I recently attended a very interesting set of immersion sessions designed to introduce people to advertising on a variety of new media channels, including new forms of video, games, social networks and mobile devices. The juxtaposition of these presentations on different ad forms threw into sharp relief that currently most mobile advertising seems designed to erode brand value rather than build it.

The immersion sessions were held at the Millward Brown Management Conference in Mexico last week and were hosted by members of our Futures Group. Each 25-minute session gave a high-level introduction to one of the four different media.

The video immersion offered me a great chance to see what Slingbox and other video devices could do. The fact that we were sitting in Mexico watching content streamed over the Internet from a TV set in New York shows just how far technology has come in enabling people to watch video on demand anywhere in the world. Apart from making me wonder how media measurement companies count Slingbox impressions, the session confirmed my belief that video � wherever it is found, online or off � will remain a very powerful brand-building tool.

I am not a hard core gamer, so much of what I saw in the gaming session was new to me. The Xbox 360 demo proved that gaming has come a long way from the days of Pong and offers a potentially very powerful way to engage people. The quality of the graphics was amazing. But sticking a Target logo by the side of a street in a racing game is nowhere near as compelling as integrating a brand into the game’s content so that the player interacts with it. The big challenge for advertisers is to use the interactivity of gaming to engage people with their brands, not simply use it to present a virtual billboard.

I belong to LinkedIn, Picassa and Facebook, so the session on social networks was less newsworthy. I do wonder just how many brands can successfully interact with people in these environments. For instance, I use Facebook to stay in contact with friends around the world; there are very few brands I would choose to interact with in that environment.

Last, but not least, was the mobile session. This was the one that really got my attention. I try to keep a clear separation between work and play but it is becoming more and more difficult as mobile connectivity spreads across the planet. Now, with the mobile web and GPS tracking, users can query Google maps and find the nearest McDonald’s pretty much anywhere. And that also means advertisers can reach out to people wherever they are. In the session we were shown a vast array of different advertising formats from SMS and MMS to QR (quick response) code technology, and Bluetooth proximity marketing.

As I listened to the dizzying array of ad formats that could be used, however, I noticed a recurring theme. All but one of the examples used some form of incentive. How long, I wondered, before mobile users were trained to look for the best offer rather than their favorite brand?

Take the example of fast food. There are obvious applications for marketers in this industry to use the different advertising formats to encourage people to visit more often. MMS, QR code technology or proximity marketing all have the potential to drive traffic in return for free large fries, free Coke or money off, but does it build loyalty, or encourage increased promiscuity in an already fickle consumer base? If we have learnt anything from packaged goods marketing, it is that if you rely too heavily on monetary incentives, it is all too easy to train people to be price- and promotion-sensitive. I fear that the direct response nature of most mobile advertising will do exactly the same thing on a much broader basis.

Out of all the examples shown in the mobile session, one stood out as being able to build both brand and traffic. Starbucks has started to roll out a system that allows people to pre-order their tall, skinny lattes from a mobile device before they even enter the store. Appealing to people’s desire for increased speed and convenience is a lot safer than appealing to their desire for saving money. The system builds loyalty among hard core Starbucks drinkers, places a barrier to competition from local coffee shops and provides the basis for further engagement. I think it is a good example of using technology to provide competitive advantage, not simply using technology for technology’s sake.

I am sure there are other marketers who have figured out how to use mobile technology for something other than direct response. Have you come across any good examples of brand-building via mobile? If so, please let us know.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, February 27th, 2008 at 3:36 pm and is filed under Media. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. Print this Page