There is a lot of buzz about mobile marketing these days but the reality is that actually conducting a mobile marketing campaign is a challenge reminiscent of the early Internet advertising days. There are just too many different standards, handsets and ad formats that must be taken into account. In an article entitled Forgetting the “Marketing” in Mobile? How Advertisers Can Gain Advantage in the Wireless World, published Monday on Adotas.com, Brian Hecht suggests that the effort required to master the mechanics of mobile causes marketers to neglect the development of good marketing strategies to support their mobile programs.
Brian argues that “Too many mobile marketers are focusing on the ‘mobile’ and are neglecting the ‘marketing.’” Having just issued a Millward Brown POV on the same topic called “Making a Good Connection,” I found it very reassuring that someone in the industry has a similar viewpoint. Here are two key points we seem to agree on:
1) To ensure success for your mobile program, you must get the word out to people.
Brian laments the fact that too many marketers “invest heavily in advanced mobile functionality and then neglect to think about how they are going to drive usership.” He goes on to suggest that “a mobile phone program without an accompanying media plan is like the proverbial tree falling in the forest with no one to witness it.” I loved Brian’s example of using an old market research tactic to gain better opt-in for a mobile marketing program for retailers in Manhattan. (Yes, giving people a one dollar bill is a great way to get people to sign up for something unless, of course, you use a two dollar bill, which has the added benefit of rarity.)
I would add that there is more to making a mobile program successful than just publicizing it. It is critical to persuade people that your program is going to be worth their time. Mobile needs to be a pull medium, not push. Something they can opt into, rather than have to screen out. This leads directly to our next point of agreement:
2) Once you get people’s attention, you must make it worth their while to participate.
Brian reports that “consumers are willing to participate in mobile programs with a selected group of trusted brands, but only if they derive a clear benefit from that can only be delivered by mobile phone.” I agree that the only way to leverage the full potential of mobile marketing is to offer a relevant benefit. And by “benefit,” I don’t mean simply that people should be paid, either with free calling time or discounts. Rather, the program should give people something they cannot easily get through other media, such as pollen count alerts for a hay fever brand, inside stories from Nascar sponsors or the location of the nearest Starbucks.
Brian also added a couple of points that perhaps should have been in the Millward Brown POV. (We are a research company, after all.)
First, he suggests that marketers should define metrics and goals and not just try it and see what happens. Otherwise, he asks, how will you know how successful the program was?
Second, he suggests that it is essential that your sample size is adequate to provide statistically relevant results on the success of the program. (I could not have said it better myself.)
However, Brian was focused on measuring participation or redemption rates. I would suggest going even further and re-contacting a random cross-section of people who had the opportunity to take part. Information on those who did not take part can be just as enlightening as information on people who did, because a good way to ensure failure is to target the wrong audience.
There are three reasons a mobile program (or any direct response campaign) might result in low participation rates: low awareness of the campaign, failure to reach people who might respond, and lack of perceived relevance among people who were exposed to it. Research conducted by Millward Brown/Centrum in Europe on direct mail campaigns often demonstrates that the mailing database is at fault for poor response rates – the campaign was simply irrelevant to many of the people it reached. Given that the customer databases maintained by mobile carriers are not always as accurate as they could be, it may well be that your mobile program would have worked well if more of the right people had been exposed to it.
Information on who was reached and why they did or did not respond to the offer should be very valuable to any mobile marketer who wants to improve the efficacy of their programs.
(17 votes, average: 3.53 out of 5)
Loading ...
August 29th, 2006 at 5:46 am
Have read the POV on mobile marketing and found it very interesting. However, I found that the focus was more on timebound (or initiative centered) engagement with the TG, including the choice of metrics participation and redemption (Brian) and motivators & barriers for participation (Nigel).
What would be of further interest & value would be to work upon a framework that will make the engagement scalable to create a long-term engagement resulting in a positive brand health and in the process tap into the enormous potential that the 3rd screen will offer as one of the most influential channels of engagement in future.
One of the powerful features that are offered & used extensively by the cell-phone users are the value added services option. Since most of the VAS are subscribed to (paid or free) the “pull” factor is inbuilt into the engagement. The success of a VAS depends on its percieved relevance to the consumer, the availability of ready information when and where needed, the richness of the content (substance and form (Mobisodes, clippings, FAQs) the interactive quotient of the VAS stream (is there a helpline/IVR system that is interlinked to the VAS which i can access for further and/or immediate engagement). Most of the corporates already have websites (rich & relevant content, off-line support/service systems etc.) and the effort to port the structure & learnings into a VAS will be small.
Now if a company were to create a VAS stream in line with its brand vision and business objectives, centered around fulfilling a strong need (stated or unstated) of the consumer, the chances of its brand health being impacted positively and the engagement resulting in good ROI are bright.
As mobile service companys have a treasure trove of active and deep databases, the VAS streams can be customised and presented in a truly individualistic manner, thereby increasing relevance and hence chances of success.
It is my belief that mobile truly has the potential to become many contact points rolled into one and will be one of the most influential contact points that will influence Buzz, Buying & Advocacy to a significant extent. Already it has some of the characteristics of TV/Internet/Radio/Print/Mail incorporated into it, with the added benefit of offering a chance to meaningfully engage the consumer anytime-anywhere; transcending timebands; weekend/weekday splits; out of home/home/office boundaries. What will be interesting to note is how well companies will be able to seemlessly and least intrusively educate and enrich the consumer and in the process add to their own brand helth!
Keep the insightful & thought-provoking POVs coming Nigel.
August 29th, 2006 at 9:03 am
Thanks Arun, this is a very interesting addition to the conversation.
A couple of thoughts occurred to me while reading your comment:
First, my understanding is that there is a lot of work to be done to ensure that the mobile service company databases are structured and cleaned to allow the sort of one-to-one communications to which you refer (but I am not sure how widespread this problem is).
Second, if a company can identify a relevant and engaging long-term VAS then it would undoubtedly enhance the relationship with their customers, provided their basic product or service is sound. In fact, engaging in two way communication would enhance the company’s CRM significantly.