers – that fulfils the demand for depth of differentiating content.

Surely tapping into this content (listings and advertising) is the first – and essential – step to building a strong foundation of content linked to location. What’s more, it’s shortcut to offering the wealth and breadth of content – including familiar content – that consumers have come to demand.

It seems self-evident. But some companies fail to grasp it. In the last weeks I have seen a number of services – TopTable, Grub.it, Center’d to name just a few – come to market with neither basic core and structured content nor in-depth and diffentiating content. Predictably, they were instantly knocked by consumers.

IT TAKES TWO [OR MORE]

As I have shown, the success of a service linked to location depends on the breadth and depth of content (listings and advertising) it offers. It’s content that has long been the lifeblood of directory publishers, but nowhere is it written that these giants will beat the nimble newcomers moving on their turf.

Granted, it will take time for these newcomers to learn the ropes and collect and index the location linked information core to competitive edge. However, there is little reason for more traditional media players, who sit on a stockpile of location linked content, to assume that time is on their side.

Take the case of uLocate Communications, a location services company, headquartered in the U.S.

Sensing a business opportunity it moved fact to fill the gap in the current mobile advertising environment and recently launched Where Ads, a hyperlocal and holistic ad network that pulls together local ad providers that work in other mediums, including directory services, coupons, events and other aggregation services.

Partnerships will be increasingly important. Even for the traditional players it is unlikely that they will excel alone. The recent pairing of directory publisher DexOne and Yelp in the U.S. is a testament that neither company has the critical mass and/or appeal to succeed in isolation.

The new network underlines the importance of getting the right players to the table. Strategic partnering brings a new dimension to the service offer and delivers value to the consumer. But it’s knowing whom to partner with that will decide if a service flies or fails. Picking the right partner requires knowledge and focus. It also helps if the partners we choose have a track record in local and a proven ability to generate revenue.

While the newcomers may have the ambitious mobile strategies, it’s the traditional media owners and directory publishers from the online space that have mastered the capabilities necessary to convert consumer activity (a need/desire to know what’s really nearby) into revenue.

Case in point: Pages Jaunes, the French directory publisher. In 2009 the company counted 885 million visits and online revenues of €461 million. That’s equivalent to €0.52 per visit – a staggering conversion to value. Imagine a scenario where consumers conduct the same number of searches using Google – it’s nowhere near the same conversion rate (or revenues for the advertiser, I might add).

Make no mistake: No other organisation can even potentially come close to the conversion rates and value delivered by traditional media owners and directory publishers. Their ability to create value is inextricably linked to their superior capabilities. They have infrastructure, sales teams and existing customers to target.

In the online space traditional media owners and directory publishers lost their edge to search giants such as Google and Yahoo and have been struggling to catch-up ever since. Mobile is a new game with new possibilities. It’s also a space where location linked content – and lots of it – combined with the capabilities to deliver this content when/where consumers need and appreciate it most can mean the difference between success and failure. These market conditions play in favour of traditional media players and directory publishers. Now it’s up to these companies to recognise their advantage and work with the right people/companies to evolve their businesses, embrace mobile and deliver what users demand.

THE TAKEAWAY

Context, relevance, critical mass and content quality are all key components to a successful and sustainable service in the local mobile space. Who will own this space? Hard to say. But don’t be too quick to write off the traditional media owners and directory publishers that lost the plot in online. They could make a collective and explosive comeback in mobile. Success will be achieved by the companies that see the opportunity, accelerate their efforts, focus on their core strengths and bring the people and partners on board who have mobile expertise.

Get this right and you’re more than fit for the fight ahead. 

Editor’s note: Martin’s next column will focus on how companies should evolve a digital strategy that harnesses mobile to complement existing digital services and thus generate more value. As he shows us: in digital, the outcome can be worth more than the sum of the parts.

Martin Wilson has been involved in digital media for over 14 years, during which time he gained a wealth of experience in the fixed line and mobile Internet. In January 2008, Martin established Indigo 102, an independent consultancy, to assist organisations (including digital advertising agencies, directory publishers, media owners and online service providers) take their brands – and value propositions – mobile. In this role Martin has supported the development and launch of mass market mobile services across three continents. You can contact Martin directly (martin@indigo102.com) and follow on Twitter (@indigo102).

