Why Mobile Wins: Connecting the Dots
•
6 likes•1,565 views
The document analyzes how mobile technology enhances connectivity and sharing of experiences, retrieves information from any location, and obsoletes fixed media experiences. It finds that mobile outperforms all other single media channels for brand metrics like awareness, message association, and purchase intent. The theory is that mobile wins because it has 100% share of the user's screen at a very close viewing distance, making it highly immersive and engaging.
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (13)
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (9)
Similar to Why Mobile Wins: Connecting the Dots
Similar to Why Mobile Wins: Connecting the Dots (20)
More from Decibel Advertising
More from Decibel Advertising (11)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Why Mobile Wins: Connecting the Dots
- 2. GENE KEENAN
- 3. TETRAD OF MEDIA EFFECTS: MOBILE Enhances Reverses connectivity Time shifted (information, media, shared relationships) experience 50s Television today MEDIUM MOBILE GROUND the written word fixed media (usage & experiences. knowledge) isolation Retrieves Obsolesces 3
- 4. BREAKING DOWN THE MOBILE TETRAD Implications Of The Four Points Obsolesces • OBSOLESCES Mobile obsolesces fixed media experiences fixed media experiences. isolation Implication: All media being served needs to adapt to the context of time and location Retrieves • RETRIEVES the written Mobile frees the written word from being fixed in time and space. word (usage & knowledge) Implication: Mobile then needs to provide utility at all times to the end user in the form of valuable information 4
- 5. BREAKING DOWN THE MOBILE TETRAD Implications Of The Four Points Enhances • ENHANCES Mobile enhances connectivity to information and relationships. connectivity (information, Meaning that we are never alone. relationships) Implication: The access to human beings is always in hand. Human beings provide context, information, confirmation. Information becomes instantly actionable Reverses • REVERSES Time shifted Flips into TV but one of constant connectivity. shared experience 50s Television Implication: today Access to all media means that media is no longer fragmented by post convergence. We now share that singular media experience like 50s television provided but in a time shifted experience augmented by it being social (virtual and physical) in a larger context of being connected to the rest of the world 5
- 6. TESTING THE TETRAD LOOKING AT BRAND METRICS
- 7. BRAND METRIC COMPARISON By Single Media Channel 0.5% 8.2% Print Unaided Awareness 0.9% 2.3% Online 3.5% Aided Awareness TV 2.8% 4.2% 8.4% Mobile 2.6% 4.6% Message Association 3.3% 15.0% 8.8% Mobile by itself crushes every single other Brand Favorability 2.0% 5.5% 7.6% media channel across Purchase Intent 6.4% 11.3% most brand metrics 2.2% 5.6% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 7 source: Insight Express, February, 2012
- 8. TV ONLY MID 1970S Pre-DVR 4.2% aided awareness Despite the addition of new media distractions TV has remained stable 8 source: Copernicus Marketing, 1980
- 9. PRINT ONLY MID 1970’S Full Color 3.2% aided awareness Print like TV has remained as effective as it was 40 years ago. 9 source: Copernicus Marketing, 1980
- 10. MOBILE IN RELATION TO OTHER MEDIA CHANNEL COMBINATIONS Mobile Versus Media Channel Combinations 0.5% 3.1% 8.2% Print Unaided Awareness Online .6% 0.9% 2.3% 6.9% TV 3.5% 4.5% 11.7% Aided Awareness Mobile 2.8% 4.2% 8.4% 11.0% TV + Print 2.6% 4.6% 5.7% 7.2% Message Association TV + Online 3.3% 13.3% 15.0% TV + Print + Online 5.2% 8.8% 13.9% Brand Favorability 2.0% 5.5% 7.6% 10.5% Even in media mixes Purchase Intent 4.7% 6.4% 9.6% 11.3% mobile by itself still 2.2% 5.6% 7.3% crushes it 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 10 source: Insight Express, February, 2012
- 11. CONCLUSION
- 12. MOBILE BRAND METRICS FAR EXCEED ANY CHANNEL WE HAVE EVER SEEN BEFORE
- 13. IMAGINE THE MULTIPLIER EFFECT OF COMBINING MOBILE WITH OTHER CHANNELS!
