Display Ads To Eclipse Search As Mobile Revenues Take Off

gartnermobileFrom my Forbes.com blog The New Persuaders:

All that worry about how the lack of mobile ad revenues will hurt Facebook, Google, and a raft of startups? Fuhgeddaboudit.

Researcher Gartner today upped its forecastalready pretty heady, for mobile ad sales to $11.4 billion this year, up 19% from 2012. Gartner research director Stephanie Baghdassarian says that’s because of the rapid rise in the purchase and use of smartphones and tablets like the iPhone and the iPad.

It’s not the first such positive report we’ve seen in recent months. And already Facebook, for one, is putting up impressive numbers on mobile ads, helping buoy its shares in recent weeks.

But Gartner’s report has some interesting detail about the changing mix of mobile ad types and which parts of the world growth is coming from. Display ads will grow faster than search ads, overtaking them by 2016. That could be a challenge for Google, though it also has been investing heavily in display ads in recent years to become No. 1 or 2 with Facebook depending on who’s measuring.

Delving deeper into the details, here’s what Gartner’s expecting to see:

* Mobile search will continue to do well, but eventually display will lead the way:

Mobile search — including paid positioning on maps and various forms of augmented reality, all of which can be informed by location — will contribute to drive mobile ad spending across the forecast period, although it will diminish in strength as the period progresses. Gartner believes that mobile display ad spending will grow and take over from mobile search. It will initially remain divided between in-app and mobile Web (in-browser) placements — reflecting consumer usage — although after several years of in-app dominance, Web display spending will take over in-app display from 2015. 

* Mobile ad prices will fall:

The rapidly growing share of time that consumers spend on mobile devices is generating ad inventory at a pace considerably faster than most advertisers can shift their spending to the medium. This creates a surplus condition that is driving down unit ad prices which in turn has led to a situation in which a significant portion of mobile ad inventory is taken up by app developers paying for ads to promote their apps and get them more downloads, a category known as “paid discovery.”

Here comes another bubble:

While the revenue basis of paid-for app store downloads provides some economic justification for this category, for many developers the outlay for ads is close to their maximum ad income or even exceeds it. This creates a circumstance, reminiscent of the early days of Web advertising, in which cyclical advertising arrangements among websites produced an inflated picture of revenue that may ultimately prove to be a bubble. “Some correction in the growth rate must occur before demand from brand and local advertisers catches up with supply, and more sustainable economics support a faster growth rate commensurate with consumer adoption,” said Ms. Baghdassarian.

Overall mobile ad revenues are forecast to hit $24.5 billion in 2016–about the same as Gartner’s earlier forecast, but with faster near-term growth than expected. And where is all this mobile ad money coming from? Not surprisingly, print–especially newspapers–as well as radio.

About these ads

Apple Will Never Make A ‘Cheap’ iPhone

Apple Introduces iPhone 5

Apple Senior Vice President of Worldwide product marketing Phil Schiller announces the new iPhone 5 last September in San Francisco. (Image: Getty Images via @daylife)

From my Forbes.com blog The New Persuaders:

First Apple was going to make a cheaper iPhone, either to try to blunt the rapid rise of Android phones or to compete in international markets. Then it wasn’t. Now after a new interpretation of comments from Phil Schiller, Apple’s senior VP of global marketing, maybe it could. Or not. It’s all so confusing!

So let’s settle this now: Apple will never make a “cheap” iPhone. Most certainly Apple itself will never use the word “cheap” in association with anything it makes, iPhone or otherwise. Or “inexpensive,” or “value-priced,” or anything of the sort. That has never been the Apple way, and given that it owns most of the profits in the industry with its current strategy even in the face of Google’s Android onslaught, why it would change?

More than that, though, it seems doubtful that Apple would sell an iPhone that anyone else would call cheap, either. Full-freight iPhone 5s bought without a contract start at $649 in the U.S., and even the cheapest iPhone 4 starts at $450 off-contract. It’s very difficult to see how Apple could profitably sell an iPhone of any kind that still deserves the name for a third to a half of those price points. And anything over about $200 is going to be hard to call cheap inexpensive affordable by almost anyone, even in the U.S.

Now, that doesn’t mean Apple won’t make a less expensive model of a smartphone with which it could make inroads into China or other countries where there’s no carrier subsidy, or perhaps simply to head off people who might opt for a truly cheap Android phone. Indeed, Apple hasn’t shied away from offering older iPhones that are inexpensive–or even free!–albeit with a two-year commitment. The consumer-facing price isn’t the issue.

