No surprise here: Millennial Media has made good on its prior statements that it may seek an IPO. The company filed its S-1 in anticipation of that event this afternoon. Paralleling the growth of mobile advertising, Millennial reported $69 million in revenue in 2011 -- up from $29 million in 2010.
Correction: FY revenue for 2010 was $47.8M and $69 million is through September 2011. (I wrote too quickly and didn't look carefully enough.) The company is not profitable but its losses have been steadily declining.
The total amount being sought in the public offering is $75 million.
Citing IDC estimates, Millennial characterizes itself as "the second largest mobile display advertising platform in the United States, with a 16.7% market share." The IDC numbers may be way off, but if they're accurate and $69 million is in fact 16.7% of the total value of mobile display ads in the US today . . . that total market value (not counting search) would be roughly $415 million.
Update: Given that $69 million is 9 months of revenue . . . the company's full year revenue is likely to be in excess of $90 million. Using the IDC figures (which again may be wrong) and extrapolating to the full value of the market, the total value of US mobile display would be closer to $550 million. That's somewhat more consistent with our sense of the market's growth.
Millennial Media is out this morning with its latest "Mobile Mix" devices report. The report reflects the distribution of devices and corresponding operating systems on Millennial's network. Over time the percentage of smartphones on Millennial's network has grown dramatically and now stands at 70%. By contrast smartphone penetration in the US is about 44% according to the latest Nielsen figures. The other 30% of devices on the Millennial network are feature phones (14%) and so-called "connected devices" (16%): iPod Touches, Kindles, iPads and other tablets.
Connected devices are the main focus of Millennial's newsletter this time, in particular the Kindle Fire. Millennial confirms the popularity and apparently significant sales of the Kindle Fire, saying that the company is seeing a "monthly run rate of hundreds of millions of impressions":
Since its release in mid-November, the Kindle Fire has made an impact on the connected device market right out of the gate with early signs of strong consumer adoption.
On the Millennial Media platform, impressions from the Kindle Fire have grown at an average daily rate of 19% since its launch several weeks ago. We’re not just seeing millions of impressions, we’re seeing a monthly run rate of hundreds of millions of impressions.
The Kindle Fire’s impression growth on our platform has slightly outpaced that of the iPad when the iPad launched in early 2010. Though the Kindle Fire has been introduced into a more mature tablet market than the market which greeted the original iPad, the integration of Amazon’s robust digital entertainment library and the $199 price point may also have helped drive this early use by consumers. (emphasis added.)
The question raised in the excerpt above is whether "the $199 price point may [ ] have helped drive this early use by consumers." It's pretty clear the answer is "yes." The Amazon brand has certainly been critical, but it's mainly the $199 price that is responsible for the device's huge sales. The iPad created the new market for tablets and Kindle unlocked demand among those who we're more price sensitive and resisted buying "no-name" lower-priced Android tablets.
Among the smartphones on Millennial's network, 50% are Android based handsets. However, save the Nook and Kindle Fire, Google/Android tablets have had almost no success for reasons of price and quality.
Retrevo presented some interesting survey data yesterday showing consumer tablet demand is greatest for the iPad, followed by the Kindle Fire and then the B&N Nook. Retrevo shows that there is a market for Android tablets -- the Kindle Fire has already confirmed that -- provided the price is right and at least $100 less than the iPad.
Putting aside quality for a moment -- Android Honeycomb was a major disappointment from a UX perspective -- price is the major variable that consumers are responding to in Kindle Fire (but with the confidence of the Amazon brand behind it). The problem is that it's almost impossible for most tablet OEMs to get prices low enough to make any margin on them and be price-competitive.
If they match the iPad pricing they're perceived as imitators (e.g., Motorola Xoom, Samsung Galaxy Tab). But mobile carrier subsidies, which bring down the prices of smartphones, have not worked so far stimulate Android tablet demand -- mainly because consumers don't want another two-year carrier contract and the associated data fees. They're buying WiFi tablets instead.
