Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
Copyright MMA/mLightenment/IHS Global Insight, 2013. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording or any information storage and retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the copyright holders.
Joseph
Plummer
Adjunct
Professor
of
Marketing
Columbia
University
School
of
Business
Dr.
Joseph
Plummer
is
adjunct
Professor
in
the
Columbia
Business
School
and
Senior
Associate
at
Olson
Zaltman
Associates.
He
is
co-author
of
The
OnLine
Advertising
Playbook,
focusing
on
the
emergence
of
the
Internet
as
a
marketing
platform.
Prior
to
teaching
at
Columbia
Business
School,
Dr.
Plummer
was
EVP
at
McCann
Worldgroup,
Vice
Chairman
at
DMB
&
B,
EVP
at
Young
&
Rubicam,
and
SVP
at
Leo
Burnett.
He
was
also
a
managing
director
at
Paine
Webber/Y&R
Ventures,
and
chief
research
officer
at
the
Advertising
Research
Foundation.
Dr.
Plummer
is
a
board
member
of
Media
Advisory
Partners
LLC,
Zogby
International,
Voxpop
Investing,
AdSafe,
Innerscope
Research,
Inc.,
and
C3
Research.
Previously
he
served
on
the
board
of
directors
at
Sunstus, Audits & Surveys, McCann Worldgroup, DMB & B, and Young & Rubicam. He was a member of the board of trustees at his alma mater, Westminster College, where he earned his BA, and on the Presidents Council at the Ohio State University, where he received his masters and PhD degrees. In addition to The OnLine Advertising Playbook, Dr. Plummer has published more than 25 articles in journals, written over 20 chapters for books and been the editor of The Journal of Advertising Research. He was selected Distinguished Marketing Practitioner by the Association of Marketing Science in 2007. This year Dr. Plummer received the distinguished Lifetime Achievement Award from the Advertising Research Foundation.
About mLightenment
mLightenment is a virtual consultancy of leading academic researchers, many of whom are currently or formerly affiliated with Columbia University in New York City. They provide clients with objective assessments of the expenditure, sales and public policy impacts of emerging media and communications technologies on their businesses, and communicate these findings clearly, effectively, and authoritatively to key client stakeholder groups, including customers, business partners, press, and policy-makers.
IHS Global Insight is one of the leading economic analysis and forecasting firms in the world, with an established track record for providing rigorous, objective data and forecast analyses to governments and businesses around the world. Among its areas of expertise are the economic impact, tax implications, and job-creation dynamics of multiple sectors core to national, state and local economies. It also helps companies and governments at all levels interpret the impact of proposed investments, policies, programs, and projects.
Acknowledgments
The
authors
would
like
to
thank
the
hundreds
of
marketers,
agencies,
supplier
firms,
public
policy
experts
and
academics
in
the
mobile
marketing
ecosystem
who
generously
answered
our
detailed
survey
questionnaires,
offered
their
experiences
and
insights
during
confidential
interviews,
and
replied
to
our
email
inquiries.
We
regret
we
cannot
thank
them
individually
by
name,
we
promised
them
all
confidentiality.
Special
mention
goes
to
our
partners
in
economic
impact
research
at
IHS
Global
Insight,
particularly
Mike
Raimondi
and
Scott
Fleming
and
their
associates
in
the
economic
consulting
group.
We
also
would
like
to
thank
current
and
former
staff
of
the
Mobile
Marketing
Association
for
their
very
helpful
administrative
assistance
with
fielding
our
surveys
and
in
helping
to
arrange
some
of
our
interviews.
Finally,
the
principal
author
gratefully
acknowledges
additional
research
assistance
provided
by
Elizabeth
Margid
and
Scott
Aronin.
Table
of
Contents
Executive
Summary
.....................................................................................................................
1
Understanding
Mobile
Marketing
.............................................................................................
13
Expenditure
on
Mobile
Marketing
Communications
and
Related
Services
..............................
28
Mobile
Marketings
Sales
Impact
on
the
US
Economy
.............................................................
49
Mobile
Marketings
Employment
Impact
..................................................................................
80
Consumer
Data
Best
Practices
and
Privacy
...............................................................................
84
Social
Benefits
from
Mobile
Marketing
.....................................................................................
95
Conclusion:
From
Mobile-Enhanced
Media
to
a
Mobile-Enhanced
Economy
........................
100
Methodology:
Measuring
and
Modeling
US
Mobile
Marketing
Communications
..................
104
Appendix
I:
Summary
Tables
for
Expenditures,
Sales
and
Employment
Impact
by
Industry
..
112
Appendix
II:
Definitions
of
Major
Industry
Groups
..................................................................
117
Executive
Summary
The
Economic
Impact
of
Mobile
Marketing
In
the
United
States
The
pages
that
follow
report
the
results
of
a
six-month
investigation
by
the
principal
authors
into
the
size
and
scope
of
the
impact
of
mobile
marketing
on
the
United
States
economy,
conducted
at
the
behest
of
the
Mobile
Marketing
Association.1
We
found
that
the
mobile
marketing
ecosystem
exhibits
remarkable
levels
of
investment
for
an
industry
so
young:
$6.7
billion
spent
on
it
by
client-side
marketers
and
retailers
across
all
industries
in
2012,
a
figure
likely
to
reach
almost
$20
billion
by
2015;
contributes
even
more
impressive
levels
of
incremental
output
to
the
U.S.
economy:
$139
billion
in
2012,
and
reaching
$400
billion
by
2015,
with
at
least
85%
of
this
sales
impact
taking
place
in
off-line,
brick
and
mortar
locations;
currently
sustains
over
a
half
million
jobs
in
2012,
and
will
likely
support
upwards
of
a
million
and
a
half
workers
by
2015,
including
both
direct
and
indirect
employees;
in
fact,
every
single
employee
in
a
direct
mobile
marketing
communications
role
will
support
over
23
workers
in
non-mobile
occupations
throughout
all
50
states
and
the
District
of
Columbia
in
that
year.
In
interpreting
these
facts,
the
reader
should
bear
in
mind
that
these
figures
of
increased
economic
output
and
employment
are
entirely
comprised
of
supplemental
U.S.
income
and
jobs
that
would
not
exist
but
for
the
successful
exchange
of
marketing
communications
through
mobile
media.
We
would
be
remiss
if
this
first
recital
of
mobile
marketings
quantitative
achievements
somehow
failed
to
pay
tribute
to
what
we
consider
its
no
less
impressive
qualitative
accomplishments.
Every
day
that
we
worked
on
this
project,
we
could
not
help
but
notice
how
the
very
industry
we
were
studying
so
intensively
was
so
busily
transforming
our
society
extensively.
We
would
wake
in
the
morning
to
hear
one
of
its
new
gadgets
lauded
as
the
object
of
fascination
on
a
radio
broadcast;
stepping
outside
our
door,
we
saw
the
object
of
our
study
in
constant
use
by
our
fellow
pedestrians
and
commuters
(heads
down,
hands
and
device
forward,
ear
buds
in);
its
1
The Mobile Marketing Association commissioned this study in the summer of 2012, but the research was conducted entirely under the independent direction of the two principal authors from that moment forward. 1
productivity tools indispensable to our own collaboration; its capacity to reinvent itself seemingly every few months dizzyingly if intoxicatingly relentless. But whether one uses hard numbers or soft impressions, the mobile marketing ecosystem presented us with a picture of economic vitality that in our experience is almost certainly unequalled anywhere else in the nation. It is that picture we briefly summarize in the next few pages, and fill out in the sections that follow. (Note: additional state-level information and information about individual industries can be found in the spreadsheets that accompany this report.) Study Objectives Our main goals in conducting this research were to: Provide the mobile marketing ecosystem with its first objective and comprehensive picture of its own size and contribution to US economic performance; Provide business decision-makers with data that can help them gauge overall trends in mobile marketing communications investment, sales impacts and employee resourcing in their industries; Take a snapshot of the industrys current consumer data collection and privacy policy landscape so as facilitate forecasting of economic impacts and provide policy makers with a baseline from which to gauge the economic consequences of potential legislative changes.
Research Design: Expenditure, Sales, Employment mLightenments approach measures mobile marketings economic impact consistent with mobiles core value proposition as a marketing medium, namely its ability to increase sales (and by extension, employment) for client-side industries that invest in its services. This required us to quantify three key metrics: Expenditure by industry on Mobile Marketing Communications and related services Sales Impacts (incremental net top-line revenues) to industry in any location resulting from marketing communications accessed by end-customers via their mobile devices. 2
Any location means sales impacts could take place either on-line, as mobile-enabled digital purchases (ie mCommerce ) or in the offline, brick and mortar world, such as in a convenience store, doctors office, or automobile dealership; all such real-world venues we group together under the umbrella term mShopping. 2
Employment Impacts comprising both advertiser employment (supported directly by industry expenditure on mobile marketing communications or related services); and seller employment (supported by the increased sales revenues resulting from mobile marketing communications.)
In addition, we calculated mobiles marketing impact ratio (MIR), which is an industrys total media sales impact divided by its total media expenditure. This metric allows us to compare the efficiency of marketing in a given media on a per-dollar of expenditure basis across industries, regardless of industry size. (See below, and methodology section of the main report.) Expenditure On Mobile Marketing Already Significant & Will Grow Strongly In 2012, mobile marketing communications expenditure in the US we estimate to be approximately $6.7 billion. This includes spending on three principal marketing communications categories of interest: mobile advertising, mobile direct response / enhanced traditional media and mobile CRM. Within the overall mix of mobile marketing communications, Mobile Media Advertising will remain the largest single component of spending over the forecast period, reaching $9.2 billion by 2015. But expenditure on mobile marketing communications is not limited merely to advertising in on-device media. Expenditure on mobile direct response (DR) advertising or mobile enhancements within non-mobile media is projected to grow the fastest, growing over four fold from 2012 to 2015, to almost $3 billion; and mobile CRM will continue to be the second largest source of expenditure -- indeed, almost as significant as mobile advertising -- through 2015, when it is expected to reach $7.6 billion. Combined expenditure on mobile marketing communications is forecast to grow at a compound annual rate of 52%, to reach $19.8 billion by 2015. In addition to the media buy of mobile marketing communications expenditure, we also measured separate overhead expenditures on supplemental marketing services and internal support costs that marketers and retailers incur as a direct result of their mobile marketing activities. (These include such costs as agency and PR fees, media measurement and metrics services, etc.) This class of expenditure represented an additional $3.9 billion in 2012, and will likely rise to $10.5 billion by the year 2015. Thus, when spending on mobile marketing related services and supplemental internal support is combined with that on marketing communications in mobile, total mobile marketing expenditure in the US attains $10.6 billion for 2012, and will reach $30.4 billion by 2015.
2,405 3,957 6,693 10,456 15,162 19,806 991 1,743 3,060 166 336 669 1,248 1,878 2,964 4,871 1,312 4,273 7,078 2,174 5,910 9,207 2,912 7,686
Source: mLightenment
We
also
compared
mobile
marketing
spending
across
the
16
broad
industry
groups
into
which
we
classified
the
US
economy
for
the
purposes
of
this
study.
Finance,
retail
(excl.
CPG),
and
manufacturing
(excl.
CPG)
are
the
three
largest
industries
in
terms
of
spending
on
mobile
marketing.
The
three
industries
spent
over
$3
billion
in
2012
or
about
half
of
total
mobile
advertising
spending.
In
terms
of
growth,
the
resources
industry
(agriculture,
mining,
utilities,
and
construction)
is
projected
to
grow
the
fastest,
followed
by
manufacturing
(excl.
CPG),
and
educational
services.
(Summary
results
for
each
industry
can
be
found
in
the
main
body
of
this
report,
and
full
details
for
each
industry
can
be
found
in
excel
workbooks
that
accompany
this
report.)
Finally,
we
examined
mobile
marketing
spending
as
it
occurred
at
the
state
level.
This
shows
differences
across
the
states
depending
on
the
size
of
the
states
in
terms
of
the
economic
and
demographic
attributes.
The
three
largest
states
that
generated
the
highest
mobile
marketing
spending
in
2012
were
California
($865
million),
New
York
($587
million),
and
Texas
($573
million).
We
expect
that
these
three
states
will
comprise
more
than
30%
of
the
total
mobile
marketing
spending
by
2015.
North
Dakota,
Washington,
and
Texas
are
the
states
with
largest
expected
rate
of
growth
in
mobile
marketing
spending,
through
2015.
(Full
details
for
each
state
and
the
District
of
Columbia
can
be
found
in
excel
workbooks
that
accompany
this
report.)
Mobiles
Very
Substantial
Sales
Impact
On
The
U.S.
Economy
Marketing
communications
via
mobile
have
a
very
substantial
and
positive
sales
impact
on
the
output
of
the
U.S.
economy,
amounting
to
almost
$140
billion
in
additional
sales
realized
during
the
course
of
2012.
This
figure
is
forecast
to
rise
to
just
over
$400
billion
in
2015.
2015s
amount
represents
a
vigorous
five-year
compound
annual
growth
rate
of
52%,
relative
to
the
$48
billion
in
net
sales
that
mobile
added
to
the
U.S.
economy
back
in
2010.
Mobile
Media
is
the
largest
contributor
to
advertising
driven
sales
impact,
followed
by
Mobile
CRM.
The
sales
impact
and
growth
rates
are
expected
to
be
roughly
in
line
with
the
level
of
investments
in
the
respective
marketing
categories.
Table
2
Mobile
Marketing
Sales
Impact
in
United
States
($Millions)
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
CAGR
2010- 2015
Total Sales Impact Mobile Media Adv Mobile DR Enhanced Adv Mobile CRM
Source: mLightenment
The
sales
impact
of
mobile
marketing
varies
across
our
16
major
industries
and
the
expected
rate
of
growth
is
influenced
both
by
the
extent
of
marketing
investment
and
also
the
trend
in
mobile
device
adoption,
media
consumption
and
marketing
engagement
by
key
population
demographics,
particularly
as
these
affect
mobile
marketings
share
of
mind
and
share
of
buying
power
among
end-customers
relative
to
other
media.
While
we
have
seen
that
the
resources,
manufacturing
(excl.
CPG),
and
the
educational
services
are
the
fastest
growing
industries
in
terms
of
marketing
investment,
retail
trade
(CPG),
manufacturing
(CPG),
and
educational
services
are
the
fastest
growing
industries
in
terms
of
mobile
marketing
driven
revenue
contributions.
Marketing
Impact
Ratio
(MIR)
for
Mobile
Marketing
Communications
Marketing
Impact
Ratio
(MIR)
is
calculated
by
the
simple
formula:
$
Total
Industry
Sales
Impact
/
$
Total
Industry
Expenditure.
Our
research
indicates
that
the
marketing
impact
ratio
(MIR)
for
mobile
marketing
communications
probably
peaked
at
a
high
of
$20.77
in
2012.
It
is
now
expected
to
plateau
or
decline
very
slightly
over
the
forecast
period,
reaching
$20.25
in
2015.
Two
factors
in
particular
account
for
this
leveling
off:
first,
we
expect
increased
expenditure
on
mobile
by
marketers;
second,
we
expect
the
demographic
profile
of
the
mobile
end-customer,
which
previously
was
disproportionately
comprised
of
younger,
high
income
demographics,
will
begin
to
more
closely
resemble
that
of
the
U.S.
population
as
a
whole,
especially
as
late-adopter
segments
acquire
the
latest
generation
of
smart
devices.
Total Mobile Marketing Mobile Media Adv Mobile DR Enhanced Trad'l Adv Mobile CRM
However,
not
all
categories
of
mobile
marketing
will
have
falling
MIR
Mobile
CRM
is
projected
to
grow
at
an
annual
rate
of
4%,
growing
from
$18.53
in
2012
to
$20.81
by
2015.
This
is
due
to
the
increased
role
of
consumers
themselves
in
the
distribution
and
even
creation
of
marketing
content
via
mobile-enabled
social
media
and
location-based
services.
Marketing
Impact
Ratio
by
Industry:
Does
Mobile
Escape
the
Law
of
Diminishing
Returns?
The
MIR
and
spending
data
raise
one
unexpected
question:
is
it
possible
that
the
law
of
diminishing
returns
may
not
apply
to
mobile
marketing
spending?
We
observe
that
MIR
figures
for
the
top
and
bottom
four
mobile
marketing
spenders,
by
industry,
seem
to
show
that
spending
more
does
not
decrease
the
impact
rate
as
expected;
on
the
contrary,
the
highest
industry
expenditure
and
the
highest
industry
impact
ratios
go
together,
as
do
the
lowest
expenditures
and
the
lowest
MIR.
While
no
more
than
suggestive,
this
observation
is
intriguing
and
deserves
further
exploration.
We
give
more
discussion
and
offer
possible
explanations
for
this
at
the
end
of
the
section
Mobile
Marketings
Sales
Impact
on
the
US
Economy.
Mobile
Marketings
Impressive
Employment
Impacts
Our
research
reveals
that
in
2012,
spending
by
marketers
on
mobile
marketing
generated
524,000
jobs
from
the
combination
of
advertiser
employment
and
product
seller
employment.
This
is
expected
to
reach
an
impressive
1.4
million
jobs
by
2015.
Mobile
marketing
communications
advertiser
jobs
are
the
most
direct
form
of
employment
generation
employing
a
number
of
people
in
activities
such
as
ad
designing,
programming,
analytics,
marketing,
administrative
staff
etc.
In
2012,
over
21
thousand
persons
were
directly
employed
in
mobile
marketing
communications
occupations
and
the
industry
is
projected
to
6
employ
64
thousand
such
individuals
by
2015,
growing
at
an
average
rate
of
44%
per
year.
The
Mobile
DR
category
is
expected
to
grow
fastest,
employing
over
nine
thousand
people
by
2015.
Table
3:
Advertiser
Employment
From
Mobile
Marketing
Communications
Total
Advertiser
Employment
Mobile
Media
Adv
Mobile
DR
Enhanced
Trad'l
Adv
Mobile
CRM
2010
7,983
3,265
549
4,169
2011
12,672
5,540
1,073
6,059
2012
21,275
9,655
2,123
9,497
2013
33,453
15,465
4,190
13,798
2014
48,744
22,568
6,978
19,197
2015
64,053
29,512
9,402
25,139
CAGR
2010-2015
52%
55%
76%
43%
Source: mLightenment
The
number
of
mobile
advertiser
jobs
by
industry
is
proportional
to
the
amount
of
expenditure
in
adverting.
Thus,
finance,
retail,
and
manufacturing
industries
are
also
the
largest
markets
for
advertiser
jobs.
About
3.3
jobs
were
created
in
2010
for
every
million
dollar
spent
on
mobile
advertisement.
This
was
3.18
in
2012
and
is
projected
to
stay
close
to
3.2
during
the
forecast
years.
The
incremental
product
sales
resulting
from
successful
deployment
of
mobile
marketing
will
require
hiring
additional
workers
by
the
product
sellers,
manufacturers,
or
the
service
providers
in
order
to
scale
up
the
production.
In
2012,
the
seller
employment
attributed
to
mobile
marketing
is
502,562
persons.
This
is
projected
to
grow
at
a
rate
of
40%,
employing
about
1.38
million
persons
by
2015.
While
the
advertising
spending
is
highest
in
the
Mobile
Media
category,
the
seller
employment
impact
is
highest
in
Mobile
CRM
category.
Table
4
Mobile
Marketing
Seller
Employment
2010
CAGR
2010- 2015
Mobile
Marketing
Seller
Employment
188,913
312,914
502,562
773,685
1,091,017
1,379,587
49%
Mobile
Media
Adv
Mobile
DR
Enhanced
Trad'l
Adv
Mobile
CRM
84,055
145,013
222,885
340,840
11,557
23,010
40,438
72,766
93,301
144,891
239,239
360,079
468,767
113,173
509,077
570,239
134,068
675,280
47%
63%
49%
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
The seller employment by industry is driven by incremental sales demand generated in each industry as a result of the successful distribution of mobile marketing communications. In 2012, 75 seller jobs were created for every million dollar of mobile advertising spending. However, this is projected to fall by 2% annually, reaching 70 jobs per million dollar of advertising spending. Industry-specific seller employment impacts show that retail (other), finance, and professional services are the largest job creators. Seller employment in retail trade (CPG) will grow the fastest, followed by the professional services industry.
Mobile Marketings Consumer Privacy Landscape All of the foregoing impacts presuppose that the mobile marketing ecosystem continues to enjoy its current baseline levels of consumer trust and freedom from technologically inappropriate or economically counter-productive privacy legislation. Without consumer trust, no marketing media can sustain the high levels of customer engagement necessary to deliver scalable sales impacts. The always-on, always-present personal character of the mobile device introduces new communications opportunities for mobile marketers while raising new issues for the industry about how best to ensure consumers continue to trust the privacy practices of a medium they are already deeply engaged with. Various areas particularly mobile apps ability to access consumer data, such as current location, address-books, etc.currently represent areas of mobile technology where industry best practices are rapidly developing. On the self-regulatory front, the Digital Advertising Alliance (DAA), a coalition representing all the major marketing and advertising trade groups, will be releasing principles and guidelines for mobile. This forthcoming guidance, based on the existing and widely implemented DAA Self- Regulatory Principles, will apply to the mobile environment and respond to the fact that the principles may vary based on technological demands. The guidance therefore explains how the DAA principles of transparency and consumer control should be implemented in a mobile device setting. Data covered by the new guidance will include precise location data as well as data gathered across non-affiliated applications over time. Finally, and perhaps most significantly, the controls offered by platforms continue to evolve, providing consumers with new controls over data collection and use, as well as greater transparency, which should engender trust. Ultimately, our economic impact assessment for both sales and incremental jobs assumes that incremental adjustments at the regulatory and industry best practices level will continue to communicate trust and value to customers in a manner that sustains the massive shift underway to consumer media consumption and commercial activity via smartphones and tablets. That said, our report cannot exclude the possibility that a major economic shock arising from a legislative change to the public policy framework from Congressional or state-level legislators could alter the impact assessments reported here at some point during the forecast period. (For a more detailed discussion of privacy issues, see the section of this report on Consumer Data Best Practices and Privacy.)
Envisioning
the
Mobile-Marketing
Enhanced
Society
and
Economy
of
Tomorrow
Mobile
marketings
impact
in
the
United
States
reaches
beyond
the
most
obvious
benefits
that
are
easily
measured
in
jobs
and
revenue.
These
include
hard,
but
not
impossible
to
quantify
benefits
to
society
at
large,
together
with
even
subtler
changes
in
marketer
and
consumer
expectations
about
what
the
products
and
services
and
even
communications
opportunities
in
the
marketplace
of
tomorrow
will
look
like.
These
developments
are
pointing
towards
a
mobile
marketing
enhanced
economy
just
over
the
horizon.
In
the
section
of
our
study
on
mobile
marketings
social
impact,
we
looked
at
several
examples
of
how
mobile
marketing
communications
and
have
begun
to
merge
with
valuable
consumer
content
services
that
are
already
starting
to
show
the
potential
for
enormous
benefits
on
American
society
in
areas
that
are
not
conventionally
considered
part
of
a
medias
economic
impact.
For
example:
by
reducing
the
time
and
thus
gasoline
expended
looking
for
a
parking
spot,
a
simple
parking
app
such
as
was
introduced
two
years
ago
in
San
Francisco
could
potentially
save
$360,000
each
day
in
gasoline
and
reduce
air
pollution.
If
it
were
extended
across
all
major
cities
nationally,
a
simple
app
could
have
the
potential
to
save
hundreds
of
million
of
dollars
in
wasted
gasoline
each
year,
avoid
significant
quantities
of
air
pollution,
and
save
drivers
untold
hours
of
time.
Likewise,
currently
existing
apps
from
national
pharmacy
chains
could
easily
have
a
dramatic
effect
on
reducing
adverse
drug
events
(ADEs),
many
of
which
are
attributable
to
missed
does
of
prescription
medications.
ADEs
lead
to
700,000
avoidable
emergency
room
trips
each
year,
and
well
over
100,000
avoidable
hospitalizations.
Apps
that
remind
customers
to
refill
prescriptions
or
simply
take
medications
on
time
could
very
conservatively
save
tens
of
millions
annually
in
health
care
costs,
simply
by
supporting
U.S.
patients
suffering
from
diabetes,
high
cholesterol,
and
high
blood
pressure.
These
are
but
a
tiny
sliver
of
the
blending
of
marketing
and
social
benefit
that
is
beginning
to
take
place.
We
believe
it
heralds
a
new
mindset
in
consumers
that
marketers
themselves
need
to
pay
attention
to.
Too
much
of
the
debate
about
mobile
we
believe
has
been
about
its
importance
as
the
third,
second,
or
even
first
screen
for
delivering
advertising
or
marketing
communications.
We
think
the
image
of
mobile
as
[mere]
screen
needs
to
be
deleted
and
replaced
with
something
better:
mobile
as
camera
(or
microphone,
or
digital
crayon
box
--
any
active
image
will
do.)
Why
is
it
important
for
marketers
to
replace
screen
with
camera?
Simply
this.
As
mobile
smart
consumers
go
about
their
daily
lives,
they
do
not
think
of
themselves
as
passive
inboxes
for
the
branding
ideas
of
others;
instead,
smart
mobile
consumers
(younger
ones,
especially)
think
of
themselves
as
directors
and
stars
of
their
own
lives;
armed
with
mobile
video
camera,
microphone,
and
yes,
lights,
they
are
the
creative
co-
9
producers
and
co-distributors
of
original
marketing
communications
that
expresses
their
passionate
interest
in
products
or
services
or
experiences
they
care
about.
And
many
of
which
mobile
consumers
will
begin
to
co-create.
In
the
mobile-marketing
enhanced
marketplace
of
tomorrow,
the
confluence
of
marketer-created
but
consumer
directed
mobile
communications
opportunities
will
open
up
more
places
for
things
to
become
far
more
than
just
products
or
services.
As
mobile-enhanced
products
and
services,
consumer-generated
mobile
content
will
add
value
that
greatly
exceeds
the
physical
object
to
which
it
may
be
attached,
or
through
which
it
may
be
delivered.
The
best
of
these
mobile
enhancements
to
brands
we
suspect
will
not
necessarily
come
from
brand
managers.
We
suspect
that
eventually
even
the
products
themselves
will
be
developed,
promoted
and
perhaps
even
built
by
the
smart
mobile
consumer
with
mobile
baked
in
from
the
beginning
--
who
knows,
by
building
it
using
the
3-D
printer
in
their
garage
--
and
of
course,
another
mobile
consumer
will
take
a
picture
and
post
it,
making
the
new
mobile
enhanced
product
of
tomorrow
a
viral
sensation
before
the
paint
on
it
is
even
dry.
And
all
of
this
will
be
possible
because
the
smart,
mobile-enhanced
marketers
of
tomorrow
will
find
new
ways
to
help
it
happen.
Addendum:
An
Overview
of
mLightenments
Methodology
This
study
quantifies
both
the
size
of
mobile
marketing
spending
in
the
US
and
also
the
sales
and
employment
impact
of
such
activities.
While
the
sales
impact
measures
the
value
of
additional
revenues
generated
as
a
result
of
mobile
marketing
communications,
the
employment
impact
measures
both
the
advertiser
employment
and
seller
employment.
The
advertiser
employment
includes
the
number
of
persons
employed
directly
in
the
mobile
marketing
businesses.
The
seller
employment
includes
the
number
of
persons
hired
by
the
product
seller
or
the
manufacturers,
in
response
to
the
incremental
product
demand
arising
out
of
mobile
marketing
communications
sales
lifts.
For
the
purposes
of
assessing
mobile
marketings
impact
on
the
US
economy,
we
began
with
the
Mobile
Marketing
Associations
current
definition
of
mobile
marketing:
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.3
Accordingly
we
defined
mobile
marketing
communications
expenditure
as
money
spent
by
any
industry
to
send,
receive,
or
exchange
any
form
of
marketing
communications
(bought
advertising,
marketer
owned
content,
or
so-called
earned
social
or
word
of
mouth
media)
with
mobile
consumers
via
consumers
qualifying
mobile
devices;
and
we
defined
mobile
marketings
sales
impact
as
purchases
of
any
industrys
goods
or
services
in
any
location
by
3
MMA Updates Definition of Mobile Marketing, MMA, November 17, 2009, http://www.mmaglobal.com/news/mma-updates-definition-mobile-marketing 10
end-customers
as
a
result
of
marketing
communications
accessed
via
their
qualifying
mobile
device.4
To
ensure
our
economic
metrics
included
the
full
scope
of
todays
mobile
marketing,
we
researched
mobile
marketing
communications
in
each
of
three
different
categories
of
marketing
activity:
(1)
Mobile
Media
Advertising
(bought
media)
(2)
Mobile
Direct
Response
(DR)
Enhanced
Non-Mobile
Media,
(also
bought
media)
(3)
Mobile
Content
and
Relationship
Marketing
(mCRM)
(owned
and
earned
media).
To
ensure
that
expenditure
and
sales
impacts
within
each
type
of
marketing
communications
were
non-overlapping
and
genuinely
mobile,
these
marketing
communications
were
analyzed
into
seven
specific
mobile
media
or
connective
technologies:
(1)
Mobile
Voice,
(2)
SMS/MMS,
(3)
Mobile
Email,
(4)
Mobile
Web,
(5)
Mobile
Apps,
(6)
Proximity
(Bluetooth,
NFC,
RFID),
(7)
Recognition
(primarily
QR
codes,
audio
&
image
scanning,
etc.).
Mobile
marketings
expenditure
and
economic
impacts
were
measured
by
classifying
the
US
economy
into
16
major
industry
groups
and
applying
an
econometric
modeling
process
that
correlates
categories
of
productive
investment
across
all
industries
with
sales
accruing
to
those
industries.
These
broad
industry
groups
are
based
on
the
North
American
Industry
Classification
System
(NAICS)
and
are
described
in
the
Appendices
to
this
report.
(For
a
more
thorough
discussion
of
what
our
taxonomy
includes,
and
why,
please
see
the
section
titled
Understanding
Mobile
Marketing.)
The
underlying
calculations
used
to
determine
the
sales
and
employment
impact
were
done
at
the
direction
of
mLightenment
by
its
economic
partners
at
IHS
Global
Insight,
the
worlds
foremost
industry
research
and
econometric
forecasting
firm.
Global
Insight
used
its
large
macro-economic
input-output
model
of
the
US
economy,
in
which
statistical
methods
compared
industry
expenditure
on
media
and
marketing
with
expenditures
on
other
media
and
other
factors
inputs
(e.g.,
IT,
raw
materials)
for
major
industries.
These
were
then
correlated
statistically
with
variations
in
intermediate
and
final
demand
for
industry
output
across
end- customer
segments
(both
mobile
and
non-mobile)
over
time.
The
models
resulting
input-
4
Qualifying devices primarily means feature phones, smartphones, tablets and eReaders; and mobile consumers always includes business users, unless otherwise indicated.) In addition to expenditure on the variable costs of the media buy, we separately calculated the more fixed, or overhead costs incurred with related mobile marketing services providers, such as agencies, research providers, etc. 11
output coefficients identify that portion of any industrys revenue that is uniquely attributable to mobile marketing communications.