- 14. WHY DOES MOBILE WIN? A SIMPLE THEORY
- 15. AREA OF DISTRACTION distractions on “screen” too 10 inches 32 inches 10 feet 20 inches VIEWING DISTANCES BY MEDIA TYPE 15
- 16. PRINT Print Challenges: Seeing an ad is a matter of luck. A spot like this centerfold provides high probability of being seen The huge ad makes a large brand impact. It’s fairly close to your face and you are fairly engaged 16
- 17. TELEVISION TV Challenges: High impact but content easily skipped (channel changing) or not seen because of DVR Lots of distractions between you and what you are looking at: • Telephone • Computer • Other people • Outside the house 17
- 18. ONLINE Online Challenges: • No large impact ads and when there is the medium is used badly • ads could be below the fold • Lots of eye competition on the page 18
- 19. MOBILE 100% Share of screen MOBILE WINS Mobile ad banners seem grossly simplistic until you consider the fact that: • They have 100% share of screen • Are a short distance from eyeballs to screen ad • User is deeply engaged with phone (Witness users bumping into people while walking down the street) 19
- 20. SOME CONCLUSIONS How It Effects Your Media Buying Although the screen is small it’s large in Campaigns relation to the distance to your eyes making With Mobile it a very immersive and engaging medium. Mobile has the power to connect all media -> s and to provide context and relativity. ric et M This means that all of your media will be nd ra elevated to provide greater return on rB investment. tte Be Campaigns Without Mobile 20
- 22. METHODOLOGY Insight Express Data Media Campaign Runs in Various Channels Respondents Recruited and Asked Brand Metric Questions Have heard Have not heard Brand A Brand B Brand C Exposure Groups are Compared to Control Baseline to Determine Media Effect Control vs. Exposed Control vs. Exposed Control vs. Exposed 22 source: Insight Express, February, 2012
- 23. METHODOLOGY Copernicus Marketing The TV brand metrics data is based on 68 GRPS during prime time. Like the Insight Express data it represents an aggregate of data from across different brands In addition to the TV data they also looked at Print (full color magazine ad) and found that print too had remained unchanged for the most part (3.2% compared to 3.5%) http://www.copernicusmarketing.com/ 23 source: Copernicus Marketing, 1980
- 24. END CONTACT INFO CONTACT: Gene Keenan gene@thecollectivefactory.com +1 415.218.7269
Editor's Notes
- \n
- \n
- \n
- The Tetrad of Media effects was designed by Marshall McLuhan as a means of examining and understanding the effects on society of a medium. MuLuhan divides the effects into four categories and displays them simultaneously. Doing so can give us a view into where we think the medium has evolved from and what it will ultimately flip into when taken to its extreme. The Tetrad has four questions:\n1. What does the medium enhance?\n2. What does the medium make obsolete?\n3. What does the medium retrieve that had been obsolesced earlier?\n4. What does the medium flip into when pushed to extremes?\n\nIt’s important to note that McLuhan believes that there are no new mediums per se just old ones refashioned by new technology. If you need to see a previous example check out the one on radio below:\nEnhancement: What the medium amplifies or intensifies. radio amplifies news and music via sound.\nObsolescence: What the medium drives out of prominence. Radio reduces the importance of print and the visual.\nRetrieval: What the medium recovers which was previously lost. Radio returns the spoken word to the forefront.\nReversal: What the medium does when pushed to its limits. Acoustic radio flips into audio-visual TV.\n\n
- OBSOLESCESIf mobile obsolesces fixed media experiences then the media being served needs to adapt to the context of the time and location\n RETRIEVESMobile frees the written word from being physically tied. Mobile then needs to provide utility at all times to the end user in the form of valuable information\n
- ENHANCESMobile enhances connectivity and relationships. Meaning that we are never alone. The access to human beings is always in hand. Human beings provide context, information, confirmation\n REVERSESFlips into TV but one of constant connectivity. Access to all media means that media is no longer fragmented by post convergence. We now share that singular media experience like 50s television provided but in a time shifted experience augmented by it being social in a larger context of being connected to the rest of the world\n
- The theory I had was mobile would be better than any other media channel when it comes to brand metrics. But if mobile really does flip into TV then it should be as good or better than TV across the board in regards to brand metrics\n
- Mobile does indeed perform better than any other channel\n\nby Joy Liuzzo from Insight Express. Note how much better Mobile performs than any of the other media channels.\n\nI had a hunch that TV pre DVR probably had the same impact as mobile does today. So I spent a few months trying to dig up brand metrics for TV from the 70s. I knew from research that there were some TV metrics gathered starting in the early 70s. Its amazing how difficult it is to find old data about media. Were so focused on the now that we don’t spend a lot of time trying to provide perspective in relationship to the past\n
- So I found this data from my friends at Copernicus Marketing; probably the smartest guys in the room (any room). As it turns out\nTV has remained totally stable over the years and the aided awareness number has remained completely unchanged.\n\nMobile out performed TV even in the mid 70s in fact TV has not budged. It's as effective today as it was 40 years ago.\n\nThe point is mobile is not just performing better because it’s new\n\n
- Print comes in at 3.5% today for aided awareness but it’s within the realm of error.\n
- The next idea was to test mobile in comparison to other media channel mixes. This is also from Insight Express:\n\nEven mobile beats other media channels when they are combined together.\n\n\n
- \n
- Mobile is a better TV. \n
- The multiplier effect has not been measured for other media channels. But there is an axiom within marketing that when you combine media channels they they blow past what they are individually\n
- \n
- Seeing a magazine ad is pure luck unless it happens to be embedded into the content or in this case a center fold which makes it a high probability that the user will see it. It’s also no surprise that print wins at brand favorability because the ad creates a bond with what the user is reading. CONTEXT BABY!! That giant picture is also very aspirational. \n
- TELEVISION:\nWe love TV! It has sound and motion to create emotionally powerful experiences. The challenge with TV is unlike a magazine when the content gets boring you can’t just skim past it. \nThe living room also has all kinds of distractions between you and the content. That magazine you are holding, a telephone, the outside, other people in the room. TV can over come these obstacles when the content is fantastic but the challenge is that great content is often interrupted by bad content including BAD commercials\nIt will be interesting to see if SocialTV can move the brand metrics from where they are.\n
- Online has the challenge of having a different kind of noise than Television and Print. Unlike Print, Online does not have the same type of single page big branding opportunities that print has and when it does it typically does a poor job of using the medium properly. In page advertising is challenged by all of the other noise or items screaming for attention on the page. \n
- TV gets diluted in regards to attention compared to mobile: Mobile is an active medium: The user is getting information. This makes it not surprising that the brand metrics for mobile are stratospheric.\n\n
- \n
- \n
- \n
- \n
- \n