Android-based tablets that have been priced at or below $200 in the past have been made by companies that are unfamiliar to consumers and received poor quality ratings from experts and consumer reviewers alike. Even though Kindle Fire has had its share of problems and disappointed many reviewers, consumers know and like Amazon.
It was also shown that Amazon was taking a loss on the sale of every Kindle Fire, to establish a beachhead in the tablet market and because the company figured it could make up the loss and much more on content sales.
There are rumors that Apple will introduce a 7" tablet next year to compete with the Kindle Fire, just as Amazon will go "up market" and deliver a 10" tablet.
Google, for its part, has suggested that it will respond to lagging Android tablet sales by bringing its own "higest quality" tablet to market next year. We'll see whether this is with an OEM partner or Google-branded (i.e., Chrome or Nexus tablet). Google is clearly another company -- one of the very few -- that could offer the combination of brand-instilled consumer confidence and subsidized pricing.
I've argued in the past that Facebook would be compelled to monetize mobile once it went public. I envisioned that monetization taking the form of more-or-less straight ahead display ads that were targeted in some way. I also recently performed a very loose calculation of what Facebook's global mobile ad inventory might be worth (at a $2.50 CPM) and determined it could be up to $2.5 billion.
What Bloomberg reported yesterday, however, was that Facebook was considering launching mobile ads that were more integrated into the Facebook feed:
Facebook Inc. plans its first push into mobile advertising by the end of March, giving the company a fresh source of revenue ahead of a possible initial public offering . . . An idea being considered is putting Facebook’s Sponsored Stories ads, which feature friends’ interactions with brands, within the mobile News Feed, said the people, who declined to be identified because the plans aren’t public.
Sponsored Stories in the mobile news feed would be like "promoted Tweets" on Twitter in some respects. Sponsored stories allow advertisers to show Likes from people in your network (brands, products, stores) in the ad copy. They reportedly dramatically improve CTRs. Below is an example from Facebook online:
Earlier this week Nielsen reported that Facebook has the greatest "active reach" of any app across the Android OS (after the Android market). Facebook's most recent official mobile-user number is 350 million globally, out of more than 800 million total users.
My guess is that Facebook will be experimenting with various mobile advertising units/types before it launches anything officially. It already has a quasi-advertising vehicle in mobile "check-in offers." However Facebook itself currently doesn't make any money off these deals. Eventually that will probably change.
Local-mobile ad network xAd has announced a new $9 million round of funding. The money comes from Emergence Capital Partners, SoftBank Capital and Palisades Ventures and Silicon Valley Bank. Roughly a year ago xAd raised about $4 million from Emergence Capital.
The company supports search, display and pay-per-call advertising. It also owns the Go2 mobile directory properties.
xAd says it's the "largest mobile-local advertising network in the U.S." Recently AT&T has laid claim to that crown saying it serves a billion mobile ad impressions monthly. AT&T offers mobile display ads, while xAd has text-based search ads as well. In May xAd announced that it had served more than 2 billion ads.
In November, xAd reported 10 billion monthly ad impressions and 90 million monthly local-search requests.
While ad networks such as Jumptap, Millennial, InMobi and AdMob all offer geotargeted ad inventory (to varying degrees of geo), xAd and AT&T specialize in locally relevant advertising. AT&T contends its ads deliver a much higher CPM than "remnant" ad networks. Previously xAd said that it can deliver a $30 CPM to publishers (not all inventory).
In addition to xAd and AT&T, there are other local-mobile ad networks (mostly display):
xAd both aggregates third party (e.g., yellow pages) advertiser inventory and sells directly to national and local businesses. In September xAd said that it had 1.2 million advertisers in its network, which represented "about 30% to 40% of [total] local mobile search traffic and reach" in the US.