12
www.mmaglobal.com According to the Word of Mouth Marketing Association, WOM is the sharing of marketing-relevant information among consumers and WOM marketing is efforts by an organization to encourage, facilitate and amplify marketing-relevant communication among consumers. We follow WOMMA in regarding Social Media marketing and WOM marketing as closely related but not synonymous. For definitions and discussion of WOM and Social 13
consumers about a third-party product, service or company or mobile-shared with peers, such as when a consumer snaps a picture of a product in a store with their smartphone and forwards it to a friend or family member with a recommendation that they buy it. This may seem like a fairly sweeping definition, and it is. As we will see below, we believe it fits the facts of todays mobile marketing. Anything more restrictive would mislead the reader about how much mobile marketing is poised to explode the meaning of marketing well beyond traditional advertising pushed to a screen. Who are the players in mobile marketing? For measuring expenditure on mobile marketing, the key players are, first of all, marketers in any industry that spend money to create, send, or receive mobile marketing communications. Marketers, for us, include retailers. Industrys marketing communications dollars are spent with business services providers of two kinds: a) providers of mobile advertising inventory (publishers and networks, including non- digital - about this, see more below) and mobile content platform providers and developers (such as those providing access to the SMS network for marketers, or who develop proprietary apps on marketers behalf); and b) providers of related mobile marketing services, such as advertising and PR agencies, audience measurement and analytics services providers, and network access providers. In terms of measuring the sales impacts, our population of interest is mobile equipped end- customers and prospects. This termwhich we shall generally avoid using in favor of mobile consumersincludes all end users of wirelessly connected mobile devices, whether they own the device (and pay its network access charges) or are merely users of devices owned and paid for by someone else. Mobile consumers therefore include individuals whose device is part of a family plan owned by a principal subscriber as well as individuals whose employers have issued them a device. In the pages that follow, then, the corporate road-warrior with her company- issued Blackberry or iPad is not forgotten.
The first is that Americans are now more and more ubiquitously tethered to digital communications via their mobilephysically and virtuallyand we realized that the form and content of communications could no longer be defined by the device or network that carried it. If we didnt already realize that video was no longer synonymous with TV in the living room, audio with radio in the car, or news was delivered by paper or direct was to be followed by mail, studying the myriad ways in which mobile devices transgress ancestral media, content, and format boundaries has convinced us of it. Whether it was disentangling the volume of Internet traffic that was PC or mobile based, or figuring out what difference it made whether much social media video was being consumed on tablets while the consumer was watching TV, the media researcher has their work cut out for them. A decade or so ago, it would have been easy to say what was mobile and what wasnt: it was the black plastic brick you held to your ear while you shouted to make yourself understood. Todays mobile device is a toolkit of multiple media held in front of us like an electronic dowsing rod, a communications matrix of virtual ecosystems, each of which seems to have not only its defining technical attributes but also its own folkways. These devices are redefining the entire media landscape and creating a variety of mobile microclimates based on the varying combinations of devices people choose to employ for particular places and purposes as they travel through their daily lives. For marketers, understanding mobile microclimates such as show-rooming is the heart of the mobile marketing challenge and opportunity. The second implication is that consumers, particularly in the US, are adopting an increasing variety of smart mobile devices (such as iPods, iPads, mini tablets, and e-readers) that are no less mobile than their phones and, from a marketing standpoint, may become even more valuable. These devices enjoy greater compatibility with various kinds of consumer content (such as video and games), greater flexibility in marketing communications (such as rich media advertising through apps), and greater utility in certain marketing situations (such as interactive, out-of-home advertising, and in-store comparison shopping). The third consequence for us involved realizing how beholden marketers are to some very static measurement assumptions and resources, systems that, except for those of out-of-home advertising and drive-time radio, assume that content and marketing communications are distributed in discrete, self-contained chunks and that viewership, readership, and listenership take place at certain fixed spots at certain appointed hours. But all of this is far too static for the mobile media delivery and consumer consumption habits that stared us in the face. The more flexible, dare we say mobile, metrics needed to measure mobile marketing are still, relatively speaking, in their infancy, but more are needed, and more marketers need to learn them when they arrive.
communications.
For
that
reason,
we
consider
identifiable
location
to
be
THE
defining
feature
of
the
mobile
marketing
ecosystem.
We
define
mobile
devices
as
those
that
are
uniquely
identifiable
and
location-aware
while
roaming
anywhere
within
an
electronic
network.
Usually,
these
devices
integrate
one
of
the
following
forms
of
location-aware
technology.
Location-Based
Services:
From
Network
Location
to
Real-World
Location
Originally,
network
location
in
cellular
was
necessary
for
routing
calls
between
devices.
It
was
determined
by
calculating
the
distance
a
cell
phone
was
from
numerous
short-range
broadcast
towers
distributed
in
a
honeycomb
of
cells
around
the
country.
But
it
was
not
long
before
the
mobile
ecosystem
realized
that
by
converting
a
meaningless
network
location
into
an
approximate
real-world
geographic
location
within
a
several-block
radius
(assuming
an
urban
environment),
new
kinds
of
services
could
be
provided
to
the
consumer
-
and
eventually,
to
marketers.
This
opportunity
became
even
more
attractive
once
mobile
devices
equipped
with
GPS
transceivers
allowed
the
device
to
be
located
in
real-time
within
a
very
precise
radius
--
often
a
matter
of
a
mere
meter
or
two.
Location-based
services
(LBS)
are
perhaps
the
most
important
and
distinctive
content
contribution
of
the
mobile
ecosystem
to
the
marketing
industry,
since
other
media,
including
the
desktop
Internet,
are
normally
not
able
to
target
user
location
much
more
precisely
than
within
the
radius
of
a
city
or
county.
They
comprise
publisher
and/or
marketing
communications
content
containing
structured
geographical
information
tailored
to
the
mobile
recipients
precise
real-time
location.7
LBS
includes
things
such
as
maps,
turn-by-turn
driving
and
walking
directions,
buddy-locators,
location-based
social
media
platforms
such
as
Yelp
and
hyper-locally
targeted
advertising,
including
so-called
geo-fencing
in
which
the
mobile
device
receives
different
advertising
content
based
on
its
presence
within
a
perimeter
defined
by
the
advertiser.
For
marketers,
real-time
awareness
of
consumers
hyper-local
current
location
opens
new
and
exciting
vistas
of
popular
consumer
content
and
marketer
segmentation
and
targeting
that
many
expect
to
attract
large
audiences
and
boost
the
effectiveness
of
almost
all
marketing
communications
associated
with
them,
potentially
allowing
marketers
to
inferthough
not
quite
yetwhat
consumers
are
most
likely
interested
in
buying
at
certain
times
in
a
particular
context
or
while
traveling
along
certain
routes,
thus
increasing
the
relevance
of
marketing
communications,
resulting
in
increased
utility
and
higher
net
impact
for
the
marketermuch
as
the
less
precise
ZIP-Code
and
census
tract
segmentation
does
for
direct
mailers.
But
first
the
consumer
must
opt-in.
Tapping
I
agree
when
an
apps
privacy
dialogue
box
pops
up
to
ask
if
you
want
to
share
your
current
location
is
a
vote
of
confidence
the
marketer
or
publisher
is
asking
the
consumer
to
make
millions
of
times
a
day.
Sharing
location
information
with
publishers
and
marketers
offers
numerous
benefits,
including
access
to
mapping
services,
directions,
social
connections,
weather
reports,
and
even
astronomical
data.
16
Various
popular
apps
such
as
Foursquare,
Gowalla,
and
Loopt
rely
on
location
information,
but
our
study
had
to
confront
how
many
consumers
take
the
location
plunge,
and
what
difference
it
makes
for
the
economy.
Our
research
suggests
that
though
the
exact
formats
and
beneficiaries
of
locations
based
services
are
likely
to
change,
location-based
technologies
and
services
will
continue
to
grow
in
power
and
precision
as
marketers
learn
how
to
make
more
effective
use
of
them
and
as
consumers
understand
and
become
comfortable
with
the
benefits
of
sharing
location
information.
SoLoMo
(Social-Location-Mobile):
An
Acronym
to
Reckon
With
A
similar
situation
confronted
us
with
social
media,
especially
the
confluence
of
mobile
and
location
with
social
networking
known
as
SoLoMo.
Readers
whose
formative
experience
with
social
networking
was
shaped
by
the
desktop
(or
laptop)
Internet
may
not
fully
appreciate
just
what
a
perfect
marriage
has
been
consummated
between
smart
devices
and
socially
enabled
on-the-go,
any-format-any-time
consumer
content
creation
and
sharing.
Enjoying
your
restaurant
outing?
Snap
a
pic
of
the
dessert
youre
sharing
with
your
wife
and
share
it
with
the
in-laws
on
Facebook.
Wondering
where
the
guys
went
after
the
game?
Search
for
their
check- ins.
Want
to
rave
about
the
latest
hipster
fashions
roaming
the
streets
of
Williamsburg?
Take
a
video
and
post
it
on
YouTube,
while
waiting
for
your
next
sampler
pack
of
new
products
to
review
on
Influenster.
Where
you
are
and
who
you
are
come
together
on
the
mobile
device but
how
much
of
Pinterest,
YouTube
or
Twitter
is
mobile?
The
capability
of
the
consumer
(again,
always
remembering
to
include
the
B2B
end
customer)
to
use
their
mobile
device
to
generate
and
share
marketing
relevant
content
anywhere,
anytime,
must
therefore
be
factored
into
what
we
mean
by
mobile
marketings
economic
impact.
Mobiles
Marketing
Value
Proposition:
Mobility,
Portability,
Individuality,
Personality
Mobile
is
often
said
to
be
uniquely
attractive
to
marketers
because
of
its
always
present,
always
on,
always
connected
nature,
an
attribute
said
to
offer
unrivalled
opportunities
for
ubiquitous
1:1
personalized
communications.
On
reflection
we
realized
this
phrase
conflated
several
distinct
aspects
of
how
mobile
devices
are
redefining
the
marketing
relationship,
features
that
may
work
simultaneously
and
synergistically
with
each
other,
but
are
worth
distinguishing
to
define
what
mobile
is,
in
order
to
calibrate
its
impact
correctly.
The
first
is
mobiles
mobility,
which
we
define
as
the
devices
ability
to
roam
geographically
while
remaining
connected
to
its
networks.
Mobility
depends
as
much,
if
not
more,
on
the
provision
of
network
access
than
it
does
on
the
devices
themselves,
though
the
latter
can
be
an
important
consideration
for
consumers
who
may
decide
what
type
or
amount
of
network
access
they
are
willing
to
pay
for.
Many
customers
of
the
first
wave
of
iPads,
for
example,
elected
not
to
buy
a
wireless
subscription
for
their
devices,
which
limited
their
mobility
(our
sense)
to
Wi-Fi
hotspots,
even
though
they
were
completely
portable.
Mobility
also
includes
a
devices
ability
to
interact
with
its
immediate
context
using
its
non-networked
connective
technologies
media,
e.g.,
by
scanning
a
QR
code
displayed
on
a
shelf
tag
inside
a
store,
or
NFC
to
tap
an
N-Mark
contained
in
an
electronic
billboard
in
an
airport.
17
The
second
important
aspect
of
mobile
medias
value
proposition
refers
to
portability.
Portability
is
the
propensity
of
a
consumer
to
keep
a
medium
or
device
on
their
person
at
all
times,
and
to
engage
with
it,
even
as
they
move
from
place
to
place
and
from
activity
to
activity.
It
is
often
said
mobile
devices
are
the
one
thing
people
always
have
with
themand
compared
with
other
devices
this
probably
a
good
rule
of
thumb.
But
how
much
engagement
mobile
audiences
have
with
their
devices
throughout
the
day,
and
with
what
specific
content
or
for
what
purposes
depends
on
many
contextual
and
circumstantial
variables,
and
the
exact
amount
of
time
spent
matters
for
comparing
mobiles
share
of
mind
with
that
of
other
media.
And
this
should
be
researched,
not
merely
asserted.
Individuality
for
us
means
the
capacity
for
communications
exchanged
via
the
device
or
any
particular
media
therein
to
reach
a
unique
individual,
only
that
unique
individual,
and
the
whole
of
that
unique
individual.
It
is
closely
dependent
on
the
individual
level
addressability
of
different
media
(SMS
is,
the
web
less
so);
and
the
exclusivity
of
device
or
media
by
the
end- consumer
(i.e.
do
they
have
multiple
devices
or
not;
do
they
share
this
device
or
not.)
Personality,
finally,
refers
to
the
ability
of
particular
mobile
media
and
device
hardware
to
support
the
creation,
uploading,
sharing,
receiving,
and
downloading
of
personally
created
or
customized
content.
It
is
closely
connected
to
the
openness
or
customizable
quality
of
the
device
or
operating
system,
and
the
ability
of
the
media
to
support
interactive,
two-way
communications:
In
other
words
-
how
much
scope
does
the
device
allow
the
consumer
to
make
it
their
own,
or
to
become
their
own
publisher?
Mobiles
Impact
on
Categories
of
Marketing
Activity
The
mobile
value
proposition
analyzed
abovemobility,
portability,
personality,
individuality necessarily
required
us
to
update
traditional
categories
of
marketing
activity
so
we
could
clearly
recognize
the
different
types
of
expenditure
and
sales
impacts
arising
in
these
quite
distinct
marketing
communications
environments.
Mobile
Media
Advertising:
The
most
obvious
and
traditional
of
our
categories,
it
involves
the
(paid)
placement
of
marketing
communications
within
third-party
published
content
transmitted
directly
onto
the
mobile
device.
It
may
be
purchased
on
a
scale
of
audience
basis
(cost-per-thousand
views
or
impressions)
or
it
may
be
purchased
on
a
performance
basis,
such
as
pay-per-click.
While
this
category
is
normally
fairly
clear-cut,
it
does
include
such
ambiguous
activities
such
as
paying
for
sponsored
stories
in
social
media.
Mobile
Direct
Response
or
Enhanced
Advertising
in
Non-Mobile
Media.
As
discussed
below,
todays
smart
devices
have
the
potential
to
integrate
with
virtually
any
other
medium,
object
or
context.
This
means
first,
that
mobile
has
an
important
role
as
a
conduit
for
responding
to
direct-response
calls
to
action
placed
in
non-mobile
media.
This
may
involve
calling
an
800
number,
or
texting
to
a
short
code,
etc.
to
receive
an
18
offer from a marketer, or to opt-in to receive SMS alerts, or icons prompting the consumer to follow the brand on Twitter or some other mobile-social media. But not all mobile-enhanced interactions with non-mobile media involve direct response in the classic sense of a message returned to the marketer. The interaction may involve supplemental communications delivered to the device with no further expectation of response (e.g., many QR codes simply convey additional product information when scanned). Importantly, the versatility of mobile enhancement technologies is such that the range of advertising media had to be expanded to include things like packaging, which traditionally was not considered an ad medium. Mobile Content and Relationship Marketing (mCRM). In contrast to the above two bought media advertising categories, this activity includes any communications transmitted to or from the mobile device that is owned by the marketer or earned by them as a result of user-generated content or viral sharing on mobile devices. Thus, owned media would include the marketers content on its mobile websites (in fact, all of what is now being called content marketing finds its way into this category so long as it is accessible via mobile devices) or on-going communications the marketer sends to customers who have opted-in to receive SMS alerts, or who follow (subscribe to) its communications on a social media site, or use a downloaded branded mobile app utility, (e.g., to compare prices, get recommendations, place orders for home delivery, etc.) Mobile earned media includes marketing communications pertaining to a particular company, product or service that are created or distributed by end-customers or by third-parties (such as bloggers or journalists) via mobile devices or media. Such media is earned because strictly speaking, the marketing communications is not sponsored by the marketers themselves. Examples would include consumer-filmed short videos of a friend enjoying a product which gets posted to mobile-accessible social media, virally forwarded links in mobile messaging, tweets about products advertised on TV, product reviews and recommendations, or consumer likes of brand pages on social mediaall to the extent they are accessed by end-customers via qualifying mobile devices.
Basic
or
Entry-level
Phones
No
screen
Simple
123/ABC
telephone
keypad
Support
cellular
voice
calls
only
Note:
these
devices
have
almost
disappeared
from
the
market;
the
few
remaining
may
have
some
marginal
impact
on
calls
to
800-numbers
Feature
Phones
A
twelve-button
ABC/123
keypad
A
small
postage-stamp
screen
Support
cellular
voice;
texting
(SMS
and
MMS);
Limited
access
to
data
/
messaging,
usually
at
2G
or
2.5G
speeds
Limited
ability
to
display
certain
simple
mobile
websites
(WAP),
usually
via
the
mobile
carriers
portal
Can
download
limited
digital
content,
such
as
ringtones,
screensavers,
wallpaper,
and
games
A
low
resolution
digital
camera
Smartphones8
Network
accessibility
includes
cellular
voice,
texting,
data,
and
Wi-Fi
Cellular
voice,
text,
and
broad-band
data
at
3G
speeds
or
faster
Nearly
full
access
to
the
Internet
via
web
browsers
GPS,
Wi-Fi,
and
Bluetooth
Large
screen
displays,
usually
touch,
pinch,
spread,
and
swipe
sensitive
A
full
Qwerty
keyboard,
whether
built
into
the
hardware
as
buttons,
or
via
touchscreen
The
ability
to
download
apps
from
an
app
store
that
deliver
rich
content
and
enhance
device
functionality
Front-
and
back-facing
cameras
for
good
quality
still
and
motion
photography
A
multitude
of
additional
passive
sensors,
including
motion
sensors
such
as
accelerometers,
gyroscopes,
etc.
Fully
supported
music
and
video
content
Some
most
recent
models
include
voice
recognition,
pre-installed
smart
code
readers,
and
NFC
Tablets
(including
Mini
Tablets
and
E-Readers)
Mostly
similar
to
smartphones,
except:
Significantly
larger
screen
format
and
lacking
cellular
voice;
8
This includes advanced email readers such as BlackBerrys, networked MP3 players, such as the iPod Touch, and certain advanced digital assistants made by Palm and others, to the extent they have more or less complete Internet access. 20
Below is a list of devices that our report does not include under the definition of mobile. Desktops, Laptops, Netbooks: These are not included as mobile device for our purposes, since most do not meet our test of mobile network locatability and awareness. Nor do we include laptops or netbooks tethered to mobile devices network, though we recognize a case could be made for doing so. Game Players and Consoles: While many of these devices are responsible for a large volume of sales of digital, downloaded game content, we felt that they do not meet the test of location mobility. Smart Automobiles: Many US automobiles are now networked in a variety of ways, particularly via GPS devices, OnStar type driver assistance platforms, satellite radio, etc., many of which can be updated remotely (thus enabling a kind of mobile publishing). In addition, many late-model automobiles, especially at the high end of the market, are now including more sophisticated Internet-capable devices that remain networked as the car moves, thus meeting our mobility test. However, because these devices stay with the vehicle, not the driver, we exclude these devices for failing our studys personal portability criteria. Smart Homes: Similar to the case of smart vehicles, the future suggests growth in smart homes. To the extent that mobile devices are capable of access information from a smart home (e.g., a smart refrigerator, freezer, or pantry) to determine which items need to be restocked, and use that information as the basis for a marketing relevant communication, such as in a shopping list app, we consider the marketing communication to be on-device, and therefore mobile. But exchanges of information between the static location of the smart home and another static location, such as a retail outlet or an appliance manufacturer, would fail our tests of mobility and portability. Mobile Apparel (watches, glasses, wristbands, etc.). Clearly, many wearable items are now being designed to access mobile networks of one kind or another, and thus meet the criteria of mobility and portability as our study defines them. We exclude these devices only because they are too new and too few to be measurable. We expect this situation will change very rapidly, and that future iterations of this study would need to take them into consideration.
A mobile data subscription is often not automatically bundled with a tablet purchase, meaning many tablets are Wi-Fi-only
21
Currently, we classify VoiP (i.e., internet-based voice services, such as Skype) as part of mobile apps. The sending of text messages is not free anywhere, but the US differs from other markets in that recipients are also charged when they receive texts. Consumers may be billed on a per-text basis or may buy all you can eat messaging plans. This cost consideration may be a disincentive for some consumers who might otherwise opt-in to participate in CRM marketing programs or subscribe to branded content. 22
displayed
in
non-mobile
mediaare
used
to
facilitate
direct
response
or
ongoing
communications,
and
the
marketing
communications
plans
that
use
them
require
preapproval
by
mobile
carriers
and
industry
associations.
Because
of
messagings
individual-level
addressability,
it
is
a
natural
vehicle
for
opt-in,
subscription-based
publishing
(in
which
a
tiny
amount
of
space
can
be
available
for
third-party
advertising).
It
also
supports
direct
one-to-one
marketing
relationship
communications
between
marketers
and
opted
in
customers.
Texting
is
also
easily
incorporated
with
non-mobile
media
for
direct
response
campaigns.
SMS
may
also
be
used
to
market
and
distribute
downloadable
and
other
premium
content,
such
as
ringtones,
a
feature
known
as
Premium
SMS
(PSMS).
PSMS
is
charged
to
subscribers
phone
bills
or
a
prepaid
account.
MMS,
or
multimedia
message
service,
is
sometimes
referred
to
as
picture
or
video
messaging
to
help
differentiate
it
from
SMS.
MMS
is
delivered
almost
the
same
way
as
SMS,
but
can
include
multimedia
attachments
such
as
images,
audio,
video,
and
rich
text,
often
in
a
slide- show
format.
Instant
messaging
takes
place
via
the
Internet,
and
therefore
technically
is
a
different
medium.
It
is
primarily
embedded
in
websites,
proprietary
device
operating
systems,
or
within
certain
social
media.
Though
there
are
recent
indications
that
IM
may
be
replacing
texting
among
some
audiences,
its
role
in
mobile
marketing
is
too
nascent
to
be
included
in
this
study.
Mobile
E-Mail
While
its
origins
predate
the
mobile
phone,
email
is
now
an
important
part
of
the
mobile
marketing
landscape.
An
e-mail
message
can
be
transmitted
to
or
from
any
standard
data
network,
whether
landline
or
Wi-Fi,
or
through
a
mobile
carrier
network.
E-mail
can
be
an
effective
means
of
delivering
messages
to
a
smartphone,
a
data-enabled
mobile
device
(such
as
a
tablet),
or
a
dedicated
e- mail
device
(such
as
a
BlackBerry).
Any
meaningful
difference
in
addressability
between
mobile
and
non-mobile
e-mail
lies
in
the
metadata
that
the
device
appends
in
the
header
to
the
e-mail
transmission,
thus
enabling
a
response
to
be
identified
as
coming
from
a
mobile
device.
And,
like
its
PC-based
original,
the
bulk
sending
of
unsolicited
commercial
email
(spam)
is
prohibited
except
under
certain
limited
exceptions.
As
an
opt-in
marketing
medium,
mobile
e-mail
offers
all
the
possibilities
of
conventional
email,
such
as
direct
response
and
opted-in
CRM
owned
media
communications,
such
as
newsletters.
But
it
also
offers
the
great
advantage
that
the
customer
or
prospect
often
has
the
device
on
her
person,
allowing
for
the
potential
of
a
more
immediate
impression
or
response
in
many
more
contexts.
In
addition,
mobile
email
intended
for
a
smartphone
or
tablet
can
include
links
that
enable
the
recipient
to
leverage
features
unique
to
the
mobile
device,
download
the
marketers
mobile
app,
or
click
to
call
features
embedded
in
the
email.
23
For
purposes
of
calculating
mobile
emails
sales
impact,
we
look
at
mobile-accessed
marketing
e-mail
i.e.,
all
e-mail
containing
marketing
communications
that
are
accessed
and
read
on
qualifying
mobile
devices
by
end-customers.
For
our
expenditure
calculations,
we
measure
mobile-optimized
marketing
e-mail
as
those
marketing
communications
marketers
intentionally
send
to
and
design
for
the
form
factors
of
mobile
devices
as
distinguished
from
those
of
the
fixed-line
e-mail
environment.
Mobile
Web
As
in
the
traditional
PC-based
Internet,
the
Web
refers
to
digital
content
that
has
been
created
using
specially
designed
computer
code
for
display
via
a
browser,
and
which
the
browser
pulls
from
the
host
by
using
a
Universal
Record
Locator,
or
URL.
In
mobile,
the
power
and
utility
of
the
web
depends
on
the
device.
Basic
phones
have
no
web
access
at
all.
Feature
phones
can
only
access
limited
function
sites
that
have
been
specifically
created
for
them,
usually
so-called
WAP
sites.
However,
mobile
marketing
in
the
U.S.
really
achieved
lift-off
in
2007
when
Apple
introduced
the
iPhone,
the
first
truly
popular
smartphone.
The
iPhones
HTML
compatible
browser
and
touch-screen
(spreading,
swiping,
pinching,
and
tapping)
permitted
more
or
less
unrestricted
access
to
PC-based
web
content,
but
with
some
key
limitations
for
marketers:
the
iPhone
did
not
support
Adobes
JavaScript,
the
programming
language
in
which
much
online
advertising
was
displayed,
nor
did
the
iPhone
accept
third-party
cookies
(the
workhorse
used
for
online
advertising
measurement
and
targeting)
and
some
video
formats.
The
upshot
was
smartphone
browsers
gave
access
to
lots
of
great
content,
but
stripped
out
the
means
to
pay
for
it.
When
mobiles
share
of
web
traffic
was
tiny,
this
could
perhaps
be
overlooked.
Today,
with
tablets
and
smartphones
often
the
first
screen
for
many
consumers,
publishers
and
marketers
are
greatly
concerned
about
optimizing
their
sites
for
mobile
advertising,
such
as
by
using
alternative
coding
and
design
strategies,
adopting
HTML5,
etc.
But
even
when
the
advertising
is
not
optimized
for
mobile
devices,
underlying
mobile
Web
content
offers
the
content-marketing
possibilities
of
the
Internet
but
again,
as
in
the
case
of
mobile
e-mail,
enhanced
with
the
immediacy
presented
by
a
device
that
is
often
on
the
consumers
person
in
specific
contexts.
Likewise,
it
also
offers
the
possibility
of
upgrading
the
relationship
by
convincing
the
user
to
download
an
app
and
take
advantage
of
the
devices
full
hardware
capabilities.
Mobile
Applications
Apps
Applications
are
specialized
software
programs
specifically
designed
to
increase
the
functionality
of
mobile
device
hardware
or
software.
They
may
be
pre-installed
by
the
device
manufacturer
or
more
often
they
may
be
wirelessly
downloaded
and
installed
on
the
device
by
the
user.
Apps
are
primarily
a
creature
of
smartphones
and
tablets,
though
there
are
some
apps
that
feature-phone
users
can
access
and
install.
Depending
on
their
size
and
type,
apps
24
may support a wide range of content, from games to rich-media imagery to video and much more. There are two basic types of smartphone and tablet apps: Browser apps are designed to be accessed by and reside in the major browsers on the mobile handset (Safari, Chrome, Firefox, etc.) and add functionality or content when the user is browsing the mobile web. They are most commonly used to create games, or other published content in a highly scalable way so that any user can access them. Native apps are designed to be installed directly on the device itself, and so must be specifically designed for each hardware operating system (iOS, Android, etc.) Operating system fragmentation and the need for consumer discovery and download can make developing native apps less efficient. Their attraction, however, lies in their power to leverage the full range of the devices underlying hardware, such as the camera, its microphone, its GPS sensors, its accelerometers, etc. Native apps can also be designed to access other software installed on the device, such as address books, music playlists, etc. With the potential to access so much additional functionality, mobile apps, especially in their native configuration, greatly expand the scope of communications opportunities offered to marketers. By downloading and using an app, customers are not just visiting a site momentarily but are opening up a direct conduit with a publisher or granting a marketer a certain presence on a device that a user will carry with them throughout the day. While much of this is possible with web apps, the native app offers the possibility of a far richer mobile experience for the customer since it is created specifically for it. The possibilities for one-to-one communications are thus greater through apps than through the web. In particular, the use of notifications and alerts within the app means that the app can become an ongoing channel of two-way communication in which publishers can offer highly creative rich-media advertising opportunities, or sell virtual goods (e.g., within games). The possibilities of apps would appear to be limited by little more than marketers creativity. A brief visit to Apples iTunes App Store or Googles Play will quickly find a wide variety of marketer-branded, marketer-sponsored apps across virtually every sector of the economy. A few of the most interesting features of the app for marketers are the ability to push notifications to users, providing reminders, updates, coupons, account information, and other useful information. Location datas usefulness also serves marketers in two ways, allowing marketers to help customers find them at physical store locations, or allowing marketers to know where users are, with permission, so that they can customize a shopping experience, provide offers or special options, and more. Apps also allow users to initiate contact and provide their own content, such as through submitting photos. They even provide the possibility for users to connect and interact with one another through a user community.
25
Mobile
Proximity
Media
Mobile
proximity
media
refers
to
limited-range
communications
technologies
that
operate
independently
of
cellular
or
Wi-Fi
data
networks.
Each
employs
its
own
radio
spectrum
that
enables
smart
mobile
devices
to
identify
or
communicate
with
other
mobile
(and
other)
devices
within
narrow
geographic
parameters.
Proximity
media
include:
NFC
(near
field
communication),
Bluetooth,
and
RFID
(radio-frequency
identification).
Because
these
media
are
still
in
early
stages
of
adoption
and
experimentation
among
consumers
and
marketers
alike,
we
treat
them
as
one
category.
Of
these,
NFC
appears
to
be
poised
for
a
significant
breakthrough,
though
Bluetooth
marketing
appears
to
have
significant
pockets
of
use
also.
NFCs
uses
include
contactless
payments,
interactivity
with
advertising
in
non-mobile
media,
and
customer
accesse.g.,
an
NFC-enabled
phone
can
simply
tap
a
reader
on
a
turnstile
and
open
the
door
to
an
office
or
other
secure
location.
NFC-enabled
phone
can
tap
an
N-Mark
on
printed
media
and
posters
to
display
additional
information
or
download
detailed
event
information,
and
two
individual
with
NFC-enabled
phones
can
share
large
volumes
of
data
instantaneously
by
touching
their
phones
together;
and
perhaps
most
significantly,
NFC
devices
enable
secure
in-person,
tap-and-go
mobile
payments.
Recognition:
Scanning
and
Augmented
Reality
Recognition
technology
involve
sensory
inputs
received
by
the
mobile
device
hardware,
such
as
via
the
camera
or
microphone,
which
are
rendering
into
marketing
relevant
communications,
often
via
accessing
additional
information
over
the
Internet.
The
main
examples
of
recognition
media
are
smart
barcode
scanning,
audio
scanning,
and
augmented
reality.
Recognition
enables
a
consumer
to
use
a
mobile
device
to
digitally
interact
with
his
or
her
immediate
physical
surroundings.
The
two
principal
pieces
of
hardware
involved
are
a
digital
camera
and
a
microphone.
The
camera
can
not
only
scan
2-D
smart
bar
codes,
which
in
turn
launch
Web
sites
or
apps,
it
can
also
overlay
digital
information
about
what
it
sees
in
the
camera
viewfinder,
augmenting
the
captured
image.
The
microphone
can
supplement
visual
information
by
detecting,
identifying,
and
responding
to
audio
inputs
it
hears
from
a
nearby
radio,
TV,
or
other
source
of
sound,
such
as
a
song
or
advertising
message.
