I recently had the opportunity to watch a presentation by Ipsos Reid's Steve Levy on the CMA's 2010 Digital Trends report. While I was disappointed that most of the material was a little stale (by today's standards), one thing Steve mentioned got stuck in my brain and I've been thinking about it off and on for the past few days. It was regarding mobile marketing and its lack of traction in the market.

For what feels like a decade, marketing pundits have been predicting that mobile marketing will be the "Next Big Thing", and that reaching customers on their mobile devices is the obvious convergence of targeted and location-based advertising. But, as Steve put it, every year people make this prediction, and every year it fails to come true. The question is, why?

What is Mobile Marketing?
First, it's important to define mobile marketing. The Mobile Marketing Association defines it as "a set of practices that enables organizations to communicate and engage with their audience in an interactive and relevant manner through any mobile device or network." While the MMA lumps in-game advertising into this definition, for our purposes I'm considering text messages as the primary form of mobile marketing (since this is what most agencies consider "true" mobile marketing).

The rise of advertexts has been slow compared to growth in other areas of marketing. Generally there are two types of these programs - opt-in campaigns, or spam campaigns (whereby users' mobile numbers are sold by their carrier to a 3rd party, who bombards the users with unwanted advertising messages). I think it's obvious why the latter has been a flop, but the former is a more interesting problem.

This Should Work, Shouldn't It?
Everything we know about permissions-based marketing tells us that as long as users sign up to receive relevant messages, they should be effective. We've seen the same thing in email; people hate email spam, but they will read and react to promotional emails as long as they've actively signed up for them. Personally, I'm signed up on a few hockey-related websites that send me notifications of upcoming sales and new products; those emails have directly influenced my purchasing decisions, and I know I'm not the only one.

But people don't appear to react the same to mobile marketing SMS messages. A recent survey discovered that 77% of users don't like to receive promotional texts, a surprisingly large number when you consider that 1.3 trillion text messages were sent last year.

There is no qualitative data as to why people seem to dislike these SMS messages, but after considering the problem for a few days, I've come up with a couple of theories:

#1 - The cost of response
Okay, lets say that Rogers sends you a text message about a new program they've developed. That's great, but how do you take the next step to learn more? Typically it's by using your smartphone to visit their mobile website, which in turn uses up your data plan (costing you money). Many users don't want to waste the KBs to see a promotional offer they may or may not like. Until responding to these offers is free, users won't be tempted.

#2 - It doesn't create value
Think about the email offers I mentioned earlier. I've responded to them because I saw value there, either in sale prices, or new products. Unfortunately, too many advertexts are just being used for brand building, and aren't communicating enticing offers to users. Roger's texting me about it's new tethering service doesn't provide me any incentive because it gives no monetary offer and doesn't really tell me anything interesting.

#3 - It's invasive
I'm sure I'm no different than most people in that I always read my texts as soon as I get them. When I go to the trouble of pulling out my phone to read the message, it's irritating to find an advertisement sitting there. No one likes to be interrupted for no good reason, and with SMS there's really no other way but to take up someone's time.

What's the Future of Mobile Marketing?
So if advertexts don't work, what will? I think the main thrust of mobile marketing in the next few years will divert from SMS into two main areas - location-based ad services and augmented reality systems. For the former, I can imagine a situation where a user checking local showtimes on their phone sees banner ads for upcoming movies, influencing their buying decision. As to the latter, augmented reality apps (like the Nearest Tube app for iPhone) could direct users to landmarks, while also allowing nearby business to post tiny ads onto users' screens.

Either way, I'm forecasting the demise of SMS advertising in the next 5-years. Smartphones killed it off, but I don't think it'll be missed, and I think at least 77% of people will agree with me.

By Chandra Blouin, Marketing Director

It's a big decision. Do you change your name? Drop a name? Merge the names together? There are a number of options to choose from.

The Black Hole

When looking at the two brands, if one has equity and one doesn't, the one without is thrown into the black hole, similar to what happened when Bank of America bought Fleet Bank.