Google dominates search on the Web, but on mobile phones — where distribution matters and where the lessons of Google’s ways are well understood — Microsoft just might have an edge.

 The escalating rivalry between Google (GOOG) and Apple (AAPL) might be the best thing that happens to Bing this year. Microsoft’s  little decision-engine-that-can has yet to make much headway on mobile browsers. Ever since the iPhone launched with Google as its default search engine, Google has dominated the mobile web: its search had 30 million unique visitors in January, according to Nielsen. Thanks in part to a lucrative distribution deal inked with AT&T (T), Yahoo (YHOO)  had 6.5 million visitors. Microsoft’s search products? Just 3.8 million.

 But in such a new and fast-growing market, it’s a mistake to think Google has search locked up. So far, distribution deals have been key to dominating search on mobile handsets. As Google gets into the phone business, with the launch of its Android operating system and even its own handset, many smartphone makers will likely think twice about relying on the company that is cutting into their business. Rumors already abound that Apple is considering working with Microsoft (MSFT) to launch Bing as the default search engine for upcoming Apple products like the iPad and even the iPhone.

 Even if these rumors don’t come to fruition, Bing stands to gain greater distribution. It has been popping up all over the place recently as cellphone manufacturers and wireless carriers look to balance the risks that come with relying too much on Google. On March 10, Motorola (MOT) announced it would add Microsoft’s search product to its Android handsets, beginning with Android phones released in China this quarter. The news comes in the wake of escalating tensions between Google and the Chinese government after Google threatened to stop doing business in the country earlier this year.

 Just before the holidays, the black “Bing” icon popped up on myriad BlackBerrys as a partnership penned with Verizon (VZ) more than a year ago finally kicked in (Verizon: Microsoft Beats Google). Verizon now offers Bing on all of its smartphones except its Android offerings, where it ships the devices with Google. When asked about the Bing application recently, a Verizon representative called it a “first stop,” explaining that users can visit the app store to download any search product they want.

 Indeed, these distribution deals may be less important in the future as consumer loyalty switches from the wireless carriers (AT&T or Sprint (S)?) to the devices (BlackBerry or iPhone?). No matter what the default, consumers may turn to their app stores to download the products they like best.  In this environment, Bing’s most important partners won’t be the tech companies or the phonemakers but consumers. But for now, an Apple partnership would go a long way.

(Source: CNN Money)

I earlier came across an article titled ‘Is 2010 going to be the year of the greatest battle yet, Android v iPhone?’. I have taken the decision not to share as in short, No it is not!

It is amazing to see so many supposed intelligent people being taken in by the iPhone and now the Android fantasy. A fantasy is exactly what it is – an inability to reflect the current market and a complete speculation about the future.  RIM, Nokia and Symbian going to go away and the world is going to be iPhone and Android – based on what evidence?

Sadly these fantasies seem to have been cemented by individuals that have invested time, effort or money into iPhone/Android, or have had a poor experience with their rivals in the past.

Looking at the mMetrics statistics for the US is quite revealing. In October 2009, Android devices have less than 0.5% market share and the iPhone around 3.7%. In other countries the story is similar. Neither have dominant positions. As I have suggested before, Mobile strategy – iPhone should factor but certainly not dominate, considering actual market share the iPhone receives a disproportionate amount of attention from the media, mobile industry and businesses alike. To counter those that will now come out and state that iPhone users dominate the mobile web usage, by volume of pages yes but by numbers of users no. According to AT&T, 4% of their iPhone users account for almost 60% of their total iPhone mobile web usage. In real terms just 350,000 are therefore significant users, out of a US mobile installed base of some 260 million that is not particularly impressive.

What is for certain is that both Apple and Google will make a further in road in to the mobile space in 2010 and onwards. But is the battle going to be focused only on these two. Certainly not! The way Google is reportedly going to be approaching the market, directly selling to consumers, in my view can only play into one organisation’s hands. If a consumer was to start to accept the real cost of a mobile device, without any subsidies or at least not linked to a mobile operator, this will change the playing field. The door could be firmly open to an organisation like Microsoft. Without question they have some serious work to do to get their Windows Mobile platform fit for purpose. But simply loosening the controlling grip of the mobile operators on the type of devices and distribution should play right in to the hands of an organisation such as Microsoft.  