The latest Millennial Media SMART report shows growth of location targeting among retailers and brands. Among other data presented in the October report, Millennial said that retailers and telecom advertisers (e.g., AT&T, Verizon) used store locators on landing pages to drive people into local outlets:
Store Locator experienced growth of 5% month-over-month, with 23% of the Post-Click Campaign Action Mix in October (Chart C). Retail and Telecom advertisers increased their usage of Store Locator as a Post-Click Campaign Action to drive customers to stores for fall sales or to buy new mobile devices.
The use of the store locator on a mobile landing page will be the primary way that brand and national advertisers "localize" for the foreseeable future. This is in contrast to the use of dynamic creative that inserts locations into the ad copy itself. Google mobile search results will be (and are already) an exception.
According to Millennial, "local market targeting" was the dominant component (66%) of the company's "Targeted Audience Mix" (40% of its overall campaigns). However, very interestingly, the use of targeting on Millennial's network has actually declined from six months ago.
In April 48% of campaigns were targeted (vs. 40% in October). Of those, 56% of impressions served by Millennial were directed toward local markets.
In absolute terms, then, the amount of locally targeted impressions being served by Millennial in April and October was almost identical. So while there's growth on a percentage basis, which is significant, overall local targeting in real terms remained flat.
The fact that fewer campaigns on Millennial are targeted overall makes me wonder whether that money, especially locally oriented ad dollars, are fleeing to other networks.
Local mobile ad network xAd has released its first quarterly report on local mobile user behavior and ads. I've done a general write-up at Search Engine Land. The company collected the data from its 10 billion monthly ad impressions and 90 million monthly local-search requests. The data in the report were captured between July and September.
A couple of highlights:
The top local search categories according to xAd data:
Most interesting to me was the discussion of ad performance and "secondary actions." CTRs on ads in apps were 8% vs. 5% for ads appearing in the browser.
When you consider that average online display ad CTRs are 0.09% you see that this performance is dramatically better. Indeed, InsightExpress and Dynamic Logic have both documented how mobile display outperforms online across all metrics.
In addition to browser vs. apps differences, xAd documents ad performance variations between iOS and Android. While CTR rates on the iPhone and Android are roughly comparable, "secondary actions" are greater on iOS: calls, map/directions lookups and review drill downs. Interestingly calls are happen more frequently in a browser context. But they're also the most popular "post-search" secondary action (62%) across the board, followed by maps and directions lookups (35%).
Previously xAd reported that its CPMs average $30. Other specialized US-based local-mobile ad networks include CityGrid, AT&Ti, Verve Wireless, Navteq, JiWire, LSN Mobile, Chitika, Marchex and Where.com.
Millennial Media has released its latest SMART report, which offers data about the campaigns running on its network. This edition has case studies and more data than most.
I zeroed in on a statistic that has also been reported in several other articles: location targeting increased by 50% quarter-over-quarter. Among campaigns on Millennial's network using any form of targeting, local targeting (which is at the city level) represented 66% percent of 45% of campaigns employing any form of targeting.
I took a look back at a previous report covering July 2011 and discovered that 44% of campaigns were then targeted and 67% of those campaigns used what Millennial calls "Local Market Targeting." So the 50% growth figure doesn't entirely make sense to me. But I'm glad to see more advertisers recognizing the value of location targeting.
Millennial highlights, among others, a Benjamin Moore paint campaign that sought to drive consumers into retail stores with a special offer. According to Millennial, "the campaign drove a consumer engagement rate that is more than double the network’s average for home furnishings and produced unique analytics for Benjamin Moore on consumer behavior around couponing."
Millennial also touted "triple-digit growth" across a range of verticals. Clearly we're in a hyper-growth period for mobile. In addition, Millennial announced earlier this week that they were expanding their operations to the Asian market.
QR codes are proliferating yet it's not clear that consumers are "getting it." ScanLife, it is Q3 trends report, says that 2D or QR barcode scanning is growing dramatically:
However US and UK consumer surveys indicate that most consumers don't know what a QR code is and only between 6% and 11% have ever scanned one (in the UK it appears to be 19%). According to comScore data, QR code scanners are mainly men and younger people (18-34) vs. other market segments.
