Would you let a stranger choose your trousers?

According to research from TNS released last week, a sizeable proportion of people surveyed would rather pay for ‘downloads’ than have them subsidised by advertising. The release states:

“While the vast majority (56%) believes that content downloads to mobile phones should be free of charge, there is a growing number of consumers that are so averse to advertising that they are now willing to pay a premium in order to avoid it, signifying a shift in how operators need to be tailoring their offering. A substantial 25% of respondents said that they would rather pay for a download if it guarantees them immunity from advertising.”

Surprisingly, this sentiment resonates most strongly with a younger demographic; 35% of 16 to 24 year olds are happier to pay for downloads than receive them with advertising. This compares to only 17% of 35 to 44 year olds. Mobile providers who don’t offer consumers the opportunity to opt out of advertising and instead pay for downloads, risk losing customers to competitors who do provide this option.”

The first thing I’ll take issue with here is that, like a lot of research and debate we see, the term ‘mobile advertising’ is used as a catch-all. However the term covers a plethora (yes, a plethora) of mechanics. There is a country mile between SMS spam and a consumer initiated SMS response. The major thing that text marketing, sponsored content and mobile internet display advertising have in common is that they all happen to be delivered on the same device. So, referring to all these models as ‘mobile advertising’ is lazy and not very helpful. Some people hear text messages, others hear banner ads, some people even hear ads on the side of trucks. To be honest, I’m not surprised that some consumers are resistant to mobile advertising as most people hear SMS spam. Indeed, many organizations that we try and hawk mobile to say they aren’t interested in mobile advertising, as its ‘intrusive’. Again, they can only refer to what they know, and for most people, SMS spam is their only real experience of the channel.

Secondly, what on earth is this ‘content’ that people are going to pay for? Is this ring tones, games, video, audio, information, applications, services? What is it? God knows! ….and I think it kind of matters. Again, a non-specfic term used lazily.

Ok, so enough on the quality of the press release, all this is actually hiding a serious point, because what the research highlights is something quite real – firstly, that we’re all different (no **** Sherlock!) and secondly, that what people tolerate on other channels may not be tolerated on mobile. Advertising on TV, on the internet and in magazines is expected, understood, tolerated and sometimes even appreciated. However, being pushed advertising on your phone is very different - I equate it to the difference between casually reading a magazine plastered with advertising and opening your diary to find someone has written an entry in it saying ‘Buy Coca Cola today’.

There is, I believe, two main reasons for this, and I guess these are well known to people in the industry. Firstly, the mobile phone (a bit like a diary) is a very personal device, used for intimate communications, often with family and friends. Secondly (and related to the first) it is YOUR device, it is not shared and you control it – that is to say, you decide when to pick it up, if you want to answer it, what buttons to press, what content to download, which ring tone to choose, which mobile internet sites to visit, etc etc. If companies start to take away that control, by feeding you stuff you haven’t asked for, by taking over your screen or using your personal data in a way that you weren’t expecting, then you start to lose control of something that is personal to you. It’s like someone you don’t know choosing what trousers you are going to wear.

That is what I think this research is really showing - no, not that everyone needs to choose their own trousers, but that people need to be in absolute control of their phones and what happens on them. It’s not really about paying for something or not – the market will soon reach a conclusion about what has value. Try and sell film trailers for 40p, like some operators do, and you’ll get diminishing returns, try and get people to download sponsored games that are essentially crap, and again, the market will find you out - eventually.

What I think this means for content and other service providers is that consumers need structured choice and variety. Each consumer will place a different value on your product. Some won’t be able to live without it, so you should try and get them to pay through the nose, while casual users will only want it for ‘free’ and will happily tolerate advertising. Your model will depend on the quality of your offering and the flexibility of your commercials. Some companies we are working for are able to differentiate between consumers and structure their products accordingly, allowing, for instance, for both subscription and ad-funded models – which is fantastic. Other content owners may need to jump one way or the other. What is clear, though, is that ‘ad-funded’ must not equate to ‘poor quality’, because then the consumer will simply choose not to have it at all – after all ad-funded rubbish is still rubbish.

Also posted on www.welovemobile.co.uk