Oh and Nokia, RIM and others are sure not to lie down and sit back and watch from the sidelines. So 2010 is unlikely to be a two horse race.

In-Brief: Local focused mobile advertising will present significant revenue opportunity and will be one the few channels to buck the downward trend in advertising spend over the next few years. In looking to reap rewards the single biggest challenge will be about providing an offer that is simple, accessible and delivers value to the consumer.

There is so much doom and gloom about local advertising – across newspapers, direct mail, TV, radio, yellow pages, outdoor, magazines and fixed online collectively forecast by BIA Financial Network (BIA), parent of the Kelsey Group, to decline to $144.4 billion by 2013 from $155 billion last year. Despite this the decline is clearly not going to be consistent across the full range of media. With budgets under pressure and advertisers beginning to demand far more tangible results, traditional media as we know it is likely to be hit far harder.

As consumers continue to turn to online services, traditional media will become more and more redundant as an influence in the purchasing decision. Marketers have long realised this trend and increasingly turn their attention to online and new media channels. Online commands an ever increasing share of spend. BIA has forecast the new media share globally to grow from around 9% today to over 22% by 2013. A recent study from Pricewaterhouse Coopers (PwC) predicts by 2013 the new media share of advertising in the UK will be around 34%.

So the advertising market is going to shrink and see a substitution of spend. Not exactly positive until you consider where a significant amount of spend is today – traditional media. The opportunity exists for the traditional players to migrate value to their online assets. The changing environment demands a significant rethink of the traditional media business models and operating principles to potentially even survive.

The media futurist Jeffrey Cole suggested that a key challenge is the reliance on traditional advertising models, “The problem I see is that these people often believe that there is enough life left in the ‘old advertising model”. Cole went on to say “I really believe we are still waiting for ‘indigenous’ advertising techniques. I think the big breakthroughs will be digital advertising developed by those who grew up their entire life with digital media – hence the word indigenous.”

Mobile I believe will be a very different story, and one of the few channels to see significant organic growth. It is already being driven by leaders who are not bound by legacy thinking, business models and operations. They recognise the old models will not bear fruit, a new approach is required and the potential rewards mean it is worth it.

In terms of numbers, the Kelsey Group recently reported they expect mobile local advertising revenue to reach more than $3.1 billion by 2013, up from just $160 million in 2008. In May this year the Internet Advertising Bureau (IAB) reported UK mobile advertising spend for the first time in 2008 mobile advertising was £28.6 million. In isolation these figures today do not sound particularly impressive, and the 2013 figure potentially unrealistic, until compared to the fixed online environment. In 1998 the IAB reported UK internet advertising spend of £19.4 million, just 10 years later spend has grown to over £3.35 billion.

The Kelsey Group forecast for mobile advertising means it could outstrip anything that has gone before, making the mobile channel one of the fastest growing advertising channels of all time. A remarkable feat when the overall advertising industry will be in decline.

Why is mobile so different? Consider the audience. In nearly every country in Europe and around the world mobile has mass penetration – a large audience to target.

Mobile ticks so many marketing boxes.

Some of the most prolific mobile users are aged between 18 and 30 years old – a very attractive demographic to marketers and notoriously difficult to reach. A mobile is a very personal device and is rarely shared – making one-to-one marketing a real possibility. Consumption of mobile services continues to see rapid growth – people are open to consume new content. Mobile activity is often needs driven and action focused – consistently close to the point of purchase. At every level activity and audience actions are measurable – return is very transparent.

For these very reasons I view mobile as one of the great untapped channels for brands and media owners alike. This is not revolutionary but potentially controversial when I consider those who I believe are likely to win out and why.

Who are likely to be the key players? There are a number of players that are vying for position in the mobile local space. At one end of the spectrum you have the search engines, Taptu, MCN, Google, Yahoo etc. at the other the directory publishers, Yell and Pagine Gialle, Pages Jaunes etc. In addition there are the social networks, media owners, verticals, handset manufacturers and mobile operators who all too want a slice of the action. The market is already crowded with get rich expectants and the race for signing deals to support distribution and gather content firmly on.