It’s also not beyond the realm of possibility that Apple could offer a different wireless communications and Internet access device. Perhaps that’s even the source of recent rumors about an Apple watch. Other form factors could be cheaper to produce, or at least feature lower-cost components, such as a plastic case perhaps–to be sure, an elegantly engineered plastic excuse me, polycarbonate case.

But it’s simply difficult to imagine that Apple would offer something that could be construed as cheap by international standards–which I would take to mean under $200 for sure, a price that Piper Jaffray analyst Gene Munster has suggested–and still call it an iPhone. The iPhone brand stands for uncompromising quality, and I don’t see why Apple would endanger that.

It’s always possible that Apple will stretch the iPhone line, which customarily sports only one new product at a time. Never say never, especially when it comes to Apple. But I’d be less surprised to see the company conceive a new brand for it. After all, Apple itself carries plenty of cachet no matter what product name comes after it.

13 Questions For 2013 In The World Of Online Advertising

questionsCross-posted at my Forbes.com blog The New Persuaders:

For the past few years, I’ve offered predictions here and on The New Persuaders for what’s likely to come in the next year. I viewed them more as an agenda for what to watch for in the next 12 months than as firm predictions.

But it was too easy sometimes to state the obvious so they’d end up right by year-end. So this year, I’m going to shake it up and throw out a few questions instead. I think I know the answers to some of them, but if many won’t be answered definitively by year-end, they remain top of mind for me and probably for many others in online media and advertising.

So in this, the first full week of the new year, here are some questions to which I hope to start finding answers (and if you’ve got ‘em, sound off in the comments below!):

* Will image advertising finally take off online? I have to believe that as people spend more and more time online instead of reading print publications and watching TV, brand marketers will want and need to reach them there with ads that are aimed at creating consideration for later purchases, not just eliciting an immediate sale like Google’s search ads and too many banner ads. We’re already starting to see signs of such advertising with the early success of Facebook’s Sponsored StoriesTwitter’s Promoted Tweets, and YouTube’s TrueView ads–not to mention the explosion of tablets, which provide a lean-back experience more compatible with image advertising. This won’t be a sudden change, since brand marketers and agencies don’t move quickly, but you can’t tell me there aren’t going to be increasingly compelling ways for brands to influence people online.

* Will native ads reach broad scale? Well, perhaps they will on platforms such as Facebook and–well, Facebook–that already reach hundreds of millions of people. Sponsored Stories clearly have gotten some traction, even on mobile devices. But marketers and agencies won’t create multiple versions of campaigns to serve every new ad format that publishers claim work better than banner ads. Which brings up a related question:

* Will any standards emerge around the social gestures that most of these native ads embody? That’s really the only thing that will ensure that marketers can reach scale across many sites. That wouldn’t be in the interest of big companies such as Facebook and Google, which benefit from proprietary ad formats that can reach their huge audiences. But standards, whether it’s banners of a particular size or ad networks, create a more liquid market that helps hundreds of publishers survive as they provide marketers scalable opportunities to reach big audiences. So are there atomic units of social gestures that could carry brand messages across multiple native ad formats without destroying the appeal of native formats? Maybe there’s a technological fix for this, but it’s clear that a lot more needs to be done.

* Will the long-predicted shakeout in ad tech companies finally happen? It didn’t really occur last year despite a few middling-big acquisitions by Oracle, Salesforce.com, and Google. This year, perhaps new Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer will corral a few to try to recharge the company’s ad business. Google, Adobe, and IBM have built out “stacks” of ad tech, but no doubt they can each fill out their offerings. Then there’s Facebook, whose ad exchange is likely to need fleshing out. But even if they each write checks for a few three-letter acronym startups apiece, don’t call it a shakeout. Given the rapid evolution of advertising technologies, and the reality that using data to refine advertising is still in its infancy, it’s a good bet that more companies will still be created than disappear. That should keep the Lumascape as crowded as ever.

* Can advertisers and publishers make ads more personal without scaring people? That’s the $64 billion question, and it likely won’t get answered in full this year. It’s easy for headline-hungry politicians to make a big deal out of Facebook’s latest privacy gaffe or the Wall Street Journal’s or the New York Times’ latest scare story about an ad that followed somebody all over the Web. That’s especially so since Facebook really does push the privacy envelope too far at times, and too many advertisers idiotically chase one more sales conversion at the cost of scaring off hundreds of others or inviting onerous legislation. But making ads more useful to each individual person is not only crucial to online commerce, it’s potentially better for most consumers as well–seriously, I don’t need to see another ad for a fitness center or a new credit card, but that ad for Camper van Beethoven’s new CD had me in a split-second. The answer lies in these two words, everyone: transparency and choice.