Smart
2-D
bar
codes,
sometimes
generically
called
QR
codes
even
though
that
is
but
one
of
several
smartcode
technologies,
can
store
information
and
be
read
via
a
mobile
phone
for
quick
access
to
stored
content,
such
as
a
URL,
image,
or
address.
The
code
can
also
be
displayed
on
the
device
itself
and
read
by
a
piece
of
peripheral
equipment
so
that
the
consumer
can
use
the
code
as
a
ticket
or
coupon.
These
codes
are
easily
incorporated
into
many
traditional
and
nontraditional
media,
such
as
magazines,
signs,
buses,
business
cards,
T-shirts,
coffee
mugs,
product
packaging,
or
just
about
any
object
that
consumers
might
encounter
in
daily
life.
A
camera-equipped
smartphone
with
the
correct
reader
application
can
scan
the
QR
code
and
26
display text, images or video, connect to a wireless network, or open a Web page in the phones browser. This act of linking from physical-world objects creates a kind of real-world hyperlink, sometimes called a hardlink. The most common use of smart bar codes is to provide supplemental information, services, or content through a Web site or app download. The content can provide details of a promotion, a discount voucher, the activation of a download (such as a ringtone, song, or game), or even a telephone connection to an IVR or human agent. Smart bar codes are free to the consumer and often free to the marketer. But the marketer typically pays for the metrics that measure a bar- code campaigns effectiveness, as well as network usage charges based on consumer engagement or response, usually on a per-click, per-download, per-view, per-redemption, per- sale, or per-call basis. Augmented reality is a technique that allows users of a mobile device to view their physical (real-world) environment with certain of its elements augmented by virtual, computer- generated information or imagery. AR happens in real time. It can be used to identify the names of retail stores, provide historical information about a park monument, or supply sports scores for a game broadcast on TV, among many other uses. If a user views a print advertisement through an augmented reality application on a mobile device, the device will show an interactive portrait of that advertisement, with things like 3-D imagery, video, and other highly interactive content. Augmented reality requires a smart mobile device with data access and a digital camera and a preinstalled or downloaded augmented reality mobile application.
27
6,693 10,456 15,162 19,806 3,060 4,871 7,078 9,207 669 1,312 2,174 2,912 2,964 4,273 5,910 7,686
In
addition
to
core
expenditures
on
mobile
marketing
communications,
we
examined
industries
mobile
marketing
related
expenditures
in
marketing
services
(such
as
agency
or
PR
fees,
audience
research
fees,
etc.)
together
with
supplemental
internal
support
costs
(such
as
staff
training,
systems
overhauls,
etc.)
that
marketers
and
retailers
may
incur
as
a
result
of
their
mobile
marketing
activities.
As
shown
below,
these
expenditures
amounted
to
an
additional
$3.9
billion
in
2012,
and
this
will
likely
rise
to
$10.5
billion
by
the
year
2015.
Table
6:
U.S.
Expenditure
on
Mobile
Marketing
and
Advertising,
plus
Related
Expenditures
$
Millions
Total
Mobile
Marketing
Expenditure
2010
3,703
2011
6,181
2012
10,563
2013
16,375
2014
23,412
2015
CAGR
30,355 52.3%
11
To clarify the difference between these two categories: Mobile marketing communications expenditures in table 1 are the base used to calculate the ecosystems sales impact (and ultimately, indirect seller employment impacts); while expenditure on related overhead expenditures as displayed in table 2 are added to the sub-total of marketing communications expenditures to arrive at the grand total of all mobile marketing expenditures that are used to calculated direct (advertiser) employment. 28
Mobile Mktg Communications Other Marketing Services Supplemental Internal Support Source: mLightenment
In
the
following
pages
of
this
section,
we
compare
and
analyze
our
estimate
of
current
and
forecast
levels
of
mobile
marketing
expenditure
using
our
earlier
map
of
mobile
marketing.
We
also
identify
the
major
trends
that
explain
marketer
adoption
and
levels
of
expenditure
on
mobile
marketing
across
three
principal
categories:
mobile
advertising,
mobile-enhanced
direct
response,
and
mobile
CRM,
or
permission-based
marketing.
The
importance
of
this
review
of
mobile
marketing
expenditure
can
be
seen
by
putting
it
in
the
context
of
recent
forecasts
of
U.S.
advertising
expenditure.
To
take
but
one
example:
For
Zenith
Optimedia,
one
of
the
worlds
foremost
authorities
on
advertising
expenditure,
mobile
remains
all
too
buried
within
other
categories
like
Internet,
even
though
by
our
estimates
mobiles
2013
expenditure
compares
with
more
established
media,
such
as
outdoor
or
cinema.
Table
7
Projected
Growth
of
Non-Mobile
Media
Expenditures
MEDIUM
OR
DISCIPLINE
Major
Media
TV
Radio
Magazine
Newspaper
Outdoor
Internet
Cinema
Marketing
Services
Direct
mail
Telemarketing
Sales
promotion
Public
relations
Event
sponsorship
Directories
Grand
Total
12
2012 159,699 $60,990 16,718 18,062 24,975 7,589 30,639 725 208,438 50,442 51,397 68,063 3,885 25,755 8,896 368,137
2013 165,774 $63,096 17,208 17,520 22,977 7,968 36,243 761 214,305 51,451 52,425 70,233 4,157 27,944 8,095 380,079
12
Display, Internet video/rich media, classified, paid search, Internet radio, podcast, paid social-media ads and mobile. See Methodology. 29
Mobile
as
a
Share
of
Overall
Marketing
Expenditure
Total
expenditure
is
driven
by
both
how
many
marketers
are
using
mobiletheir
adoption
rateand
the
percentage
of
budgets
that
adopters
allocate
to
it.
Significant
increases
in
adoption
of
mobile
techniques
were
found
by
our
own
primary
survey
work,
and
are
being
reported
across
most
third-party
industry
surveys
we
looked
at.
For
example,
a
2012
StrongMail
survey
of
some
600
marketers
asked
about
current
usage
of
mobile
marketing
of
any
kind
and
found
that
45%
of
marketers
surveyed
were
employing
it
as
of
2012.14
Combining
responses
to
other
questions
about
how
long
users
had
been
utilizing
it,
and
how
soon
nonusers
were
likely
to
adopt
it,
we
derived
the
following
table
of
adoption
rates
by
marketers.
Table
8:
Percent
of
US
Marketers
Employing
Mobile
Marketing
or
Advertising
Year
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
% of Marketers Employing 6% 19% 33% 45% 53% 69% 86% Mobile Source: Author calculations benchmarked against StrongMail and ChiefMarketer survey results
We
found
a
similar
pattern
regarding
mobiles
share
of
marketing
budgets.
To
illustrate,
Chief
Marketer
magazines
annual
mobile
survey
indicated
roughly
4%
of
[digital]
marketing
budgets
went
to
mobile
marketing
in
2011.15
Its
2012
survey
indicated
that
this
amount
was
less
than
10%
of
the
marketing
budget.16
A
StrongMail
survey
estimates
that
mobile
represented
5.1%
of
digital
marketing
budgets
in
2012.17
Table
9:
Weighted
Distribution
of
Mobile
Marketing
Activity
Advertising:
DR
CRM
Advertising
Search
LBS
QR,
etc.
11.3%
7.6%
4.3%
15.8%
23.2%
15.8%
61.0%
13 14
Publicis Groupe's Zenith Optimedia, Advertising Expenditure Forecasts, June 2012, www.zenithoptimedia.com. StrongMail Survey, 2012 15 Chief Marketer, 2011 Mobile Marketing Survey: Many Roads to Mobility. 16 Chief Marketer, 2012 Mobile Marketing Survey: Mobile Goes with Everything. 17 Strongmail Survey, 2012. How share of marketing budgets translate into total marketing dollars depends on what the survey respondents understood by total marketing budgets, and whether this can be projected to the entire population of US marketers. 30
Push 7.7% SMS 12.9% Website 22.6% Apps 17.7% TOTAL 100% Source: Author calculations based on StrongMail and Chief Marketer Surveys, 2012.
SMS
SMS-based
advertising
helps
support
a
wide
variety
of
content
publishers
for
whom
SMS
content
delivery
is
particularly
well
suited.
Of
these,
the
most
famous
is
Twitter,
but
there
are
many
other
SMS-reliant
content
providers,
whether
providing
news,
weather
alerts,
coupon
opportunities,
social
media
/
microblogging
sites,
etc.
Twitter
advertising,
however,
is
increasingly
app
based.
Table
11:
SMS
Application-to-Person
(A2P)
Messaging
Estimate
$
Billions
US
%
Publishers
$
Publishers
2010
$11.88
0.86
$10.22
2011
$12.96
0.85
$11.02
2012
$13.95
0.84
$11.72
2013
$14.85
0.83
$12.33
2014
$15.66
0.82
$12.84
2015
$16.38
0.81
$13.27
$3.11
$ Marketers $1.66 $1.94 $2.23 $2.52 $2.82 Source: Author estimates based on Statista, Juniper Research and ABI releases.
31
Our
estimate
of
SMS
advertising
takes
as
its
base
the
value
of
SMS
publishing
expenditures
paid
to
platforms
providers,
as
estimated
above.
Occasionally,
third
party
research
estimates
the
value
of
SMS
advertising,
as
for
example,
in
October
2011,
eMarketer
estimated
that
SMS
advertising
represented
more
than
one-third
(36.1%)
of
all
US
mobile
ad
spending
that
year.
Despite
a
significant
expansion
in
the
overall
market
for
mobile
advertising,
eMarketer
predicts
that
the
SMS
advertising
share
of
this
expanding
market
will
decline
to
14.4%
by
2015.18
Mobile
E-mail
IABs
most
recent
study
reports
a
small
portion
of
Internet
advertising
dollars
is
allocated
to
e- mail
advertisingabout
$156
million
in
2012,
down
27%
from
2011,
the
most
recent
year
for
which
complete-year
estimates
are
available.19
Table 12: 2012 Internet Advertising Revenue $ Millions 2012 Internet Ad Revenue Total $36,570 100% Search $16,932 46% Display / Banner $7,700 21% Mobile $3,400 9% Classifieds $2,400 7% Digital Video $2,300 6% Lead Generation $1,700 5% Rich Media $1,100 3% Sponsorship $845 2% Email $156 1% Source: IAB and PwC, IAB Internet Advertising Revenue Report: An Industry Survey Conducted by PwC and Sponsored by the Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB) 2012 Full Year Results, April 2013
Mobile
Web
To
arrive
at
the
value
for
Mobile
Web
advertising,
we
estimated
an
aggregate
value
of
web- based
mobile
search,
display,
and
local
advertising.
We
then
benchmarked
these
estimates
against
third-party
published
reports,
such
as
those
of
eMarketer,
Forrester,
IAB-PWC,
Strategy
Analytics,
and
others.
Benchmarking
against
third-party
data
was
often
tricky,
because
of
potentially
overlapping
or
discontinuous
categories
of
classification
are
used,
often
within
the
18
US Mobile Ad Spending to Top $1 Billion for First Time in 2011 Read more at http://www.emarketer.com/newsroom/index.php/mobile-ad-spending-top-1-billion-time- 2011/#0eaO6c7wuZyuopRq.99 eMarketer, October 4, 2011. http://www.emarketer.com/newsroom/index.php/mobile-ad-spending-top-1-billion- time-2011/ 19 The IAB PWC report began to report mobile as a separate category in 2012. As part of this effort, it reclassified some 2011 expenditures previously reported as part of other categories (such as display, search, etc.) as mobile; however, e-mail advertising was not one of these. 32
same
report,
as
with
social
and
display.
Nonetheless,
some
were
quite
helpful,
e.g.
Strategy
Analytics
forecast
of
$556
million
in
US
mobile
Web
display
advertising
for
2012.20
(Similarly,
BIA/Kelseys
study
on
location-based
searches
helped
us
assess
how
much
is
being
spent
on
mobile
location-based
searches,
both
web
and
non-web.)
Table 13: Location-Based Search Local Search Queries (Billions) 2010 2011 2012 36.2 62.2 800 6,600 2013 52.7 69.5 1,600 7,500 2014 69.2 76.8 2,133 8,400 2015 85.9 84 2,733 9,300 Mobile 10.7 19.7 Desktop 47.6 54.9 Revenue ($ Millions) Mobile 200 400 Desktop 4,800 5,700 Source: Author calculations based on BIA/Kelsey.
Apps (Search, Display, Video, Other) Surveys from developers / publishers are an indicators of in-app advertisings importance. A 2012 survey of mobile app developers asserted that the application market is shifting from pay- to-download models to models where other revenue sources, especially advertising, are becoming important revenue sources, with 25 percent of phone-app developers and 18 percent of tablet-app developers choosing to incorporate ads within their applications.21 Strategy Analytics expected in-app advertising to account for $1.2 billion in 2012 revenues, compared with just $556 million in mobile Web display advertising.22 We believe that the rapid adoption of tablets will drive mobile video consumption, and with it expenditure on mobile device video consumption. In particular, we note that leading cable and mobile broadband providers are developing apps and integrations responding to the tablet opportunity, including Xfinity TV by Comcast, Verizon FiOS, HBO GO apps, which are increasingly incorporating advertising.23
20
Paul Ausick, Mobile Market Spending to Reach $150 Billion in 2012, 24/7 Wall St., April 23, 2012, http://247wallst.com/2012/04/23/mobile-market-spending-to-reach-150-billion-in-2012-t-vz-vod-znga-p-aapl- goog-mm/ 21 Amy Cravens, A demographic and business model analysis of todays app developer. GigaOM Pro, 2012, appdevelopersalliance.org/files/pages/GigaOMApplicationDevelopers.pdf 22 Paul Ausick, Mobile Market Spending to Reach $150 Billion in 2012, 24/7 Wall St., http://247wallst.com/2012/04/23/mobile-market-spending-to-reach-150-billion-in-2012-t-vz-vod-znga-p-aapl- goog-mm/ 23 Onward and Upward, Screen Media Daily, http://www.screenmediadaily.com/marketing-dpaa-digital-place- based-advertising-association-out-of-home-media-planning-buying-survey-centro-mobile-tablets-0629909.shtml 33
2,912 77.3% 630 97.4% 337 72.6% 38 33.4% 297 52.5% 110 68.9% 943 112.0% 78 91.9% 161 133 167 71.0% 61.8% 54.5%
Perhaps
one
of
the
most
compelling
aspects
of
mobile
is
its
ability
to
integrate
with
nearly
any
non-mobile
marketing
channel.
To
account
for
mobiles
integration
in
non-mobile
communications,
we
looked
at
the
three
following
categories
of
mobile
enhancements
to
non- mobile
marketing
media
and
advertising.
Mobile
Enhanced
Calls
to
Action.
This
includes
short-code-based
SMS
calls
to
action
as
well
as
the
classic
direct
response
vehicles
of
voice
(dialing
a
800
number
from
a
mobile
phone).
Although
using
a
phone
to
visit
a
site
or
send
an
e-mail
constitutes
mobile
response,
our
study
counts
only
a
tiny
fraction
of
such
real
estate
in
other
media
toward
mobile
expenditure,
since
we
found
a
negligible
portion
of
this
activity
to
be
specifically
mobile-optimized
at
this
point.
More
significant
are
the
increasingly
frequent
calls
to
follow
us
on
Twitter
(or
Facebook
or
many
other
mobile-accessible
social
media
sites),
to
the
now
almost
ubiquitous
silent
calls
to
action
represented
by
the
numerous
social
sharing
icons
placed
on
all
manner
of
media.24
Recognition.
This
includes
the
use
of
barcodes,
a
fast-growing
technique
over
the
last
18
months,25
and
the
popular
QR
code.26
24
We make certain assumptions about whether the placement is intended to reach a mobile audience: social media sharing, following or liking calls to action or icons that appear in outdoor contexts, eg we count as more mobile than a placement in other media where the respondent is likely to use their PC. 25 Jack Loechner, Mobile Barcode Scanning Explodes, MediaPost Blogs, August 20, 2012, http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/181094/mobile-barcode-scanning-explodes.html 26 Taking the volume of scans as an indicator of expenditure is problematic, since the value at any given time necessarily includes noise from consumer behavior (share of scanning consumers or their frequency). Nonetheless, it appears that total scans must be bounded by marketer provision of total opportunities to scan, i.e., the extent to which they display codes more prominently on more media. Data on scan volume from Mobile 34
Proximity.
This
includes
NFC,
Bluetooth,
and
RFID
enhancements.
Since
these
nascent
technologies
require
expenditure
by
mobile
and
non-mobile
platform
providers
before
marketers
can
even
think
about
using
them,
at
least
some
of
the
expenditure
dollars
reported
here
constitute
platform
providers
self-promotional
marketing
efforts
(in
effect,
place
your
mobile
ad
here
advertising).
Following
are
highlights
of
major
developments
accounting
for
the
expenditure
on
mobile
enhancements
to
non-mobile
media.
Direct
Mail
Though
postal
revenues
appear
to
be
in
long-term
decline,
direct-mail
expenditures,
as
suggested
by
Zenith
Optimedias
data
cited
above,
remain
in
the
tens
of
billions
of
dollars.
Our
estimate
of
expenditure
on
total
direct
mail
is
based
on
the
volume
of
pieces
shipped
by
the
USPS
within
the
standard
(advertising)
rate,
which
in
2012
amounted
to
79.8
billion
pieces.27
Of
these,
roughly
3
billion
were
so-called
flats,
which
we
take
as
our
proxy
for
catalogs;
the
remainder
we
assume
to
be
bulk
direct
mail
letters
of
one
class
or
another.
Total
marketing
communications
costs
per
letter
piece
we
assume
to
be
about
$1
inclusive
of
postage;
for
catalogs,
we
assume
a
per
piece
marketing
communications
cost
of
about
$3.
Mobile-enhanced
direct
mail
and
catalog
expenditure.
There
has
been
an
organic
move
within
the
direct
mail
industry
to
incorporate
mobile
interactive
and
direct
response
elements
within
their
overall
direct
mail
campaigns.
In
addition,
the
USPSs
financial
crisis
has
led
it
to
a
number
of
mobile-focused
direct-mail
initiatives.28
Most
significantly,
the
USPS
launched
two
initiatives
in
2012
and
2013
providing
discounts
to
direct
mailers
who
newly
incorporated
mobile
enhancement
such
as
QR
codes,
mobile
apps,
and
mobile-optimized
websites
in
their
campaigns.29
Our
estimation
of
total
expenditure
on
mobile
enhancement
recognition
in
direct
mail
includes
the
estimated
costs
of
the
USPS
programs
partial
subsidy.
It
also
includes
the
remaining
unsubsidized
amount
incurred
by
marketers,
with
a
calculation
for
an
incremental
marketer
Barcode
Trend
Report
from
ScanLife,
Q2
2012,
http://www.scanlife.com/pdf/scanlife-trend-report-inforgraphic- Q2-12.pdf.
27
This
volume
is
a
drop
of
4.9
billion
pieces
or
5.8%
from
2011.
USPS
Revenue,
Pieces
and
Weight
Report
for
FY2012.
www.usps.gov.
Thus
while
some
spending
on
direct
mail,
such
as
the
catalog,
is
clearly
migrating
elsewhere,
we
do
expect
overall
direct-mail
expenditures
to
remain
in
the
billions
of
dollars
annually
for
the
foreseeable
future,
thanks
to
its
extremely
high
ROI
for
certain
categories
of
verticals
and
the
rising
average
expenditure
per
piece.
28
See
USPS,
Progress
and
Performance:
Annual
Report
to
Congress
2012,
http://about.usps.com/publications/annual-report-comprehensive-statement-2012/annual-report- comprehensive-statement-2012.pdf
29
For
press
releases
and
press
coverage
on
this
USPS
initiative,
see
https://ribbs.usps.gov/index.cfm?page=mobilebarcode
35
expenditure
for
legacy
mobile
enhancements,
such
as
SMS
calls
to
action,
that
are
not
covered
by
the
new
initiatives.30
Print:
Magazines
and
Newspapers
Like
direct
mail,
print
and
newspaper
advertising
expenditures
overall
are
experiencing
long- term
decline.
Mobile
recognition
in
magazines/newspapers.
Probably
the
best
publicly
available
source
on
the
prevalence
of
mobile
enhancements
to
print
advertising
comes
from
the
marketing
firm
Nellymoser,
which
reported
that
in
December
2011
QR
codes
appeared
in
8.4%
of
all
magazine
ads,
up
from
3.6%
from
the
end
of
the
prior
year.31
Our
own
spot-check
of
print-magazine
advertising
available
on
newsstands
in
the
New
York
City
area
in
late
2012
suggests
they
are
not
quite
as
ubiquitous
as
this
figure
suggests.32
We
also
observed
a
small
but
growing
trend
to
integrate
mobile
into
the
creative
of
magazine
advertising
in
other
ways,
such
as
by
making
mobile
scanning
part
of
the
delivery
of
the
final
print
artwork,
which
increases
the
net
percentage
of
the
print
real
estate
that
we
count
as
mobile
enhanced.33
Television
and
Radio
Despite
concerns
about
the
erosion
of
the
traditional
TV
and
radio
audience,
marketers
are
unlikely
to
forsake
tried-and-true
budgeting
assumptions
until
overwhelming
evidence
forces
them
to
do
so.
Thus,
the
base
of
expenditure
in
these
media
from
which
we
derive
the
slice
of
the
pie
represented
by
mobile
enhancements
will
remain
in
the
tens
of
billions
of
dollars
for
the
foreseeable
future.
Mobile-enhancements.
TV
broadcasters
and
advertisers
increasingly
recognize
that
mobile
co- consumption
or
multi-screening
is
a
fact
of
life
for
many
viewers.
Advertising
creative
often
implicitly
assumes
that
a
TV
ad
will
be
shown
while
the
consumer
is
texting
or
using
an
app
on
their
tablet,
and
not
infrequently
includes
dialogue
or
text
meant
to
prompt
a
soft
mobile
response
such
as
a
social-media
tweet
or
search,
even
in
the
absence
of
a
formal
mobile
response
call
to
action.34
In
addition,
SMS,
email,
and
800-numbers
have
been
and
will
30
The amount spent only includes the cost of printing envelopes and enclosures with QR codes. The cost of building and maintaining a mobile website is not counted here, but it is included in expenditure on mobile CRM mobile websites and/or apps, as appropriate. 31 Mark Milian, QR Code Fatigue, Bloomberg Businessweek, (June 28, 2012), http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-06-28/qr-code-fatigue 32 The marketing industrys own Advertising Age experimented with using mobile recognition to enhance content delivery for its print editions. See for example the January 30, 2013, issue. 33 For an example of a print advertisement whose creative devotes a high percentage of its real estate to mobile recognition without the use of QR codes, see AXA: When iAds Meet Print Ads, Digital Buzz, September 29, 2010, http://www.digitalbuzzblog.com/axa-when-iads-meet-print-ads/ 34 Advertising Age recently reported that the 2012 Super Bowl saw 8 commercials mention Twitter and 8 mention Facebook. 36
continue
to
be
a
popular
method
for
getting
viewer
attention
especially
outside
of
prime
time
broadcast
TV.
Mobile
recognition.
Visual
recognition
technologies
such
as
QR
codes
that
require
the
viewer,
with
mobile
device
in
hand,
to
do
something,
does
not
appear
to
be
widely
adopted
by
marketers.
On
the
other
hand,
audio
recognition
may
be
the
bigger
piece
of
the
pie
for
two
reasons.
First,
active
audio
recognition
behaviors
among
TV
viewers
have
already
begun,
for
example,
when
they
use
apps
such
as
Shazam
to
scan
songs
that
accompany
ads.35
Secondly,
audio
interviews
with
digital
agency
experts
and
client-side
marketers
lead
us
to
believe
there
is
great
interest
in
passive
mobile
ad
syncing
technologies
for
TV,
which
is
more
likely
to
gain
dollars
because
audio
recognition
doesnt
have
to
be
aimed
at
the
TV
screen.
Properly
designed,
audio
recognition
can
be
an
almost
completely
passive
way
for
the
mobile
device
to
hear
what
is
being
watched
and
to
create
incremental
second-device
communications
or
response
opportunities,
similar
to
that
described
recently
in
the
Los
Angeles
Times.36
Out-of-Home
Advertising
The
overall
out-of-home
and
place-based
advertising
market
is
traditionally
a
small
part
of
marketers
advertising
budgets
that
appears
to
be
enjoying
something
of
a
renaissance.
The
reason
involves
the
industrys
rapid
move
to
digital,
primarily
electronically
networked
transmission
of
static
digital
images,
video,
and
other
forms
of
rich
media.37
This
means
that
advertising
outdoors
increasingly
can
be
targeted
in
real
time,
interactive,
measurable,
and,
most
significantly
for
this
study,
growing
opportunities
for
mobile
integration
and
enhancements.
Mobile-enhanced
OOH.
Mobile
marketing
shows
growth
in
this
area
not
only
because
out-of- home
advertising
in
general
is
growing,
but
because
the
category
is
becoming
increasingly
digital
(consider
electronic
billboards
and
bus
shelters,
for
example,
that
can
communicate
with
mobile
phones
in
close
proximity.)
Initially
the
most
widely
used
form
of
mobile
integration
was
SMS-based
short-code
marketing
direct
response.
More
recently,
however,
the
industry
has
seen
experiments
with
QR
code
recognition
integrations,
and
in
2012
both
Bluetooth
and
NFC-
35
Parov Solaar, for example, gained a significant boost in popularity when consumers used Shazam to scan Heineken commercials. 36 As described by the LA Times and on ConnecTVs website (http://www.connectv.com/ad-sync-network), ConnecTVs AdSync technology uses the mobile devices audio functionality to recognizes a commercial airing on TV, which creates the opportunity for the marketer to deliver complementary second screen content to the mobile device. Significantly, the syncing opportunity for marketers doesnt seem limited to TV commercials. A feature called TV Words allows advertisers to bid on key terms (most likely a brand or product name or a particular topic) that are spoken on television while the viewer is multitasking on their smartphone or tablet, thus making any in-app ads that are delivered via the ad network (e.g., to the video game they were playing) more relevant to the consumeror at least potentially complementary to their real time background TV co-consumption. See http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-fi-ct-connectv-20130104,0,7034239.story 37 Onward and Upward, Screen Media Daily, http://www.screenmediadaily.com/marketing-dpaa-digital-place- based-advertising-association-out-of-home-media-planning-buying-survey-centro-mobile-tablets-0629909.shtml 37
based proximity enhancements appeared to gain some more visibility in an effort to capitalize on the latest generation of smartphones with NFC. Event Sponsorship Event sponsorship is an important and growing part of non-traditional advertising media. Because of their site-specific nature, events are a natural fit with mobile marketing, especially for opportunities that leverage geo-location and real-time interactivity, such as text-to-screen (or sometimes, text-to-Jumbotron or iMax). Our research found that using mobile within events of even modest size (>1000 attendees) was now almost de rigueur. Expenditure on mobile enhancements within event sponsorship often included one or more of the following elements: Allowing attendees to access branded collateralwhite papers, one-sheets, downloads, videosvia mobile websites or event-branded apps; Event-wide saturation with branded smart barcodes on everything from display advertising to cocktail napkins; Driving attendees to conference booths through gamification Promoting events within events such as parties, keynote speakers, etc., via SMS messaging and Bluetooth Branding opportunities galore via the events mobile websites and via within-app advertising. Packaging Communications Overall expenditures on packaging communications.38 We estimate the consumer facing or wrapper component of US packaging expenditure to be about $5 billion in 2012, by which we mean net of extraneous (for marketing purposes) non-printed packing material costs the end- customer either never sees or that the marketer would never use to communicate. Mobile-enhanced packaging. Mobile-enhanced expenditures here primarily reflect the percentage of brands incorporating QR or other scannable bar codes on the packaging, a placement that, according to several sources (most notably Scanbuy), is now the most popular
38
We apologize for inventing this awkward name, but a name was necessary since (near as we can tell) annual US packaging-industry expenditures suitable for benchmarking in a media impact study appear not to exist. Packaging prior to the emergence of mobile marketing has primarily been thought of as a means of transporting, storing, and displaying the product through its journey from raw material to the consumer, not as a communications vehicle for any messaging other than a brands logo, product description and priceeven THIS END UP or FRAGILE. As our interest is in the mobile component of this communications opportunity, we have to net out costs the packaging industry typically measures as important: cardboard boxes used in bulk shipments, disposable plastic shrink-wrap, shock- absorbing or insulating material, and much else. We thus took as our marketing-communications base the portion of costs associated with printing aimed at the end-customer or costs associated with labeling on the container surface. Examples include the printed cardboard box a child pours cereal from in the morning, the soda can dispensed from a vending machine that boasts of a football-team sponsorship, and so on. 38
source for scanned bar codes.39 A much smaller portion of packaging real-estate is attributable to SMS calls to action. Our expenditure number also makes a tiny allowance for other forms of mobile responsethe sliver of space allocated on the package to a website URL or an 800 number, either of which may be accessed via mobile devices. Miscellaneous Our estimate of expenditure mobile enhancements reflects a number of digital modernizations in some very traditional marketing communications, many of which are directly related to the rise of mobile marketing. Our research suggests the category really comprises two separate sub-segments of relevance to mobile. The first is the category of electronic customer touch points such as vending machines, kiosks, and ATMs. These are rapidly becoming digital communications vehicles in their own right (to speak nothing of early experiments in incorporation of mobile payments; see below). In many instances, the incorporation of digital displays, keypads, and so forth is creating opportunities for expenditure on mobile-marketing enhancements, such as QR codes in ATM screens that lead customers to download proprietary apps or offers. The second segment is print- and paper-based media such as handbills, flyers, freestanding circulars (typically available for pick up in supermarkets), Yellow Pagestype directories, and so on. Similar to developments already discussed for direct mail, newspapers, and periodicals, printers (who benefit from this surprisingly large, though very local, market) are also increasingly encouraging their clients to include SMS calls to action and QR codes (typically to deliver mobile coupons) as part of the content. We expect this trend toward mobile enhancement to continue, even as the print-based segment of this overall market experiences a slow decline.40
Total Mobile CRM 1,248 Mobile Voice Expenditure 25 Mobile Messaging Expenditure 644
39
Scanlife.com, Are QR Codes Undervalued?: Digiday talks about QR Codes and Scanlife, June 5, 2012, http://www.scanlife.com/en/digiday-talks-about-qr-codes-and-scanbuy] 40 For example, see http://sitmobile-international.blogspot.com/2012/03/sms-mobile-flyers-effective-results- in.html 39
Mobile Web Expenditure Mobile Email Expenditure Mobile Apps Expenditure Mobile Proximity Expenditure Mobile Recognition Expenditure Source: mLightenment
13 22 544 0 0
61 64 967 0 0
While clearly important, Mobile CRM is a difficult-to-measure expenditure category. First, the portion of CRM that includes marketers efforts to create owned media, i.e. marketing communications that bypass publishers and paid advertising altogether, requires the market researcher to dig deeply for some often unconventional data sources. This category includes marketers efforts to become visible online and create one-to-one connections with customers. It includes expenditures necessary for marketers to build an online presence, become visible and findable through search engines, create mobile sites, and other related expenses, many of which lack clear boundaries or completely transparent data sources. No less importantly, marketers owned marketing communications content can often be difficult to distinguish from their earned media, i.e. the marketing communications created and distributed by consumers, bloggers, etc., usually at little to no cost to marketers. Marketer-Owned, Opt-In Relationship SMS/MMS Here we estimate the total number of opt-in broadcast SMS message. We see two categories, the biggest of which is publishers branded content; the other accounts for marketer-specific content.41 Owned Mobile E-mail Two estimates of the size of the overall hosted e-mail marketing industry appear to be the most widely cited and reliable. Forrester Research estimated that the 2012 expenditure on hosted e- mail marketing would approach $1.7 billion, growing moderately to $2.2 billion by 2015.42 Somewhat more recently, Marketing Growth Strategies, LLC, forecast a total market size of $2.6 billion in 2013, with an annual growth rate of about 20%.43
41
For example, in A New Era for Messaging (2011), Juniper Research estimated that (operator) revenues worldwide from A2P messaging would reach $70 billion in 2016, with the US share representing a little more than 25%, or about $17 billion. 42 Niki Scevak with Shar VanBoskirk, Forrester Research Email Marketing Forecast, 2011 To 2016 (US). March 24, 2011. http://www.forrester.com/Forrester+Research+Email+Marketing+Forecast+2011+To+2016+US/fulltext/-/E- RES59101 43 Dan Freeman, Email Marketing: An Industry Overview, 2011, http://www.pinpointe.com/wp- content/uploads/2011-Email-Marketing-Guide-Pinpointe.pdf. 40
Mobiles
share
of
hosted
e-mail
marketing.