For most, if the current approaches are maintained I believe that we will see just a handful of mobile players becoming highly successful. The barriers, complexities of the channel and challenges of distribution and discovery play into the hands of some of the established deep pocketed players. This balance does not have to be the case, when you consider the real opportunity will be created by organisations that use the technology and channel in a smart and meaningful way to deliver real value to the consumer.

Who are going to be the winners? The winners will be those not simply with content but those who can recognise and deliver a contextual, relevant tailored offering to a mobile consumer. It will be the ones that ‘get mobile’; those that deliver to the device capabilities, present the expected features, use location well, support social and viral capabilities, add value through marketing and advertising. Sounds simple but why are so many still getting it wrong?

In short, lack of focus and understanding of the channel. Those who are delivering good results have largely franchised mobile away from their traditional business and brought in those with ‘indigenous’ experience. For some time leading digital agencies such as AKQA and Ogilvy and progressive media owners like the BBC and Sky have had dedicated mobile teams. Others are now following their lead with dedicated resources as they either realise the true potential of mobile or are pushed by their clients to engage.

Some of these have used the mobile channel to great effect. Brands like Guinness with their ‘Passport to greatness’ campaign, British Airways with their ‘Mobile check-in’, HSBC with their ‘Business banking’, Sky with their ‘Remote record’, BBC with ‘BBC mobile’ and New York Times with their ‘NY Times’ iPhone app all show they get mobile and the mobile consumer. All have dedicated teams or experienced agencies that understand usability and focus on mobile. Mobile is treated in relative isolation but remains firmly part of the digital mix.

I find it surprising that brands and media owners do not treat mobile differently. Ten years ago most saw the opportunity Internet presented and were quick to develop specialist teams that could take forward viable business plans. Not to approach mobile in the same way is like suggesting radio programmes translate well to television. The channels have very different characteristics and capabilities.

The players with structured local content should have a natural advantage. In a previous column I wrote for mSearchGroove (MSG), I said that directory publishers are best placed to deliver compelling local mobile services and importantly commercialise them through advertising. I still firmly believe this should be the case. They are best placed to commercialise the channel, all have existing customers and a very powerful sales force to sell advertising products. Despite the opportunity the challenging business conditions that many find them self in today are impacting on their ability to focus on the mobile environment and realise opportunity it presents. This leaves the door wide open.

Why is the mobile experience different? Go back to grass roots. For most people the mobile is a communications device. This is unlikely to change. What else it is capable of is increasingly important. The device has evolved into a multifunctional tool – it is our social organiser, our information resource, our boredom filler. Basically, it supports our lives. Personal attachment is unrivalled. As well as the form factor this is what makes mobile different.

Mobile comes with a whole set of new rules. The challenge is that many businesses have not yet figured out these new rules. Most try to adapt what they understand from existing media and simply move it to the next. This will not work. Understand these new rules and the channel can deliver real returns. A good start point for many will be to answer three core questions: ’how’ are you going to approach? ’why’ is your offer relevant? and ’what’ do you expect a consumer to do?

Despite a tough economic outlook for advertising mobile is set to buck the trend it will present a significant opportunity for many. I believe the jury is still out for those that can and will be winners. What is for certain is those that continue to carry on a path which does not reflect the potential new rules and the recognise level of expertise needed to execute are unlikely to reap rewards.

As a marketing medium mobile is only set to grow in value. A channel that brands and advertisers can no longer afford to overlook as part of their mix, as such the potential for commercial reward will increase. Providers who get the basics right, deliver features that add value and bring together quality partnerships that enhance the offer and support commercialisation will be the likely winners.

Importance of mobile is increasing, the channel is set to become a primary content environment for the majority. Gearing content and commercial capabilities for mobile will be key. 

Need more advice?  We specialise in mobile and are here to help.

You can view the full Morgan Stanley report here: ‘How teenagers consume media’ 

Published: 13 Jul 2009

How Teenagers Consume Media

Radio

Most teenagers nowadays are not regular listeners to radio. They may occasionally tune in, but they do not try to listen to a program specifically. The main reason teenagers listen to the radio is for music, but now with online sites streaming music for free they do not bother, as services such as last.fm do this advert free, and users can choose the songs they want instead of listening to what the radio presenter/DJ chooses.

