Josh:

Hey Fred, I was recently doing my daily perusal of The New York Times online (in my infinite quest to look cultured and smart) and came across this article: “Is the Day of Tiny Ads Finally Here?” In a nutshell, the author surmises that due to recent technology introductions – like the iPad and the Droid – marketers will begin to spend more dollars on mobile advertising, specifically purchasing mobile banner ad units.

Are we about to go through this again? Haven’t we learned from a decade-plus of web banner ads that the banner ad unit is a flawed advertising vehicle? It is disruptive in the wrong way, pulling consumers from the content they seek and dropping them elsewhere; and is often hijacked by marketers pushing messages unrelated to the desired content consumers have sought. As marketers, we’d be doing a disservice to advertisers if we tried to repackage this marketing tactic. We are still in the relative infancy of mass adoption of mobile devices. We still have the opportunity to get it right.

I think the author is missing the true advantages that mobile technologies offer marketers. As we move forward, shouldn’t the keyword be VALUE? Instead of “ads,” we need to help our clients develop applications and tools that offer value to consumers – that help augment their lifestyles, their day-to-day. This idea of finding a way to evolve web banner ads into mobile banner ads seems crazy to me. What do you think?

Fred:

You’ve got a good point Josh, but I think what the “analysis” from the article is trying to say is that the banner ad is not really good enough for the iPad and the Droid, and that marketers may need to invent new ad units. Of course, this ignores the fact that I already have tiny ads on my mobile device – there’s one for Target, The Home Depot, Sears, Amazon.com, ESPN, The New York Times, NPR, FedEx, my bank and my insurance company. These are the apps that you alluded to above.

And if we view apps as ads, then what’s missing is not only the value piece that you mention, but RELEVANCE and the ability to bridge the divide between my traditional online behavior and my mobile app usage. Right now these two ways that I interact with brands exist mostly in silos which misses a huge opportunity to give me the most relevant and targeted content in both channels.

Instead of inventing a new ad unit, marketers and media companies might be better served by thinking up a way to integrate these channels. The companies that come out on top won’t be the ones that find the perfect tiny ad, it’ll be the ones that figure out how to connect all the ways we already interact with their brand.

Related articles

• Predictions for 2010 part 3: Mobile advertising needs to grow up or ship out! (mobiletribe.com)
• Giving Mobile Ads a Makeover (online.wsj.com)
• Mobile Execs Less Optimistic (Except About Apps) (mediapost.com)

From Patrick Boegel:

This is a nice update article on a service we have already discussed a bit, Jack Dorsey’s Square, but of even more interest is the Verizon Droid ad that is running below the end of the story copy.  It contains a commercial for Droid, links to the branded Twitter account and Facebook fan page, as well as a scrolling list of articles reviewing the product.  These are the ads we heard about being developed by Federated Media. Very engaging.

From Ron Ladouceur:

I can’t get over the excessively creepy/macho/90s techno/Lord of the Rings “towering eye” goofy look tone and feel of the Droid campaign. Dark and geeky. When mashed up with the Twitter bird, it comes off as downright Web 1.0. Given the Verizon backbone, I imagine the product will be successful. But the ethos seems to be such a throwback.

Designers, any of you have an opinion on this?

From Simona Bortis-Schultz:

The droid campaign doesn’t appeal to me either and seemed old fashioned… but perhaps the demographic they are targeting really digs the droid and the “creepy/macho/90s techno/Lord of the Rings ‘towering eye’”… it’s perhaps targeting male generation x-rs, who were in their element in the 90s?

From Beth Mickalonis:

The LTF seems like it is targeting a “PC” crowd (those people that are anti-Mac, gamers) I know a few of them and I think this is the smart phone that would appeal to them based of the anti-Mac theory alone.

From Ivan Marrero:

I can’t stand their new ads. Seems they’re reaching for a new angle – something drastically different than Apple’s iPod campaign.   They end up doing something that might have been cool 10 years ago. Kind of sad and dorky. I have to say they did get me excited with their teaser ads.

From Ron Ladouceur:

I think Simona’s analysis is exactly correct. If you’re going to fight the iPhone, you need to stake a position in opposition to stand out. Apple being so “gender neutral” and “age neutral” leaves little room. Go for the boys!

From Maura Lilley:

It reminds me of the 1984 Apple TV spot. But not in a cool retro way…

From Greg Johnson:

Agreed. It’s the anti- (iPhone, bubbly, gadgety, doohickey) campaign. Personally, I don’t particularly care for the Droid campaign either. However, knowing how popular the dark Transformer/Terminator/Star Trek movies have been, someone must know something about the people who are scooping these things up. Note: The phone itself is actually pretty neat (not dark and menacing at all)

From Michael Rodgers:

I pretty much agree… By marketing themselves so overtly techy/anti-Apple, they will absolutely attract the iPhone-haters – but they would have gotten those people no matter what. This campaign will do nothing for them when it comes to stealing current iPhone users away.

All that being said, it’s also a campaign that was destined for early success (see all the stories hyping its “huge sales numbers”). So many people have been waiting for the iPhone (or similar) to go to Verizon, they will flock early. The real question will be if anyone is buying this phone in 2 months.

And yes, I also hate the campaign.

Incidentally, it appears we’re not the only ones with strong opinions on Droid’s marketing… plenty of people out there either love it or hate it.

What do YOU think?