Proportional
to
the
number
of
e-mails
now
being
opened
on
smart
devices,
marketers
appear
to
be
lagging
far
behind
consumers
in
their
migration
of
e-mail
to
the
mobile
environment
as
of
this
writing.44
Chief
Marketers
2012
mobile
marketing
report
indicates
that
36%
of
survey
respondents
measure
mobile
e-mail
opens.
Of
these,
72%
said
theyre
optimizing
their
messages
for
the
mobile
browser;
however,
mobile
optimization
appears
to
be
a
minimal
undertaking
to
have
preexisting
content
render
properly
on
the
most
common
device
platforms.45
Conservatively
assuming
that
none
of
the
remainder
are
optimizing
their
e-mails
for
the
mobile
user,
this
translates
into
approximately
one-quarter
of
marketers
with
owned
e-mail
communications
putting
incremental
dollars
into
a
minimal
expenditure
on
mobile
optimization.46
Owned
Mobile
Web
Mobile
SEO,
mobile
website
build
and
optimization.
The
overall
U.S.
SEO
market
is
probably
on
the
order
of
$3
billion.47
We
attribute
a
fraction
of
this
to
mobile
based
on
the
proportion
of
marketers
with
mobile
optimized
websites.
For
example,
according
to
Chief
Marketer,
31%
of
marketers
said
their
brands
main
website
has
been
optimized
for
viewing
over
most
mobile
devices;
17%
report
that
they
run
a
separate
version
of
that
site
built
for
mobile
visits.
Of
course,
not
even
these
marketers
are
optimizing
for
all
mobile
devices
and
platforms.
Mobile- optimized
websites
can
also
mean
that
a
brand
has
to
create
mobile-optimized
pages
across
numerous
content
platforms,
especially
major
social
sites
like
Facebook.
Mobile
web
content
expenditure.
The
total
size
of
the
content
market
in
the
United
States
is
estimated
to
be
on
the
order
of
$2
billion
in
2011.48
Mobile
Apps
Mobile
Apps
account
for
the
largest
expenditure
of
all
the
categories
in
mobile
CRM.
Table
16:
Expenditure
on
Marketing
Apps
iOS
Marketing
Apps
Developed
(est'd)
Non-iOs
Apps
44 45
2011 13,626 2
As of this writing the share of e-mails opened on mobile devices was on the order of 36%. Chief Marketer Mobile Marketing Survey 2012, Op. cit. 46 Cf. the most recent 2013 StrongMail Survey. StrongMail, 2013 Marketing Trends Survey Email Marketing, Social Media and Mobile Continue to Attract Increased Investment; Data Integration Remains Top Email Marketing Challenge, http://www.strongmail.com/pdf/SM_Trends2013.pdf 47 Econsultancy, SEMPO State of Search Marketing Report 2012, September 2012, http://econsultancy.com/us/blog/7447-sempo-study-us-search-spending-nears-20-billion 48 TransparencyMarketResearch, Mobile Content Market - Global And U.S. Industry Analysis, Size, Share, Trends And Forecasts 2011 2017, http://www.transparencymarketresearch.com/mobile-content-market.html 41
Multiplier Total Mktg Apps 19,334 27,252 37,810 47,543 59,236 72,172 (Estd) Av Cost (Assumed) $ 25,000 31,000 40,000 50,000 57,500 65,900 Total ($ Millions) 483 845 1,512 2,377 3,406 4,756 Source: Author calculations derived in part from AppAnnie.com, Flurry.com, primary survey results, and marketer/provider interviews.
Published app-development costs range anywhere from $10,000 to $250,000, depending on functionality. The assumed annual development cost cited in the chart above is our best conservative estimate, based on examples of standard-functionality, marketing-relevant apps from the Apple App Store, which we benchmarked by inquiring with digital agencies we interviewed about what developing apps with comparable features would likely cost. We then lowered the average amount by one-third since there are probably many more low-end apps developed (i.e., we used an estimate of the median expenditure rather than the mean). To estimate marketer expenditure across all U.S. app markets, we used a small multiplier that trends upward over time to extend what we learned from the Apple App Store to the rest of app marketplace, based on both popularity of each app with marketers and with mobile consumers.49 Finally, we reduced the total by about 30% to account for marketing apps in the US app stores not actually developed for the US market.50
49
We began with Apple App Store data because it is the largest, and its historical data on developer activity is more available and comprehensive. But apps are distributed through Google Play, Tapjoy, the Microsoft Windows Store, the Blackberry Store, Facebook, and others. However, the gap between iOS and non-iOS apps appears significant. As an indicator, consider that according to AppAnnie.com, the revenue multiple Apple paid to its publishers recently was some four times greater than that paid by Android, suggesting the possibility that for each app developed in the Apple platform there is only 0.25 of an app on its next closest rival. 50 Our conclusion that most US marketing apps were originally intended primarily, if not exclusively, for the iOS Store is separately confirmed by marketer surveys. Early in 2012, 37% of respondents told Chief Marketer they offered at least one smartphone app or planned one for 2012, compared to about 25% who said the same in the 2011 survey. Of those, most said they are targeting apps for Apples iPhone (94% have one) and iPad (72%), although about three-quarters also indicated plans for the Android platform. See, for example, the Chief Marketer surveys for 2011 and 2012. 42
Source: mLightenment
Among
the
most
important
segments
in
this
category
of
expenditure
are
the
following:
Advertising
Agency
Services
AdAge
has
conducted
detailed
surveys
of
the
publicly
reported
ad
agency
revenues
for
many
years,
and
recently,
it
began
including
mobile
marketing
activity.
For
the
most
recent
year
available,
it
reported
total
2011
U.S.
agency
billings
of
$33,174,187,000.51
(Advertising
agency
revenues
are
also
included
under
their
own
NAICS
code
within
the
standard
map
of
the
U.S.
economy
and
as
such,
form
part
of
the
mLightenment
model
of
marketing
expenditure
and
impacts.)
Mobile-related
agency
fees.
AdAge
reported
mobile-marketing-related
revenues
of
about
$550
million
in
2011
for
the
top
25
agencies
working
in
this
market.
Believing
that
mobile-
51
related
agency
work
goes
beyond
the
top
25
firms,
we
estimated
a
trend
line
for
the
top
25s
share
based
of
overall
agency
revenue.
This
allows
us
to
estimate
the
mobile-marketing
fees
of
the
next
largest
25
agencies
in
the
market,
for
a
total
annual
estimate
of
$800
million
in
mobile
agency
fees
for
the
top
50.
Our
figure
may
be
somewhat
conservative,
since
there
are
hundreds
of
agencies
in
the
AdAge
database
and
since
many
more
than
50
agencies
in
the
US
are
most
likely
involved
in
mobile-related
work
(especially
in
the
out-years
of
our
projection).
PR
Agency
Services
As
discussed
in
our
introduction,
earned
media
is
brand,
product,
or
brand-related
content
that
is
organically
earned
because
it
is
deemed
newsworthy
by
content
producersnews
outlets,
bloggers,
and
consumers
who
post
to
social
media
sites.
But
as
noted,
such
earned
media
is
not
always
entirely
free.
Often
there
is
a
PR
pitch
or
creative
strategy
behind
it,
for
which
the
marketer
(or
more
often,
its
corporate
communications
department)
pays
a
fee.
As
digital
and
mobile
represent
a
growing
piece
of
the
owned
media
that
PR
agencies
help
deliver,
examining
the
sources
of
PR
agency
revenue
can
help
ascertain
how
much
of
it
can
be
attributable
to
mobile
using
conservative
assumptions
similar
to
those
used
to
estimate
advertising
agency
fees
attributable
to
mobile
marketing
work
performed.
In
2012,
the
PR
industry
expected
annual
spending
on
traditional
public
relations
services
to
increase
at
a
compound
annual
growth
rate
of
8%
to
$5.4
billion.
Annual
spending
on
word-of- mouth
(WOM)
marketing
services
they
expected
to
increase
at
a
compound
annual
growth
rate
of
22.3%
to
$5.6
billion
(up
from
$2
billion
in
2010).52
Our
estimate
of
PR-related
mobile-marketing
fees
is
based,
therefore,
on
several
breakouts:
estimating
the
role
for
PR
agencies
in
marketing
activities
in
general,
particularly
word-of- mouth
marketing;
the
share
on
digital
within
PR
agency
media
activities;
and
finally,
trends
in
the
share
for
mobile
within
PRs
digital
marketing
activities.
Table
18:
Estimated
Fees
to
PR
Agencies
from
Mobile-Marketing
Activities
$
Millions
Traditional
PR
Revenues
WOM
Revenues
Overall
Digital
Percentage
Mobile
as
%
Digital
Revenues
Mobile
as
%
Overall
Revenues
TOTAL
MOBILE
FEES
($
Million)
Of
Which:
Traditional
PR
fees
WOM
fees
2011
5,000
4,590
13%
2%
0.3%
25
13
12
2012
5,400
5,600
15%
4%
0.6%
66
32.4
34
2013
5,800
6,610
17%
8%
1.4%
169
78.88
90
2014
6,200
7,620
19%
11%
2.1%
289
129.58
159
2015
6,600
8,630
21%
14%
2.9%
448
194.04
254
52
Public Relations Society of America, PR by the Numbers, Industry Size and Growth http://media.prsa.org/pr- by-the-number/ 44
Mobile
Analytics
and
Metrics
Services
Our
survey
and
interviews
suggest
that
in
2012
mobile
marketers
and
mobile
publisher
were
spending
an
amount
in
the
vicinity
of
5%
of
their
mobile
marketing
budgets
on
marketing
and
media
analytics
or
audience
research
services.
We
expect
this
number
will
likely
expand
to
almost
10%
over
the
next
several
years,
as
big
data
becomes
increasingly
important
in
mobile
marketing.
Mobile
Coupons
and
Promotions
Our
figure
for
the
U.S.
in
2012
represents
roughly
30%
of
the
world
market,
declining
to
23%
by
2016.
In
late
2011,
a
report
from
Juniper
Research
found
a
worldwide
$5.4
billion
in
redeemed
value
this
year
in
mobile
coupons
(primarily
via
apps);
they
projected
that
the
total
redemption
value
of
mobile
coupons
will
exceed
$43
billion
globally
by
2016,
an
eightfold
increase.53
Network
Access
Charges
Marketer
expenditure
on
access
charges
are
an
external
variable
cost
that
correlates
with
the
volume
of
CRM
activity-owned
SMS,
etc.,
which
may
be
separately
incurred.
We
include
a
very
conservative
expenditure
estimate
for
charges
directly
related
to
mobile
marketing.
Mobile
Marketing-Related
Hardware
and
Peripherals
In-store
or
on-site
mobile
device
integration
equipment
&
installation
(e.g.,
QR
Code
Scanners).
This
varies
significantly
by
marketer
vertical.
Thus,
digital-ticket
seller
Fandango
recently
indicated
that
about
13%
of
the
US
movie
theaters
it
works
with
had
installed
QR-code
readers
to
scan
tickets
displayed
on
smartphones.
That
percentage
is
expected
to
reach
25%
by
the
start
of
2013.54
Table
19:
Retailer
Expenditure
on
In-Store
Mobile
Programs
2011
2012
2013
Average
Retailer
Mobile
Investment
$55,000
$207,000
%
Using
e-receipts
0.1
0.22
0.45
%
Using
Mobile
POS
Options
0.12
0.26
0.57
%
with
Mobile-Optimized
Websites
0.6
Source:
Author
calculations
benchmarked
against
Forrester
Research.
53
Mark Milian, QR Code Fatigue, Bloomberg Businessweek, June 28, 2012, http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-06-28/qr-code-fatigue 54 Milian, QR Code Fatigue. 45
Our
estimates
of
the
costs
for
such
installations
are
based
on
trade
press
accounts
of
individual
mobile
integration
programs
undertaken
in
the
recent
past.
One
such
analysis
based
on
published
accounts
is
given
in
the
table
immediately
below,
involving
Home
Depot:
Table
20:
Sample
Mobile
In-Store
Equipment
Investment
Total
Program
Cost
Devices
Installed
Cost
Per
Device
Stores
Where
Installed
Devices
Per
Store
Cost
Per
Store
$64,000,000
30,000
$2,133
1,970
15.23
$32,487
55
55
Adam Blair, "Home Depot's $64 Million Mobile Investment Rolls Out to 1,970 Stores," Retail Information Systems News, December 7, 2010, http://risnews.edgl.com/retail-news/Home-Depot-s-$64-Million-Mobile- Investment-Rolls-Out-to-1,970-Stores56966. 46
47
2011
3,957
2012
6,693
2013
10,456
2014
15,162
2015
19,806
CAGR
52.5%
74 227 471 119 171 648 156 389 784 245 36 95 27 110 227 179
132 382 842 202 281 1,082 266 648 1,332 407 64 164 44 181 371 294
218 597 1,373 322 433 1,676 422 991 2,080 632 105 265 67 281 562 432
323 867 2,023 473 625 2,425 612 1,401 3,032 903 156 396 95 403 807 622
446 1,123 2,691 630 804 3,164 814 1,778 4,017 1,163 204 539 120 512 1,028 771
60.6% 51.8% 58.5% 54.3% 49.8% 51.4% 54.4% 49.2% 53.6% 50.1% 58.5% 57.4% 47.9% 49.8% 47.9% 45.9%
48
Source: mLightenment
To
appreciate
just
how
significant
mobile
marketings
contribution
to
the
US
economy
already
is,
and
will
continue
to
be,
some
context
may
be
helpful.
As
can
be
seen
from
the
following
table,
already
in
2012,
mobile
marketing
contributed
almost
a
half
percentage
point
to
total
U.S.
output,
when
measured
against
the
base
of
$33
trillion
dollars
in
total
U.S.
sales.
(Total
sales
differ
from
GDP
in
that
the
latter
measures
only
those
sales
that
represent
final
demand;
total
sales
include
intermediate
B-to-B
sales
as
well.)
Table
24:
Mobile
Marketing
Sales
Impact
Compared
with
Total
U.S.
Sales
Total US Sales Mobile MarCom Sales MMarCom as % Tot US Sales Source: mLightenment
Later
in
this
section
we
will
compare
estimates
of
mobiles
visible
mCommerce
[online]
sales
with
the
less
visible
total
of
offline
sales
to
show
that
over
90%
of
mobiles
boost
to
the
economy
occurs
in
physical,
brick
and
mortar
locations,
sometimes
without
the
purchaser
even
having
her
mobile
phone
in
hand.
49
But wherever they occur, these hundreds of billions of dollars in sales represent output that the U.S. economy would not enjoy, were it not for industry expenditure on mobile marketing communications. No less importantly, the increased sales output contributed by mobile marketing of goods and services benefit all 16 major industry groups of the US economy, with substantial increased sales accelerating economic growth throughout all regions of the country.
As seen in the chart above, 2010 showed a significant spike in mobile devices sold. This growth includes consumers as well as business users, as companies became significantly more invested in providing their employees with the latest devices that year. (It is important to note media
50
consumption
patterns
for
corporate
employees,
given
the
very
substantial
role
played
by
intermediate
B-to-B
sales
within
total
US
sales.56)
Growing
Device
Functionality,
Better
Network
Access
Just
as
many
mobile
users
celebrate
added
features
and
a
richer
mobile
experience,
marketers
too
can
celebrate,
because
added
functionality
means
a
potentially
richer
marketing
communication
opportunity.
It
also
seems
to
lead
to
greater
adoption
and
more
attention
from
users.
Consider
how
different
the
mobile
world
looked
a
mere
eight
years
ago,
in
2005.
Cellphone
sales
were
still
overwhelmingly
dominated
by
the
most
basic,
voice-only
models.
Smartphone
primarily
meant
small-screen,
email-ready
devices
like
the
Blackberry,
and
tablets
as
a
category
did
not
yet
exist.
But
2010,
the
year
of
the
smartphone,
changed
that,
and
2013
will
almost
certainly
be
seen
in
retrospect
as
the
year
of
the
tabletthe
year
it
displaces
the
feature
phone
from
its
number-two
market
position,
as
seen
in
the
chart
below.57
These
represent
real
milestones
for
mobile
marketers,
as
mobile
devices
come
into
their
own
with
consumers
and
business
users
alike.
Table
26
US
Mobile
Device
Sales
by
Type
56
In fact, intermediate sales normally make up almost two-thirds of total US sales, unlike in GDP, where final demand by consumers amounts to about 70% of the total. 57 Flurry reported 17.4 million new iOS and Android devices were activated on Christmas day, a 255% increase from 6.8 million on Christmas Day 2011. http://blog.flurry.com/bid/92719/Christmas-2012-Shatters-More-Smart- Device-and-App-Download-Records 51
But
advances
in
device
power
would
mean
little
if
not
accompanied
by
improved
network
speed
and
availability.
Today,
it
is
almost
a
given
that
wherever
the
mobile
consumer
roams from
airports
and
gyms
to
homes
and
officesshe
will
find
a
good
cellphone
signal
or
a
Wi-Fi
access
point,
or
hotspot.58
Growth
of
these
access
points
for
use
with
smartphones
and
tablets
is
a
factor
in
determining
how
widely
mobile
device
(especially
tablets)
can
roam
and
how
intensively
they
can
be
used
to
consume
media.59
Not
long
ago,
it
was
estimated
that
70%
of
tablets
werent
linked
to
a
cellular
data
plan,
and
so
mostly
used
at
home,
leading
some
to
question
whether
they
werent
perhaps
more
convenient
laptops.
But
as
4G
and
LTE
networks
become
available,
more
tablet
owners
are
opting
to
connect
their
devices
to
mobile
broadband
subscriptions,
in
addition
to
Wi-Fi
networks.
Thus
it
is
highly
likely
that
the
share
of
mobile
broadband
traffic
seen
over
tablets
will
rapidly
increase
and
may
eventually
reach
levels
consummate
with
mobile
phones,60
implying
the
tablet
will
have
become
truly
mobile.
Mobiles
Growing
Share
of
Mind
A
related
factor
is
mobiles
efficiency
in
penetrating
a
target
demographic.
This
might
be
called
the
media
platforms
share
of
mind
within
the
population
at
large,
or
specific
demographic
groups.
As
a
general
rule
of
thumb,
the
more
narrowly
an
audience
concentrates
its
attention
span
on
a
given
media,
the
more
likely
it
is
that
their
share
of
advertising-influenced
purchases
can
be
attributed
to
that
media.61
In
other
words,
as
a
medias
share
of
mind
grows,
so
may
its
share
of
wallet.
Note
below
the
increase
in
reach
for
mobile,
as
the
equivalent
for
other
media
appears
to
be
declining.
Table
27:
Population
Reach
of
US
Media
Television
Desktop
PC
Radio
Share
of
U.S.
Adult
population
reached*
by
different
media,
2010
vs.
2012
2010
89.5%
62.5%
60.6%
2012
88.3%
58.1%
58.8%
Chg
-1%
-4%
-2%
58
CTIA reports cell tower saturation reached 285,561 in 2012, up from 210,360 in 2007. http://www.ctia.org/advocacy/research/index.cfm/aid/10323. Numerous alliances of cable operators and Internet service providers and wireless operators have begun adding tens of thousands of WiFi hotspots in major US cities. Cable Giants Open 50,000 Wi-Fi Hotspots. InformationWeek Mobility. May 21, 2012. http://www.informationweek.com/mobility/wifi-wimax/cable-giants-open-50000-wi-fi-hotspots/240000695 59 comScore, 2012 Mobile Future in Focus, Key Insights from 2011 and What They Mean for the Coming Year, February 2012, www.comscore.com. 60 comScore, ibid. 61 In a similar vein, marketers and other experts often compare the expected sales impact of media using a common denominator of time spent by end-customers. Mary Meeker, a much-followed media analyst on Wall Street, has suggested on this basis that there is a $20 billion dollar gap between the great amount of time consumers are spending with mobile, and the much smaller share of budgets marketers are allocating to it. 52
Author estimates compiled from Statista, Pew, comScore, Nielsen. Note that percentages are not strictly comparable as sources define media penetration or adult population differently.
Looking
more
narrowly
at
just
digital
device
penetration,
it
seems
fairly
clear
that
a
pattern
is
emerging
in
which
nearly
everyone
will
have
an
all-purpose
go-everywhere
device,
the
smartphone
(still
termed
here
the
cellphone);
while
some
people
will
augment
it
with
another
optional
device:
a
lap-top
for
office
workers,
an
eReader
for
the
weekend
leisure
class,
etc.
Table
28:
US
Device
Ownership
Trends
100%
90%
80%
73%
75%
70%
68%
65%
60%
50%
37%
40%
30%
30%
34%
20%
20%
10%
0%
85%
64%
47%
45%
41%
42%
19%
19%
10%
3%
5%
9%
4%
8%
88%
88%
89%
85%
85%
87%
87%
61%
58%
25%
18%
18%
42%
43%
29%
31%
26%
24%
Cell phone Desktop computer Laptop computer mp3 player Game console e-Book reader Tablet computer
2%
Some
studies
show
that
mobile
is
in
some
instances
directly
cannibalizing
audiences
from
traditionally
important
media
platforms
and
devices
first
the
landline,
then
print,
now
perhaps
even
the
PC
and
the
laptop.
Table
29
Rates
at
Which
Smartphones
and
Tablets
Are
Replacing
Other
Devices
and
Media
Clock/Alarm
Organizer
Music
Player
Landline
Phone
Newspaper
Books
PC
Computer
Smartphone
65%
55%
52%
35%
33%
14%
5%
Tablet
22%
45%
34%
6%
62%
51%
20%
% of respondents indicating each product had been replaced by their smartphone or tablet 53
Mobile
Media
Usage:
Technology
Folkways
and
Location
Micro-Climates
Beyond
consideration
of
access
to
device
type,
speed,
and
the
substitutions
and
complements
with
other
media,
one
must
look
within
the
individual
mobile
media,
to
see
how
much
of
the
population
uses
them,
when,
where,
and
how.
Table
30
Mobile
Phone
Content
and
Behavior
Trends
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
January
March
May
July
September
November
January
March
May
July
September
November
January
March
May
July
September
November
0
Used
Downloaded
Apps
Accessed
Social
Networking
Site
or
Blog
Listened
to
Music
on
Mobile
Phone
Played
Games
Sent
Text
Message
to
Another
Phone
Used
Browser
2010
2011
2012
Source: comScore Reports November 2012 U.S. Mobile Subscriber Market Share, 2012, www.comScore.com
Consumer access to marketing communications will also reflect the soft variables of consumers mindsets for using the different media available on their tablets or smartphones in different social contexts and locations at different times -- their folkways and the specific geographic mobile marketing micro-climates in which they find themselves. And naturally enough, these will differ among key demographics. What applies to mobile media and content applies also to engagement with mobile marketing, whether it be participation in a short code SMS campaign, or using marketer apps. Consider, for example, the difference in consumer folkways in tablet and smartphone usage. On the one hand, tablets appear to be more conducive to longer immersion with rich long-form media: consumers are streamingnay, gulpingvideo on their cable company appthe
54
famous
"lean
back"
mode
so
beloved
of
television
advertisers.
And
by
accounts
they
seem
more
accepting
of
creative
rich-media
ads
with
their
longer
download
times.
Yet
in
terms
of
access
to
and
engagement
with
mobile
marketing
is
concerned,
users
ability
to
engage
with
rich
media
on
tablets
will
also
be
affected
by
the
quality
of
Internet
access
in
their
micro-climate:
on
a
Wi-Fi-only
tablet,
mobile
ads
may
not
be
visible
to
consumers
reading
their
newspaper
electronically
on
a
commuter
train,
or
if
the
cellular
connection
is
slow,
they
are
less
likely
to
tolerate
latency
-
the
delay
in
loading
in
loading
content
caused
by
ad-serving.62
In
contrast,
marketing
communications
on
a
smartphone
are
more
likely
to
be
consistently
accessible,
thanks
to
the
cellular
connection
that
comes
with
the
device.
But
when
using
their
smartphone
in
a
shopping
mall,
the
consumer
is
more
likely
to
be
in
a
on-the-go,
need-it-now,
no
time
for
distractions
mindset:
they
are
in
lean
forwardor
rather,
head-downmode.
In
this
mode,
a
task-oriented
app
utility
may
be
far
more
likely
to
attract
eyeballs
than
a
rich
media
ad
placed
in
a
video.
And
yet
if
the
smartphone
app
utility
depends
on
GPS
to
show
the
consumers
current
connection,
it
may
not
work
properly
inside
a
covered
space
where
the
satellite
signal
cant
penetrate.
The
Buying
Power
Advantage
of
the
Mobile
Marketing
Audience
Mobile
device
ownership,
(especially
of
the
most
advanced
devices),
media
consumption,
and
marketing
engagement
have
historically
skewed
towards
younger,
wealthier
demographics.
The
resulting
buying
power
premium
among
mobile
subscribers,
and
especially
among
early
adopters
of
smartphones
and
tablets,
is
another
contributing
factor
to
the
high
sales
impact
of
all
forms
of
mobile
marketing
observed
in
this
study.
However,
this
demographic
premium
will
not
last
much
longer.
Adoption
rate
data
suggests
the
profile
of
the
smart-device
owner
will
gradually
regress
to
the
mean
of
the
general
US
population
over
the
next
few
years,
particularly
as
operators
and
manufacturers
subsidize
the
cost
of
smartphones
and
tablet
devices.
Table
31
Mobile
Media
Usage
by
Age
and
Income
Group
2012
Demographics
Mobile
Internet
All
Age
18-29
30-49
50-64
65+
Income
<$30,000
64%
94%
88%
74%
49%
54%
79%
83%
82%
67%
47%
85%
73%
92%
95%
87%
76%
32%
Email
Cell
Phone
Smartphone
89%
66%
55%
30%
17%
26%
46%
36%
44%
20%
18%
18%
Tablets
E-readers
31%
28%
32%
20%
19%
26%
62
The dramatic increase in free Wi-Fi hot-spots and the growing number of tablets with mobile broadband subscriptions will likely make this specific issue less important over time. 55
$30,000-$49,999
84%
76%
$50,000-$74,999 91% 86% $75,000+ 96% 92% Source: Pew Internet and American Life Project
Mobile Ad Sales as % of 1.21% 2.19% Ad Sales Source: mLightenment and IHS/Global Insight
Mobile Display Advertisings Lift from Comparative Brand Lift Studies Are mobile advertisings large net sales impacts on the U.S. economy consistent with what is being seen by researchers who look at advertisings effectiveness for firms and consumers? To answer that question, we looked at publicly available information from brand lift studies, which for decades has been the primary research tool of brand advertisers seeking to know whether their advertising works.
56
In
comparative
brand
lift
studies
across
media,
mobile
advertising
appears
to
perform
better
than
other
media.
Insight
Express,
one
of
the
leading
research
practitioners
of
brand
lift
studies,
reported
in
2011
that
the
deltas
of
mobile
advertising
exceeded
those
of
advertising
in
print,
online,
and
TV,
by
a
wide
marginby
a
multiple
that
ranged
from
two
and
a
quarter
times
for
print,
to
over
four
times
for
online.63
Table
33
Comparative
Brand
Lift
By
Advertising
Media
Print
Online
TV
Mobile
Unaided
0.9%
2.3%
0.5%
8.2%
Awareness
Aided
3.5%
2.8%
4.2%
8.4%
Awareness
Message
2.6%
3.3%
4.6%
15.0%
Association
Brand
8.8%
2.0%
5.5%
7.6%
Favorability
Purchase
Intent
6.4%
2.2%
5.6%
11.3%
AVERAGE*
4.4%
2.5%
4.1%
10.1%
Mobile
Multiple
2.27
4.08
2.47
Source:
InsightExpress
Cross
Media
Norms
http://www.quirks.com/articles/2011/20110707.aspx?searchID=203320904&sort=5&pg=1
Very
similar
findings
regarding
mobiles
superior
performance
in
brand
impact
measures
have
been
reported
by
Dynamic
Logic,
the
subsidiary
of
leading
brand
performance
research
firm
Millward
Brown,
which
has
reported
that
mobiles
superior
lift
measures
outperform
those
of
online
by
well
over
three
and
a
half
times.64
Table
34:
Comparative
Brand
Lift
by
Advertising
Media:
Online
vs.
Mobile
Online
Mobile
MULTIPLE
Aided
Brand
2.10%
4.80%
Awareness
Ad
Awareness
4.00%
17.30%
Message
Association
2.20%
10.00%
Brand
Favorability
1.30%
3.80%
Purchase
Intent
1.20%
4.30%
AVERAGE*
2.16%
8.04%
372.2%
Source:
*Author
Calculation.
Source:
Dynamic
Logic
63
Joy Liuzzo, If You Arent Using Mobile to Advertise, Youre Wasting Money, September 1, 2011, http://blog.insightexpress.com/2011/09/aren%E2%80%99t-mobile-advertise-you%E2%80%99re-wasting-money/ 64 Millward Brown, Digital Media Planning: some evidence based guidelines, http://www.millwardbrown.com/Libraries/MB_Articles_Downloads/Millward_Brown_Media.sflb.ashx 57
What
do
researchers
and
agencies
make
of
mobiles
superior
performance
on
advertising
and
brand
lift
metrics?
Two
principal
hypotheses
have
been
offered
in
support,
and
a
completely
different
source
of
evidence
is
offered
on
the
opposite
side
of
the
scales.
First,
the
support.
Mobiles
More
Hospitable
Ad
Environment.
Not
withstanding
mobiles
small
screen
size,
lack
of
JavaScript,
and
its
hurried,
task-oriented
viewership,
the
argument
is
made
that
todays
smartphone
and
(especially)
tablet
offer
a
superior
environment
for
display
of
advertising
than
does
the
PC
Internet.
What
the
screen
lacks
in
size,
it
makes
up
for
in
proximity,
so
it
fills
the
viewers
field
of
vision
to
the
same
extent
as
would
a
typical
TV
when
viewed
from
the
proverbial
living
room
sofa,
and
so
offers
a
comparable
intimacy
and
immersiveness.
