• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Gianni Cooreman: Mobile internet in België
 

Gianni Cooreman: Mobile internet in België

on

  • 1,512 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,512
Views on SlideShare
1,367
Embed Views
145

Actions

Likes
4
Downloads
0
Comments
0

2 Embeds 145

http://www.muziekdigitaal.be 139
http://www.slideshare.net 6

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • The internet will overtake broadcast TV as Europe's most consumed form of media for the first time in June 2010 if current growth trends continue, according to Microsoft research. Internet consumption in 2010 will average 14.2 hours per week, or over 2.5 days a month, compared to 11.5 hours a week, or 2 days a month, for TV, claims a report released today by Microsoft entitled 'Europe logs on: Internet trends of today and tomorrow'. It covers Italy, France, Spain, Germany, the UK, Belgium, Austria, Switzerland, Denmark, Sweden, Netherlands, Finland, Norway Turkey, Gibraltar, Cyprus and Greece. The report highlights that while the internet will become the most popular media, this does not signify a decline in TV but simply reflects the changing ways people experience TV content (e.g. in the UK “Catch Up TV” is mainly watched online, BBC iPlayer…). It argues that TV is becoming a two-way connected experience delivered via broadband to multiple screens including TV, PC and mobile. The research shows that for some 18-24 year olds the PC is often the only television screen while for others it can be a second or third screen. To this generation, TV frequently means video delivered on demand, with one in seven 18-24 year olds now watching no live TV at all. The report outlines that over the next five years the PC should move from being the completely dominant internet access device (today accounting for 95% of access) to representing just 50% of internet usage as other web enabled or connected devices grow in popularity, such as TV, mobile phones and games consoles.
  • Despite the fact that the majority indicate they will continue reading as many newspapers and magazines as now, just over 1 Internaut in 5 thinks that, in the future, they will read the paper newspapers or magazines less often (see Figure 24). A study (InSites Consulting, 2008) showed that Europeans read newspapers primarily to learn and inform themselves. These are typical motivations which are also important for Internet usage. The Internet can even outperform the other media as a news source, because of its up-to-date news offering.
  • Smartphone user is more likely to be male, younger than 44 years old and typically part of the higher income bracket Highest adoption in the Nordics (as was the case with fixed Internet)  main reasons: data plan integrated in general Internet package + lowest subscription fees Forecast Forrester: mobile Internet 39% in Europe in 2014 (Belgian prognosis: 28%)
  • In most European countries, privacy regulations specify that user location information cannot be used for commercial purposes without any explicit consent and opt-in of the end-users. This issue is not likely to be resolved in the short run, therefore the only feasible alternative is to work on the basis of pull applications where the consumer only receives information after an explicit request or opt-in to a service. Mind the gap: Although fairly sophisticated information camera overlay applications already exist and are in constant evolvement, the European market is still relatively niche with ‘only’ 14% of European consumers having a smartphone offering the technical ability to receive this type of service in a convenient way. It goes without saying that the type of handset of the target group needs to be taken into consideration to ensure a good customer experience… The future potential is huge, but the actual possibilities are somewhat more limited for the near future.
  • Jakob Nielsen 's Alertbox, February 17, 2009: Mobile Web 2009 = Desktop Web 1998 Summary: Mobile phone users struggle mightily to use websites, even on high-end devices. To solve the problems, websites should provide special mobile versions. I recently sat through many sessions in which usability test participants attempted to use websites on their mobile phones. What a cringeworthy experience — for both users and researchers. In terms of the user experience quality we observed, it was like stepping into a time machine for a quick trip back to 1998. The similarities were numerous: Abysmal success rates . I don't want to publish specific numbers until we've completed our next round of testing in London. But in the U.S. sessions, users failed more often than they succeeded when using their mobiles to perform tasks on websites. Download times dominate the user experience. Most pages take far too long to load, particularly on non-3G phones. But even the highest-end phones deliver much slower browsing than a desktop computer. As a result, users are reluctant to request additional pages and they easily give up. Scrolling causes major usability problems. In contrast to the 1990s, the problem is not that users don't scroll — it's that they scroll too much . On mobiles, they have to move their minuscule peephole back and forth so often that they lose track of both where they are and what's on the page. Often, they scroll right past something without noticing it. The effect of the reduced viewable area on users is strongly reminiscent of usability issues we found in tests with low-vision users . Using a mobile makes you a disabled user , and we all know that most sites ignore accessibility. Bloated pages hurt users. Most of the sites we studied wouldn't seem bloated on today's upsized PC monitors, but when rendered on a mobile