Television

Most teenagers watch television, but usually there are points in the year where they watch more than average. This is due to programs coming on in seasons, so they will watch a particular show at a certain time for a number of weeks (as long as it lasts) but then they may watch no television for weeks after the program has ended.

Teenage boys (generally) watch more TV when it is the football season, often watching two games and related shows a week(totalling about 5 hours of viewing). A portion of teenagers watches programs that are regular (such as soap operas) at least five times a week for half an hour or so but this portion is shrinking, as it is hard to find the time each day.

Teenagers are also watching less television because of services such as BBC iPlayer, which allows them to watch shows when they want. Whilst watching TV, adverts come on quite regularly (18 minutes of every hour) and teenagers do not want to watch these, so they switch to another channel, or do something else whilst the adverts run.

The majority of teenagers I speak to have Virgin Media as their provider, citing lower costs but similar content of Sky. A fraction of teenagers have Freeview but these people are light users of TV (they watch about 1 ½ hours per week) so they do not require the hundreds of channels that other providers offer.

Newspapers

No teenager that I know of regularly reads a newspaper, as most do not have the time and cannot be bothered to read pages and pages of text while they could watch the news summarised on the internet or on TV. The only newspapers that are read are tabloids and freesheets (Metro, London Lite…) mainly because of cost; teenagers are very reluctant to pay for a newspaper (hence the popularity of freesheets such as the Metro).

Over the last few weeks, the sun has decreased in cost to 20p, so I have seen more and more copies read by teenagers. Another reason why mainly tabloids are read is that their compact size allows them to be read easily, on a bus or train. This is especially true for The Metro, as it is distributed on buses and trains.

Gaming

Whilst the stereotypical view of gamers is teenage boys, the emergence of the Wii onto the market has created a plethora of girl gamers and younger (6+) gamers. The most common console is the Wii, then the Xbox 360 followed by the PS3. Most teenagers with a games console tend to game not in short bursts, but in long stints (upwards of an hour).

As consoles are now able to connect to the internet, voice chat is possible between users, which has had an impact on phone usage; one can speak for free over the console and so a teenager would be unwilling to pay to use a phone. PC gaming has little or no place in the teenage market.

This may be because usually games are released across all platforms, and whilst one can be sure a game will play on a console PC games require expensive set ups to ensure a game will play smoothly. In addition, PC games are relatively easy to pirate and download for free, so many teenagers would do this rather than buy a game.

In contrast, it is near impossible to obtain a console game for free.

Internet

Every teenager has some access to the internet, be it at school or home. Home use is mainly used for fun (such as social networking) whilst school (or library) use is for work. Most teenagers are heavily active on a combination of social networking sites. Facebook is the most common, with nearly everyone with an internet connection registered and visiting >4 times a week. Facebook is popular as one can interact with friends on a wide scale.

On the other hand, teenagers do not use twitter. Most have signed up to the service, but then just leave it as they release that they are not going to update it (mostly because texting twitter uses up credit, and they would rather text friends with that credit). In addition, they realise that no one is viewing their profile, so their ‘tweets’ are pointless. Outside of social networking, the internet is used primarily as a source of information for a variety of topics.

For searching the web, Google is the dominant figure, simply because it is well known and easy to use. Some teenagers make purchases on the internet (on sites like eBay) but this is only used by a small percentage, as a credit card is required and most teenagers do not have credit cards. Many teenagers use YouTube to watch videos (usually anime which cannot be watched anywhere else) and some use it as a music player by having a video with the music they want to listen to playing in the background.

Directories

Teenagers never use real directories (hard copy catalogues such as yellow pages). This is because real directories contain listings for builders and florists, which are services that teenagers do not require. They also do not use services such as 118 118 because it is quite expensive and they can get the information for free on the internet, simply by typing it into Google.

Viral/Outdoor Marketing

Most teenagers enjoy and support viral marketing, as often it creates humorous and interesting content. Teenagers see adverts on websites (pop ups, banner ads) as extremely annoying and pointless, as they have never paid any attention to them and they are portrayed in such a negative light that no one follows them.

Outdoor advertising usually does not trigger a reaction in teenagers, but sometimes they will oppose it (the Benetton baby adverts). Most teenagers ignore conventional outside advertising (billboards etc) because they have seen outside adverts since they first stepped outside and usually it is not targeted at them (unless it’s for a film).