And,
as
with
TV,
the
mobile
viewing
typically
sees
only
one
ad
at
time,
unlike
the
PC
Web,
where
content
can
be
surrounded
by
a
hodge-podge
of
competing
and
often
discordantly
colored
and
moving
adsassuming
they
are
even
seen
at
all.65
The
Power
of
"Hyper-local."
Relevance
can
be
thought
of
as
what
hits
close
to
home.
In
the
PC
Internet,
and
broadcast
TV
and
Radio,
local
cant
be
much
more
precisely
targeted
than
the
fixed
geography
of
an
entire
city
or
countyaka,
the
DMA.
But
with
mobile,
the
excitement
is
about
the
option
to
target
at
the
hyper-local
level
(right
down
to
the
city
block,
thanks
to
GPS)
and
precisely
customize
the
advertising
to
whatever
is
going
on
around
the
mobile
user
at
that
moment.
The
Weather
Company,
for
example,
offers
the
opportunity
to
target
based
on
local
weather
conditions.
Mobile
lets
local
be
defined
as
the
location
of
the
consumer
at
a
given
moment
(a
radius
of
X
miles
around
the
individual
consumer).
Similarly,
mobile
geo-fenced
ad
targeting
via
mobile
allows
traditional
retail
categories
to
deploy
personal
targeted
point-of- purchase
advertising
(e.g.,
a
city
restaurant
can
offer
a
discount
or
coupon
to
anyone
within
3
blocks)
or
to
deploy
in-store
advertising.
This
makes
mobile
advertising
more
contextually
relevant,
and
closer
to
bottom
of
the
sales
funnel
point-of-purchase
advertising,
which
is
well
known
to
be
effective.66
In
our
view
the
brand
lift
evidence
is
certainly
suggestive,
but
should
treated
cautiously.
With
far
fewer
surveys,
and
widely
variable
results
across
too
few
brand
categories,
it
is
unlikely
the
results
are
really
as
robust
as
they
appear
to
beand
even
if
they
are
valid
now,
they
are
unlikely
to
remain
to
positive
for
mobile
once
the
mobile
and
non-mobile
populations
converge.
Mobile
Performance
Advertising:
The
Unconverted.
On
the
other
side
of
the
scales,
marketers
reluctant
to
jump
into
mobile
often
look
no
further
than
mobile
advertising
sold
on
a
performance
basis.
Concerning
the
pricing
and
performance
65 66
Joy Liuzzo, ibid. There is some residual skepticism about how many mobile publishers and ad networks can actually deliver hyper-local mobile ads at the claimed level of granularity. Barriers to hyper-local targeting include caching, connectivity, latency, and lack of consumers allowing access to their current location. 58
of
search
ads,
there
are
many
published
reports
and
blogs
in
which
digital
marketers
wring
their
hands
about
mobiles
very
low
eCPMs
relative
to
those
seen
in
the
traditional
PC
Internet
(to
speak
nothing
of
the
actual
CPMs
seen
in
traditional
real
world
advertising),
fueled
in
part
by
mobiles
apparently
shockingly
low
conversion
rates.
If
mobile
search
advertising
were
so
effective,
the
argument
goes,
conversion
rates
and
eCPMs
would
be
higher;
and
yet,
less
effective
though
it
may
be,
it
is
seemingly
gaining
ground
on
mobile
display
(CPM)
advertising.
If
data
in
the
following
table
is
representativeand
it
may
not
bemarketers
in
2012
were
paying
about
four
times
more
per
weighted
clicks
in
traditional
PC
search
than
they
were
for
clicks
in
a
smartphone
search.
Why
is
this?
And
does
this
apparent
price
disadvantage
of
mobile
in
the
market
place
indicate
that
mobile
advertising
is
in
fact
not
as
impactful
as
our
data
would
suggest?
Table
35:
Implied
CPMs
of
Online
vs.
Mobile
Search
Advertising
Total
Mobile
Subtotal
PC
Mobile
Smartphone
Tablet
Budget
Share*
87%
13%
7%
6%
Click
Share
82%
18%
10%
7%
Clicks
yielded
per
budget
dollar
(Derived)
0.95
1.33
1.48
1.16
Cost
per
click
0.77
0.56
0.50
0.63
cost
per
weighted
click
(Derived)
0.811
0.420
0.341
0.544
Click-thru-rate
(CTR)
0.022
0.04
0.051
0.032
Implied
Weighted
eCPM
(Derived)
$371.80
$97.36
$66.90
$170.03
*Interpretation:
13%
of
Search
advertising
budgets
went
to
mobile
in
total,
with
7%
of
the
total
to
Smartphone,
etc.
Source:
author
calculations
based
on
Marin
Software,
US
Online
Advertising
Report:
Key
Trends
And
Insights,
Q1-Q3
2012
To
explain
pricing
and
performance
patterns
such
as
those
shown
here,
several
interpretations
have
been
advanced.
The
Mobile
False
Spring.
Its
possible
that
a
spirit
of
new-gadget
enthusiasm
and
curiosity
is
leading
some
people
click
on
the
many
new
rich
media
ad
formats
to
see
what
they
do,
not
because
of
any
genuine
interest
in
the
product.
A
similar
phenomenon
was
seen
over
a
decade
ago
on
the
PC
Internet,
where
the
first
PC
banner
ads
and
pop-ups
and
roadblocks
experienced
extremely
high
click-through
rates.
The
Scourge
of
the
Fat
Finger.
There
is
some
evidence
that
consumers
fat
thumbs
have
difficulty
navigating
the
smartphones
small
screens,
causing
them
to
tap
on
some
mobile
ads
by
accident.67
This
hypothesis
may
be
partially
confirmed
by
the
introduction
of
newer
ad
units
67
Will Oremus Why Do People Click On Smartphone Ads? Because They Have Fat Fingers. Slate.com 59
by
networks
such
as
Google
that
are
specifically
designed
to
ensure
that
a
tap
on
a
mobile
ad
represents
the
users
intent.
Lack
of
Live
Readers.
Wi-Fi-only
tablet
users
often
download
magazine
or
newspaper
content
when
they
are
in
a
hotspot,
but
then
read
it
later,
when
they
arent.
Without
a
live
Internet
connection,
many
things
go
wrong:
rich
media
may
not
work;
the
consumer
can't
click
on
the
ad
to
get
more
information,
marketers
cant
receive
social
media
engagement
or
feedback
from
their
ads.
Mobile
Tracking
and
Targeting
Issues.
A
critical
component
of
the
effectiveness
of
mobile
marketing
communications
is
the
efficiency
with
which
data
can
be
used
to
identify
and
communicate
with
audiences
most
likely
to
buy
the
advertisers
product.
The
mobile
ecosystem
denies
marketers
some
of
their
favorite
tools
from
desktop
computing,
with
cookie- based
behavioral
targeting
as
Exhibit
A.
68
In
the
traditional
world
of
online
PC-based
advertising,
third-party
cookies
placed
in
site-visitors
browsers
by
ad
networks
has
been
the
basis
for
aggregating
interest-based
profiles
of
online
consumers
for
targeting
purposes.
But
in
the
mobile
space,
third-party
cookie-based
approach
isnt
technically
replicable,
especially
for
the
much
sought-after
iOS
device
users.
Stand-ins
for
third-party
cookies
and
related
privacy
controls
are
very
experimental
but
are
beginning
to
draw
heightened
interest.
In
our
view,
the
greater
factor
keeping
demand
for
mobile
advertising
low
is
likely
that
agencies
and
their
clients
have
far
more
metrics
and
analytics
for
desktop
than
they
do
for
mobile.
Thus
agencies
and
their
clients
are
more
comfortable
with
PC
and
the
ROI
data
they
have.
Very
few
budgets
outside
of
search
or
direct
response
are
built
upon
clicks,
relying
more
on
CTRs,
engagement/time
spent
and
ROI.
And
though
the
trend
relies
on
only
a
few
quarters
of
data,
it
appears
that
mobile
CPMs
and
eCPMs
are
beginning
to
move
up
steadily,
as
more
marketers
begin
to
bid
for
mobile
inventory.
In
the
end,
it
may
be
that
brand
lift
and
taps
and
tap-thru
rates
in
performance
can
be
combined
to
tell
a
more
nuanced
story.
Yes,
mobile
advertising
may
indeed
be
quite
impactful
and
generate
positive
brand
perceptions
and
purchase
intentbut
where
are
those
sales
being
transacted?
The
performance
marketer
sees
that
conversions
arent
happening
on
her
website,
at
least
not
at
the
rate
shed
like.
But
that
doesnt
mean
mobiles
sales
arent
happening
somewhere
else,
possibly
even
for
someone
else.
For
most
experienced
professionals
in
the
digital
universe,
the
clickor
as
it
is
known
in
the
mobile
world,
the
tapis
recognized
as
a
weak
indicator
of
true
ad
performance,
even
when
the
performance
campaign
seems
to
be
Friday,
Oct.
5,
2012
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2012/10/05/mobile_advertising_smartphone_ad_clicks_due_to_small _buttons_fat_fingers.html
68
The
question
of
the
actual
effectiveness
of
behavioral
targeting
is
still
contested
and
under-researched,
at
least
as
far
as
publicly
available
studies
are
concerned.
The
most
famous
study,
by
former
FTC
Commissioner
Howard
Beales,
and
sponsored
by
the
Network
Advertising
Initiative
(NAI)
is
The
Value
of
Behavioral
Targeting.
Available
at:
http://www.networkadvertising.org/pdfs/Beales_NAI_Study.pdf
60
working well. And when it isnt working, it still might actually be working; in other words, a mobile user may have been in your competitors store when they saw your ad and decided to make a purchasejust not with you. So the conclusion is that more than for most traditional, static media, measuring mobiles sales impact may be an especially slippery moving target. The trick is to learn how to think about, observe, and measure mobile more broadly, so that its full returns are captured.
significant,
with
Samsung
featuring
its
hip
NFC-enabled
Galaxy
devices
prominently
in
ads
spoofing
square
buyers
of
the
NFC-less
iPhone
5.
NFC
was
estimated
to
represent
10
to
15%
of
the
U.S.
marketplace
in
terms
of
aggregate
interactions.70
Though
there
is
apparently
considerable
uncertainty
about
what
NFC
actually
is
for
advertising
purposes
even
among
Americans
who
have
NFC
devices,
the
seamlessness
of
NFC
appears
to
compensate.
For
example,
in
a
recent
multi-location
trial
in
the
US
Midwest,
Kraft
reported
that
consumer
engagement
using
the
NFC
tap
to
engage
with
its
marketing
content
exceeded
that
seen
from
the
QR
snap
by
a
wide
margin:
12
to
one
overall,
including
conversion
levels
and
total
engagement
time.71
Smart
[2D]
and
Standard
[1D]
Bar
Code
Recognition.
Issues
of
seamlessness
aside,
all
available
evidence
suggests
that
the
most
widely
recognized,
understood,
and
used
mobile
enhancement
technology
among
US
mobile
consumers
is
now
the
smart
[QR]
barcode,
whose
digital
checkerboard
has
become
both
more
ubiquitous
and
more
utilized
than
SMS
response
technologies
are
at
present.
In
late
2011,
about
20%
of
US
mobile
subscribers
had
scanned
a
QR
code,
according
to
comScore.72
A
recent
survey
released
by
Pitney
Bowes
indicated
that
19%
of
all
US
adults
had
now
scanned
a
QR
code.73
The
same
survey
suggested
that
between
three
and
four
out
of
10
Americans
between
18
and
34
years
old
reported
having
scanned
a
QR
code
in
each
of
posters,
magazines,
mail,
and
packaging,
and
between
10
and
20%
of
this
same
age
group
had
scanned
QR
codes
seen
on
websites,
emails,
or
on
TV.74
This
picture
of
QR
code
enhancements
to
non-mobile
media
can
be
rounded
out
by
looking
at
QR
code
scanning
traffic.
According
to
the
ScanLife
Trend
Report,
there
were
more
than
16
million
mobile
barcode
scans
in
the
second
quarter
of
2012
with
more
than
5.3
million
scans
in
the
month
of
June.75
And,
the
ScanLife
Trend
Report
covering
the
two-week
shopping
period
on
either
side
of
Black
Friday,
2012
showed
a
million-scan
increase
(or
71%)
over
the
comparable
period
in
2011.
ScanLife
data
can
also
help
gauge
which
non-mobile
media
are
being
mobile
enhanced.
70
Mikhail Damiani, CEO of mobile marketing agency Blue Bite, quoted in Alex Palmer, NFC on the Ascendant. Direct Marketing News. March 01, 2013 http://www.dmnews.com/nfc-on-the-ascendant/article/281517/# 71 Alex Palmer, NFC on the Ascendant. Direct Marketing News. March 01, 2013 http://www.dmnews.com/nfc-on- the-ascendant/article/281517/# 72 comScore 73 Pitney Bowes Survey: 27 Percent of Consumers Age 18-34 Say They Activate Quick Response Codes. January 15, 2013. http://news.pb.com/press-releases/pitney-bowes-survey-27-percent-consumers-say-they-activate-quick- response-codes.htm. The PB press release also cites Forrester Research data that placed QR code usage among US adults at 1% in 2011 and 5% in 2012. 74 Pitney Bowes, op. cit., cited in eMarketer, US Ahead of Western Europe in QR Code Usage. http://www.emarketer.com/Article/US-Ahead-of-Western-Europe-QR-Code- Usage/1009631#4FpB5ArA5v9GxpXp.99 75 Mediapost.com, "Mobile Barcode Scanning Explodes", 8/20/2012, http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/181094/mobile-barcode-scanning-explodes.html 62
Table 36 Smart barcode Scanning: Source and Location QR Code source Scan Locations Home Retail location Out of doors At work Grocery Store Restaurant 39% 20% 13% 13% 11% 4% Printed magazine or newspaper 30% Product packaging 21% Website on PC 16% Poster or flyer or kiosk 16% Business Card or brochure 5% Storefront 5% TV 5% Source: ScanLife Trend Report, Q2, 2012
Table
37:
2D
Code
Source
Among
Non-Mobile
Media
Top
2D
Media
Placement
2012
2011
Packaging
1
1
Web
2
3
Direct
Mail
3
5
Magazines
4
2
In
Store
5
N/A
Source:
ScanLife
Trend
Report,
Q2,
2012
Table 38: Rank of QR Code Scans By Marketing Industry Publisher Verticals 2012 2011 CPG 1 1 QSR 2 N/A Entertainment 3 3 Retail 4 2 Wireless 5 5 Source: ScanLife Trend Report, Q2, 2012
Mobile
Voice.
Elsewhere
we
spoke
of
the
role
of
share
of
mind
as
an
underlying
factor
in
determining
the
impact
of
media.
One
of
the
most
pronounced
developments
has
been
the
demise
of
the
landline
phone,
especially
among
younger
demographics.
According
to
the
CTIA,
the
number
of
wireless-only
households
leapt
from
10.5%
in
2007
to
35.8%
in
mid
2012.76
The
consequence
for
our
sales
impact
calculation
is
that
mobile
phones
inevitably
account
for
a
proportionately
increased
percentage
of
inbound
sales
calls
to
800
numbers
(here
counting
only
responses
to
calls-to-action
placed
in
non-mobile
media).
76
Co-consumption with Non-Mobile Media We next we consider the specific extent to which mobiles impact is erasing the idea of discrete, clearly defined traditional media touch-points, especially for broadcast and cable TV, and to a lesser degree, radio and Internet. Studies show that the phone and/ or tablet is the most often "used with other mediums" device. 86 percent of tablet owners and 88 percent of smartphone owners use their devices while watching TV.77 71 percent of smartphone users that see TV, press, or an online ad, do a mobile search for more information. 78 TV-style content and major programming moves to the tablet. Most TV publishers and advertisers have recently adjusted to a dual screen world and are synchronizing their TV content with their tablet app content.79 With smartphones and tablet in hand, mobile consumers are re-writing the rules for broadcasters and their advertisers. Though mobile might at first be considered a threat to audience attention, recent thinking has turned to integrating mobile into the viewing experience, primarily with secondary content meant to be downloaded or viewed on the device while the main content rolls on the big screen. Apps designed to complement TV viewing such as Zeebox and GetGlue reportedly have millions of downloads each.80 Perhaps more significant for the medium term, audio scanning is already having a significant economic impact via Shazam, which says that 20% of all iPhones in the U.S. used Shazam during December 2012. Shazam users are currently tagging 10m songs, shows and ads a day, many of whom also tap through to buy tagged content worth approximately $300m annually from digital content stores such as iTunes or Amazon MP3. American Idol, in a similar vein, is incorporating mobile-enabled vote-by-tweeting into its real time broadcasts, and the participation rate is almost certain to be very high. Combine these co- programming trends with the numbers of mobile users who now Shazam their favorite TV commercialsif only to purchase the catchy songand one sees the old Leave It to Beaver world slipping into the mists of the 50s.
Danyl Bosomworth, Mobile Marketing Statistics 2013, Smart Insights, January 8, 2013, http://www.smartinsights.com/mobile-marketing/mobile-marketing-analytics/mobile-marketing-statistics/ 78 Google/Ipsos (US consumer Mobile Movement survey April 2011) 79 Simon Khalaf, Mobile Apps: We Interrupt This Broadcast, Flurry.com, December, 5, 2012, http://blog.flurry.com/bid/92105/Mobile-Apps-We-Interrupt-This-Broadcast 80 Stuart Dredge, Shazam: 'TV advertising is going to become our primary revenue stream.' Guardian Apps Blog, posted February 27, 2013. http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/appsblog/2013/feb/27/shazam-tv-advertising-future 64
2010
it
would
be
a
tale
about
two
mobile
mediaSMS
and
apps.
If
it
were
written
in
2015,
it
would
be
a
tale
of
just
one:
apps,
as
apps
would
have
far
outpaced
all
other
mobile
media.
What
makes
the
app
storyliterallyso
impactful
from
an
economic
point
of
view?
How
so
from
the
point
of
view
of
society
and
marketers?
To
understand
why
the
conclusion
to
our
story
takes
three
sections
to
tell,
we
begin
by
looking
at
each
of
the
mobile
CRM
media
in
context.
As
we
do,
we
shall
see
several
key
themes
come
into
focus:
the
power
of
addressable,
one-to-one
communications;
the
power
of
location;
the
power
of
shopping;
and
above
all,
the
power
of
social.
Top-Line
Mobile
CRM
Impact
Table
39
Mobile
CRM
Sales
Impact
By
Media
($
Millions)
TOTAL
Mobile
Voice
Mobile
Web
Mobile
Email
Mobile
Apps
2010
20,392
408
213
367
8,881
Mobile
Messaging
10,523
2011
32,792
656
13,056
1,069
1,124
16,886
2012
54,917
1,098
15,668
3,180
2,669
32,296
2013
83,056
1,661
15,827
7,419
4,642
53,506
2014
118,455
2,369
16,165
13,944
6,960
79,017
2015
CAGR
'15-'10
159,943
3,199
15,425
20,079
9,541
111,700
51.0%
51.0%
7.9%
148.3%
91.8%
65.9%
Source: mLightenment
SMS
But
it
is
with
messaging
that
the
story
of
mobile
as
a
CRM
medium
really
comes
into
focus.
SMS
has
blossomed
into
one
of
the
most
popular
ways
for
members
of
social
media
to
share
comments
on
products,
movies,
music
etc.
Much
of
this
is
due
to
Twitter,
far
and
away
Americas
most
successful
micro-blogging
site,
whose
protocols
were
designed
specifically
to
fit
the
form
factor
of
SMS
on
mobile
devices.
Such
is
the
popularity
of
Twitter
that
Super
Bowl
XLVII
reportedly
saw
30.6
million
public
Tweets
and
Facebook
comments.
Of
these,
3.9
million
were
about
the
Super
Bowls
commercials,
reportedly
a
225%
increase
over
tweeted
commercials
the
prior
year.81
Such
earned
consumer-generated
CRM
marketing
via
messaging
are
an
important
but
often
misunderstood
cause
of
mobiles
high
sales
impacts.
Beyond
this
gratuitously
social
activity,
there
is
a
high
level
of
marketer-sponsored
owned
engagement
with
consumers
via
ongoing
SMS
programs.
We
estimate
the
value
of
SMS
CRM,
owned,
messaging
by
beginning
with
the
total
volume
of
texts
sent
last
year
in
the
US:
2.2
trillion.
Of
this
total
something
on
the
order
of
8.7
billion
messages
were
marketing
program
emails
sent
to
opted-in
subscribers,
mostly
by
81
Of course, though not all these social comments were SMS, on mobile, it seems safe to infer that a substantial portion was. https://bluefinlabs.com/blog/2013/02/04/top-super-bowl-xlvii-commercial-in-social-tv-rams-farmer/ 65
brands
and
retailers.
Such
alerts
contained
everything
from
mobile
coupons
to
links
to
mobile
websites
to
prescription
reminders
to
advance
notices
of
sales
and
special
promotions.
Table
40
Estimated
U.S.
Marketer
SMS
CRM
Message
Volume
Millions
of
Messages
Estd
Total
A2P
Msgs.
Less:
From
Publishers
Marketer
CRM
Msgs.
Retail
/
Brand
CRM
Travel
/
Accom.
CRM
2011
79,676
62,246
8,715
6225
2490
2012
101,881
74,509
13,686
9124
4562
2013
140,027
89,107
25,460
16367
9093
2014
177,732
101,562
38,085
25390
12695
2015
202,493
110,451
46,021
32215
13806
Source:
mLightenment
estimates
based
on
various
sources.
Finally,
our
study
also
captures
sales
silently
triggered
by
the
less
visible
peer-to-peer
but
literally
innumerable
messages
that
happen
every
day
as
friends
forward
news
of
sales,
links
to
restaurant
reviews,
and
the
like.
Mobile
Email
A
similar
story
can
be
told
about
mobile
email.
CRM
email
has
been
becoming
more
and
more
a
mobile
phenomenon,
growing
aggressively,
by
our
estimate,
from
17%
of
all
commercial
email
opens
in
2010
to
almost
a
third
of
all
CRM
emails
last
year.
Published
reports
indicated
that
during
the
course
of
2012
alone
there
was
a
73%
increase
in
email
views
on
iPads,
34%
increase
on
mobile
devices,
11%
decrease
on
Web-based
email
programs,
and
9.5%
decrease
on
desktop
email
clients.82
Table
41
Commercial
Email
Open
Trends
Mobile
vs.
Web
Mobile
Opens
PC
Opens
Desktop
Webmail
2010
17%
83%
36%
49%
2011
23%
77%
33%
44%
2012
32%
68%
29%
39%
83
Source: Author estimates based on adjusted Return Path and Strongmail data.
Mobile
Web
As
one
might
expect
given
the
substitution
of
smartphones
and
tablets
for
PC
usage,
the
82
Monetate "Intelligent Email Marketing that Drives Conversions" (2012), cited http://emailstatcenter.com/Usage.html 83 http://www.returnpath.com/wp-content/uploads/resource/mobile-webmail-desktops/Return-Path-Mobile- Messaging-WP-11_11.pdf 84 Strongmail website 66
Internet
and
the
mobile
Internet
are
increasingly
the
same
thing.
comScore
has
reported
that
the
share
of
Internet
traffic
accounted
for
by
mobile
phones
and
tablets
nearly
doubled
between
2011
and
2012,
to
a
combined
13.3
percent
of
total
Internet
page
views
as
of
August
2012.
Mobile
phones
drove
9
percent
of
page
views
during
the
month,
while
tablets
accounted
for
nearly
half
of
that
at
4.3
percent
share
of
page
views,
corresponding
to
PCs
share
of
total
consumption
declining
6.4
points
in
the
same
timeframe.85
Our
own
estimates
are
that
by
the
final
year
of
the
forecast
period,
2015,
about
one
quarter
of
U.S.
Web
traffic
will
be
accounted
for
by
mobile
devices,
with
the
tablet
providing
over
half
that
amount,
as
shown
in
the
table
below.
Table
42
Mobile
Browser
data
traffic
share
of
total
browser
data
traffic
PC
Mobile
Devices
2011
2012
88%
12%
4%
8%
1%
36%
2013
83%
16%
7%
9%
1%
43%
2014
79%
20%
10%
10%
1%
50%
2015
75%
24%
14%
10%
1%
57%
92%
8%
Tablet
3%
Smartphone
5%
Other
1%
Tablet
as
%
of
Mobile
Device
Traffic
32%
Source:
Author
estimates
based
on
DataScan?
Although
from
a
consumers
perspective
of
time
spent
and
usage,
the
PC
and
mobile
Web
are
the
same
thing,
we
often
hear
marketers
complain
about
the
differencesmobile
conversion
rates
are
shockingly
low.
A
rule
of
thumb
holds
them
to
be
about
half
what
marketers
are
used
to
seeing
on
the
desktop
Web.
This
leads
us
to
clarify
the
distinction
between
the
sales
impact
of
the
mobile
web
vs.
the
mobile
optimized
Web.
The
accelerating
trend
to
pay
per
performance
advertising
in
digital
reflects
marketers
growing
(and
in
our
view,
greatly
exaggerated)
belief
that
the
power
of
mobile
advertising
is
best
understood
in
terms
of
what
happens
after
the
tap:
the
conversion,
which
is
almost
always
assumed
to
be
a
conversion
that
takes
place
on
the
marketers
mobile
website.
Table
43
Post
Click
Campaign
Action
Mix
Site
Search
Application
Download
social
media
mCommerce
Enroll/Join/Subscribe
0.41
0.32
0.28
0.24
0.23
85
comScore Device Essentials Mobile Phones and Tablets Now Account for 1 in 8 U.S. Internet Page Views October 1, 2012 67
Store Locator / Map 0.19 Watch Video 0.14 Retail Promotion 0.13 Place Call 0.1 Source: Millennial Media Q3 2012
There
has
been
much
discussion
lately
to
the
effect
that
if
the
website
or
landing
page
is
not
mobile
optimized,
there
may
be
a
disconnect:
the
consumer
may
never
reach
the
landing
page,
may
not
find
what
they
are
looking
for,
or
find
the
registration
process
too
cumbersome,
or
fail
to
convert
for
some
other
mobile-related
reason.
Thus
there
has
been
an
anxious
conversation
about
the
best
way
for
marketers
to
optimize
their
sites
for
mobile
by
decreasing
load
times,
simplifying
content
design,
using
different
frames,
among
many
others.
The
point
is
however,
that
the
conversion
rate
on
a
mobile
website
should
NOT
be
the
full
measure
of
sales
impact.
For
example,
one
survey
we
encountered
in
the
course
of
our
research
noted
the
following
behaviors
among
people
who
reacted
to
a
mobile
ad:
42
percent
clicked
on
the
mobile
ad;
35
percent
visited
the
advertisers
site;
32
percent
searched
for
more
information
on
their
phone;
49
percent
made
a
purchase
and
27
percent
called
the
business.86
We
cite
these
statistics
not
for
the
specific
numbersthey
dont
enter
into
our
impact
estimatesbut
rather
to
suggest
the
scope
of
specific
ways
in
which
sales
impacts
should
not
be
limited
to
a
sales
conversion
on
the
marketers
website,
important.
Mobile
Apps
A
growing
body
of
academics
and
industry
experts
has
noted
the
powerful
confluence
of
mobile
and
consumer-centric
relationship
marketing.
For
AdAge,
content
marketing
is
the
hot
topic
of
the
moment.87
In
a
recent
article
Emory
University
professor
of
marketing,
Jag
Sheth,
observed
that
mobile
was
one
of
the
leading
edges
of
a
reincarnation
in
relationship
marketing.
We
concur,
and
think
the
mobile
app
is
the
real
force
behind
this
reincarnation,
for
it
enables
consumers
to
lead
the
conversation
about
the
brand,
even
to
co-create
the
brand
in
ways
never
imagined
before
the
app.
The
statistics
on
apps
download
and
usage
are
familiar,
but
still
remarkable.
According
to
the
Apps
Developers
Alliance,
App
downloads
reached
31
billion
in
2012
and
expected
to
grow
to
56
billion
by
2015.88
Table
44
Time
Spent
with
Apps
vs.
Mobile
Web,
Smartphone
Users
Apps/Web
Ratio
In
Minutes
2010
1.99
2011
2.72
2012
4.67
2013
6.25
2014
7.95
2015
9.65
86 87
Google/Ipsos (US consumer Mobile Movement survey April 2011) Jag Sheth "The Reincarnation of Relationship Marketing," Application Developers Alliance, September 27, 2012, 88 http://appdevelopersalliance.org/news/2012-09-27-GigaOMSurvey 68
Source:
mLightenment
calculations
based
on
Flurry
data.
Flurry,
one
of
the
foremost
sources
on
Apps
statistics,
revealed
that
between
December
2011
and
December
2012,
the
average
time
spent
inside
mobile
apps
by
a
U.S.
consumer
grew
35%,
from
94
minutes
to
127
minutes.
By
comparison,
the
average
time
spent
on
the
Web
declined
2.4%,
from
72
minutes
to
70
minutes;
they
spend
1.8
times
more
time
in
apps
than
on
the
Web.
Perhaps
most
startling
was
the
fact
that
time
spent
with
apps
had
attained
76%
of
the
total
time
spent
on
television.89
Where
is
this
power
coming
from?
Games,
of
course;
but
few
of
them
qualify
as
relationship
marketing;
but
more
important
are
the
following.
The
Power
of
Local
One
of
the
important
innovations
to
content
by
mobile
devices
is
the
ability
of
apps
to
automatically
provide
geographically
specific
information
relevant
to
the
users
current
location
automatically,
thanks
to
many
apps
ability
to
leverage
the
smart
devices
GPS
function.
The
biggest
commercial
impact
of
this
appears
to
be
in
search,
where
one
half
of
all
local
searches
are
now
performed
on
mobile
devices,
and
increasingly,
that
means
apps.90
Moreover,
as
powerful
as
apps
are
for
local-search,
a
large
part
of
the
power
is
also
supplied
by
the
inherently
social
aspect
of
location,
as
when
Yelp
users
provide
local
restaurant
and
hardware
store
reviews,
or
GoogleMaps
users
overlay
maps
of
local
landmarks
with
pictures
taken
on
their
mobile
phones.
In
addition,
already
in
2011,
12
percent
of
smartphone
owners
had
reportedly
checked
in
via
location-based
services.91
Mobile
/
Social
New
screen
mentality
is
pervasive
in
the
industry.
Apparently,
many
industry
people
believe
that
social
media
are
simply
the
new
form
of
television.
It
isn't,
nor
is
it
ever
likely
to
be.
Social
media
is
and
was
developed
to
assist
individual
users
in
communicating
with
other
users,
not
to
listen
to
marketers.
The
impact
of
social
is
not
just
in
consumer
consumption
but
also
in
consumer
creation
and
distribution
of
marketing-relevant
communications,
an
activity
for
which
the
smart
mobile
device
is
exceptionally
well
suited.
First,
let
us
consider
mobile
consumers
consumption
of
social
media.
According
to
recent
Pew
data,
68%
of
smartphone
owners
in
2012
reported
having
ever
used
social
media
and
fully
50%
of
these
reported
they
did
so
on
a
typical
day.