* Will mobile advertising work? Well, some of it already does, to hear Google and Facebook tell it. And while those already devalued digital dimes so far turn to pennies when it comes to ads on smartphones and tablets, this still feels more like growing pains than a crisis in online advertising. Sure, the screens are small and people don’t like to be interrupted in their mobile cocoons. So a different kind of advertising is probably needed–clearly, banners don’t cut it on a four-inch screen. But the value to advertisers of knowing your location and maybe the apps you’re using, coupled with knowledge of what your friends like–all with permission, of course–is huge. That permission may be really tough to earn. But if advertisers can offer tangible value, perhaps in the form of useful services related to what you’re doing or looking for or shopping for–and isn’t that the ultimate native ad?–people may loosen their hold on that information.

* Can Larry Page keep Google relevant in the social media age? So far, the no-longer-new CEO has at least kept Google’s mainstream ad business humming. Page has outlasted a year or so of missteps, missed opportunities, antitrust investigations, and bum vocal chords, and arguably emerged with a company that’s leaner, more focused, and more potent than ever. Not only does the recent antitrust victory appear to leave it free to compete unimpeded, but Android is doing better than ever even vs. a very strong Apple ecosystem and Google is about to emerge as a powerhouse in the other half of online advertising: display ads, whether on the desktop or on mobile devices. Page’s big challenge looms as big as ever, though: Can Google play in the social Web vs. Facebook/Instagram, Twitter, Pinterest, and more? I don’t know, but this may be the year Page has to provide a more definitive answer.

* Will TV and Web video ads finally come together on Connected TVs, tablets, or other devices? Sure, at some point. Video is video no matter where it runs, and while personal computer users bristle at pre-roll video ads, I’m betting viewers are more amenable to various kinds of ads when they view video on Internet-connected TVs or tablets. And even on PCs, YouTube’s TrueView ads, which you can skip after a few seconds, have proven successful to the tune of several billion dollars last year. Traditional TV advertising will continue to thrive thanks to unassailable economics of the cable-content cabal. But given extensive work by Nielsen, comScore, and others to provide metrics that can extend across TV and the Web, the latter may finally get some serious coin from brand marketers–if not this year, pretty soon thereafter. Especially if Apple works its magic on the television.

* Will Facebook really tick us off with a new feature or privacy “improvement”? Is Mark Zuckerberg CEO of Facebook? Nonetheless, Facebook’s well-worn playbook of pushing beyond social comfort levels, then pulling back just a bit, means we’ll probably see privacy norms get stretched once again.

* Will Apple ever make a real splash in advertising? Don’t bet your iPad on it. I think even the post-Steve Jobs Apple still views ads the way a lot of Silicon Valley still does (mostly in error): ineffective, inelegant, and crass. Apple itself can make great ads, but selling them is an entirely different matter.

* Will Amazon make a real splash in advertising? Oh yeah. All the pieces are in place, from a huge shopping-focused audience to a nearly bulletproof technology infrastructure. Again, it won’t set the world on fire this year, but we’re likely to see the smoke.

* Will Marissa Mayer turn around Yahoo? Not this year. Still, I wouldn’t be surprised to see signs of a real turn for the first time in about five CEOs. But the real turnaround will take years–if Yahoo’s board has the patience. That’s still an iffy bet worth about as much as a share of Yahoo stock.

* Will I ever figure out the appeal of Reddit and BuzzFeed? Gosh, I hope so. I get that these guys attract massive traffic, but neither site does much for me. Reddit, in particular, seems so random that I guess it must be the channel-surfing of today’s generation, only with somewhat more worthwhile nuggets. But for pete’s sake, there’s so much noise for the signal you get, and even the most popular noise can be many hours, days, or even months old. Go ahead, call me a geezer who doesn’t get it. You wouldn’t be the first, and maybe you’re right. So I will continue to click over to them until I see the light, my brain explodes, or the next phenom looks more worth wasting my remaining years on.

I have a lot more questions, but I’ve got to stop before too much of 2013 is gone.

How Did I Do On My 2012 Predictions?