Somewhat strangely, QR codes seem to polarize marketers. There are some very vocal and aggressive QR code detractors that consider the technology a failure. And many see QR codes as some sort of interim step before NFC technology become mass market.
In a parallel vein there's augmented reality ("AR"), which is a "cool technology" chasing a mass market use case. AR continues to be more of a novelty than something really useful to consumers -- or marketers. But it has potential in many non-commercial and commercial situations.
Then there's NFC, which has been written about extensively in connection with the launch of Google Wallet and mobile payments. Beyond payments, NFC is also a marketing tool and can deliver content and marketing messages to a handset with a simple touch of the device on an NFC-enabled surface or receiver. Given that very close proximity is required to invoke NFC it's not a substitute in all situations for AR or QR codes, which can both work from a distance.
A category that will likely subsume and incorporate all these technologies and tools is "visual search." Exemplified by Google Goggles or Amazon's new "Flow" app, it simply asks consumers to position the handset/camera over or in front of an object and then delivers information: reviews, prices, nearby stores, additional content and so on.
The notion of "visual search" is conceptually simpler and much more consumer friendly than "Augmented Reality," "QR codes" or "NFC." For that reason I believe that visual search will become the metaphor or category name for a range of approaches and technologies that are collectively about getting information or content (whether commercial or non-commercial) into the handset through the smartphone lens.
NFC, AR and QR Codes all wear their complexity on their proverbial sleeves, while the term "visual search" buries the technological complexity behind a very descriptive and easy to understand concept.
This morning Google has launched a new site (HowToGoMo) intended to educate marketers large and small about the importance of mobile, and direct them to vendors that can build sites for them. I've written up the announcement and initiative generally at Search Engine Land.
The site offers mobile case studies, data on why you need a mobile site ("61% of users are unlikely to return to a site that’s not mobile-friendly") and the ability to see what your site currently looks like on a smartphone.
The most interesting part of the site from my perspective is a vendor marketplace together with a set of filters that help you choose one. The questions or filter fall into three categories:
There are 12 vendors that are likely to see a bunch of new leads from this site (Google isn't making any money from the leads). It will definitely help SMBs and enterprises accelerate mobile site adoption. As I wrote yesterday, In March of this year Google reported that the overwhelming majority (79%) of its top advertisers didn’t have a mobile-optimized site. But a new report from a firm called the Acquity Group found that 37% of the Internet Retailer 500 now do.
Just nine months ago, the overwhelming majority of small business (SMB) owners didn’t consider mobile an important marketing channel. In February 2011 we found that SMBs had very limited understanding and usage of mobile. Roughly 83% said they were not doing any form of mobile marketing.
However a more recent survey by Borrell Associates, among 484 small business owners, found that “four out of every five plan to spend money on mobile marketing this year; [and] on average these businesses expect to devote more than 20 percent of their ad budgets to mobile initiatives.” The survey also reported that 56% of these SMB respondents had been pitched mobile marketing solutions by “vendors or media outlets.”
In the larger context of yellow pages publishers and other SMB sales channels pitching mobile, as well as widespread adoption of smartphones by small merchants, this Google initiative -- especially its vendor marketplace -- will help speed SMB mobile site adoption.
Jumptap is also out today with its monthly metrics newsletter on the heels of one from Millennial Media. The most noteworthy piece of data in this report involves the results of an examination of the relative performance of "standard mobile banners" vs. rich media ads:
We ran an experiment to see how close we could get to isolating rich media as a performance factor, reviewing over 300 million campaign impressions, across several major advertisers that ran both rich and standard media with similar creative and messaging.
As you might expect the rich media ads outperformed the banners. But they did so by a significant margin:
Jumptap acknowledges that this wasn't a perfect comparison ("similar creative and messaging") but I believe the data are reflective of a performance gap between the two media types or units.