they fairly explode with bloat. Users are frequently stumped by big images or by long pages that bury the items they want to see. Unfamiliarity with a browser's user interface limits the user's options. People use their devices suboptimally because they don't understand the UI. Desktop browsers are fairly stable, with few major changes between releases (tabbed browsing is probably the only one in the last decade). In contrast, many people get new mobile devices every two years, and the various models have vastly different browsing experiences. This fact also limits a user's ability to learn from observing friends and colleagues, who may have different phones. JavaScript crashes and problems with advanced media types, such as video. Keep it simple, folks — particularly if you want something to work on a broad range of phones. Reluctance to use websites on the mobile for many tasks, especially true of shopping. According to our participants, m-commerce has a dark future unless sites improve and earn users' trust. Search dominance . Okay, this is more prominent today than in 1998, but it was there, and it's certainly strong in mobile use. Old-media design . In the 1990s, many site designs mimicked good-looking print publications and offered weak interaction support. Today, sites are designed as, well, websites. More specifically, they're designed as desktop websites, and that's the wrong media form for mobile use; even on the best phones, driving the interaction is painful and simple designs are a must. Usability Varies by Mobile Device Category Our testing found 3 distinct classes of mobile user experience, which are mainly defined by screen size : Regular cellphones with a tiny screen . Often called feature phones , these devices account for the vast majority of the market (at least 85% in some statistics). They offer horrible usability , enabling only minimal interaction with websites. Smartphones , in a range of form factors, typically with a mid-sized screen and a full A-Z keypad. These devices sometimes feature 3G Internet connectivity and perhaps even WiFi. Smartphones offer bad usability , forcing users to struggle to complete website tasks. Full-screen phones (mainly the iPhone) with a nearly device-sized touchscreen and a true GUI driven by direct manipulation and touch gestures. These phones offer 3G Internet connectivity and even faster speeds when connecting through WiFi. They also offer impoverished usability ; only simple tasks are reasonably easy — and only then if users are on well-designed sites that are optimized for mobile. In principle, the third category should include models beyond the iPhone, and we did observe a few users perform decently with other full-screen phones. In practice, however, most of the other full-screen devices we tested had usability that was so weak users didn't browse the Web much better with them than they did with regular smartphones. It's not enough for other vendors to copy the iPhone's hardware characteristics (a big touch screen). They also have to provide software with a high-usability GUI. A Separate Mobile Site Is Best For the best user performance, you should design different websites for each mobile device class — the smaller the screen, the fewer features, and the more scaled back your design. The very best option is to go beyond browsing and offer a specialized downloadable mobile application for your most devoted users. In practice, however, only the biggest and richest sites can afford all this extra work on top of their desktop-optimized website. Moderately rich sites should build two mobile designs : one for low-end cellphones and another for smartphones and big-screen phones. This strategy is especially good if you're targeting a broad consumer audience with many feature-phone users. The small-phone experience is so different that it needs a dedicated and deeply scaled-back design, whereas the bigger phones benefit from a design that's mobile-friendly but not bare-bones. Feature-phone browsing is essentially a linear experience , whereas smartphone and full-screen browsing provide more of a GUI experience — albeit through a limited viewport. For many sites, however, the only realistic option is to supplement the main site with a single mobile site , recognizing that it will serve plain cellphones poorly. This strategy often makes sense. After all, most low-end mobile users suffer such misery when they attempt to visit websites that they do so only for the most compelling tasks, and thus might not use your site anyway. So, if you have only one mobile site, target the medium-to-higher-end devices, as opposed to making a WAP-like site that everybody will hate. Finally, not all sites need mobile versions . According to a diary study we conducted with users in 6 countries, people use their phones for a fairly narrow range of activities. So, because many mainstream websites won't see a lot of mobile users, they should just adapt their basic design to avoid the worst pitfalls for those few mobile users they'll get. If your service makes sense for mobile users, offer at least one mobile-optimized design. Don't rely on "full-featured" browsers to display your main site , because doing so will cause endless usability problems. If your site has both a mobile design and a desktop design, serve the mobile version to all mobile users — even those with phones that support full-page browsing. (For users who need rare features that aren't in the mobile design, you should offer an easy way to switch to the full site.) Half-Speed Progress, But Hope Ahead Our last study of mobile usability was conducted in 2000, and my conclusion then was that mobile Web 2000 = desktop Web 1994 . Now, observing users accessing websites on