Twitter
for
example,
has
reportedly
been
used
by
16%
of
smartphone
owners,
and
10%
use
it
every
day.92
However,
among
all
social
sites,
89
Simon Khalaf, Mobile Apps: We Interrupt This Broadcast, Flurry.com, December, 5, 2012, http://blog.flurry.com/bid/92105/Mobile-Apps-We-Interrupt-This-Broadcast 90 http://www.smartinsights.com/mobile-marketing/mobile-marketing-analytics/mobile-marketing-statistics/ 91 Foursquare 92 http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2012/Best-Worst-Mobile/Part-V/Activities.aspx 69
Facebook
is
the
number
one
connected
media
destination
on
mobile,
with
consumers
spending
many
hours
on
it
per
week,
and
with
mobile
now
representing
the
lions
share
of
Facebooks
overall
audience.
How
consumers
contribute.
Consumers
routinely
engage
in
mobile
activities
that
are
the
foundation
of
consumer-drive
marketing
communications.
One
of
the
most
important
is
photo
uploads
to
social
sharing
sites,
which
58%
smartphone
owners
report
having
done
at
least
once,
and
which
15%
do
on
a
typical
day,
according
to
Pew
research.93
Vast
numbers
also
report
commenting
on
others
posts,
liking
things
on
Facebook,
and
following
-
which
while
seemingly
only
a
consumption
metric
actually
has
marketing
value,
since
the
numbers
of
followers
a
person
or
product
has
can
be
seen
socially.
Consumers
generated
more
than
500
billion
impressions
about
products
and
services
through
social
media
in
2011.94
Furthermore,
social
customers
have
been
found
to
tell
an
average
of
42
people
about
a
good
customer
experience,
and
tell
an
average
of
53
people
about
a
bad
customer
experience.95
53
percent
of
people
on
Twitter
acknowledge
having
recommended
companies
and/or
products
in
their
Tweets.96
Most
customer
feedback
comes
from
purchasers
in
the
35
to
65
age
range.
.
However,
in-store
buyers
aged
19
to
24
are
more
likely
to
go
online
to
give
their
feedback
for
the
products
they
purchase.
In
fact,
the
older
the
in-store
shopper,
the
less
likely
he
or
she
is
to
leave
product
feedback
online.
97
Overall
impact
is
that
consumers
who
research
across
online,
offline,
and
mobile
channels
spend
18-36
percent
more
than
those
who
dont.98
60
percent
of
people
who
use
3
or
more
digital
means
of
researching
products
learned
about
a
Retailer
through
a
FB
or
Twitter
post.
99
As
one
might
expect,
there
are
important
generational
differences.
When
making
brand
decisions,
Millennials
are
247
percent
more
likely
to
be
influenced
by
blogs
or
social
networking
sites,100
84
percent
of
Millennials
say
user-generated
content
has
at
least
some
influence
on
what
they
buy
(compared
to
70
percent
of
Boomers).101
93 94
Ibid. Competitive Strategy In The Age Of The Customer. Forrester Research Inc., June 6, 2011. http://www.forrester.com/Competitive+Strategy+In+The+Age+Of+The+Customer/fulltext/-/E- RES59159?objectid=RES59159 95 2012 American Express Global Customer Service Barometer 96 ROI Research for Performance, June 2010, op. cit. 97 "The Conversation Index Vol. 3," Bazaarvoice, March 2012 98 "Social Trends Report 2012", Bazaarvoice, June 2012 99 Nielsen, Social Media Report, Q3 2011 100 Times Trends research, "Millennial Shoppers: Tapping into the Next Growth Segment." June 28, 2012 101 "Talking to Strangers: Millennials Trust People over Brands" Bazaarvoice, January 2012 70
mShopping
40
percent
of
U.S.
smartphone
owners
compare
prices
on
their
mobile
device
while
in-store
shopping
for
an
item
102
During
the
2012
holiday
season,
46
percent
of
cellphone
owners
called
a
friend
while
they
were
in
a
store
for
advice
about
a
product
they
were
considering
purchasing;
28%
of
cellphone
owners
used
their
phone
to
look
up
reviews
of
a
product
online
while
they
were
in
a
store
and
27%
of
adult
cell
owners
used
their
phones
to
look
up
the
price
of
a
product
online
while
they
were
in
a
store,
to
see
if
they
could
get
a
better
price
somewhere
else.
103
Pews
April
2012
survey
found
that
some
30%
of
all
cellphone
owners
and
86%
of
smartphone
owners
used
their
phones
in
the
previous
30
days
to
decide
whether
to
visit
a
business,
such
as
a
restaurant.104
62
percent
of
all
online
shoppers
read
product-related
comments
from
friends
on
Facebook,
with
75%
of
these
shoppers
clicking
through
to
the
retailers
site.
105
33
percent
of
consumers
use
their
mobile
phones
to
check
for
sales
and
specials
and
32%
of
consumers
have
checked
ratings
and
reviews
of
products
on
their
phones.106
But
for
that
very
reason,
no
innovation
in
the
area
of
content
more
clearly
exploits
mobiles
attributes
as
the
quintessential
personal,
with-me-all-the-time
relationship
marketing
tool
than
social
media.
Mobile
empowered
social
is
shifting
the
power
of
marketing
from
the
producer
to
the
consumer,
especially
thanks
to
the
impact
of
mobile
enabled
user
generated
marketing
communications
Social
media
has
created
mobile
brand
communities,
in
effect
mobile-enabled
brand
virtual
meet
ups.
Empowered
by
their
smartphones
and
tablets,
consumers
are
now
co-creating
brand
identity
on
the
go.
User-generated
marketing,
such
as
co-creating
new
products
or
commercials,
or
socially
repurposing
an
old
product,
results
in
releasing
untapped
value
and
resources
and
leads
to
greater
emotive
bonds,
when
consumers
can
say
I
did
that.
In
other
words,
the
impact
arises
not
only
from
co-creation
and
viral
sharing
with
other
consumers,
but
from
fly-on-the-wall
marketer
listening
opportunities.
Mobile
CRM
in
social
102 103
(Comscore, January 2011) In-Store Mobile Commerce During the 2012 Holiday Shopping Season http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2013/in-store-mobile-commerce.aspx 104 Just-in-time Information through Mobile Connections http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2012/Just-in-time.aspx 105 Sociable Labs Social Impact Consumer Study 106 The 2011 Social Shopping Study Brief I: Consumer Research Dynamics, Mobile and User-Generated Content e-Tailing Group. http://www.powerreviews.com/assets/download/Social_Shopping_2011_Brief1.pdf 71
media empowers this value by permitting collecting, analyzing and interpreting customers conversations, whether about the brand, or their ultimate needs, problems, or personal objectives. These conversations are making visible sentiments that were formerly invisible to all but the consumers themselves. Mobile - social CRM is as much an inbound data collection channel as it is an outbound marketing channel. Data captured via mobile marketing can be incorporated into existing databases to better understand and manage consumer preferences and to develop targeted offers that appeal to each consumers shopping preferences.
$ Millions
2010
48,627
4,088
44,538
91.6%
2011
85,300
14,147
71,153
83.4%
2012
139,003
21,370
117,634
84.6%
2013
216,931
30,483
186,448
85.9%
2014
311,566
39,123
272,443
87.4%
2015
400,971
47,764
353,207
88.1%
*Author estimates of mCommerce sales are calculated from estimates of eCommerce and mCommerce sales from sources such as the Commerce Department, Forrester Research, comScore, and others. mCommerce sales in this table are cited only for purposes of comparison and are NOT necessarily attributable to mobile marketing communications using our methodology. See report below.
By
comparing
mobiles
total
sales
impacts
reported
here
(which
do
not
distinguish
between
online
and
offline
sales)
to
third-party
reports
of
mCommerce,107
it
is
clear
that
the
great
majority
of
mobiles
sales
impact
--
at
least
85%
--
occurs
in
brick
and
mortar
environments,
whether
a
supermarket,
a
department
store,
a
car
dealership,
a
movie
theatre
or
a
ballpark.
Heres
why
we
say
this.
We
fully
expect
that
somepossibly
mostmCommerce
transactions
are
realized
through
remote
sales
channels
caused
by
mobile
marketing
communications.
But
since
the
data
supporting
our
model
doesnt
allow
us
to
make
a
specific
attribution
of
sales
to
specific
channels,
we
use
third
party
mCommerce
numbers
as
the
basis
for
thought
estimation.
In
this
hypothetical
calculation,
reported
mCommerce
numbers
set
a
baseline
of
the
minimum
amountevidently
about
$21
billion
--
of
total
mobile
marketing
sales
occurring
inside
direct
electronic
channels.
When
these
are
deducted
from
our
channel-neutral
total,
the
balance
represents
the
hypothetical
offline
component
of
our
total,
i.e.
the
minimum
amount
that
can
be
said
to
flow
into
the
brick
and
mortar
accounts
of
apparel
merchants,
restaurants,
107
mTransactions or mPayments are not to be confused with mobile banking, which is for us the management of financial accounts and services via mobile devices. 72
supermarkets,
and
car
dealerships
across
the
country,
even
though
none
of
them
will
ever
have
a
mobile
conversion
to
which
these
mShopping
sales
could
ever
be
traced.
In
fact
the
portion
of
brick
and
mortar
offline
sales
within
mobiles
total
sales
impact
is
almost
certainly
greater
even
than
this.
Not
every
mCommerce
sale
is,
in
our
strict
sense
here,
actually
attributable
to
mobile
marketing.108
Of
course
at
least
some
percentage
of
every
mCommerce
sale
can
be
at
minimum
attributed
to
the
mCommerce
marketers
investment
in
creating
a
mobile
commerce
app,
website,
etc.,
and
promoting
it
to
the
consciousness
of
potential
customers.
Yet
for
many
product
sales,
the
primary
trigger
of
the
purchase
may
have
been
a
marketing
communication
the
consumer
encountered
in
a
different
media
altogether.
What
follows
is
our
own
tentative
assessment
of
the
break
out
of
mobile-driven
sales
between
online
and
offline.
Mobile
Commerce
(mCommerce)
In
this
study,
mobile
commerce
encompasses
any
final
purchase
(the
transfer
of
ownership)
is
conducted
via
the
purchasers
mobile
device.
It
can
be
accomplished
through
a
click
on
an
SMS
message
that
downloads
a
ringtone;
it
can
be
a
book
order
placed
on
mobile
commerce
website,
or
a
hotel
room
booked
through
a
hotel
aggregators
mobile
applications.
It
also
includes
a
mobile
ticket
(if
that
ticket
is
ordered
through
a
mobile
device),
through
a
variety
of
means
including
mobile
coupons,
mobile
ticketing,
in-app
purchases
and
virtual
goods
and
currency.109
Digital
Content.
This
refers
to
any
media
that
is
downloaded
upon
purchase
onto
the
purchasers
mobile
device
for
use.
One
of
the
most
important
categories,
as
one
might
expect,
is
app-based
digital
content.
Other
researchers
have
suggested
that
already
in
2012,
U.S.
consumers
would
be
likely
to
have
spent
$6.7
billion
on
mobile
apps
in
2012,
about
20%
of
the
total
that
U.S.
consumers
will
spend
on
all
forms
of
mobile
media
in
2012.
110
Paid
apps,
and
in-app
purchases,
whether
they
be
virtual
goods
like
weapons
upgrades
and
extra
lives
in
mobile
games
or
actual
goods,
such
as
food
for
home
delivery;
videos
that
are
bought
or
rented;
mobile
subscriptions
to
the
digital
108
It seem plausible that some mCommerce categories such as digital content downloaded onto mobile devices are mostly mobile driven, even if this hypothesis cant be confirmed within the scope of data available to our model. But with other important components of mCommerce, such as mticketing of airline boarding passes or movie tickets, many of the actual purchases take place via the PC internet, and therefore only a portion of the mticket sale can be seen as mobile driven. 109 A key growth driver of mCommerce is that more and more goods and services are now being delivered or managed digitally. The first product categories to be revolutionized by this trend were music, then video, then magazines, newspapers, and most recently, books. Over the next few years, we anticipate that education and even health will see increased digital delivery of their services, creating significant growth prospects for sales impacts in these verticals. 110 http://247wallst.com/2012/04/23/mobile-market-spending-to-reach-150-billion-in-2012-t-vz-vod-znga-p-aapl- goog-mm/ 73
editions of newspapers or periodicals; eBooks; software; remote e-learning courses; or paid games. Mobile-Ordered Non-Digital Goods and Services. In this category mCommerce mobile consumers use their devices to purchase goods or services that are not consumed directly on the device itself. This includes hard-copy content, such as print books, DVDs and BluRay discs, and physical goods for shipment, as with Fresh Direct. This category of mCommerce includes a considerable portion of sales realized via call centers, as when the mobile consumer orders from a catalog via a mobile call to an 800 number. Mobile Banking. Though technically (in our model, at least) part of the previous category of mobile-ordered non-digital goods and services, we thought it worthwhile to treat it separately, given the scale of its impact. In the U.S., 15 percent of online adults were active mobile bankers in 2011, up from five percent in 2008.111 U.S. consumers who opened financial products reported that they opened 37 percent of these products online, two percent by mobile and 36 percent in a branch.112 Furthermore, studies have been published suggesting that up to one third of all product reviews in social are about financial products.
Mobile
Shopping
(Offline,
Physical
Location
Sales
Impact)
In
this
category
we
find
all
offline
sales
influenced
by
mobile
marketing
communications
of
any
kind.
What
does
the
at
least
85%
of
mobiles
impact
is
offline
mean
for
brick
and
mortar
vendors
of
whatever
stripe?
Showrooming.
The
answer
comes
down
to
the
issue
of
so-called
showrooming,
the
heavily
documented
habit
that
Americans
now
have
of
browsing
in
physical
locations,
mobile
apps
in
hand,
to
comparison
shop,
and
often
place
an
order
with
a
remote
retailer.
To
us,
the
implication
seems
obvious:
there
are
literally
billions
of
dollars
up
for
grabs
between
the
mShopping
and
mCommerce
sales
outlets.
The
proprietors
with
the
right
mix
of
sales
assistance,
socially
enhanced
product
and
experience
information,
location
sensitive
delivery
options,
and
of
course,
price,
all
within
the
most
convenient
and
clever
app,
has
much
to
win.
Retailers,
hoteliers,
and
others
are
eager
to
capture
as
much
of
this
offline
activity
as
they
can
via
apps
that
protect
the
customer
in
the
brick
and
mortar
environment,
protecting
them
from
being
conquested
by
the
showrooming
sales
temptation.
Much
of
their
strategy
focuses
pre- purchase
mobile
shopping
activity;
for
example
app
utilities
like
shopping
lists,
or
111
Forrester Research cited in Chantal Tode, Banks Pour One Third of Digital Investments Into Mobile Forrester, June 21, 2012. Mobile Commerce Daily, http://www.mobilecommercedaily.com/banks-pour-one-third- of-digital-investments-into-mobile-report 112 Chantal Tode, ibid. 74
recommendations reviewed in social media via mobile can drives sales by making up minds, finding stores and products quicker, while consumer still want to purchase, and by making purchase suggestions and helping ensure they drive to a location where the product is in stock. Some of this consumer-initiated pre-purchase mobile shopping activity happens off-site, some of it happens on-site in a physical location car dealer, retail outlet, shopping mall, etc. The expectation of mobile marketing expenditure is therefore in facilitating such activity in a way that conversion to sales, whether online or off, is as smooth as possible. For example, a mobile shopping list created on a generic note-taking app is one thing; but a dedicated shopping list app created by a big box retailer and used by a large portion of its customers could be monitored in real time by the merchandisers to ensure that items appearing in these lists were in stock, so that sales would not be lost. Promotions: mCoupons, Sweepstakes, Loyalty and Wallets. Millions of dedicated coupon users in the US appear to be now hooked on the utility of mobile media for finding, storing, and redeeming promotions and marketing incentive services, with location-aware mobile passports now able to trigger coupon reminders automatically whenever he passes within the perimeter of a participating retail outlet. In our view, loyalty includes mobile pre-paid credit. These are pre-paid loyalty cards, where funds are debited into loyalty accounts and controlled through native applications on the device. The adoption and usage among consumers can be benchmarked by noting the 2 million highly-caffeinated patrons who use the Starbucks payment app with its Square functionality.113 Mobile Payments Not every purchase in which the mobile device is the payment mechanism has been driven by that mobile device. (At least not wholly so. If that were the case, then we would say that money itself were the cause of the purchases made using it.) Instead, we only count the value of mobile payments to the extent they are attributable to mobile marketing communications -- i.e. transaction that could have taken place using good old fashioned cash or plastic credit. The table below is our estimate of mobile payments using both NFC and non-NFC methods, based on third-party sources. It is an category of activity that overlaps both mobile-driven offline sales, and off-line sales that are not attributable to mobile. It is estimated and included here only for possible future reference.
113
Chantal Tode, Starbucks caffeinates mobile payments with over 2M mobile transactions per week. Mobile Commerce Daily, November 5, 2012. http://www.mobilecommercedaily.com/starbucks-caffeinates- mobile-payments-with-over-2m-mobile-transactions-per-week 75
Source:
mLightenment
The
confluence
of
mobile
local
and
social
makes
measurement
of
performance
difficult,
especially
for
individual
marketers
who
are
under
pressure
to
nail
down
very
precise
dollar-for- dollar
measures
of
sales.
We
are
aware
individual
marketers
struggle
with
ROI
proxies
like
the
number
of
Twitter
followers,
retweets,
or
likes
on
their
Facebook
page.
Especially
with
76
mCommerce transactions such a tempting source of data, it is hard to avoid asking is our mobile social media marketing driving conversions? Yet with the incredible mobile enabled sharing of pictures, comments and ideas on social networks, Twitter, Facebook, Pinterest, etc., exploding as they are this may be the wrong question. The right question may be: is our mobile social media marketing listening to the conversation? Indeed, the value of mobile-enabled relationship marketing goes well beyond top-line financial results, not only for the company but mobile marketers customers and the wider society of which they are a part. We believe the apps economy will lead marketers to think beyond features and benefits, and think about consumers goals and social goods. Yes, many consumers are motivated by price or habit; but a growing number of consumers want to feel that their product preference, brand loyalties, buying decisions and content consumption is meaningfully related to their higher social and personal agendas. In other words, marketers need to realize mobile consumers are relating their brand relationships to purposes that go beyond consumption. This will lead to more enriching and empowering products and brands, and betteror at least broaderways of measuring mobiles performance, as we describe in the next section.
77
We
find
further
support
for
a
catalyst
effect
in
mobile
marketings
versatility.
Unlike
most
other
media
that
offer
specific
and
limited
uses,
mobile
can
be
used
for
search,
shopping,
surfing,
learning,
locating,
and
other
activities
that
complement
various
marketing
platforms
and
strategies.
In
particular,
mobile
shows
high
effectiveness
for
branding
as
seen
in
the
MIR
figures
and
brand
lift
scores.
It
could
also
be
said
that
the
highly
personal
nature
of
mobile
presents
potential
for
better
targeting
and
personal
relevance.
And,
finally,
mobile
represents
the
final
yard
of
marketing:
mobile
devices
often
accompany
consumers
throughout
the
purchase
consideration
cycle,
including
every
point
of
sale,
whether
online
or
off.
Crucially,
then,
mobile
gives
marketers
the
ability
to
influence
purchases
right
up
to
the
moment
consumers
reach
even
the
brick
and
mortar
cash
register.
Table
47:
Total
Mobile
Marketing
Spending
($
Millions)
Industry
Group
Resources
Manufacturing,
CPG
Manufacturing,
Other
Wholesale
Trade
Retail
Trade,
CPG
Retail
Trade,
Other
Transportation
and
Warehousing
Information
Finance,
Insurance,
Real
Estate
Professional
and
Business
Services
Educational
Services
Health
Care
and
Social
Assistance
Arts,
Museums,
Sports,
and
Recr.
Accommodation
and
Food
Services
Other
Services
Government
Total
2010
42
139
269
72
107
397
93
240
470
152
20
56
17
68
145
116
2,405
2011
74
227
471
119
171
648
156
389
784
245
36
95
27
110
227
179
3,957
2012
132
382
842
202
281
1,082
266
648
1,332
407
64
164
44
181
371
294
6,693
2013
218
597
1,373
322
433
1,676
422
991
2,080
632
105
265
67
281
562
432
10,456
2014
323
867
2,023
473
625
2,425
612
1,401
3,032
903
156
396
95
403
807
622
15,162
2015
446
1,123
2,691
630
804
3,164
814
1,778
4,017
1,163
204
539
120
512
1,028
771
19,806
CAGR
2010-2015
61%
52%
59%
54%
50%
51%
54%
49%
54%
50%
59%
57%
48%
50%
48%
46%
52%
Source: mLightenment
78
Source: mLightenment
79
Employment
Impact
Our
research
shows
that
every
worker
directly
employed
in
mobile
marketing
supports
23.6
other
workers
in
non-mobile
occupations.
Below,
we
explain
what
we
have
included
in
our
estimate
of
mobile
marketings
employment
impact,
and
how
we
arrived
at
this
estimate.
In
the
following
pages,
we
also
provide
more
detailed
employment
figures
with
breakdowns
by
state
and
industry.
To
calculate
the
volume
of
mobile-marketingdriven
employment,
we
begin
with
the
value
of
sales
by
industry
caused
by
mobile
marketing
expenditure
established
in
Step
2
(see
Methodology),
which
is
broken
out
by
our
16
major
industry
groups.
Using
national
employment
statistics,
we
calculate
ratios
of
output
per
employee
by
industry
that
represent
coefficients
predicting
the
number
of
additional
employees
that
an
increase
in
sales
in
a
given
industry
will
require
at
prevailing
wage
and
benefit
costs,
taking
other
supply
factors
into
consideration.
Seller
employment
represents
those
personnel
in
non-mobile
marketing
occupations
employed
in
major
industries
needed
to
produce
transport,
handle,
or
supervise
increased
sales
resulting
from
the
successful
use
of
mobile
marketing
to
raise
demand
among
end-customers
for
that
industrys
products
or
services.
Advertiser
employment
represents
employees
directly
involved
in
creating,
executing,
or
supervising
mobile
marketing
communications.
Direct
mobile
marketing
employment
may
be
found
among
either
mobile
marketing
providers
or
buyers.
This
figure
is
based
upon
the
wage
and
benefit
costs
incurred
as
part
of
mobile
marketing
communications
expenditure,
and
on
related
mobile
marketing
services.
In
other
words,
advertiser
employment
includes
in-house
mobile
marketers
employed
within
the
16
major
industry
categories,
as
well
as
mobile- marketingrelevant
staff
employed
by
publishers,
ad
networks,
advertising
and
PR
agencies,
audience
analytics
and
metrics
providers,
network
access
providers,
handset
and
peripherals
manufacturers,
consultants,
and
other
service
providers
whom
industries
may
involve
in
developing
their
mobile
marketing
communications.
Together,
these
two
types
of
employment
represent
total
mobile
marketing
employment.
Crucially,
these
employees
represent
employment
that
would
not
exist
but
for
the
expenditure
on,
and
increased
demand
arising
from,
mobile
marketing
communications,
since
the
wages
and
benefits
of
both
categories
ultimately
depend
on
the
prospect
of
accelerated
industry
revenues
in
other
words,
mobile
marketings
net
sales
impact.
80
Finally, we use the same statistical procedures to estimate the share of each of these categories of mobile marketing employment found within each of our mobile media channels, marketing categories, and in our 51 geographies (50 states, plus Washington, DC).
Total
Employment
Advertiser
Employment
Mobile
advertiser
jobs
are
the
most
direct
form
of
employment
generation
employing
a
number
of
people
in
activities
such
as
ad
designing,
programming,
analytics,
marketing,
administrative
staff,
etc.
In
2012,
mobile
advertisers
directly
employed
over
21,000
persons,
and
the
industry
is
projected
to
employ
64,000
people
by
2015,
growing
at
an
average
rate
of
44%
per
year.
The
mobile
direct-response
(DR)
category
is
expected
to
grow
the
fastest,
employing
over
9,000
people
by
2015.
Table
49:
Mobile
Marketing
Advertiser
Employment
2010
Total
Advertiser
Employment
Mobile
Media
Adv
Mobile
DR
Enhanced
Trad'l
Adv
Mobile
CRM
7,983
3,265
549
4,169
2011
12,672
5,540
1,073
6,059
CAGR
2010-2015
52%
55%
76%
43%
Source:
mLightenment
The
number
of
mobile
advertiser
jobs
by
industry
is
proportional
to
the
amount
of
investment
in
advertising.
Thus,
finance,
retail,
and
manufacturing
industries
are
also
the
largest
markets
for
advertiser
jobs.
About
3.3
jobs
were
created
in
2010
for
every
million
dollars
spent
on
mobile
advertisement.
This
was
3.18
in
2012
and
is
projected
to
stay
close
to
3.2
during
the
forecast
years.
As
mobile
marketers
continue
to
use
more
advanced
database
marketing
strategies
involving
predictive
analytics
and
automation,
labor
deployment
rates
will
likely
remain
low.
81
Table 50: Mobile Marketing Advertiser Employment by Industry ($ Millions) CAGR 2010- 2015 60% 51% 58% 53% 49% 51% 54% 49% 52% 50% 58% 57% 47% 49% 47% 46% 52%
Industry Group Resources Manufacturing, CPG Manufacturing, Other Wholesale Trade Retail Trade, CPG Retail Trade, Other Transportation and Warehousing Information Finance, Insurance, Real Estate Professional and Business Services Educational Services Health Care and Social Assistance Arts, Museums, Sports, and Recr. Accommodation and Food Services Other Services Government Total
2010 141 449 878 223 359 1,342 316 780 1,522 520 71 192 58 236 501 397 7,983
2011 241 704 1,476 354 556 2,113 511 1,220 2,449 809 122 315 90 367 756 590 12,672
2012 428 1,176 2,617 598 909 3,502 868 2,016 4,128 1,336 214 543 146 603 1,228 964 21,275
2013 711 1,852 4,296 955 1,412 5,465 1,386 3,109 6,463 2,093 353 884 223 942 1,875 1,432 33,453
2014 1,058 2,697 6,365 1,408 2,047 7,957 2,023 4,429 9,436 3,010 526 1,328 316 1,361 2,707 2,075 48,744
2015 1,473 3,512 8,522 1,880 2,655 10,459 2,712 5,667 12,522 3,912 693 1,822 406 1,747 3,478 2,594 64,053
Source:
mLightenment
Seller
Employment
The
incremental
product
sales
resulting
from
successful
deployment
of
mobile
advertising
will
require
hiring
additional
workers
by
the
product
sellers,
manufacturers,
or
the
service
providers
in
order
to
scale
up
the
production.
In
2012,
the
seller
employment
attributed
to
mobile
advertising
is
502,562
persons.
This
is
projected
to
grow
at
a
rate
of
40%,
employing
about
1.38
million
persons
by
2015.
While
the
advertising
spending
is
highest
in
the
mobile
media
category,
the
seller
employment
impact
is
highest
in
the
mobile
CRM
category.
Table
51:
Mobile
Marketing
Seller
Employment
CAGR
2010- 2015
49%
47%
63%
49%
2010 Mobile Marketing Investment Mobile Media Adv Mobile DR Enhanced Trad'l Adv Mobile CRM 188,913 84,055 11,557 93,301
Source:
mLightenment
82
Mobile marketing seller employment by industry is driven by incremental sales demand generated in each industry as a result of successful mobile marketing strategies. In 2012, 75 seller jobs were created for every million dollar of mobile advertising spending. However, this is projected to fall by 2% annually, reaching 70 jobs per million dollar of advertising spending. Industry wise seller employment impact show that retail (other), finance, and professional services are the largest job creators. Seller employment in retail trade (CPG) will grow the fastest, followed by professional services industry.
83
Disclaimer: Some of the material contained herein describes legal and regulatory issues. We cannot stress enough: we are not lawyers, and nothing herein is intended as legal advice, nor should be construed as such. 84
types of data that can cause the greatest concerns are sensitive data (e.g., financial account information, medical, or as we shall see, geolocation information). Mobiles Special Concern: Hyper-local Geolocation Data Mobile location data offers marketers a powerful new set of data tools for tracking and targeting individuals with geographic precision. Consumers generally can control the use of location through settings provided by platforms and must expressly agree to provide information to apps that they download. Some apps provide the location information they receive to ad networks who can then tailor the ads they deliver based on geography. Other Mobile-Specific Sensitive Information. Native mobile apps can also access other kinds of information stored on the mobile device including contacts, calendar appointments, photos and music, etc. The Android platforms displays to consumers the relevant permissions requested by an app for consumer approval. The iOS platform requires that users approve individually a number of the permissions sought by apps, including location, contacts, photos and others.
Interested readers can probably do no better than to visit the Federal Trade Commissions website to immerse themselves more thoroughly in this topic. The best and most current document with which to start is the FTC Staff Report of February 2013 entitled, Mobile Privacy Disclosures: Building Trust Through Transparency. Available at http://www.ftc.gov/os/2013/02/130201mobileprivacyreport.pdf 85
Industry Self-regulation through Trade Associations Within the framework of public policy on privacy, trade associations play a particularly important role in transforming the broad sweep of privacy protection legal and regulatory provisions into more detailed and nuanced best practices documents directly applicable to the specifics of each individual industry. These describe acceptable privacy behavior for firms sharing that industrys business models and technologies. Industry self-regulation promotes a level playing field among competitors in the same industry. Best practices and guidelines typically protect consumers in a variety of ways. First, they directly provide clear direction and education to industry practitioners as to what they should or should not do with their marketing. Second, associations often enforce these regulations among their members through staff investigations that may lead to loss of membership and sometimes public shaming. Promoting privacy through technology, platforms, and education Platforms providers, such as mobile operating systems, browsers, and social media platforms, can and do play an important role in ensuring consumer trust about privacy, insofar as they set the technical ground rules by which third parties can obtain access to consumer information using these platforms. Platforms also require third parties to agree to privacy requirements as part of the Terms of Service they must agree to operate on the platform. However, the primary responsibility for privacy compliance rests on the actions of companies that consumers interact with directly, including app developers, websites and other third parties.
See FTC Report Truth about Wireless Phones and the National Do-Not-Call List, http://www.fcc.gov/guides/truth-about-wireless-phones-and-national-do-not-call-list 86
registry.
Further
regulations
prohibit
the
sending
of
texts
to
contacts
generated
through
an
automatic
dialing
system.117
Industry
self-regulation
SMS
marketing
is
characterized
by
extensive
industry
self-regulatory
efforts,
including
tight
best
practices
for
marketing
campaigns
that
are
reviewed
in
advance
(advance
provisioning)
by
carrier-controlled
or
carrier
affiliated
industry
groups,
especially
the
Mobile
Marketing
Association
and
the
Common
Short
Code
Administration
(CSCA),
which
are
industry
gate- keepers
of
short
codes.118
Marketers
who
violate
these
principles
or
the
terms
of
their
provisioning
agreements
with
the
carriers
can
have
their
marketing
program
cancelled,
or
their
short
code
taken
away,
either
by
CSCA,
or
by
the
owner
of
their
shared
short
code
(usually
a
platform
provider
or
mobile
aggregator).
The
intent
of
such
policies
has
been
to
make
SMS/MMS
as
much
a
completely
opt-in
marketing
medium
as
possible.