Jumptap also reported that 56% of its advertisers used one form of targeting in September, while 8% used two forms and 2% used three or more types. By comparison, 34% used no targeting at all. Among the several forms of targeting location (by MSA) was the most common form (33%).
In terms of landing pages and actions: click-to-web (76%) and click-to-download (23%) were the "preferred actions." I wonder how many of that 76% have mobile optimized sites or landing pages. I'd wager at least 50% do not.
According to the Jumptap data, mobile ad clickers tend to be higher income ($50K+), male 2:1 over female and 35-75 years old, with the highest concentration in the 55 to 75 age range. In terms of platforms, Symbian sees the most clicks, followed by iOS, RIM and Android in that order.
Average mobile display CTR is 0.50; on the PC it's roughly between 0.1 and 0.3.
Like Millennial, Jumptap now sees twice as many Android devices on its network compared to iOS (47% vs. 23%). Millennial reported 56% of handsets were Android and 28% iOS.
Millennial Media's latest SMART report is out and the story is familiar: Android is the top platform, while the iPhone is the top individual device. RIM is still holding its own in the top 20 devices and Windows Phones still haven't shown meaningful growth.
In July of 2010 smartphones constituted 49% of the devices on Millennial's network (immediately below). Now smartphones represent 72% of all devices on Millennial's network. While they'll never reach 100% (because of tablets and other "connected devices"), by Q1 of next year the number of smartphones on the network will probably be closer to 90%.
Android devices represent 56% of all the handsets showing up for Millennial, while iOS has a 28% share. Accordingly, Android's share is now double iOS on Millennial's network. However Apple outperforms its relative share in terms of monetization, while Android under-performs: Apple devices generate 41% of monetized impressions on Millennial's network vs. 49% for for Android.
If Facebook wanted to turn on mobile advertising it would instantly become the largest "mobile ad network" on the planet. Indeed, I believe after the IPO Facebook will be all but compelled to run ads on its mobile apps and HTML site. But how much money might Facebook stand to gain from such a move?
A great deal is the short answer. Let's do some simple math to find out.
Facebook now has more than 1 trillion monthly page views on a global basis. In the US the number of monthly page views is 300 billion. According to an analysis by Hubspot in May, 2011 roughly 33% of Facebook's traffic was coming from mobile devices.
If that formula is correct, then approximately 99 billion of Facebook's monthly US page views come from mobile devices. This is mind boggling.
If we use a $2.50 mobile CPM ($2.50 per 1K impressions) to value this inventory it would mean that Facebook would be in a position to instantly add $247.5 million in US ad revenue to its coffers -- assuming 100% fill.
On a global basis, using the same crude formula, Facebook's inventory would be worth approximatley $2.5 billion, the annual mobile ads run rate that Google announced last week.
There are now a range of companies working on connecting online activity and ads with action at the POS using mobile devices. NFC-enabled mobile payments is just one of many initiatives going on. For example, Shopkick just announced a deal with Giant Eagle supermarkets that connects the mobile app with Giant Eagle loyalty accounts:
Shopkick's first partnership with a supermarket, and more importantly, co-founder and chief marketing officer Jeff Sellinger said that it allows the startup to "close the loop." Now, by tying user accounts to Giant Eagle loyalty cards, Shopkick will have data on what users actually purchase. That means brands can offer rewards not just for scanning products, but for buying them too.
Google Wallet just expanded its features, as well as the roster of participating stores and merchants. Now with a "single tap" Google Wallet users can pay, redeem coupons and get loyalty points. Currently Google doesn't see the transaction value or other details in the way that Shopkick and Giant Eagle will through their arrangement. But eventually Google will probably get access to more data and make that available to marketers.
Deal vendor Bloomspot has a system that uses registered credit cards to close the loop with daily deal buyers and determine whether they spent more than the face value of the deal in restaurants and stores. Placecast is working on something that matches offers and in-store transactions through credit card accounts. LSN Mobile has a relationship with First Data.