their mobiles reminds me of testing wired users in 1998. In other words, during this 9-year period , we've seen 4 years worth of progress in mobile user experience. Roughly speaking, improvements in mobile usability moved at half the pace of wired usability . So, why am I still bullish on mobile websites and online services? First, it's not necessarily tragic to advance at half the rate of the mainstream Web during the second half of the '90s. That happened to be a period of explosive progress. Second, mobile is the trend of the year in application design . While trends can be wrong, lots of interesting things are happening. Third, we're turning a corner in mobile Web usability . Just as Apple's Macintosh heralded a breakthrough in personal computer usability 25 years ago, its iPhone is pioneering a similar breakthrough in mobile usability today. The iPhone is certainly not perfect, and competitors could easily make better mobile devices. By "easily" I don't mean over a weekend. I simply mean that it's possible to do it given a strong focus on user experience and user-centered design; iPhone leaves a lot of ground for improvement. So far, however, iPhone competitors have been disappointing because they haven't been created with UCD. Alan Kay famously said that the Mac was "the first computer worth criticizing." Similarly, the iPhone is the first mobile Internet device worth criticizing . It's a starting point for mobile online-services access, not an endpoint. Although devices will get better, the big advances must come from websites . Sites (including intranets) must develop specialized designs that optimize the mobile user experience. Today, few sites have mobile versions, and those that do are usually very poorly designed, without knowledge of the special guidelines for mobile usability. There is immense potential for advances in mobile usability as more website, intranet, and enterprise software designers build mobile versions and revamp their current designs for usability. The mainstream Web's state in 1998 actually provides a hopeful precedent: just a year later, in 1999, interest in Web usability began to explode as Internet managers realized how chasing "cool" rather than usable design yielded poor business results. Let's hope history repeats itself for the mobile Web. Learn More Our detailed findings and design guidelines for mobile websites (or mobile-friendly sites), including many video clips of test participants using a wide range of sites on many different phones, are reported in the full-day course on Mobile Usability at the Usability Week 2009 conference in Washington DC, San Francisco, London, and Sydney.
  • - Order of online activities the same on PC and mobile
  • The first THINK quadrant mainly contains experience goods. These are products of which the characteristics such as price-quality ratio are hard to observe before the purchase – one can only tell when buying and using it. This makes it hard for consumers to make accurate decisions and consumption choices, while on the other hand, people do not want these experiences to become negative. For event tickets the online classifieds and auction platforms are most probably also a driving force offering a large choice to consumers for comparing, searching and buying online. While computer hard- and software and telecom services have more searchable attributes they tend to be bought and sought a lot online due to the historical nature and offer on the Internet, as well as the fact that a big part of the online user group discusses and evaluates these products online. The THINK & FEEL quadrant contains typical search goods that are high touch, high financial risk such as cars, electronic equipment and household appliances. These products are only explored and compared online to arm the consumer for the offline purchase. Clearly the shop is “King” and the Internet “Queen” for these products. Cars, motorcycles and bikes, in particular, need a lot of thought and feeling and are clearly products which are not bought frequently online nor offline. Still they are highly searched online and consumers are well-informed. Books are in the category of low search and just buy products – DO quadrant. Buying a book is often automatic (e.g. based on the charts, favourite author …). They are also relatively easy to search online (e.g. just typing the title in search engine will lead you to the table of contents) or simply less searched online before buying as they are lower risk and can be perfectly compared offline. Many sites also offer search engines including referrals on their own site which decreases the need to search further. In other words, for books the need for information is much lower than for other categories. In the FEEL category we find products that are high in social risk and are judged based on a mix of emotional as well as instrumental characteristics. You need to feel and try on a dress or a shoe and you want your social context to approve what you wear. The same is true for home decoration: consumers want to assess the colour in daylight, assess if the used materials are adequate and want advice from the salesperson, spouse, parent or another specialist. For personal care the same is true: people want to sense beauty products in all its aspects. Charles Revson’s quote still holds online: “in the factory we make cosmetics in the store we sell hope”. Note that from a theoretical perspective CD-DVD disks and toys and games belong more to the DO-quadrant, while in reality they are still in the feel quadrant. We believe, however, this is due to the decline of this category (online) as people either keep on buying these traditionally or switch to digital formats (e.g. MP3, movies on-demand…).

