Well, this certainly wasn’t what I had planned for my first blog post of the new decade, but…Yesterday, I RTed Mark Jaffe’s post. This post was in keeping with some of the other thinking Mark’s done, and I liked what it had to say.
I was surprised later to see a rude tweet appear in my @ list:
tomiahonen Ridiculous clueless article!!! by RT @markjaffe @neicolec “The Mobile Kings Will Lose Their Reign In 2010″ http://bit.ly/6sDxB4
I responded to @tomiahonen, and we had a nice tet-a-tet in 140ct. That being not the best venue for such a discussion, I decided to move it to my blog.
I’d never heard of Tomi I Ahonen before. Researching him, he is indeed a prolific author and seems to be well-respected in the community. He tweeted that he’d been up for many hours and was very tired, so I’m trying to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that his rude tweets were a result of that. As far as I can tell, that tiredness also caused him to fail to closely read Mark’s blog. (Hence the “blind” part of this post’s title.)
Tomi (in his tweets) completely misrepresented what Mark said. That’s unfortunate, because someone who is so well-respected and has such a large following should be especially careful and sure of themselves when they malign the name of others.
In my (and perhaps Mark’s) defense, here’s my rebuttal to you, Tomi:
First, I took Mark’s post to be talking about the US market, though it’s true that he didn’t explicitly say he was talking about the U.S. As you pointed out in your tweet, the USA market is a “laggard,” so some of what he says may not apply internationally. Second, we should be clear here: I’ve never called myself an expert in mobile, though your tweets implied that. Third, although his post title suggests these events happening in 2010, the details don’t predict all of this occurring in 2010. If you didn’t read it closely, you might have missed that, though.
Point 1:
Your tweet:
tomiahonen Sorry RT @markjaffe @neicolec – no, in 2010, even in the US, the Google phone will not somehow end up as dumb pipes. Won’t happen. No way
I absolutely admit I know very little about this aspect of the business. I haven’t read much about this. But Mark’s post didn’t say this was going to happen. He didn’t say the carriers (or Google) were going to be a dumb pipe, he said that’s a prediction we’ve heard for a while. “We have heard this one for a while – the carriers will soon be a dumb pipe, and a commodity at best, if they don’t respond quickly to the changing forces in the mobile industry.”
The post then says that Google could discount their phones, and “If this comes to pass, the carriers may potentially no longer have control over the distribution of new handsets and may have to completely reassess their revenue streams to a model less dependent upon control and power.”
He’s not predicting this will happen, he’s saying it’s a possibility. From what I’ve read, I don’t see any flaw in his logic. Again, I’m not an expert on this, but it seems possible, if Google really decided to take that gamble. Whether they would or not, is questionable, and probably unlikely.
Related articles (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2357131,00.aspand http://www.csmonitor.com/Money/new-economy/2009/1214/Could-a-new-Google-phone-the-Nexus-One-challenge-mobile-service-contracts).
Point 2:
Your tweets:
tomiahonen Sorry RT @markjaffe @neicolec – sorry. as to 2nd prediction, Google may grow strong but again, NO WAY will become bigger than iPhone apps
tomiahonen @neicolec there is no way no way no way in any kind of conditions, that Google will be selling more in their apps stores than Apple in 2010
Again, in your tweets, you misrepresented Mark’s post. He didn’t say that Google’s app store was going to surpass Apple’s. It doesn’t say that anywhere in his post. He said “Once again, the king may have to figure out another way to conduct business so that the current successful model of superiority and lack of competition is replaced by a market-based model of competitive advantage.”
He simply pointed out that Apple will now have competition andwill need to work to provide competitive advantages. In our tweet exchange, you tweeted to me about other competing smartphones, which only support what Mark is saying. The market is maturing. Apple hasn’t had any real competition in the US. The Droid has enough hype that it really is competing. When you have competition in a market where you’vehad none, your business model necessarily has to change. That’s all Mark pointed out.
Point 3:
Your tweets:
tomiahonen Sorry RT @markjaffe @neicolec- and the third prediciton, most outrageous – SMS to end? for your idiotic reasons? U call yourself expert?
tomiahonen @neicolec so he doesn’t say what these are, even, but the ‘more interesting messaging’ will now in 1 year grow to be BIGGER than SMS? yeah..
Again, Mark’s post didn’t say SMS was going to end. And nowhere did it say that that these more interesting messaging methods will grow BIGGER than SMS in 2010. The post said messaging was going to change and continue to shift to more interesting formats, “In 2010, the floodgates will open…” Mark is not alone in saying that.
The post also reads, “Furthermore, many brands have now begun to build their opted-in mobile lists and are ready to deploy more interesting messaging technologies that are better suited to excite and engage their audiences than simple SMS text.” He rightly says that the broadcast model doesn’t work effectively, as that’s not what mobile phone users want. In our Twitter discussion, you agreed with that:
tomiahonen @neicolec but I agree with you future is smart mobile ads. All must be opt in. All must be not just interactive but engagement. Then love it
and
tomiahonen @neicolecall the big authors of explicitly mobile ad books by the biggest experts, say mobile is new medium, different from web, dont copy
That’s exactly what Mark said in his post and has said in previous posts. If you agree with him, then why are you lambasting him?
Mark’s post said “Secondly, because with an opted-in list, brands can…and their opted-in audience expects them to… provide messaging that is targeted, interesting and engaging, or they will opt-out. The kingdom of agencies, ad networks and other ecosystem members who make a living from mobile advertising, need to readjust their models to benefit from these SMS messaging trends.”
Again, his point was simply that we are quickly moving (in the US) to better methods of marketing/advertising to users, and that those doing traditional mobile advertising and broadcast SMS will need to adapt to those better strategies.
The experts that you pointed me to in your tweets say the same thing. Kim Dushinski, one of the people you directed me to in your tweets, specifically references communication, engagement, and relevance as important factors in mobile marketing. That’s exactly what I took Mark to be talking about.
Alan Moore, your coauthor, also said about a survey of 1500 under 20 year olds in the UK by Q Research in 2007 (old data):
“If asked simply would they be willing to receive ads on the phone, 68% said no.
But if the question is changed to offer “targeted ads” it jumps to 71% willing to accept! If the proposition involves coupons and discounts, 76% say yes.”
Other experts and studies agree that straight, broadcast SMS and standard banner ads aren’t going to cut it. It’s the opt-in, relevant, and valuable messaging that Mark was talking about which will cut it. So, the experts you referenced in your tweets are making the same point that Mark was making: mobile advertisers and agencies in the U.S. need to use new, personalized, targeted, and engaging models with opt-in as a core component–not old-style broadcasting.
Tomi, next time, I suggest you actually read the post you’re dissing. And try to find a better way to sell your books than maligning other people.
| Want the latest posts from my blog? Subscribe by email |