Marriage
Getting married seems to be one of the most popular options. If both brands have good equity and combining both brands will create a stronger brand that strengthens and differentiates it in the minds of the customers, then it’s time to march down the aisle. The only pitfall is the possibility of one really long name – like PriceWaterhouseCoopers.

Newborn
If neither brand holds a lot of equity, then it could be advantageous to create a new brand. This is also effective if both brands are strong and you want customers to change the perception they have for each brand and create a new perception. And finally, if you’ve acquired so many companies that merging all of the names together is not an option, then it’s time to develop one, all-encompassing name similar to what pharmaceutical giant Novartis did a number of years ago.

Christian Seiwald, CEO of Sandoz GmbH (now part of Novartis), commented, "While we are currently the world's second-biggest generics group, we are not recognized as such due to the large number of different company names. The establishment of a uniform identity represents a milestone in our strategy for strengthening and harmonizing our international business."

Harvest
If both brands have equity, but one more than another, you may want to take a step-by-step approach, slowly moving the equity from the lesser over to the other. As this occurs you will often see the two original logos presented in combination, similar to the ACS and Xerox logo combo above.

Over time the equity from ACS will be moved over to Xerox and eventually the ACS logo will be dropped altogether. In this case no branding or marketing resources are budgeted for ACS. Instead communications from both brands focus on educating customers of the acquisition and benefits, slowly transferring loyalty from ACS to Xerox. As an example, Xerox’s Press Release Boiler Plate, now reads:

“Through ACS, A Xerox Company, which Xerox acquired in February 2010, Xerox also offers extensive business process outsourcing and IT outsourcing services, including data processing, HR benefits management, finance support, and customer relationship management services for commercial and government organizations worldwide.”

Sisters
Sometimes each brand is so unique, each with its own equity, that they are left, as-is. They become brand sisters, or sometimes children to the parent brand, but the customer may never be aware of the relationship. On October 9th, 2006 it was announced that Google bought YouTube for $1.65 billion. Even today there’s no mention of Google’s ownership on the YouTube website, however there is a link on the homepage to try out the new Google Chrome web browser. Now that’s just smart cross-marketing. Smile.

You thought doing a company rebrand was hard, try rebranding your entire life. As we all know, our Brand Manager, Mike is a HUGE fan of Miley Cyrus. Well okay, if not a huge fan yet, he may soon be, after her rebrand this year, as she goes from Disney teen sensation to adult pop star.

Celebrities are brands, and often need to reinvent their image to target a new audience. Michael Jackson was the first to do it in the 80s, jumping from a 70s kid disco star, to an 80s pop superstar. In his case, and in many others to follow (JLo, Madonna, even Victoria Bekham), it was a success.

However, not all stars hit the mark on a rebrand. I bet no one remembers when country superstar Garth Brooks tried to reinvent himself as an alter ego rock star named Chris Gaines? He even launched the whole fiasco with an NBC TV special. Ick, what a creepy nightmare that was. At the height of his career, Brookes changed his look, his hair colour, his clothes, his music and his name, all at once. He would even talk about himself in the third person. It was such a horrible disaster that it wasn't long after that he announced his retirement from music. Could it have been the millions lost, the decline in his fan base, or the bruised ego? Guess we'll never know for sure, but one thing is certain: his rebrand was a failure.

Celebrities need to follow the same hard and fast rule as all businesses: if you are going to rebrand: stay recognizable. Without some kind of tie to your previous self, whether it's your corporate identity or personal identity, failure is certainly going to be in the cards. As far as Mike becoming a die hard Miley Cyrus fan? That's in the cards too, perhaps he needs to watch her new video "Can't Be Tamed" before he decides:

The Great Black Turtleneck has spoken, and he has decreed Adobe Flash to be a thing of the past. Now, it seems, despite many hopes to the contrary, Flash will never be supported on the iPhone or the iPad. But is Steve Jobs right? Is Flash obsolete? Is it a thing of the past to be cast aside, like VRML or Vanilla Ice? I don't think Flash is going anywhere, at least any time soon. There are many great articles out there that go into greater detail for the more tech-savvy, but here's a basic rundown, for designers and business owners considering using flash, of why I think Flash is still worthwhile.