Gianni Cooreman: Mobile internet in België Gianni Cooreman: Mobile internet in België Presentation Transcript

  • Prepared By Gianni Cooreman
  • Introduction *** Digital Media Consumption *** The Mobile Future *** Music Online and Mobile
  •  
    • Pan-European quantitative survey
      • A large pan-European online survey in 16 countries was conducted in June 2009 , in close cooperation with IAB Europe. Belgium, The Netherlands, France, UK, Germany, Italy, Spain, Greece, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Switzerland, Poland, Romania and Hungary were all represented in this survey.
      • Participants were recruited from our InSites TalkToChange online research community . The online sample was drawn on a country level of 2000 respondents, consisting of 4 thematic subsamples of 500 respondents. More than 32.000 Internet users participated in this survey. Our sample is representative for the online country population (15+) . Its representativeness is controlled by quota management on the number of Internet users, gender, age, language, Internet/e-commerce maturity and broadband penetration. Various offline sources and statistics were used for calibration : random dialling CATI interviews, Forrester research data and national statistics.
      • Despite the above mentioned sample considerations, please note that our method comparison research, that has been the subject of an Esomar paper & presentation in 2006, has shown that online sampling truly reflects offline populations in terms of socio-demographic criteria for Internet mature markets. However, it also taught us that online samples tend to consist of people that are slightly more interested in innovation and are more technology savvy : this should be kept in mind when looking at absolute levels of mobile Internet penetration for instance .
    • Qualitative online research
      • The findings of the survey have been enriched with findings obtained from an international bulletin board discussion with more than 200 European surfers on digital media and marketing during 6 weeks.
      • Bulletin boards allow for asynchronous threaded discussions over a longer period of time involving more participants. Participants can return to topics and react to each other’s comments while research moderation is low to medium. Discussion boards are most useful for getting opinions about a specific event, topic or stimulus.
    • Other sources
      • Finally, the report was enriched with the extensive experience we have gained over the years. This report is an integration of personal expertise and vision, cases, internal brainstorms with senior consultants, results from R&D research and other PR projects.
  • Northern Europe Eastern Europe Southern Europe Western Europe Belgium N = 2.119 The Netherlands N = 2.038 France N = 2.000 United Kingdom N = 2.017 Germany N = 2.028 Switzerland N = 1.996 Poland N = 2.022 Romania N = 2.035 Hungary N = 2.010 Spain N = 2.196 Italy N = 2.086 Greece N = 1.971 Denmark N = 1.986 Norway N = 2.016 Sweden N = 2.081 Finland N = 2.005
  •  
  • Internet penetration > 75% Internet penetration < 50% Norway 83% 3,1 million The Netherlands 85% - 11,4 million France 61% 31,6 million UK 73% 36,6 million Germany 69% 48,6 million Switzerland 73% 4,6 million Italy 52% 26,5 million Spain 50% 19 million Greece 42% 4 million Denmark 80% - 3,5 million Sweden 82% 6,2 million Finland 75% 3,3 million Poland 44% 14 million Hungary 45% - 3,8 million Romania 32% - 5,7 million Internet penetration 50 - 75% Belgium 66% 5,8 million (*) Countries measured in MC DC 2009 Source: MC DC 2009 CATI research and Forrester data
  • Source: MC DC 2009 CATI research (n = 1.134)
  • Source: MC DC 2009 CATI research (n = 1.134)
  • Q: How long do you use each of the following media on an average weekday / day in the weekend? (n = 549) Source: MC DC 2009 online research
  • Q: How do you expect your use of these media to develop in the coming year? (n = 549) Source: MC DC 2009 online research
  •  
  • Q: Which of the following mobile phone types do you own and use? (n BE = 2.119, n EU = 32.606) Q: Have you ever surfed on the Internet from another place than your home, work or school using mobile Internet connection on your mobile phone or smartphone? Q: Do you currently have a subscription to use a mobile Internet connection on your mobile phone or smartphone? Source: MC DC 2009 online research Smartphone adoption Ever surfed mobile Possession data plan
    • Limited amount of 3G networks ( offered no 3G)
    • Prohibition of combined sales (until recently)
    • High subscription fees
    • Lack of flat rate subscriptions
    • Technological barriers (# platforms | # handsets)
    • Consumer privacy
    • High subscription fees
    • Mind the gap
  •  
  • Q: How often do you engage in the following Internet activities for personal purposes via your mobile phone or smartphone? (n EU = 7.710, n BE = 484) Source: MC DC 2009 online research
  • Mobile PC/laptop Both Niche General news/current affairs Breaking news Cultural news Economic and financial news Local news Sports news Weather Eroticism Clothing, fashion, accessories,... Cooking and recipes TV programs Job vacancies Real estate Food and drinks, restaurants, bars,... Shopping, shops,... Health information Nearest business or service Travel information Tourist / location information you are at or want to travel to Get directions/navigation 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60% 65% Mean all items Mean all items Preference access on mobile phone Preference access on PC / laptop Q: Suppose you have unlimited use of a mobile phone, which device do you prefer to access the following online content? (n EU = 7.710) Source: MC DC 2009 online research
  •  