There are several other such examples I could use to illustrate what is a growing and very important trend.
Mobile devices will allow marketers to see who showed up in stores and, in the very near future, what they bought and how much they spent. There are some significant privacy issues and implications of all this and I don't want to dismiss or minimize them. However the effort to track the influence of ads and offers from online (or traditional media) to the point of sale is a trend that is starting to gain momentum.
We're not that far away from a time when agencies and marketers will have considerably more visibility into what online ads drove what in-store purchases, as well as user profiles based on purchase behavior and response to ads. This data has been collected for years in the offline world but now, through mobile devices, online marketers are going to get some new visibility on the dominant online-offline shopping paradigm.
Remember that e-commerce is only about 5% to total US retail but the Internet influences billions of dollars in offline transactions. Accordingly the growing visibility that marketers will have in just a few years about who responded to ads and what they spent will have a profound impact on the future sophistication and tactics of "online marketing."
Ad networks Jumptap and Millennial Media are out with their respective data newsletters today. The Millennial missive this time focuses on CPG companies and their campaigns. According to Millennial, most of its CPG advertisers' focus was on branding and awareness, rather than driving people into stores to buy products or app downloads.
Yet one of the primary "post click actions" of CPG campaigns involved sending users to a Facebook page or other social media account. "Mobile Social Media represented 78% of the Post-Click Campaign Action Mix for CPG Advertisers in August," according to Millennial. "CPG advertisers utilized mobile campaigns to drive customers to social media outlets where they could engage with the brands and provide feedback on products."
Consistent with their branding objectives, CPG brands also over-indexed on mobile video as well.
Jumptap presented data on a fairly broad range of topics, from CTR rates by OS to demographics and device marketshare. Jumptap now says that Android devices now deliver almost 50% of the impressions its network and that the Google OS is close to having more than twice the share of the other operating systems combined.
For comparison purposes, here's what comScore said yesterday about smartphone OS share in the US: close but not identical to the Jumptap figures.
Most Jumptap campaigns (see below) appear to be sending people to the mobile Web ("click to Web"). What's not clear from the data is whether these campaigns are sending people to mobile-optimized sites/landing pages or whether they're simply going to conventional PC websites. More likely than not it's the latter, given Google's previous comment than nearly 80% of its top advertisers didn't have a mobile-optimized presence.
Jumptap said that "mobile users age 45-74 have the highest CTR" and that men have 2X CTR of women. Those earning over $50K click on ads 5X more than those under $50K, which Jumptap attributes to higher rates of smartphone ownership among more affluent consumers.
Among targeting methods -- and this is echoed by Millennial's data -- the top tactic was location targeting followed by device/handset targeting and demographic targeting.
Finally, Jumptap compared the top-spending verticals by CTR. The X-axis in the chart below shows spending and the Y-axis shows relative CTR. Entertainment is the vertical that sits in the sweet spot of both, followed by automotive, insurance and technology/electronics.
Prosper Mobile Insights released data from a recent US consumer survey (n=348 smartphone and iPad owners), conducted last month. The survey questions ask a range of things about mobile usage and mobile subscriber attitudes. Below I highlight a few coupon-related findings from the survey.
Q: To what extent do you agree with the following statements about location-based coupons on your mobile device?:
They are very convenient and useful
Those that fall into the "Somewhat/Strongly Agree" category equal 67% or 2/3 of respondents. These data simply confirm many other survey findings that have found consumers are interested in mobile coupons.
Interestingly marketing newsletter MarketingVox focused on the 18% (below) who said they didn't want coupons on their mobile devices, using the contrarian headline: "1 in 5 Mobile Users Don’t Want Coupons."
Q: How would you prefer to receive coupons on your smartphone or tablet? (Check all that apply)
One could group responses in the slide above generally into two categories: push and pull. Any category that requires "affirmative action" on the part of the consumer (e.g., search, QR code scanning) would fall into the "pull" category. Push categories would include email, SMS, geofencing ("automatically when I am near a store").