1. Compatibility

Jobs talks a lot about HTML5 - the next major revision of the language of the World Wide Web. HTML5 will have a lot of cool features including a canvas element, timed media playback, offline storage, document editing, drag and drop capability, and exciting font handling, so there is a lot to get excited about. The only problem is browser compatibility. The HTML5 VIDEO tag is a great example: Safari and Chrome both support it, Firefox supports the tag but doesn't support decoding currently used by YouTube and Vimeo, and Internet Explorer doesn't support it at all without a plugin. A flash video, however, works in all browsers just fine. Designers and programmers the world over have been cursing Microsoft and their terrible internet browser for years as being a main reason for holding back web development, and I suspect IE will continue to disappoint us. With about a third of people still using some version of Internet Explorer, it's best to use a format most of us can enjoy.

2. Animation and Interactivity

While its true that HTML5 will have some 2D animation capability, and that many cool little interactive animations can be made with some advanced Javascript, they pale in comparison to what can be achieved in Flash. It's a great way to draw attention, and animated, interactive ads are a staple on most news and blog sites, often popping up and overlaying content, and even syncing with other ads on the screen (ironically, like this Apple ad). These aren't going away any time soon. Flash can also add extra impact and interactivity to your web design in ways HTML5 and Javascript simply can't. I think it will continue to be an effective tool to get your message across to the user. But what about if my user's on an iPhone or iPad, you ask? No problem. A good web designer should embed the Flash in such a way that if it can't be displayed for whatever reason, it's replaced with static content that will display properly in all browsers. It might also be a good idea to consider a second design tailored to mobile browsers, that will let your user access the data they need with ease while using very little bandwidth.

3. User Experience
There's a reason Flash is used on nearly every single movie website: it creates an unparalleled user experience. A well-built flash site or element mixes together video, audio, and interactivity in ways no one else can, and I think that's the biggest difference between home and mobile browsing. Mobile browsing on tools like the Blackberry, iPhone, and iPad, with their relatively small screens, low computing power and poor audio capabilities, will continue to be for finding information quickly and conveniently. Home computers, with their large, vivid screens, surround sound speakers, subwoofers, and DVD players have become media centers. They are, and will continue to be the place the majority of people will do their browsing, at least in the next several years. These computers are the perfect place to experience the best that the web has to offer, including in-depth, interactive Flash work. Here are just a few examples to show you what I mean - just don't try to view them on an iPad. =)

(Note that these are cutting-edge sites and may take a moment to load.)

We Choose the Moon - http://www.wechoosethemoon.org/
NASA's real-time recreation of the historic Apollo 11 mission

Verbatim Monster Championship - http://www.verbatim.jp/senshuken/
Verbatim Japan's awesome website that allows the user to create a creature out of various Verbatim writable media and fight other creations from across the world.

Wrangler Blue Bell Jeans - http://www.bluebelljeans.com/
Discover the Wrangler Blue Bell Spring/Summer 2010 collection, take control of Tony Ward and make him dance.

Whether you're creating an in-depth user experience like the sites listed above, or adding a bit of extra eye-candy to your website, Flash still has a lot to offer.

The challenge for every new business is how to get it going with the least amount of money possible. And as great as your business idea is, you can’t go far without some basic marketing support. Here are the “must-haves” to get your business off the ground.

Establishing your brand begins with your (1) logo. Introducing yourself is hard to do without a (2) business card. Getting that first sale is going to need some kind of agreement or proposal, and that means you need some kind of (3) letterhead, even if it’s digital. Then if you truly want to come across as professional, you probably want to get away from an @shawbiz or, cringe, @hotmail email address. That means you need to reserve a (4) domain name, closely followed by the design and development of a small (5) website.

These five items, combined with blatant self-promotion and countless hours of “pound the pavement” time, will definitely give you the solid start you need to get your business off the ground.

And to answer the main question going through your head right now….$5000. That’s a reasonable budget you’ll need to get your marketing started.

We’ve had the pleasure of learning and helping to launch a number of new businesses. Daybreak, website shown above, is a company we’ve been apart of from the ground up. What’s your new business idea? We’d love to hear! You can start your blatant self-promotion below.