Who Owns the Mobile Experience? is a report on mobile advertising in the U.K. published last summer by Unlockd. To clarify the way toward an answer, the report adds, “mobile operators or advertisers?” This is typical of the kind of question marketing asks itself, in oblivity to the reality called everybody who would rather own their own experiences, thank you.
Meaning the correct answer is neither.
True, somebody else may cause a person’s experience to happen. But causing is not the same as owning.
We own ourselves. That includes our experiences.
This is an essential distinction. For lack of it, both mobile operators and advertisers are delusional about their customers and consumers. (That’s an important distinction too. Operators have customers. Advertisers have consumers. Customers pay, consumers may or may not. That the former also qualifies as the latter does not mean the distinction should not be made. Sellers are far more accountable to customers than advertisers are to consumers.)
It’s interesting that Unlockd’s survey shows almost identically high levels of delusion by advertisers and operators…
- 85% of advertisers and 82% of operators “think the mobile ad experience is positive for end users”
- 3% of advertisers and 1% of operators admit “it could be negative”
- Of the 85% of advertisers who think the experience is positive, 50% “believe it’s because products advertised are relevant to the end user”
- “the reasons for this opinion is driven from the belief that users are served detail around products that are relevant to them.”
- 47% of consumers think “the mobile phone ad experience (for them) is positive”
- 39% of consumers “think ads are irrelevant
- 36% blame “poor or irritating format”
- 40% “believe the volume of ads served to them are a main reason for the negative experience”
It’s amazing but not surprising to me that (at least some) mobile operators apparently consider their business to be advertising more than connectivity. This mindset is also made apparent by AT&T charging a premium for privacy and Comcast wanting to do the same. (Advertising today, especially online, does not come with privacy. Quite the opposite, in fact. A great deal of it is based on tracking people. Shoshana Zuboff calls this surveillance capitalism.)
Years ago, when I consulted BT, JP Rangaswami (@jobsworth), then BT’s Chief Scientist, told me phone companies’ core competency was billing, not communications. Since those operators clearly wish to be in the “content” business now, and to make money the same way print and broadcast did for more than a century, it makes sense that they imagine themselves now to be one-way conduits for ad-fortified content, and not just a way people and things (including the ones called products and companies) can connect to each other.
The FCC and other regulators need to bear this in mind as they look at what operators are doing to the Internet. I mean, it’s good and necessary for regulators to care about neutrality and privacy of Internet services, but a category error is being made if regulators fail to recognize that the operators want to be “content distributors” on the models of commercial broadcasting (funded by advertising) and the post office (funded by junk mail, which is the legacy model of today’s personalized direct response advertising online, better known as adtech).
I also have to question how consumers were asked by this survey about their mobile ad experiences. Let me see a show of hands: how many here consider their mobile phone ad experience “positive?” Keep your hands down if you are associated in any way with advertising, phone companies or publishing. When I ask this question, or one like it (e.g. “Who here wants to see ads on their phone?”) in talks I give, the number of raised hands is usually zero. If it’s not, the few parties with raised hands offer qualified responses, such as, “I’d like to see coupons when I’m in a store using a shopping app.”
Another delusion of advertisers and operators is that all ads should be relevant. They don’t need to be. In fact, the most valuable ads are not targeted personally, but across populations, so large populations can become familiar with advertised products and services.
It’s a simple fact that branding wouldn’t exist without massive quantities of ads being shown to people for whom the ads are irrelevant. Few of us would know the brands of Procter & Gamble, Unilever, L’Oreal, Coca-Cola, Nestlé, General Motors, Anheuser Busch, Volkswagen, Mars or McDonald’s (the current top ten brand advertisers worldwide) if not for the massive amounts of money those companies spend advertising to people who will never buy their products but will damn sure known those products’ names and at least something of their reputations. (Don Marti explains this well.)
A hard fact that the advertising industry needs to face is that there is very little appetite for ads on the receiving end. People put up with it on TV and radio, and in print, but for the most part they don’t like it. (The notable exceptions are print ads in fashion magazines and other high-quality publications. And classifieds.)
Appetites for ads, and all forms of content, should be consumers’ own. This means consumers need to be able to specify the kind of advertising they’re looking for, if any.
Even then, the far more valuable signal coming from consumers is (or will be) an actual desire for certain products and services. In marketing lingo, these signals are “qualified leads.” In VRM lingo, these signals are intentcasts. With intentcasting, the customers do the advertising, and are in full control of the process. And they are no longer mere consumers (which Jerry Michalski calls “gullets with wallets and eyeballs”).
It helps that there are dozens of companies in this business already.
So it would be far more leveraged for operators to work with those companies than with advertising systems so disconnected from reality that they fail to grok that they are the reason why more than 11% of the world’s population now blocks ads on more than 615 million devices. In fact, marketers in general are in such full denial of the abundantly clear message consumers are sending them that they deny the legitimacy of a clear personal choice, misdirecting attention toward the makers of ad blocking tools, and away from what’s actually happening: people asserting power over their own lives and private spaces (e.g. their browsers) online.
If companies actually believe in free markets, they need to believe in free customers. Those are people who, at the very least, are in charge of their own experiences in the networked world.
Originally published at blogs.harvard.edu on August 3, 2016.