However, campaigns such as the GTA: IV characters painted on the side of buildings generate interest because they are different and cause people to stop and think about the advert, maybe leading to further research.

Music

Teenagers listen to a lot of music, mostly whilst doing something else (like travelling or using a computer). This makes it hard to get an idea of the proportion of their time that is spent listening to music. They are very reluctant to pay for it (most never having bought a CD) and a large majority (8/10) downloading it illegally from file sharing sites. Legal ways to get free music that teenagers use are to listen to the radio, watch music TV channels (not very popular, as these usually play music at certaintimes, which is not always when teenagers are watching) and use music streaming websites (as I mentioned previously).

Almost all teenagers like to have a ‘hard copy’ of the song (a file of the song that they can keep on their computer and use at will) so that they can transfer it to portable music players and share it with friends. How teenagers play their music while on the go varies, and usually dependent on wealth –with teenagers from higher income families using iPods and those from lower income families using mobile phones.

Some teenagers use both to listen to music, and there are always exceptions to the rule. A number of people use the music service iTunes (usually in conjunction with iPods) to acquire their music (legally) but again this is unpopular with many teenagers because of the ‘high price’ (79p per song).

Some teenagers use a combination of sources to obtain music, because sometimes the sound quality is better on streaming sites but they cannot use these sites whilst offline, so they would download a song then listen to it on music streaming sites (separate from the file).

Cinema

Teenagers visit the cinema quite often, regardless of what is on. Usually they will target a film first, and set out to see that, but sometimes they will just go and choose when they get there. This is because going to the cinema is not usually about the film, but the experience –and getting together with friends.

Teenagers visit the cinema more often when they are in the lower end of teendom (13 and 14) but as they approach 15 they go to the cinema a lot less. This is due to the pricing; at 15 they have to pay the adult price, which is often double the child price. Also, it is possible to buy a pirated DVD of the film at the time of release, and these cost much less than a cinema ticket so teenagers often choose this instead of going to the cinema.

Some teenagers choose to download the films off the internet, but this is not favourable as the films are usually bad quality,have to be watched on a small computer screen and there is a chance that they will be malicious files and install a virus.

Devices

Mobile Phones

99pc of teenagers have a mobile phone and most are quite capable phones. The general view is that Sony Ericsson phones are superior, due to their long list of features, built in walkman capability and value (£100 will buy a mid-high range model). Teenagers due to the risk of it getting lost do not own mobile phones over the £200 mark.

As a rule, teenagers have phones on pay as you go. This is because they cannot afford the monthly payments, and cannot commit to an 18-month contract. Usually, teenagers only use their phone for texting, calling. Features such as video messaging or video calling are not used –because they are expensive, (you can get four regular texts for the price of one video message).

Services such as instant messaging are used, but not by everyone. It usually depends whether the phone is Wi-Fi compatible, because otherwise it is very expensive to get internet off the phone network. As most teenagers’ phones have Bluetooth support, and Bluetooth is free, they utilise this feature often.

It is used to send songs and videos (even though it is illegal) and is another way teenagers gain songs for free. Teenagers never use the ringtone and picture selling services, which gained popularity in the early 00s. This is because of the negative press that these services have attracted (where the charge £20 a week with no easy way to cancel the service) and the fact that they can get pictures and music on a computer –then transfer it to their phones at no cost.

Mobile email is not used as teenagers have no need; they do not need to be connected to their inbox all the time as they don’t receive important emails. Teenagers do not use the internet features on their mobiles as it costs too much, and generally, if they waited an hour they could use their home internet and they are willing to wait as they don’t usually have anything urgent to do.

Teenagers do not upgrade their phone very often, with most upgrading every two years. They usually upgrade on their birthday when their parents will buy them a new phone, as they do not normally have enough money to do it themselves.

Televisions:

Most teenagers own a TV, with more and more upgrading to HD ready flat screens. However, many are not utilising this HD functionality, as HD channels are expensive extras which many families cannot justify the added expenditure. Many of them don’t want to sign up to HD broadcasting services, as adverts are shown on standard definition broadcasts, so they can’t see the difference. Most people have Virgin Media as a TV provider. Some have sky and some have Freeview but very few only have the first five channels (BBC One, BBC Two, ITV, Channel Four and Channel Five).