  • Q: How often do you engage in the following Internet activities for personal purposes? (n EU = 7.710) Source: MC DC 2009 online research Listening to the radio online (real-time / streaming) Listening to podcasts Downloading music for free % at least weekly % at least weekly % at least weekly
  • Q: How often do you engage in the following Internet activities for personal purposes via your mobile phone or smartphone? (n EU = 7.710) Source: MC DC 2009 online research Listening to the radio online (real-time / streaming) Listening to podcasts Downloading music for free % at least weekly % at least weekly % at least weekly
  • E-commerce penetration > 65% E-commerce penetration < 50% Norway 69% 2,1 billion The Netherlands 66% - 6,0 billion France 58% 13,6 billion UK 66% 27,0 billion Germany 61% 25,6 billion Switzerland 65% 2,4 billion Italy 48% 8,2 billion Spain 49% 5,4 billion Greece 43% 0,5 billion Denmark 67% - 2,2 billion Sweden 70% 3,9 billion Finland 62% 1,6 billion Poland 48% NA Hungary 22% NA Romania 19% NA E-commerce penetration 50 - 65% Belgium 58% 2,3 billion Source: Forrester data % = E-commerce adoption among surfers Numbers = total online retail forecast 2009 (in billion Euros)
  • Q: Which products or services have you purchased in the last 12 months for personal use? (n EU = 8.287, n BE = 556) Source: MC DC 2009 online research
  • Do Think & Feel Think Feel Mean all items Mean all items Books Cars, motorcycles, bikes... CD/DVD/Blu-ray Clothing/shoes Computer, hardware and software Digital music Electronic equipment Furniture and home decoration Hotel/lodging Household appliances Movies or TV series in digital format Other product Personal care Plane, train or boat tickets Telecom services Tickets to events Toys/games 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Internet opportunity for sales (If purchased, % purchased online) Internet opportunity for pre-sales (% searched online / Filter: if purchased) Q: To what extent did you look for information offline and/or online BEFORE the purchase? (n EU = 8.287) Q: Which products or services have you purchased in the last 12 months for personal use? Source: MC DC 2009 online research
  •  
  • Digital consumption profiling data Basic insights for marketers into the Internet population of 16 European countries The P2P online economy How many people are trading domain names, earning money via advertising on their personal website? Who is into peer-to-peer trading on auction and classified websites? Interactive content on the move: the mobile future The mobile phone has become smart and offers opportunities for mobile marketing and location based services. What do consumers allow and expect from these services? The medium is the message How to get your message across as a company? Which channels (e-mail, social networks, SMS,…) to use for which kind of messages? The digital world as seen by digital natives, silver surfers and worldwide women Insights into the role of the Internet from different target groups and viewing angles. Emancipated consumers: from shouting to building How many Internet users are voicing their opinion on the Internet and how to deal wit them as a company? Building future proof brands: social influence marketing What do surfers expect from brands on social networks? How should you as a brand position yourself in their environment? Building an online social identity Is online life a replacement or complement to the offline life? And why do they feel the need to exist online? How can brand and companies compose their own online social identity? Digital utility seeking: the Internet and mobile as branding instruments / branded utility Can you strengthen you brand by offering branded utilities? And which utilities do internauts expect and use? Avoid avoidance: advertising, targeting and media planning in the 21st century What are the key elements of good advertising according to Internet users? Is there an overload of advertising? Is targeted advertising the solutions? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Market Insights Branding & communication
  • The role of the Internet in the purchase decision process: mixed-mode buying How important is the role of the Internet in the purchase process within my sector? The role of search in brand building / lead generation How do people use search engines? Do peope use it to search for brands/products? Is it worth investing in SEM? E-commerce drivers: influence of the economical climate Do people still buy online? What is the impact of the crisis on their online shopping behaviour? Consumer trust and online confidence To what extent do people have faith in e-commerce, online applications and services and do they trust online advertising and promotions? Return on information: providing personal data in return for personalized services and information What kind of information are people willing to share with a company? What is their opinion on behavioural tracking and recommendations based on past purchases / visits? Enforcing customer loyalty through digital media What do your consumers think of your corporate website as support for after-sales? What could be improved to make your consumers more loyal?   Co-created product innovations leading to better brand experiences To what extent are people open to co-create with a company and how to approach them? What is the impact on branding and sales? Who are the people that diffuse new products and services and how do they share their opinions/influence? 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Customer experience Innovation
  •  
  • Gianni Cooreman Digital Research Manager InSites Consulting T +32 9 269 16 01 M +32 494 521 776 E [email_address] http://www.linkedin.com/in/giannicooreman http://twitter.com/giannicooreman Digital Media and Marketing