Social media check-in is more ambiguous but probably falls into the push category more than pull. Here the user is being presented with an offer as incentive to come to a location/store or is being shown an offer after checking in (e.g., "nearby offers").
Respondents were allowed to "check all that apply," so the numbers exceed 100%. Basically these responsdents appear to be saying they want to access coupons in multiple ways, actively and passively.
Using the percentages as points here's how the push vs. pull preferences broke down:
Even as many people are interested in searching for deals -- which is about inventory, relevance and control -- they're more interested in getting deals presented to them. Email was the preferred method of receiving deals information. This may be more about familiarity than anything else.
I am concerned about security issues and my location being tracked
Those who expressed moderate or strong concern about location tracking constituted 44.8% of respondents. This is generally consistent with other survey findings. For example, in Q2 WiFi ad network JiWire found that "53% of all respondents are willing to share location information in exchange for relevant content." That means 47% had concerns about location awareness or tracking.
Accordingly nearly half of the mobile users popular has some ambivalence or concern about giving up location information.
Google has been a great source of data and evangelism around mobile usage and advertising. The company is now regularly releasing survey data and exposing some of the usage patterns it is seeing internally in an effort to accelerate awareness of the strategic importance of mobile.
One interesting piece of data released yesterday is on comparative usage of PCs, smartphones and tablets (iPads):
What the data above reflect is that PCs are used throughout the day but usage peaks between 4pm and 6pm. Smartphones are also used throughout the day but usage steadily climbs and peaks between 9pm and 11pm. Tablets are primarily used at home during the evening.
There are obvious implications for publishers and advertisers coming from this and other data that show similar usage behavior.
In a previous Google-AdMob survey 77% of tablet (iPad) owners said that they were using their PCs/laptops less often following their purchase of a tablet. What we can infer from that and the above information is that some of the Internet usage at home that would have been on the PC is now happening on tablets. And this substitution will probably continue and grow as tablet sales grow.
Yesterday mobile analytics company Flurry presented data that was both compelling and potentially confusing. And the way it got reported was misleading: the value of mobile ad inventory to surpass PC display inventory. I want to take a closer look at what Flurry said and its implications for mobile advertising.
Here's what Flurry said verbatim:
Flurry focuses on the size and growth of available advertising inventory within iOS and Android applications . . . The chart below shows that U.S. app inventory is not only growing at a staggering rate, but also poised to absorb the equivalent of the entire U.S. Internet display advertising spend by the end of this year.
This is confusing. It's also hypothetical.
What Flurry means is that mobile app usage is growing and thereby creating opportunities for advertising ("inventory"). The actual ads aren't there yet. Although some networks and exchanges promise publishers/developers near 100% fill the existing monetization doesn't match the growth of page views.
Flurry assigns a value to that growing "inventory" ($2.50 CPM), which is how they project out the hypothetical mobile spend. Accordingly if there were advertisers sufficient to fill all the potential mobile "inventory" it could potentially exceed the value of online advertising. However the discussion is all about consumer behavior, creating opportunities for advertising -- not about actual monetization.
According to Nielsen, two-thirds of (Android) user mobile Internet time is spent in apps vs. one-third spent on the mobile Web.
By comparison mobile search occupies relatively little time, whether in-app or through a browser. However it's currently driving more revenue than display by some estimates.
Regardless, the implications of the Flurry data are significant. Beyond the fact that they show consumer adoption and massive revenue potential accordingly, they also show that mobile display is likely to be a larger part of the mobile advertising pie than many forecasters had imagined.
With that assumption, the second question is: how much of that ad inventory will be geotargeted or local? Some have assumed that "local advertising" would dominate mobile because of the better targeting options on mobile devices vs. PC. However local ads many not be a dominant part of the ad spend. Location may play out on landing or secondary pages rather than in the ad creative itself.
Local deals may be pervasive in the display space but so will brand and national ads.