Computers:

Every teenager has access to a basic computer with internet, but most teenagers computers are systems capable of only everyday tasks. Nearly all teenagers’ computers have Microsoft office installed, as it allows them to do school work at home.Most (9/10) computers owned by teenagers are PCs, because they are much cheaper than Macs and school computers run Windows, so if a Mac is used at home compatibility issues arise.

Games Consoles:

Close to 1/3 of teenagers have a new (<2 ½ years old) games console, 50% having a Wii, 40% with an Xbox 360 and 10% with a PS3. The PS3 has such a low figure because of its high price (£300) and similar features and games to an Xbox 360, which costs less (£160). The Wii’s dominance is due to younger brothers and sisters, they have a Wii and parents are not willing to pay for another console.

What is Hot?

• Anything with a touch screen is desirable.
• Mobile phones with large capacities for music.
• Portable devices that can connect to the internet (iPhones)
• Really big tellies

What Is Not?

• Anything with wires
• Phones with black and white screens
• Clunky ‘brick’ phones
• Devices with less than ten-hour battery life

Directory Publishers Can Beat Google & Co. To Lead In Local Mobile Search & Services If They Provide Actionable Answers

In-Brief: Directory publishers are better positioned to deliver compelling location-based information and services than rival portal providers and search engines.

At first glance it may appear that the nimble newcomer Web 2.0 companies bursting on the scene are best-positioned to benefit from the buzz around location-based services. However, a closer look reveals that it is the directory publishers – namely, the established location information providers we know from print and the Internet – who have the corporate DNA and the track record to deliver compelling location-based services and – more importantly – monetise them through mobile advertising.

Granted, it may be early days but, in my view, that is all the more reason why directory publishers must prepare to seize the mobile opportunity. Indeed, with revenue streams for paper directory and published products in near-term decline, and an increasingly fragmented market for online services, mobile is the only channel that offers real and sustainable growth. Without a doubt, mobile is going to play an important and valuable role in reinforcing the presence of directory publishers and their product offering, and deliver a significant supplementary source of new revenue.

So how do directory publishers get there from here? To capitalise on this emerging opportunity, publishers must first create a consumer relevant mobile offering that can be delivered to a mass audience.

Put simply, directory publishers must “think” mobile. It is not just another screen, as some in the industry suggest. I contend the mobile environment is different for two main reasons.

First, neither the devices – nor the offers – can be classified as “one-size-fits-all.” The diverse range of mobile devices are all extremely varied in their capabilities, user interfaces, core features, computing power, memory capacity, and operating systems. To complicate matters, new devices are continually being introduced to the market that must be supported and factored into the service equation. As a result, directory publishers must develop offers that are accessible to a large potential user base across a broad range of devices, without incurring overbearing maintenance and support costs.

Second, mobile is about finding information on the fly. Consumers may browse on their PCs, but they expect a vastly different experience on their mobile phones. On mobile, requests and search queries are more likely related to the consumer’s individual circumstances or situation – in, short, their context. What’s more, they expect immediate answers and demand actionable results, all of which require customisation.

It’s easy to assume that only made-for-mobile companies – such as portal providers and search engine companies – have what it takes to cash in on the mobile opportunity. However, these players share a fatal shortcoming that plays in the favour of directory publishers. They lack a highly developed and effective sales force. Fortunately for directory publishers, this is a key strength in their competitive arsenal and one that I suggest represents the highest barrier to entry to competitors.

Put simply, if publishers can generate usage to mobile then their sales force will be able to monetise it. I therefore strongly advise publishers to sharpen their focus on mobile and do all they can to increase usage of this channel. Developing features for the mobile platform that will ultimately allow their sales force to demonstrate proven value is more than a winning strategy; it lays the groundwork for a slew of services that deliver consumers a genuinely relevant and useful end-user experience – a deliverable competitors are still struggling with. After all, the quality of answers a service delivers can only be as good as the information the service provider has collected and categorised – and I’ve shown directory publishers have a head start on both counts.

But this isn’t the only ace in publishers’ hands. They can also draw competitive advantage from:

• An established market position and existing brand recognition amongst consumers.
• Content that is focused towards a buyer and therefore ideal for a mobile user.
• A well developed classification structure and taxonomy, which is well understood by consumers.
• A depth of location knowledge and understanding of location hierarchy, which enables highly relevant local based results to be presented.