For
marketers,
this
means
texting
is
primarily
used
to
enhance
non-mobile
marketing
response
or
CRM
campaigns,
as
reflected
in
our
expenditure
data,
above.
We
do
not
detect
any
significant
pressure
from
consumer
groups
or
public
officials
for
changes
to
this
policy
framework
during
the
forecast
period.
Industry
policy
appears
to
have
largely
prevented
any
extensive
proliferation
of
SMS-spam,
contributing
to
relatively
high
consumer
satisfaction
with
the
overall
quality
of
their
texting
services,
and
a
positive
sentiment
regarding
SMS
marketing
for
those
consumers
prepared
to
give
their
opt-in
consent.
If
anything,
pressure
for
policy
changes
are
more
likely
to
come
from
mobile
marketers
who
find
the
advance
provisioning
processes
time
consuming
and
economically
burdensome.
However,
as
carriers
have
too
much
at
stake,
we
expect
the
industry
status
quo
will
continue.
Mobile
Email
In
matters
of
privacy,
mobile
email
is
subject
to
the
same
standards
as
other
email.
At
the
Federal
level
the
CAN-SPAM
Act119
establishes
rules
and
requirements
for
commercial
e-mail
and
gives
individuals
the
right
to
opt
out
of
commercial
mailings
with
individual
businesses.
117
See FCC Report Spam: Unwanted Text Messages and Email available at http://www.fcc.gov/guides/spam- unwanted-text-messages-and-email 118 The essential criterion for provisioning is that the consumer opts in to the campaign. The mobile operators demand a double opt-in from the consumer and the ability for the consumer to opt out of the service at any time by sending the word STOP via SMS. These guidelines are established in the MMA Consumer Best Practices Guidelines, which are required of all short-code based mobile marketers in the United States. See MMA, Best Practices: http://www.mmaglobal.com/bestpractice 119 Bureau of Consumer Protection, CAN-SPAM Act: A Compliance Guide for Businesses, September 2009, http://www.business.ftc.gov/documents/bus61-can-spam-act-compliance-guide-business 87
Among other things, the act disallows false or misleading header information or subject lines, and requires marketers to identify commercial messages as an ad. Messages must also provide the senders location and an option to opt-out of future mailings. Furthermore, the act holds businesses responsible for promptly honoring opt-out requests and makes them responsible for the actions of others acting on their behalf, such as marketing agencies or other vendors. Mobile Web Ad Targeting Due to the challenges of separate web and app ad inventory that is not linked, the cookie targeting limits of the Apple Safari browser and other challenges, data use for ad targeting is still in the early stages of development. Nonetheless, many companies are succeeding as they leverage the opportunities that are available to use data to provide reporting, attribution and targeting. It will be important that these companies continue to develop their business models and technology with privacy standards in mind, as regulators will continue to scrutinize practices in this area. As we noted, in February 2012, the FTC issued general recommendations that digital marketers increase transparency and tighten privacy policies, and provide consumers the opportunity to opt out of ad network tracking on smartphones.120 In addition, it also issued a Privacy Report in May 2012 on best consumer privacy practices for businesses, which included guidance on marketing through mobile devices.121 Finally, in February of 2013, the FTC released its most detailed and mobile-specific set of recommendations thus far, its Mobile Privacy Disclosures report. In response to calls for industry to advance mobile privacy practices, the Digital Advertising Alliance (DAA) will soon release guidance on how its Self-Regulatory Code will apply to mobile companies. Mobile Apps A principal source of industry self-regulation for apps comes from app platform providers. Apple, Google, Microsoft, RIM, Facebook and other platforms all require app developers to meet baseline privacy standards before these digital products may be offered for sale through their app stores.
120
Danny Yardon, FTC Suggests Privacy Controls for Mobile Devices. February 2, 2012. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324610504578280061546792322.html?mod=googlenews_wsj 121 FTC Report: In Short: Advertising & Privacy Disclosures in a Digital World. FTC Workshop May 30, 2012. http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/workshops/inshort/index.shtml 88
Notice
and
Choice
The
principles
of
notice
and
choice
established
in
other
marketing
channels
are
gradually
making
their
way
into
mobile,
as
shown
by
recent
milestones.
In
February
2012,
the
California
Attorney
General
announced
an
agreement
with
the
six
leading
mobile
app
platforms
requiring
that
those
platforms
enable
apps
to
easily
post
privacy
links
for
consumers
in
the
app
stores.122
In
June
2012,
the
U.S.
Department
of
Commerce
announced
a
privacy
multi-stakeholder
process
to
address
mobile
app
transparency,
so
that
stakeholders
would
develop
voluntary,
enforceable
codes
of
conduct.123
In
August
2012,
the
FTC
published
guidelines
that
mobile
app
developers
should
observe
and
comply
with
truth-in-advertising
and
privacy
principles.124
Part
of
the
challenge
of
implementing
notice
and
choice
in
mobile
is
the
confined
space
(and
sometimes
time)
available
in
the
mobile
form
factor
to
convey
the
appropriate
level
of
disclosure.
Apps
and
Children
With
evidence
accumulating
that
children
and
teens
are
the
fastest
growing
group
of
smartphone
users,
the
role
of
app
collection
and
sharing
of
childrens
data
has
moved
to
the
forefront
of
policy
concern.
In
February
2012,
the
FTC
issued
a
report,
Mobile
Apps
for
Kids:
Current
Privacy
Disclosures
Are
Disappointing,
which
expressed
that
little
or
no
information
was
available
to
parents
about
the
privacy
practices
and
interactive
features
of
the
mobile
apps
surveyed
prior
to
download.
A
follow-up
report
in
December
2012125
tested
apps
practices
and
compared
them
to
the
disclosures
made.
Specifically,
the
new
survey
examined
whether
the
apps
included
interactive
features
or
shared
kids
information
with
third
parties
without
disclosing
these
facts
to
parents.
The
FTC
staff
concluded
that
parents
were
not
given
adequate
information
about
the
privacy
practices
and
interactive
features
of
mobile
apps
aimed
at
kids,
particularly
with
regard
to
the
amount
and
types
of
information
collected
about
their
children.
122
Attorney General Kamala D. Harris Secures Global Agreement to Strengthen Privacy Protections for Users of Mobile Applications (Feb. 22, 2012). Press Release, State of California Department of Justice. http://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-kamalad-harris-secures-global-agreement-strengthen- privacy 123 Press Release, National Telecommunications & Information Administration, Department of Commerce, First Privacy Multistakeholder Meeting: July 12, 2012 (June 15, 2012) http://www.ntia.doc.gov/otherpublication/2012/first-privacy-multistakeholder-meeting-july-12-2012. 124 FTC Report, Marketing Your Mobile App: Get It Right From the Start, August 2012, http://business.ftc.gov/documents/bus81-marketing-your-mobile-app. 125 FTC Report, Mobile Apps for Kids: Disclosures Still Not Making the Grade, December 2012, http://www.ftc.gov/os/2012/12/121210mobilekidsappreport.pdf 89
The FTC called on all members of the kids app ecosystem to provide greater transparency about the data practices and interactive features of childrens apps and proposed modifications to the Commissions Childrens Online Privacy Protection Rule (COPPA), in part to clarify the consumer protections that should apply when children use mobile devices.126 The new COPPA rule restricts collection of location from children without parental permission, and restricts behavioral advertising to children, among other new requirements. Medical, Health, Wellness and Therapeutic Apps This type of app has the potential to dramatically improve our health and lower costs but could presents privacy risks, due to the use of some sensitive personal or medical information. To encourage their development while promoting privacy, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recently launched an initiative to identify privacy and security best practices for using mobile devices in health care settings.127 Apps Commerce As the market for mobile payments developments, companies will need to be cognizant of sector specific banking and credit laws. General Digital and Marketing Privacy Issues Relevant to Mobile Data Enhancement and Data Brokers This is when a company appends data obtained from third-party sources such as data brokers (see above) to the information it collects directly from consumers. Because data brokers are relatively inaccessible and invisible to consumers, the FTC has gone on record supporting legislation that would provide consumers with transparency into the enhancing information that data brokers hold about them. The FTC has also encouraged brokers of marketing data to consider a centralized website where data brokers could identify themselves to consumers and explain how they collect and use consumer data as well as explain consumers access rights and other choices regarding data they hold. The FTC has suggested that this approach should apply to both online and offline data.
126
Press Release, FTC, FTC Seeks Comments on Additional Proposed Revisions to Childrens Online Privacy Protection Rule, August 1, 2012, http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2012/08/coppa.shtm. 127 HSS Report, Mobile Devices Roundtable: Safeguarding Health Information, http://healthit.hhs.gov/portal/server.pt/community/healthit_hhs_gov__mobile_devices_roundtable/3815 90
Such as might result from privacy policies similar to Europes sweeping data regulations. See Avi Goldfarb and Catherine E. Tucker, Privacy Regulation and Online Advertising (2010) http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1600259. 91
CITA
The
Wireless
Association.
Founded
in
1984,
an
international
nonprofit
membership
organization
primarily
comprising
U.S.
wireless
communications
access
providers
(mobile
operators)
and
related
services
providers,
suppliers,
and
equipment
manufacturers.
Among
numerous
other
public
policy
and
self-regulatory
issues
of
concern,
CTIA
co-ordinates
the
wireless
access
industrys
self-regulatory
efforts
that
do
the
following
with
regard
to
mobile
marketing
/
privacy:
Provide
consumers
with
a
variety
of
choices
and
information
regarding
their
wireless
products
and
services.
Develops
voluntary
industry
guidelines.
CTIA
Best
Practices
and
Guidelines
for
Location
Based
Services,
available
at
http://www.ctia.org/consumer_info/service/index.cfm/AID/11300.
GSMA.
The
GSMA
represents
the
interests
of
mobile
operators
worldwide.
Spanning
more
than
220
countries,
the
GSMA
unites
nearly
800
of
the
worlds
mobile
operators
with
more
than
230
companies
in
the
broader
mobile
ecosystem,
including
handset
makers,
software
companies,
equipment
providers
and
Internet
companies,
as
well
as
organizations
in
industry
sectors
such
as
financial
services,
healthcare,
media,
transport
and
utilities.
Common
Short
Code
Association
(CSCA).
An
extension
of
CTIA,
the
CSCA
is
the
sole
administrator
of
common
short
codes
(CSC)
for
the
entire
wireless
industry,
thus
making
them
a
coordinating
gatekeeper
for
SMS-
or
MMS-based
marketing
programs.
The
CSCA
oversees
the
technical
and
operational
aspects
of
Short
Code
functions
and
maintains
a
single
database
of
available,
reserved,
and
registered
Short
Codes.
All
service
providers
who
wish
to
register
Short
Codes
for
use
in
mobile
marketing
campaigns
or
publishing
or
selling
mobile
content
via
SMS
must
register
and
obtain
their
Short
Code
via
the
CSCA.
Direct
Marketing
Association,
(DMA)
The
Direct
Marketing
Association
(www.the-dma.org)
is
the
worlds
largest
trade
association
dedicated
to
advancing
and
protecting
responsible
data- driven
marketing.
Founded
in
1917,
DMA
represents
thousands
of
companies
and
nonprofit
organizations
that
use
and
support
data-driven
marketing
practices
and
techniques.
The
IAB
(Interactive
Advertising
Bureau)
The
Interactive
Advertising
Bureau
(IAB)
is
comprised
of
more
than
500
leading
media
and
technology
companies
that
are
responsible
for
selling
86%
of
online
advertising
in
the
United
States.
On
behalf
of
its
members,
the
IAB
is
dedicated
to
the
growth
of
the
interactive
advertising
marketplace,
of
interactives
share
of
total
marketing
spend,
and
of
its
members
share
of
total
marketing
spend.
The
IAB
educates
marketers,
agencies,
media
companies
and
the
wider
business
community
about
the
value
of
interactive
advertising.
Working
with
its
member
companies,
the
IAB
evaluates
and
recommends
standards
and
practices
and
fields
critical
research
on
interactive
advertising.
Founded
in
1996,
the
IAB
is
headquartered
in
New
York
City
with
a
Public
Policy
office
in
Washington,
D.C.
Digital
Advertising
Alliance,
The
Digital
Advertising
Alliance
(DAA)
is
a
consortium
of
the
leading
national
advertising
and
marketing
trade
groups
who
together
deliver
effective,
self- regulatory
solutions
to
online
consumer
issues.
92
AAAA. The 4A's is the national trade association of the advertising agency business. It represents more than 1,100 member agency offices in the U.S. that employ over 65,000 people, offer a wide range of marketing communications services, and place 80 percent of all national advertising. The management-oriented association helps its members build their businesses, and acts as the industry's spokesman with government, media, and the public sector. AAF. The American Advertising Federation, headquartered in Washington, D.C., acts as the "Unifying Voice for Advertising." The AAF is the oldest national advertising trade association, representing 40,000 professionals in the advertising industry. The AAF has a national network of 200 ad clubs located in ad communities across the country. Through its 226 college chapters, the AAF provides 8,000 advertising students with real-world case studies and recruitment connections to corporate America. The AAF also has nearly 100 blue-chip corporate members that are advertisers, agencies and media companies, comprising the nation's leading brands and corporations. ANA. The Association of National Advertisers leads the marketing community by providing its members insights, collaboration and advocacy. ANA's membership includes 400 companies with 9,000 brands that collectively spend over $100 billion in marketing communications and advertising. The ANA strives to communicate marketing best practices, lead industry initiatives, influence industry practices, manage industry affairs and advance, promote and protect all advertisers and marketers. NAI. The NAI (Network Advertising Initiative) is a coalition of more than 70 leading online marketing companies committed to building consumer awareness and reinforcing responsible business and data management practices and standards, and which includes the fifteen largest online advertising networks in the United States. As increasingly sophisticated online advertising technologies evolve, the NAI works to enhance consumer confidence through effective self-regulatory practices and user choice. The Software & Information Industry Association is the principal trade association for the software and digital content industry. SIIA provides global services in government relations, business development, corporate education and intellectual property protection to the leading companies that are setting the pace for the digital age. Association for Competitive Technology ACT ACT is an international grassroots advocacy and education organization representing more than 5,000 small and mid-size app developers and information technology firms. It is the only organization focused on the needs of small business innovators from around the world. ACT advocates for an environment that inspires and rewards innovation while providing resources to help its members leverage their intellectual assets to raise capital, create jobs, and continue innovating. In addition to its small business membership, ACT has several Sponsor Members including eBay, Microsoft, Oracle, Intel and VeriSign.
93
W3C Group. The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) is an international community where Member organizations, a full-time staff, and the public work together to develop Web standards. Led by Web inventor Tim Berners-Lee and CEO Jeffrey Jaffe, W3C's mission is to lead the Web to its full potential. Application Developers Alliance. The Alliance works to provide developers the resources they need to continue to innovate and build the software economy. The Alliance is the voice of the development industry. It educates legislators and regulators, speaks on behalf of the industry, and represents the millions of coders and thousands of companies working and innovating today.
94
digital
content
(i.e.,
building
paywalls),
recent
developments
do
give
us
insight
into
what
the
growing
tide
of
tablet
and
app-based
mobile
content
consumptionand
eventually
mobile
advertisingmay
be
worth
to
consumers
themselves.
Among
the
most
notable
major
publishers
to
have
recently
erected
a
digital
paywall
is
the
New
York
Times,
which
permits
visitors
a
certain
number
of
articles
per
month,
after
which
they
must
purchase
a
subscription
for
further
access.129
To
begin
to
ballpark
the
value
of
mobile
advertisings
subsidy,
we
note
that
the
Times
advertising
revenue
for
2012
was
$898.1
million,
and
ad
revenue
makes
up
slightly
less
than
half
of
the
Times
total
revenue,
on
the
basis
of
which
the
paper
does
slightly
better
than
break-even.130
Newspaper
industry
data
suggests
that
on
average,
roughly
14%
of
industry
ad
revenue
is
digital.131
If
that
conservative
figure
applies
to
the
Times,
that
would
put
its
digital
revenue
for
2012
conservatively
at
$125.7
million,
of
which
about
$16.3
million,
or
13%,
is
likely
due
to
mobile
ad
sales,
based
on
conservative
industry
assumptions.
To
calculate
the
implications
of
this
figure
for
digital
readers,
we
note
that
access
to
the
NYTimes.com
paywall
costs
$15
per
month.132
Thus,
for
this
one
publication,
mobile
advertising
expenditure
is
conservatively
equivalent
to
the
Times
being
able
to
give
away
at
least
some
of
its
content
to
a
minimum
of
90,808
readers
each
monthpotentially
over
a
million
readers
per
yearwho
might
otherwise
have
to
purchase
a
subscription.
Thought
of
another
way,
a
publisher
who
lost
even
existing
mobile
ad
revenue
would
need
to
make
up
the
loss
by
raising
its
paywall
even
higher,
or
cut
visitors
off
after
only
a
few
pages
of
content.
This
would
represent
a
solution
that
would
not
only
reduce
the
number
of
paying
digital
subscribers
by
thousands,
or
reduce
free
site
visitors
by
the
tens
of
thousands,
but
also
in
all
likelihood,
it
would
leave
the
Times
with
even
less
money
to
cover
the
costs
of
its
expensive
print
editions,
ultimately
putting
some
number
of
print
subscribers
in
jeopardy.
The
digital
paper
route
that
is
the
mobile
app
may
not
save
the
newspaper
industry
but
it
may
help
reincarnate
the
news
business.
Mobile
advertisings
benefit
to
the
consumers
and
publishers
of
other
content
formats
could
be
even
higher.
Consider
the
magazine
industry,
where
some
well-known
publications
have
recently
secured
much
higher
shares
of
digital
advertising
in
overall
ad
revenue,
thanks
in
no
small
measure
to
smartphones
and
tablets.
Wired
magazine,
for
example,
recently
broke
through
the
50/50
barrier
between
print
and
129
We recognize that The New York Times is not representative of the entire newspaper industry. However, it has an enormous readership, and for this reason we suspect it is not hugely different from other nationally recognized titles such as the Wall Street Journal, the Chicago Tribune or USAToday in the newspaper industry, or the Atlantic, Sports Illustrated, or Vanity Fair in the magazine industry. More importantly, data about the Times example is relatively accessible. 130 Christine Haughney, Asset Sales Help Lift Profit at New York Times Company, but Ad Revenue Declines, February 8, 2013, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/08/business/asset-sales-help-quarterly-profit-at-times- company.html, 131 Newspaper Association of America, March 2012, http://stateofthemedia.org/2012/newspapers-building-digital- revenues-proves-painfully-slow/newspapers-by-the-numbers/ 132 The benefit in access to readers rather than subscribers is likely even higher, since the terms of the digital subscription entitles the subscriber to share access with one other person. www.NYTimes.com 96
digital
ad
revenues,
and
other
titles,
such
as
The
Atlantic,
reportedly
do
even
better.133
If
the
Atlantics
storied
tradition
of
literate
and
informative
essays
survives
into
another
century,
the
tablet
may
be
the
reason.
Mobilizing
City
Traffic
The
benefit
of
mobile
marketing
is
most
obvious
in
providing
access
to
digital
content.
But
in
a
whole
host
of
ways,
smart
mobile
devices
are
enabling
Americans
to
achieve
levels
of
convenience
and
efficiency
never
before
possible.
Consider
the
problem
of
limited
parking
and
traffic
congestion
in
major
urban
centers
such
as
San
Francisco.
According to published reports, the number of available spaces for on-street parking in San Francisco is about 320,000.134 The average number of vehicles in San Francisco during the week is 505,733,135 and San Francisco drivers spend approximately 2030 minutes looking for parking.136 Thus, a half hour spent looking for an open parking spot at an assumed city driving speed of 20 mph could result in 10 miles of wasted travel. Assuming gas consumption at 29 miles per gallon137 for 10 miles of driving results in 0.35 gallons used, or about $1.40 worth of gas wasted while looking for parking at 2012 gas prices.138 Generalized to 505,733 vehicles in San Francisco, that could mean up to $720,000 worth of gas spent needlessly on one of lifes more annoying tasks. Fortunately, city officials and mobile app developers have begun to step into this breach, using location-based mobile technologies to help drivers locate open spots faster. Assume the time spent looking for a space in San Francisco with a parking finder app is cut in half, totaling 15 minutes. Assuming nothing else changes, the savings in gas alone would be 70 cents, which if applied to all 505,733 vehicles cruising the streets of San Francisco each day, would save about $360,000 worth of gas.
133
Nat Ives, Digital Cracks 50% of Ad Revenue at Wired Magazine, First for the Title Is an Encouraging Sign for Industry, January 03, 2013, http://adage.com/article/media/digital-cracks-50-ad-revenue-wired- magazine/238986/. 134 David LaBua, Parking Quiz Answer: SF cars vs. Parking Spaces. Who Wins?, February 4, 2011, http://www.7x7.com/travel-active/parking-quiz-answer-sf-cars-vs-parking-spaces-who-wins. 135 Ibid. 136 Matt Ritchtel, Now, to Find a Parking Spot, Drivers Look on Their Phones, May 7, 2011, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/08/technology/08parking.html?pagewanted=all. 137 Bill Vlasic, U.S. Sets Higher Fuel Efficiency Standards, August 28, 2012, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/29/business/energy-environment/obama-unveils-tighter-fuel-efficiency- standards.html 138 http://www.sanfrangasprices.com/Prices_Nationally.aspx 97
Again, looking only at San Francisco, city officials estimate that drivers cruising for parking spots generate 30 percent of all downtown congestion.139 This congestion substantially increases the volume of airborne pollutants spewed by all traffic into the Bay Area atmosphere. The time savings to Bay Area drivers could potentially reach over 125,000 person-hours per day. In practice, the daily savings across these dimensions will likely be lower than those we have just hypothesized: not all drivers would have a parking locator app, and even for those that did, studies have yet to be done that reveal whether they would save 30 minutes or only 3 minutes. Yet our postulated savings in time, gas, congestion, and environmental damage applies only to drivers in a single US city for a single day. Whatever the results of mobile initiatives like San Franciscos turn out to be, they still point to eventual savings in the range of hundreds of millions of dollars when considered for the entire nation over an entire yearand just from an app that lets a driver see an open parking spot down a side street that she might otherwise have driven right by. The 24/7 Pharmacy in Your Pocket Medication errorsparticularly missed doses of prescribed medication or prescriptions that go unfilled or unrefilledare a frequent cause of what the medical profession calls adverse drug events or ADEs. An ADE may cause the sufferer a sufficiently severe complication as to require an emergency room visit, a hospital stay, further health set-backs, even death. Published studies suggest that roughly 30% of ADEs may be attributable to missed does of prescription medications, leading to 700,000 avoidable emergency room trips each year, and well over 100,000 avoidable hospitalizations.140 Needless to say, such events cost the patient, the hospitals, insurers, and taxpayers enormous sums: almost $300 billion by one NEHI estimate.141 Thus if something could be done to address the fact that 50% of the 3.2 billion prescriptions dispensed annually in the U.S. are not taken as prescribed, the tangible and intangible improvements to peoples lives and pocketbooks could be truly meaningful.142 That something may involve smartphone technology. A recent report by Juniper Research estimates that there will have been 44 million downloads of health-related apps to mobile devices in 2012. The report predicts that the number of mobile health app downloads will reach
139
Matt Ritchtel, Now, to Find a Parking Spot, Drivers Look on Their Phones, May 7, 2011, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/08/technology/08parking.html?pagewanted=all. 140 Center for Disease Control and Prevention, http://www.cdc.gov/MedicationSafety/basics.html and U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, http://www.ahrq.gov/qual/aderia/figure2.htm 141 NEHI press release, NEHI Research Shows Patient Medication Nonadherence Costs Health Care System $290 Billion Annually, August 11, 2009, http://www.nehi.net/news/press_releases/110/nehi_research_shows_patient_medication_nonadherence_costs_ health_care_system_290_billion_annually 142 Hayden B. Bosworth, Ph.D., and the National Consumers League, Medication Adherence: Making the Case for Increased Awareness, http://scriptyourfuture.org/wp- content/themes/cons/m/Script_Your_Future_Briefing_Paper.pdf 98
142 million by 2016;143 many of these are prescription-related. Our own search for prescriptions in the Apple apps store produced several hundred apps, many of which were published free of charge by leading pharmacy chains. On inspection, it turned out that quite a number of these apps had very high average ratings across thousands of users (very close to the maximum score of 5 starsat least one popular pharmacy app we looked at had higher ratings than Angry Birds, the worlds most popular mobile game.) These prescription reminder apps are not only being downloaded, they are being relied upon. Walgreens, for example, has apps whose prescription adherence resources are the most popular features, including allowing the consumer to refill prescriptions for pickup or delivery, simply by using the mobile phone to scan the label of the prescription bottle. Walgreens claims that such features helped increase use of its mobile pharmacy apps by nearly 500 percent last year.144 What could such free mobile apps mean for individual categories of mobile subscribers with different diseases? One report summarized research findings suggesting that an additional dollar spent helping patients adhere to their prescribed medication would reduce medical costs by $7.00 for people with diabetes; $5.10 for people with high cholesterol; and $3.98 for people with high blood pressure.145 If we assume conservatively that less than 1% of Americans with each of these diseases has downloaded and is using these enormously popular apps, (the percentages of the American adult population taking medication for each of these diseases is in the mid to high double-digits), the return in health savings for just these three conditions is likely already in the tens of millions of dollars annually.
143
DK New Media, Mobile Technology in Healthcare, http://healthx.wpengine.com/wp- content/uploads/2013/01/Mobile_Infographic.pdf 144 Brian Dolan, Walgreens app adds pill reminders, Rx transfer, March 12, 2012, http://mobihealthnews.com/16594/walgreens-app-adds-pill-reminders-rx-transfer/ 145 Hayden B. Bosworth, Ph.D., and the National Consumers League, Medication Adherence: Making the Case for Increased Awareness, http://scriptyourfuture.org/wp- content/themes/cons/m/Script_Your_Future_Briefing_Paper.pdf 99
have already demonstrated mobiles power in South Korea, Japan, Singapore, and elsewhere. Advanced as we in some ways, we still can play catch-up in others. Bringing about real change will take a more evolved view of marketing than is found in many CMO suites today. The dominant roadmaps we have about how brands are built were drafted when the old, analog channels of marketing communication were the only games in town. To change that will require marketers to upload a new picture of what the mobile device is for marketing: delete screen and replace it with camera. The mobile device jostles along with every step in the journey the consumer takes in daily life, from the moment they wake until they retire at night. Mobile inputs like the camera, microphone, and content creation apps mean consumers possess powerful tools with which they can co-create and co-distribute product value and messaging. Marketers must learn how to tap this resource, to be invited to participate in this tremendous opportunity, not stifle it. Mobile is challenging marketers to build new mental models of what a medium is and what it can do, and why it does it. The ones who realize how mobile is erasing the old boundaries of what a medium is, will be the ones who use mobile to reinvent marketing communications and help usher in the coming mobile-enhanced consumer world. They will not just continue down the screen-based highway that has been the reflexive marketing model for the past several generations. On the bright side, many already know that "enabling the mobile camera is the wave of the future. We see young, innovative companies and designers borrowing creative models from gaming and social connections to figure out the new ways that mobile will achieve its potential for all constituentsthe consumer, the marketer, the retailer, and media publishers and distributors. Such visionaries understand that they will have the best of both worlds if they let the consumer use mobile as it ought. They will have create deep, imaginative value adding communications and data enhancements to products and services that are so personalized, so local, so interactive, and so engaging that consumers will find collaboration irresistible. And they will use these mobile-enhanced goods and services to build a long-term relationship with consumers over time, thus building brand-devotion. Marketers may object that our claim that mobile is different and a far more challenging phenomenon than even the traditional Internet (to speak nothing of traditional offline media) is either wrong, or sets the bar too high. We know there are those who question whether mobile really is a "medium" unto itself, and debate whether mobile is the first, second or third screen for advertising seem to us to be all too common. Yes, the tablet does seem to be seducing some marketers wishing to replicate the lean back on the sofa attributes of television advertising, and ignore the smartphone as too different culturally and technologically. Yes, purchasing platforms for placing marketing onto "mobile" are still very nascent and evolving. Yes, mobile ad formats arent as standardized as buying agencies would like.
101
And
yet,
please
forgive
us,
this
seems
like
an
excuse
for
dumb
marketing.
The
very
term
"mobile"
in
the
singular
muddies
the
waters,
because
it
obscures
appreciation
of
the
democratic
and
creative
riches
offered
by
mobiles
different
media,
connections,
sensing,
and
input
capabilities.
Without
seeing
what
these
combine
to
offer
marketers
and
consumers
alike
in
terms
of
versatility,
power
and
personality,
marketers
arent
likely
to
re-allocate
and
rethink
investments
and
resources
for
this
coming
popular
marketplace
revolution.
Smart
Marketing
and
the
Social
Contract
of
the
Mobile-Enhanced
Economy
With
commercial
TV,
we
tolerate
advertising
as
part
of
the
price
of
free
entertainment
on
a
device
commonly
known
as
the
boob
tube.
With
the
Internet,
we
wised
up
a
bit,
and
acquiesced
to
advertising
that
subsidized
the
cost
of
information.
What
social
contract
can
be
devised
for
the
new
smart
devices?
Will
we
tolerate
advertising
on
mobile
for
faster
sports
scores?
More
amusing
cat
videos
at
our
fingertips?
Recently,
it
was
observed
that
mobile
has
changed
the
communications
landscape
because
of
its
ability
to
create
a
fluid
means
of
marketing
to
the
changing
situations
and
contexts
as
the
consumer
moves
through
their
daily
life.146
We
would
agree
completely
if
the
author
had
written
marketing
IN
rather
than
marketing
to.
Prepositions
can
be
so
important:
Mobile
cannot
be
simply
an
opportunity
to
chase
the
consumer
from
touch-point
to
touch-point
and
pester
them
with
come-ons
and
offers.
We
think
the
mobile
enhanced
consumer
wants
more
than
that.
The
mobile
smart
consumer
will
look
for
reimagined
products
and
services
that
help
them
lead
mobile-enhanced
lives.
Marketers
need
to
appreciate
the
smart
mobile
device
is
an
extension
of
our
person,
its
behind
the
human
shift
to
a
new
always-on,
always-connected,
I
can
enhance-this-moment
HERE
and
NOW
set
of
expectations.
The
mental
revolution
in
mobile
means
brands
must
expect
to
discover
value
for
themselves
and
consumers
in
spaces
that
previously
didnt
exist
as
communication
opportunities.
We
believe
that
means
the
product
or
service
itself,
and
the
contexts
in
which
they
will
be
used.
The
old
world
of
marketing
separated
mass
broadcasting
from
mass
manufacturing.
That
paradigm
completely
overlooks
what
mobiles
unique
value
proposition
of
mobility,
portability,
individuality
and
personality
means
today,
and
its
untapped
capacity
to
integrate
with
tomorrows
custom-built
3-D
printer
world
of
home-built
products,
services,
and
experiences.
The
most
exciting
opportunity
is
to
empower
individuals
and
brand
communities
to
create
value
for
themselves
for
by
starting
with
the
distinctive
nature
of
the
various
mobile
platforms
and
open
them
up
to
create
a
valued
relationship
between
the
persons,
the
brand
and
the
acquisition,
usage
and
sharing
(and
even
disposing)
of
the
product
or
service.