2012: The Year Ahead

Photo: Mike Licht, NotionsCapital.com

From my Forbes.com blog The New Persuaders:

It’s that time of year: time to reflect on the past year, time to get wasted and watch a glass ball smash into the ground, time for people like me who foolishly offered predictions for the past year to face the music. So here’s how I did on my 2012 predictions:

* Facebook goes public, but won’t start an IPO landslide: Bingo! Indeed, Facebook’s ill-received IPO led to a months-long drought in IPOs as investors realized they were not a sure route to riches. The situation may be improving, but mostly for enterprise more than consumer companies.

* Facebook’s ad business booms–but not at Google’s expense: Bingo! While Facebook’s revenues slowed even before its IPO as it continued to experiment with new ad formats and scrambled to provide mobile ad units, ad revenues have since accelerated, up 36% in the third quarter over last year. At the same time, while Google’s revenue growth disappointed investors in the third quarter, it was mostly thanks to the impact of its Motorola acquisition, not a shortfall in its core ad business.

* Image ads finally find a home on the Web: Half-right. YouTube proved there’s a real market for TV-like video ads if you give viewers the choice to view them or not, as its revenues were expected to hit $3.6 billion in 2012, according to Citibank. But Facebook’s struggles to attract brand advertising despite a TV-scale audience, while partially successful, show that no one has yet come up with brand ad formats that work consistently and at large scale online. Or at least brands, which still spend most of their money on TV ads, don’t believe it yet. And they write the checks.

Continue reading

Apple’s iPad Mini Cannibalizes Other iPad Sales While Google’s Android Tablets Steal Share

Apple Introduces iPad Mini... and some new com...

From my Forbes.com blog The New Persuaders:

Apple’s grip on the tablet market it single-handedly popularized is slipping.

The maker of the iPad line of tablets still leads the market with a 55% share, according to a new report from market research firm ABI Research. But that’s down 14 percentage points in one quarter alone, and the lowest since the first iPad launched in 2010.

The problem, according to ABI, is that Apple was late to come out with a seven- to eight-inch tablet, well after the point at which it was becoming obvious that people really like that size. And when Apple did finally debut the iPad Mini, it was at a substantially high price relative to rivals such as Google’s Nexus 7 and Amazon.com’s Kindle Fire. “With the introduction of a smaller, lower-cost iPad mini, Apple has acknowledged Android’s beachhead of 7-inch-class tablets, though at the same time, it has failed to deliver a knock-out punch through innovation, pricing, and availability during the most critical selling period of the year,” ABI senior practice director Jeff Orr said in the firm’s release.

Worse, ABI says, the iPad Mini didn’t take back share from tablets powered by Google’s Android mobile operating software. Instead, people simply ended up opting for lower-cost tablets. Android’s market share rose to 44%. Another recent report from Finvista Advisors predicts that Android tablet sales will overtake the iPad’s by mid-2013. Android also recently bested Apple in smartphone shipments, at least before the iPhone 5 launched.

It’s not clear from the ABI report which companies benefited the most from the market-share shift. But it wasn’t just Google. According to one report, Google is expected to sell about 4 million Nexus 7s by the end of this year, but that’s somewhat fewer than some analysts expected.

Amazon says Kindle sales are strong, but it’s not providing specific figures to prove it. A report from Pacific Crest Securities says it’s likely to pick up a bit of market share in the fourth quarter, but not much.

The big losers are clearly every other tablet, including those running Windows–though that, too, could change if Microsoft’s new Surface tablet takes off.

Now, Apple’s share decline may well reverse in the current quarter, the first full one for the iPad Mini and other new iPad models, squarely in the heart of the holiday shopping season. And of course, it’s far better for Apple to cannibalize its own products than let others do it.

Problem is, it’s too late, at least for the moment. Now, rivals are eating some of Apple’s lunch, too.

Will The iPad Mini Kill Off All Of Apple’s Other Tablets?

From my Forbes.com blog The New Persuaders:

When Apple’s iPad mini debuted on Oct. 23, reviews were generally positive but a bit muted: What, no Retina display? And why is it so expensive?

But now, after a week or two of playing with it, some of the most prominent reviewers of Apple gear are never going back. Never going back, that is, to their bigger iPads.

From SplatF’s Dan Frommer:

My take after spending a bunch of the weekend with the iPad mini: This is the real iPad… The best thing about the iPad mini is its weight — it’s almost effortless to use, and that’s a big difference. … I feel more confident holding the iPad mini, which means I’m more likely to use it in more places — the whole point of an iPad.