These combined strengths empower publishers to define the ideal service offering for mobile. But they must be careful not to lose sight of the consumer. I have only too often seen publishers overlook the end-user of their services, with severe consequences! It is essential that directory services focus on efficiently delivering information and results that empower consumers, provide them choice, and support an actionable outcome. These actions vary but can be divided into the following categories: call, share (with friends/family), save, book or buy.

With the ground rules for a successful mobile service offering established, what’s the next best step for directory providers determined to harness mobile? This depends to a large degree on the service the publisher wants to deliver and – more importantly – on the publisher’s own in-house capabilities.

Creating and customising mobile services is no easy task, and directory publishers should be careful not to overestimate their capabilities or underestimate the amount of planning and effort involved. They may have deep understanding of print and Internet, but this knowledge is hardly transferable to mobile. Put simply, the specialist nature of the mobile environment and technical challenges associated with developing, implementing and supporting services, are competencies that most publishers simply do not have.

On paper, directory providers possess the capabilities that put them in pole position when it comes to monetizing mobile. In practice, directory publishers nonetheless lack experience in the conceptualization and creation of compelling mobile services that satisfy the criteria I have identified.

If directory publishers are to deliver a market-ready mobile offering, then it makes business sense for them to outsource services development to companies that have mobile in their DNA.

Today, we are seeing a trend to outsourcing as more of the world’s leading directory publishers partner with specialist companies for core technology and development skills. These directory publishers realise that outsourcing key capabilities does not result in them losing control. To the contrary, outsourcing frees valuable resources, allowing publishers to develop a more flexible approach to market and deliver products and services with far shorter lead times.

In line with this trend, a number of companies have sharpened their focus on helping directory publishers extend their offer to mobile. Granted, each has its area of expertise, but directory publishers should choose partners that are specialised in three key areas simultaneously:

A winning strategy is one where the directory publisher and specialised partner have a clear division of talents and responsibilities. In this scenario the directory publisher outsources application development, implementation, and operation. Search and presentation rules, business listings, and advertising content are managed internally by the publisher.

This approach enables publishers to focus their resources on what they do best: Wielding their highly-developed sales force to wring more value out of mobile. This allows them to deliver benefits for themselves, in the form of monetiseable services and advertising, and for their customers, in the form of useful and relevant results and answers. Leveraging the expertise of a specialised partner ensures the delivery of a robust commercial channel.

With this check-list in mind, I have reviewed the players and value propositions on the marketplace. A company high on my radar is Mobile People, a local mobile search and advertising solutions provider whose capabilities mix includes significant strengths in the three key areas I outlined above. Notably, Mobile People’s client list includes directory publishers including Yell, Sensis, and World Directories – publishers widely considered to be among the most active – and successful – in the mobile space.

Mobile People is keenly focused on developing and operating mass market orientated services. To accomplish this, they port and operate services for large numbers of devices. The company, which has established its own User Lab to engage end users throughout the design process to evaluate the desirability of new ideas and possible solutions, views usability and performance as a top priority. This emphasis on the end-user experience pays off in rich features that delight the customer, drive additional usage, and move the mobile Internet a huge step closer toward becoming an indispensable part of our daily routine.

Location-based information and services are indisputably a potent way to generate value. Like all industry sectors, mobile will pay the biggest dividends for the companies who harness it first. Directory publishers currently have an important head start on portal providers and search engine providers, but these competitors are stepping up efforts to close this gap. For this reason, directory publishers are well advised to move fast and recognise their limitations. Chief among these is their inability to deliver an end-to-end mobile solution on their own.

Once directory publishers are clear about their true capabilities – and developing mobile services that deliver actionable results is not one of them – then they should choose a specialised company to partner with and get down to the business of monetizing mobile. As I said, reduced barriers to entry and shortened times to market mean the mobile space is not only crowded; it has become fiercely competitive.

Trial and error is a risky business strategy that costs time, resources, and shareholders’ patience. High performance directory publishers such as Eniro, Sensis, World Directories, and Yell demonstrate that collaborating with specialist companies is not only a smart move; it delivers sustainable results.

Published on mSearchGroove: www.msearchgroove.com