Go
from
thinking
from
studio
to
screen
to
thinking
from
mobile
camera
to
design
app
to
3D
printer
bake
146
Think BR: Why mobile is the next big super power. Justin Gibbons, brandrepublic.com, January 11, 2013. http://www.brandrepublic.com/bulletin/brandrepublicnewsbulletin/article/1166273/think-br-why-mobile-next- big-super-power/?DCMP=EM 102
mobile in all its diversity and versatility into the product or service. Marketers will learn to say to themselves and their colleagues how can we give consumers an app with that? (or a QR code or an NFC tap-and-go connection, or a mobile social community, or..) We believe that as mobile drives marketers towards smart marketing they will begin with and borrow from cutting edge mCRM already seen today. The trend to mCRM is being created by the confluence of big data, smart apps, and the networked smart device. In the best of these relationships the marketer doesnt own the media, much less own the customer. Instead they own the communications relationship, in the sense of taking responsibility for whatever attention and interest the customer is prepared to pay to the brand and its mobile marketing communications. The challenge, in a sense, will be for marketers to envision mobile marketing as true conversations among equals building a relationship that, more than ever, is two-way and truly peer-to-peer. Such relationship practices and mindsets will need to be engineered into products and services from the outset, not added in after the product horse has already raced out the barn door. This marriage of mobile marketing communications within product design and service delivery will need to involve developing a new level of trust, a new brand promise that the marketer wont waste their scarce attention, creativity and passion: in other words, a social contract in which the marketer must agree to take direction from the mobile street about how their customers expect products to enhance their lives, and respond to that. Mobile is Madison Avenues Tahrir Square moment. This new responsibility will require reclaiming the customer relationship from the publisher, retailer, the agency, the engineers, the statisticians, the brand managers -- to let the smart consumer participate, even lead. Co-creating engaging, interactive, socially enabled, folkway-sensitive and mobile micro-climate respectful consumer-centric brand communications with the next generation of smart products and services via the mobile device will involve a curatorial, service orientation for which marketing doesnt yet have a proper language. Or does it? Mobiles true value as a marketing communications platform may in the end be achieved when all of mobile access to and engagement with marketing is thought of as earned moment by moment from smart consumers, including bought media of advertising and the owned media of 1:1. After all, in tomorrows mobile-enhanced economy, what will separate a consumers upload of a photo of a smart new use for your product that becomes a viral sensation, and the same consumer deleting your dumbly-designed product app from their desktop? Nothing, except a tap or two on a touchscreen.
103
$
Total
Net
Sales
by
Industry
$
Total
Expenditure
by
Industry
Step
1:
Measuring
Mobile
Marketing
Expenditure
The
analysis
begins
with
a
compilation
of
primary
data
to
determine
the
dollars
spent
on
mobile
marketing
throughout
the
economy
over
multiple
years,
broken
out
by
16
major
industry
groups.
In
gathering
data
for
this
stage
of
our
model,
we
look
for
expenditures
by
marketers
in
order
to
distribute,
exchange
or
receive
marketing
communications
with
prospects
and
end-customers
via
their
mobile
devices:
in
other
words,
the
variable
costs
of
the
media
buy.
However,
owing
to
147
The principal author has worked with Global Insight to design and conduct economic impact analyses of various aspects of the US marketing industry since 2002. These economic impact analyses provided the basis of his testimony to the US Congress, an amicus brief to the US Supreme Court, presentations to state legislators and governors, and appearances on expert panels with members of Federal regulatory bodies such as the Federal Trade Commission. 104
the
different
natures
of
the
marketing
activities
and
media
potentially
involved
in
mobile
marketing,
we
recognized
that
some
mobile
media
costs
would
include
creative
costs
(especially
if
it
is
intrinsic
to
the
media
buy);
some
production
costs,
like
printing,
that
are
directly
attributable
to
a
mobile
enhancement
such
as
a
QR
code;
and
certain
technical
costs,
such
as
licensing
of
SMS
platforms,
the
costs
of
mobile
website
programming,
content
management,
etc.
We
do
NOT
include
costs
like
management
time,
cost
of
sales,
cost
of
goods
sold,
billing
and
payment
costs,
shipping
and
handling
costs,
hardware,
etc.
as
part
of
marketing
communications
cost.
To
estimate
the
expenditure
on
mobile
marketing,
we
began
with
Global
Insights
baseline
historical
data
and
forecasts
of
total
advertising
expenditure
across
all
media
in
the
US
economy,
including
Internet,
of
which
mobile
was
originally
a
part.
We
then
used
first-
and
third-party
primary
research
to
disaggregate
and
adjust
the
baseline
Internet
expenditure
into
its
component
mobile
mediaprimarily
mobile
web
and
mobile
emailand
distribute
each
of
these
among
advertising
and
CRM
activities.
Primary
research
was
also
used
to
collect
data
on
expenditure
in
those
mobile
media
not
included
in
mobile
Internet:
mobile
voice,
SMS/MMS,
and
mobile
apps.
For
our
remaining
two
mobile
media
categories,
proximity
and
recognition
media,
we
used
first-
and
third-party
research
to
estimate
shares
of
expenditure
in
Global
Insights
reported
expenditures
on
advertising
in
non-mobile
media
that
were
mobile
enhanced.
(For
example,
to
estimate
the
share
of
mobile-enhanced
magazine
advertising
within
overall
magazine
advertising
expenditure,
we
developed
conservative
procedures
for
attributing
the
costs
of
enhancing
ads
with
a
QR
code
by
estimating
the
incidence
of
QR
codes
per
100
magazines;
the
incidence
within
magazines
per
100
advertisements;
the
ratio
of
QR
code
size
to
overall
ad
size;
the
average
square
inch
cost
of
magazine
ads,
etc.,
then
repeated
the
exercise
for
SMS
calls
to
action,
etc.)
Step
2:
Modeling
Mobile
Marketings
Net
Sales
Impact
on
the
US
Economy
Calculating
the
amount
of
national
sales
caused
by
mobile
marketing
essentially
involves
using
Global
Insights
underlying
econometric
model
of
US
economic
growth
and
refining
it
to
statistically
correlate
variations
in
US
and
industry
output
with
variations
in
marketing
communications
expenditure
over
time
and
across
sectors
of
the
economy.
National
Economy
Analysis.
Mobiles
overall
US
economic
impact
is
calculated
using
the
same
procedure
Global
Insight
uses
for
estimating
the
economic
contribution
of
all
categories
of
industry
investment
to
the
growth
of
industry
output
as
they
flow
through
all
sectors
of
the
US
economy.
To
begin
its
economy-wide
analysis,
Global
Insight
compiles
data
from
US
and
state
government
and
industry
sources,
which
it
transforms
into
a
model
that
represents
a
highly
detailed
flow
of
expenditures
and
sales
through
the
economy,
from
raw
materials
and
energy
inputs
to
plant
and
equipment,
to
factory
employment,
product
transportation
&
warehousing;
office
overhead
and
administration;
until
finally
the
flow
of
goods
and
services
reaches
the
retail
level
and
other
forms
of
final
consumption
by
business
or
consumers.
These
inter-
105
industry
sales
and
purchases
flows
produce
a
final
demand
matrix
whose
variation
over
time,
geography,
industry
and
end-customer
segment
is
analyzed
statistically
to
specify
correlation
coefficients
that
connect
categories
of
intermediate
or
final
expenditure
with
output
across
and
within
all
categories
of
sales
activity.
Advertising
Industry
Analysis.
Once
sales
data
have
been
obtained
for
both
the
national
and
industry
levels,
and
the
linkages
between
them
have
been
established,
the
next
step
is
to
statistically
estimate
the
top-level
sales
impact
of
US
advertising.
This
is
done
by
treating
all
other
sales
in
the
model
as
the
dependent
variable
against
which
variation
in
all
demand
factors,
including
advertising
expenditure,
will
then
be
compared.
Using
this
approach,
the
direct
contribution
to
US
output
from
non-advertising
factors
of
production
can
be
identified
and
subtracted
from
the
total;
the
balance
necessarily
represents
the
output
statistically
attributable
exclusively
to
advertising
in
those
media.
In
other
words,
these
are
sales
that
would
not
exist
but
for
advertising
expenditure.
These
advertising
sales
impacts
naturally
vary
for
each
industry
and
state,
based
on
correlations
of
the
relative
weight
of
investment
in
various
categories
of
media
and
advertising,
relative
to
all
other
possible
inputs;
however,
the
overall
model
is
designed
to
ensure
the
sum
of
these
industry
and
state-level
sales
totals
equal
the
national
sales
impact
total
exactly,
thus
ensuring
that
the
resulting
sales
impact
neither
over-counts
nor
under-counts.
Internet
vs.
Traditional
Advertising
Media
Analysis.
The
third
level
involves
establishing
principles
for
re-allocating
overall
advertising
sales
impact
to
individual
digital
and
non-digital
media,
and
performing
a
similar
allocation
for
direct
response
(DR),
and
customer
relationship
management
(CRM)
sales
impacts,
in
order
to
determine
the
mobile
component
of
each.
Similar
sales
impact
estimates
were
made
for
the
sales
impact
of
direct
marketing
and
CRM
from
earlier
work
done
by
IHS
Global
Insight.
These
weights
were
adjusted
by
mLightenment
as
necessary
to
eliminate
extreme
values
or
non-conservative
results.
Mobile
Device
Level
Analysis.
The
next
level
involved
ascertaining
the
portion
of
the
net
sales
impacts
attributable
to
marketing
communications
within
individual
digital
and
non-digital
media
to
the
overall
mobile
media
platform.
The
chief
task
was
to
collect
data
that
would
allow
us
to
apportion
a
share
of
pre-existing
digital
and
non-digital
sales
impacts
to
the
principal
mobile
device
platforms
(basic
phones,
feature
phones,
smartphones,
and
tablets/e-readers)
to
the
extent
supported
on
each
class
of
device,
and
that
devices
adoption
rate
among
end- customers
(both
consumers
and
employees).
(The
DR
and
CRM
adjustments
were
made
using
Global
Insights
baseline
sales
impact
totals
estimates
of
direct
response
marketing
(including
CRM)
in
non-mobile
media.)
In
doing
so,
we
looked
at
current
trends
in
underlying
drivers
of
marketing
media
impacts
across
all
media,
such
as
shifting
expenditure
on
media
access
(rising
sales
of
mobile
devices
vs.
declining
expenditure
on
such
important
drivers
of
media
impacts
as
share
of
expenditure
on
media,
differences
in
the
weighting
of
disposable
income
among
key
media
segments,
and
related
factors.
We
made
small
adjustments
for
factors
such
as
share
of
operating
system
(e.g.,
iOS
vs.
Android
vs.
Windows,
etc.)
as
well
as
the
portion
of
devices
with
different
network
access
types
and
speed
(tablets
with
cellular
broadband
vs.
Wi-Fi
only;
smartphones
on
3G
networks
vs.
4G/LTE;
estimate
of
NFC
enabled
smartphones,
etc.,
and
106
several
other
variables.)
The
historical
data
for
mobile
device
adoption
and
expenditure
among
end
customers
was
primarily
sourced
from
Global
Insight.
Individual
Mobile
Media
Level
Analysis.
The
final
level
of
analysis
involved
estimating
the
share
of
overall
sales
impact
from
the
mobile
devices
level
to
the
seven
component
types
of
mobile
media
and
connectivity
technologies
(mobile
voice,
mobile
SMS/MMS,
mobile
email,
mobile
web,
apps,
recognition
technologies,
and
proximity
media).
Here
again,
we
necessarily
began
with
data
describing
the
extent
to
which
each
media
type
was
supported
by
in-market
devices,
and
augmented
it
with
what
was
publicly
available
from
third-party
sources
about
consumer
usage
of
those
various
media
(app
downloading
activity,
data
traffic
from
mobile
web
vs.
traditional
PC
web,
share
of
mobile
consumers
using
shopping
apps,
etc.)
It
is
important
to
note,
however,
that
this
sequence
of
modeling
steps
applies
only
to
the
three
categories
of
marketing
communications
that
represent
variable
(media
buy)
costs:
advertising,
direct
response,
and
CRM;
we
do
not
model
sales
impacts
for
our
fourth
category
of
mobile
marketing
expenditure,
namely
supplemental
services
associated
with
mobile
marketing
communications,
since
they
are
regarded
as
fixed
(overhead)
costs
within
our
model.
Nonetheless,
as
explained
below,
marketer
expenditure
on
supplementary
internal
and
external
services
expenditure
is
included
in
our
model
for
estimating
total
direct
employment
in
mobile
marketing.
Step
3:
Calculating
Mobile
Marketings
Employment
Impacts
To
calculate
the
volume
of
incremental
employment
caused
by
mobile
marketing,
(the
second
area
in
which
we
describe
mobile
marketings
economic
impact)
we
begin
by
noting
that
there
are
two
categories
of
employees
whose
numbers
we
seek
to
estimate:
employees
directly
involved
with
creating
and
executing
and
supervising
mobile
marketing
communications,
whom
we
call
advertiser
employees,
and
employees
in
non-mobile
marketing
occupations
who
are
employed
exclusively
as
a
result
of
the
successful
use
of
mobile
marketing
to
generate
increase
sales
of
goods
or
services
within
their
industries.
On
the
basis
of
national
employment
statistics,
it
is
possible
to
determine
ratios
of
output
per
employee
by
industry
for
both
categories
of
workers
within
the
Global
Insight
model.
First,
the
number
of
employees
directly
involved
in
creating,
producing,
delivering,
analyzing,
and
managing
mobile
marketing
communications
is
calculated
by
estimating
the
share
of
mobile
marketing
expenditure
devoted
to
salaries
and
wages
at
prevailing
compensation
rates,
after
overhead,
profits,
taxes,
and
so
forth,
are
accounted
for.
This
figure
represents
mobile
marketing
advertiser
employment,
and
includes
both
in-house
mobile
marketers
employed
by
buy-side
client
firms
within
the
16
industry
categories
themselves,
as
well
as
mobile
marketing
staff
employed
on
the
provider
side,
such
as
by
publishers,
digital
ad
networks,
marketing
agencies
and
other
suppliers
to
whom
industries
may
contract
their
mobile
marketing
programs.
107
Second,
to
calculate
directly
supported
non-mobile
occupation
employment,
the
model
begins
with
the
net
sales
impact
by
industry
arising
from
mobile
marketing
as
calculated
in
step
2,
above.
Then,
using
average
output-to-wage-rate
ratios
specific
to
each
major
industry
group,
the
model
calculates
the
number
of
employees
required
within
each
industry
in
order
to
meet
the
demand
for
goods
and
services
in
that
industry
represented
by
its
mobile
marketing
sales
impact.
These
employees
represent
a
weighted
distribution
of
incremental
employees
in
non- mobile
marketing
occupations
across
all
activities
necessary
to
meet
the
incremental
demand
for
that
industrys
products
arising
from
its
successful
use
of
mobile
marketing,
and
includes
occupational
categories
such
as
those
involved
in
direct
production
(as
in
a
factory)
supervision
and
management,
or
other
production
support
positions,
such
as
personnel
in
delivery,
accounting,
etc.
Combined,
the
sum
of
expenditure
based
(advertising
employment)
and
incremental
sales- based
(seller)
employees
comprise
total
mobile
marketing
employment.
All
such
employees
represent
total
incremental
employment
that
would
not
exist
but
for
expenditure
on
mobile
marketing
and
its
resulting
increase
to
sales
output
within
each
industry.
Primary Data Sources Each of the steps above involves both some primary data (whether obtained from government statistics, industry associations, publicly available corporate information, the trade press, private sector third-party research firms, or proprietary first-party survey work) and modeled data (economic data derived from calculations performed on primary data). Step 1 relies most heavily on primary data, while the other two steps are primarily modeled. The following are the principal data sources used in the models: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Manufacturing, Wholesale and Retail Trade, Transportation Industries, Service Industries U.S. Bureau of the Census, Annual Survey of Services U.S. Bureau of the Census, County Business and ZIP Business Patterns U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Industry Output, Costs, and Profitability U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Industry and Occupation Employment U.S. Bureau of the Census, Population Census U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Survey U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, Inter-industry Transactions U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, Capital Stocks and Flows IHS Global Insight, Inc., U.S. Economic Service, Industry Analysis Service, and Regional Economic Service IHS Global Insight, Business Market Insights and IT/Telecom Market Data and Forecasts
108
Interpretation Expenditure. This is the first time that the economic impacts of the mobile marketing industry have been estimated. The reader should be aware that owing to the newness of the industry, the data presented here are subject to larger than usual statistical variability. This arises from several factors, including scarcity of reliable third-party data for some segments of the industry; short historical time frame for all data sets; rapidly changing technologies and business models; and finally, rapidly evolving consumer media consumption habits. Sales Impacts. Interpreting the significance of the sales impact depends on knowing the size of the original base from which it is derived. In the Global Insight model used here, the base is total US sales (also known as total nominal US output.) Total US sales differs from the other principal measure of national economic activity, GDP, in that it includes all intermediate (B-to- B) sales, whereas GDP is much smaller because only those final sales representing final demand are included. (At roughly $33.3 trillion in 2012, total US sales, is somewhat more than twice as high as 2012 US GDP of $15.7 trillion.) Note that some sales impact within each media arises from marketing communications or marketing relevant information that is generated organically within that media, i.e., without expenditure by marketers. Such sales are sometimes attributed to earned or word of mouth media (in contrast to the bought media of advertising and the owned media of 1:1 CRM). Such marketing communications are created more or less free of charge by consumers themselves (e.g., information created and shared virally using mobile peer-to-peer (P2P) media or mobile social networks) or by bloggers or journalists in the normal course of reporting, etc. Employment Impacts. Our reliance on mobile marketing expenditure to calculate the number of mobile marketing advertiser employment means that our report likely understates the actual amount of employment in this segment of the industry. As many firms are startups, employees salaries are often paid for by VC funding, which our report does not measure. Another likely source of funding for employment is hidden subsidies from established firms developing new lines of business within the mobile ecosystem. An example of this would be a branded offline publisher who opens a new division focused on creating mobile content. In this example, marketing communications expenditure received via the publishers traditional media (which we do not measure) implicitly underwrite employment in the new mobile divisions until such time as sufficient revenues arrive to make it self-supporting, or the firm discontinues it. MIR: When interpreting mobile marketings MIR, it is important not to make direct comparisons to ROI metrics of individual firms. In our report, expenditures and sales impacts (and hence MIR, which is simply the latter divided by the former) are measured for entire industry groups, and across the entire economy, rather than at the level of the individual product, brand, or firm. This difference in level of measurement means that the MIR figures
109
shown
in
our
report
will
normally
be
significantly
higher
than
those
seen
by
marketers
who
calculate
them
for
their
particular
organizations.148
To
see
why
difference
in
measurement
perspective
produces
difference
in
MIR
numbers,
it
is
important
to
remember
that,
all
other
things
being
equal,
marketing
communications
undertaken
by
a
given
firm
or
brand
will
have
both
concentrated
product
sales
lift
effects
and
broader
category
or
generic
sales
lift
effects.
Such
generic
or
category
effects
boost
sales
of
competitors
products
in
the
category,
even
when
those
products
are
not
advertised.
In
addition,
marketing
communications
can
also
be
expected
to
boost
sales
in
complementary
product
categories
whether
in
the
same
or
different
industries
again,
even
benefiting
products
that
do
no
advertising.
149
Because
our
model
is
designed
to
measure
the
sales
impact
of
the
media
as
a
whole,
measuring
industry
and
economy-wide,
our
methodology
automatically
includes
all
external
or
spillover
category
sales
in
our
measure
of
total
sales
driven
by
mobile
marketing.
This
is
not
the
case
for
the
sales
and
ROI
metrics
of
an
individual
firm,
which
are
designed
to
measure
only
sales
accruing
to
themselves
from
their
marketing,
not
those
generated
for
competitors,
much
less
unrelated
industries.
148
Economists
Boland,
Crespi,
Silva,
and
Tian
used
IRI
panel
data
representing
over
80%
of
all
prune
sales
in
the
US
to
study
the
ROI
of
TV
advertising
by
Sunsweet
on
behalf
of
its
new
brand
of
One
prunes.
This
was
done
from
2008
to
2010,
a
period
when
Del
Montes
competitors
did
no
TV
advertising
of
their
own
prune
brands.
The
authors
principal
finding
was
that
the
benefits
[to
Sunsweet]
of
the
advertising
on
average
exceeded
the
costs
on
the
order
of
$1.26
to
$4.35
for
every
dollar
expended
advertising
the
new
product.
[By
way
of
comparison,
the
mLightenment-Global
Insight
model
indicates
that
the
average
MIR
for
all
advertising
for
2010
for
the
entire
Resources
category
(which
includes
agricultural
products)
was
$3.34
remarkably
enough,
squarely
within
Crespi
et
als
range
estimate.]
The
authors
go
on
to
note
that,
firms selling homogeneous products under either perfect competition or under oligopoly forgo most advertising because of the free-rider effect noted by Alston et al. (2007). Firms in oligopolies with differentiated products, on the other hand, create large barriers to entry when those few firms all advertise (e.g., Coke and Pepsi in the carbonated beverage industry). p. 148-149. [Emphasis added.] In other words: the need to overcome the category free-rider problem in advertising explains why firms in certain industries with weakly differentiated products like agricultural and dairy products typically band together to support generic advertising, e.g., Got Milk? See Michael A. Boland, John M. Crespi, Jena Silva, and Tian Xia Measuring the Benefits to Advertising under Monopolistic Competition. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 37(1):144155. 149 This is a very brief summary of a heavily-researched and theoretically rich field of academic inquiry. For a fuller discussion and further literature, see Ulrich Doraszelski and Sarit Markovich, Advertising Dynamics And Competitive Advantage. RAND Journal of Economics Vol. 38, No. 3, 2007 pp. 557592; Rutz, Oliver J. and Bucklin, Randolph E., From Generic to Branded: A Model of Spillover Dynamics in Paid Search Advertising. (May 8, 2008). Social Science Research Network: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1024766; P. B. Seetharaman, Siddhartha Chib, Andrew Ainslie, Peter Boatwright, Tat Chan, Sachin Gupta, Nitin Mehta, Vithala Rao, and Andrei Strijnev, Models of Multi- Category Choice Behavior. Marketing Letters. December 2005, Volume 16, Issue 3-4, pp 239-254; An Empirical Investigation of the Spillover Effects of Advertising and Sales Promotions in Umbrella Branding. Tlin Erdem and Baohong Sun. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 39, No. 4 (Nov., 2002), pp. 408-420: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1558554; Subramanian Balachander and Sanjoy Ghose, Reciprocal Spillover Effects: A Strategic Benefit of Brand Extensions. Journal of Marketing Vol. 67, No. 1 (Jan., 2003), pp. 4-13: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30040507; among many others. 110
To illustrate: suppose Manufacturer A advertises its mattress brand A. Such advertising will lift sales for its own mattress, but will also lift sales for mattress brands B, C, D, and E, even if those brands do not undertake any advertising; later in the year perhaps, advertising on behalf of brands B, C, D, and E, will lift sales for Brand A also. These spillover category benefits are largely invisible to the individual firms, but are observable in our model. In addition, mattress advertising will also lift sales in complementary product categories such as bed linens (since some people who have bought a new mattress may purchase fresh sheets to go with it) or in adjacent industries (such as retailing, as when Brand As advertising induces some consumers to visit department stores with the intent to buy some kind of mattress, but who purchase childrens clothing or a nightstand instead.) In addition, many marketers construct their ROI metrics using different rules than ours. One important difference involves the definition of return. As noted above, our model defines return as total sales (top-line industry revenue) attributable to mobile marketing communications. Many private-sector marketers construct ROI using narrower, profit-based definitions of revenue, such as gross profit (top-line revenue minus cost of goods sold), or net profit (gross profit minus marketing expenses and overhead.) These narrower definitions of return also contribute to lower ROI results than those reported in our study, and by definition are non-comparable measures, despite the apparently similar names. Another important difference involves the time period covered by ROI: while our model reports data on an annual basis, some ROI constructs used by marketers expect the return from advertising to accrue during a much shorter time window often a quarter or two, or even the few weeks of a particular campaign. Such approaches necessarily exclude any sales with a high latency. Finally, of course, many marketers have not yet adapted their measures to include organic sales arising from unearned user-generated communications in each media, as discussed above on the interpretation of sales impacts. Direct vs. Indirect Impacts (Sales and Employment). While the impacts of mobile marketing reported using this methodology are very substantial, our approach is inherently conservative. Our first reason for saying this has to do with the narrow focus of our modeling approach. We purposefully chose to quantify only the directly attributable, industry-wide demand-generating effects that are the business logic of any type of marketing communications. Unlike many other economic impact studies, our approach excludes most of the wider mobile media ecosystems expenditure and revenues, including most of the multi-billion dollar cellular provider industry and its related employers. We also exclude mobile marketing indirect or cascade economic impacts, whether measured as sales or employment. Such omitted indirect impacts would comprise additional billions of dollars spent on non-mobile related inputs, household consumption items bought by mobile marketing employees, etc. So while such traditional secondary impacts are real, measurable, and very much a part of mobile marketings contribution to national economic activity, we do not think that such secondary impacts would paint a clear or accurate picture of mobile marketings fundamental value to the US economy as the industry itself best understands it.
111
APPENDIX
I:
Summary
Tables
for
Expenditures,
Sales,
and
Employment
Impact
by
Industry
Table
52:
Total
Mobile
Marketing
Spending
($
Millions)
Industry
Group
Resources
Manufacturing,
CPG
Manufacturing,
Other
Wholesale
Trade
Retail
Trade,
CPG
Retail
Trade,
Other
Transportation
and
Warehousing
Information
Finance,
Insurance,
Real
Estate
Professional
and
Business
Services
Educational
Services
Health
Care
and
Social
Assistance
Arts,
Museums,
Sports,
and
Recr.
Accommodation
and
Food
Services
Other
Services
Government
Total
Source:
mLightentment
2010
42
139
269
72
107
397
93
240
470
152
20
56
17
68
145
116
2,405
2011
74
227
471
119
171
648
156
389
784
245
36
95
27
110
227
179
3,957
2012
132
382
842
202
281
1,082
266
648
1,332
407
64
164
44
181
371
294
6,693
2013
218
597
1,373
322
433
1,676
422
991
2,080
632
105
265
67
281
562
432
10,456
2014
323
867
2,023
473
625
2,425
612
1,401
3,032
903
156
396
95
403
807
622
15,162
2015
446
1,123
2,691
630
804
3,164
814
1,778
4,017
1,163
204
539
120
512
1,028
771
19,806
CAGR
2010-2015
61%
52%
59%
54%
50%
51%
54%
49%
54%
50%
59%
57%
48%
50%
48%
46%
52%
112
Resources
Manufacturing,
CPG
Manufacturing,
Other
Wholesale
Trade
Retail
Trade,
CPG
Retail
Trade,
Other
Transportation
and
Warehousing
Information
Finance,
Insurance,
Real
Estate
Professional
and
Business
Services
Educational
Services
Health
Care
and
Social
Assistance
Arts,
Museums,
Sports,
and
Recr.
Accommodation
and
Food
Services
Other
Services
Government
Total
Source:
mLightentment
419 1,563 7,819 1,134 1,203 9,352 1,916 4,783 11,735 2,877 743 973 242 762 1,975 1,129 48,627
729 2,735 14,331 1,980 2,083 16,501 3,489 8,161 20,580 4,887 1,285 1,706 410 1,322 3,315 1,788 85,300
1,151 4,670 23,680 3,208 3,548 27,362 5,528 12,883 32,634 8,082 2,125 2,784 671 2,214 5,493 2,971 139,003
1,777 7,488 37,405 5,029 5,701 43,092 8,710 19,653 49,893 12,778 3,431 4,407 1,041 3,519 8,572 4,437 216,931
2,511 11,124 53,587 7,256 8,559 62,690 12,323 27,590 70,181 18,472 4,975 6,508 1,492 5,168 12,633 6,497 311,566
3,230 15,120 67,650 9,494 11,885 83,214 15,470 34,021 87,492 23,657 6,995 8,621 1,949 6,897 16,964 8,314 400,971
113
114
Resources Manufacturing, CPG Manufacturing, Other Wholesale Trade Retail Trade, CPG Retail Trade, Other Transportation and Warehousing Information Finance, Insurance, Real Estate Professional and Business Services Educational Services Health Care and Social Assistance Arts, Museums, Sports, and Recr Accommodation and Food Services Other Services Government Total Source: mLightentment
1,913 3,101 18,581 1,497 5,280 33,630 11,053 10,696 24,675 18,482 9,461 9,007 2,037 12,454 19,396 7,649 188,913
3,185 5,143 30,488 2,333 8,796 55,863 18,644 17,116 41,895 31,274 15,888 15,167 3,315 20,385 31,378 12,045 312,914
4,913 8,546 49,274 3,701 14,872 90,182 29,018 26,532 63,826 53,237 25,346 24,249 5,304 33,277 50,237 20,049 502,562
7,259 13,730 78,655 5,695 23,607 141,563 45,060 39,632 92,826 85,235 38,395 37,360 7,859 51,640 75,408 29,761 773,685
9,817 20,003 110,428 7,970 35,103 202,120 62,754 55,294 121,680 124,648 51,301 52,722 10,960 74,828 107,822 43,568 1,091,017
12,531 26,160 135,741 10,054 47,074 262,042 76,690 68,656 143,321 159,493 66,057 66,171 13,787 97,492 139,066 55,253 1,379,587
115
116
i3cpg
Manufacturing, CPG
i3oth
3 excl. CPG Includes all manufacturing manufacturing establishments other than consumer packaged goods 42 Includes establishments engaged in wholesale trade
i42 i44cpg
4451, 44529, Includes establishments engaged in 44611, 44612, retail trade of consumer packaged 44619, and goods (CPG) 4542 44, 45 excl. CPG retail 48 and 49 Includes all establishments engaged in retail trade other than consumer packaged goods Includes establishments providing transportation of passengers and cargo, warehousing and storage for goods, pipeline transportation, and support activities related to modes of transportation Includes publishing industries (including software publishing), motion picture and sound recording industries, telecommunication industries, web search portals, data processing industries, and information processing industries
i44oth
i48a49
i51
Information
51
117
i52a53
52 and 53
Includes establishments engaged in banking and other financial services, insurance, and real estate rental and leasing
i54t56
54, 55, and 56 Includes establishments engaged in professional, scientific, and technical services; management of companies; administrative and waste management services 61 Includes establishments engaged in instruction and training and includes schools, colleges, universities, and training centers Includes establishments providing health care and social assistance for individuals; includes offices of physicians and dentists, hospitals, diagnostic centers, child day care services etc. Includes establishment that operate facilities or provide services to meet varied cultural, entertainment, and recreational interests of their patrons; includes theater companies, dance companies, sports clubs, agents and managers of artists, museums, zoos, parks, casinos etc. Includes establishments providing customers with lodging and/or preparing meals, snacks, and beverages for immediate consumption Includes establishments providing services not classified elsewhere such as equipment and machinery repair, personal care, death care, pet care, photofinishing etc. Includes federal, state, and local government establishments
i61
Educational Services
i62
62
i71
71
i72
72
i81
Other Services
81
i92
Government
90
118