The iPhone vs. Android meme is getting very tired yet it persists. That's the thrust of the coverage surrounding Millennial Media's "Mobile Mix" report for July 2011. Among other data, it ranks handsets and market share on the Millennial network by device type and operating system. Here are the "quick facts":
The Windows Phone growth is noteworthy for the fact that that there is growth/life. By contrast comScore shows Windows/Microsoft losing share month over month. However high percentage growth from a very small base is, in actual handset numbers, not particularly meaningful. Several months of such growth would be significant however. We'll need to wait for the first Nokisoft phones to appear to see whether Windows will "make it" as an OS.
Unfortunately Millennial doesn't put much historical context into its individual reports. So I always like to take a look at the data from several months or a year ago to compare the figures. Accordingly here are several charts from this month's report and July 2010:
Top handsets on the network (7/10 then 7/11):
The iPhone has maintained its top position and RIM is holding on with three handsets in the top 20 vs. four a year ago. But otherwise it's all Android.
Operating system share (7/10 then 7/11):
As you can see smartphones have grown from 49% to 68% on the network. In the US market smartphones are about 40% of all handsets now according to Nielsen. As you can also see, the relationship between iOS and Android has flipped in a year with Android handsets now representing 61% of all impressions.
In terms of monetization and revenue, however, Android continues to underperform its share while Apple devices outperform their relative share.
Finally, as PaidContent has pointed out, one of the more interesting pieces of data surrounds "carrier" usage. Over the past year WiFi access has grown from 26% to 33%. This is probably a direct result of the use of "connected devices" (e.g., the iPad) more than any other variable.
However as carriers eliminate unlimited data and throttle speeds on their networks, on the go users will increasingly seek alternatives that offer cheaper and/or faster access to their applications and the mobile Internet.
Placecast announced today the availability of ShopAlerts push notifications for retailer mobile apps. Previously Placecast ShopAlerts enabled geographically relevant SMS or MMS messages after a consumer opt-in. This new announcement means that geofenced alerts can be integrated into existing retailer apps to boost the effectiveness of those apps.
In the conventional scenario, users need to launch a retailer app and affirmatively search or browse for content. The new program enables consumers to receive LBS alerts that use promotional messages to direct consumers to the nearest local store or outlet, once inside the geofenced area. It's not clear whether the app-based ShopAlerts would require explicit consent to LBS notifications. (On the iPhone notifications require acceptance in general.) Best practices suggest at least a disclosure if not an opt-in.
Push notifications aren't new but this combination of app + alerts could prove effective for retailers and help boost app usage. Examples of companies already working with Placecast ShopAlerts include North Face, Subway, Kohl’s, Kmart, Starbucks and JetBlue, among several others.
The efficacy of geofenced ShopAlerts has been demonstrated in the UK with O2 and in various tests and trials in the US.
Related Placecast posts:
Millennial Media is out with its monthly SMART report. Yesterday the company hosted an in-depth webinar to review the data in advance of the report's release and in honor of this being the 50th such report. Familiar data points about campaign tactics and devices were discussed. For example, in June, Android retains its platform leadership (53% of impressions), while the iPhone remains the top individual device (27% of impressions).
Here are some of the things I "tweeted" yesterday during the webinar:
But the most interesting thing about the report to me is the comparison of June 2011 findings with those in the first report more than two years ago. Here are several graphics that reflect the market's growth and evolution:
The broad themes reflected in the graphics above are: the rise of touchscreen smartphones (Android and the iPhone in particular) and the growing sophistication of mobile advertisers and their campaigns. I don't have the vertical categories chart among those above. However Millennial has seen explosive, quadruple-digit growth in verticals like Finance, Retail/Restaurants, Automotive, Entertainment, Travel and Pharma.
In response to a question during the webinar about the sophistication of advertisers Millennial SVP Mack McKelvey responded, "The vast majority of our advertisers are very savvy and challenge us all the time."