Programmatic Geo-Fencing in an Omni-Channel Marketplace

Over the past 9 months, the industry has finally moved away from talking about the its-so-outdated-not-even-funny-as-a-joke "Year of Mobile" (thank GOODNESS) and has concentrated on promoting "Mobile-First."  While I applaud the importance this places on including mobile tactics to brands' marketing strategies, I can't help but wonder if this phrase actually means anything.  Or is just another concept marketers can toss around to make it sound like they really "get it?"

My greater point for today's post is how marketing jargon dilutes conversations to either make up for lack of real substance or to confuse the audience so that they buy into the message.  However, I'll first clarify my contention with the idea of "Mobile First."  In my experience, mobile is not a primary discovery engine.  Most of the time we're engaging with mobile content after we've begun research elsewhere or with a specific intent in mind, such as finding a coffee shop for a mid-morning meeting.  This may not be the only intention of the phrase "Mobile First," rather that you design with a mobile experience in mind to be sure you're prepared for this audience as well.  However, the challenge remains that I want different things from you on different devices, so this may neglect some of those other wants.  In that case, "Mobile First" isn't the best strategy.  Rather, all of your experiences should be designed to compliment one another while providing the optimal experience for each.  So again, does "Mobile First" really mean anything or is it just another phrase to toss around to validate the speaker?

Specialized jargon can be found in many occupations, though I have to imagine none exploit it so much as in marketing.  If you've ever attended a conference, you've probably noticed how many of the speakers tend to remark on the same phrases you hadn't ever heard before that day.  But did you actually understand the point they were making?  Was there one?  At least once a week I have conversations with brands and other media partners where they ask me what some new acronym means or how it differs from another phrase they've heard.  If there's value in the strategies media partners are advocating, what is the benefit of confusing the client with jargon?

As more brands are coming to understand the power of mobile as part of their marketing strategy, we need to do even more to break down the complexities to increase testing and innovation.  That means speaking clearly about capabilities and limitations to identify existing challenges.  The sooner we're able to do that, the faster we can identify solutions that push us all forward.

Main Take-Away: If a media partner or agency can't explain a concept without jargon, it's probably a bust.

Weekly Wrap Up

The mobile landscape is a crazy place these days as the rate of mergers and acquisitions seems to accelerate every day.  We are literally in a living version of Monopoly where the major players are scrambling to buy up properties so they can start laying down [advertising] real estate to really make the big bucks.

The biggest news this week was undoubtedly Facebook's $19 billion purchase of messaging service WhatsApp.  A less publicized purchase for PhiSix (3D virtual try-on technology) also came from eBay this week.  Though almost all of the major players (Apple, Google, Facebook, eBay) are gobbling up properties at lightening speed, their reasons for doing so seem to be very different.  Some have likened Facebook's acquisition strategy to that of P&G, in which the company is hoping to have a hand in various properties, competitive or not, to make sure they have a hand in the revenues long-term.  eBay's acquisition history however reflects more synergy to grow the related benefits of each of its properties (the company has presented advertisers with multiple scenarios via an NYC pop-up store to show how their technology stack works together to improve customer experiences).  Google on the other hand has been very clear about their objective to unify products to connect user experiences across devices and use cases to improve tracking attribution and targeting.

Regardless of the varying strategies behind these acquisitions, the thing that is most clear is we are no where close to seeing them end.  Many technology platforms are already planning their exit strategies and even the most niche partners are open to buying vs building (media networks, creative shops, you name it).  Mobile may be a very fragmented ecosystem today, but we are starting to see the varying sides emerge and the potential impact they may have on consumers and advertisers alike in the future.  So I guess the question is, are you betting on the value of Park Place & Broadway or do you favor the diversity of quantity in your properties?

Weekly Wrap Up: Feb 7, 2014

This week, the mobile trades were of course focused on recapping the winners and losers of the Super Bowl.  Despite the adorable and moving television spots presented from Budweiser and Doritos though, the most obvious winner of all was social media.  Between real-time posts from brands and commentary among friends, conversations on Twitter and Facebook provided the real entertainment for fans during the game.

Twitter recently announced that 76% of their monthly active users are mobile and Facebook reported similar numbers and they were ACTIVE.  Mobile data usage reached an all-time high during the game as viewers flocked to the social media networks to share content and engage with brands.  58% of the advertisements shown during the game featured a generic hashtag to encourage interaction on the viewers' social network of choice and they responded.  While overall social sharing during the game was stagnant year on year, mobile sharing increased 67%.

Insight of the Week: Mobile and social have always been a match made in heaven as our social lives are inherently mobile.  Brands that can create content that legitimizes them as a part of their customers' daily conversations can win big on both of these platforms.