From The Verge’s Joshua Topolsky:

There’s no tablet in this size range that’s as beautifully constructed, works as flawlessly, or has such an incredible software selection. … The iPad mini hasn’t wrapped up the “cheapest tablet” market by any stretch of the imagination. But the “best small tablet” market? Consider it captured.

From Daring Fireball’s John Gruber:

If the Mini had a retina display, I’d switch from the iPad 3 in a heartbeat. As it stands, I’m going to switch anyway. Going non-retina is a particularly bitter pill for me, but I like the iPad Mini’s size and weight so much that I’m going to swallow it.

From The Wirecutter’s Seamus Bellamy and Brian Lam:

The iPad mini is the best tablet to get and lets be honest, it’s way better than the full sized iPad for nearly everyone. I’d even go so far as to say that the full sized iPad is plain obscene after using the mini. … This isn’t just jive talk. I put my iPad on ebay (pls. bid but not too high because you should really buy a mini) and ordered a fully loaded iPad mini for myself.

I understand their attitudes completely. I don’t own an iPad (yet), but I have checked out both pretty extensively. I also have been trying out both Samsung’s full-size Galaxy tablet and Google’s Nexus 7 seven-inch tablet for several months. They’re not as slick as the iPads, but they suffice to provide a sense of the difference between the two models.

And the difference in user experience is huge, even more than you’d think from the difference in weight and size. Once I started using the Nexus 7, I virtually stopped using the Galaxy, largely because the Nexus 7 is so much easier to use. It’s easier to hold in one hand and way easier to transport without fear of dropping it. It slips into a laptop bag or even a jacket pocket easily enough that you don’t have to think twice about taking it outside the house. The iPad mini will enjoy all those advantages as well.

Taken together, the experts’ and my experiences with the smaller tablets makes me wonder if the full-sized iPads will soon be extinct. OK, not extinct but perhaps an endangered species. Already, it appears, they’re headed for eBay.

Honestly, I don’t believe people will completely stop buying the larger iPads. One look at that gorgeous Retina display, and it’s all over for no small number of people. Plus, watching videos on anything but your chest in bed is a bit cramped on a smaller tablet. And full-sized iPads, already increasingly replacements for laptop personal computers, likely will continue to benefit from that switch.

But it’s considerably less cramped on the iPad mini thanks to its larger display area compared with seven-inch rivals. And when Apple comes out with an iPad mini with a Retina display? Could be lights out for the bigger iPads.

Apple seems smart enough to figure out how to make plenty of money on, well, whatever it produces, so I’m sure it will make a lot of money on iPad minis. And even if the iPad mini cannibalizes the full-size iPads to some extent, it’s better for Apple to do the cannibalizing rather than watch rivals simply take the business away.

But a lower price is a lower price. So it will be interesting to see if that lower price on iPad minis will prompt enough more people to go for an Apple tablet to make up for any lost sales of much more expensive big iPads. Given bearish investors lately, not to mention people wondering if the company has peaked, Apple had better hope so.

Google’s Android Crushes Apple’s iOS In Smartphone Shipments–But Does It Matter?

Source: IDC

From my Forbes.com blog The New Persuaders:

Just four years after its debut, Google’s Android mobile operating software now claims 75% of mobile units shipped, according to a new report from market researcher IDC.

In the third quarter, according to IDC, some 136 million Android handsets shipped, almost double the 71 million shipped in last year’s third quarter. Devices using Apple’s iOS grew by a far lower 57%, to 26.9 million handsets, for a surprisingly low 15% market share. Don’t even ask about Blackberry or Windows Mobile. It’s a two-horse race for now.

Some folks wonder if this trend is heading toward a rerun of the Windows PC vs. the Mac. Maybe, and it’s got to be something that worries Apple CEO Tim Cook, who hardly wants to be the guy who let the mobile revolution get away.

But in the short to medium-term, it’s doubtful this is a killer for Apple. Why?

For one, Apple’s share was probably especially low in the last quarter because the eagerly awaited iPhone 5 didn’t ship until September, very late in the quarter. Add in new iPad models just introduced, in a holiday quarter when Apple devices are probably still the gift people would prefer to give over Android gadgets, and it’s hard to imagine that Apple won’t see some rebound in the fourth quarter. …

Read the complete post at The New Persuaders.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 87 other followers