Letter to the Editor: Operators Endorse MMA Guidelines

Dear Editor
In producing its guidelines for mobile Internet banner ads, the Mobile Marketing Association's (MMA) EMEA region has consulted with, and received positive feedback from, advertisers, agencies, mobile networks and other trade associations in the UK. We all believe that these recommendations for inventory size and aspect ratio, and future additions, will become the common formats.
Although most UK networks independently developed their own banner ad sizes some time ago, as a result of the UK co-leading the development of this market worldwide, we are looking to support these formats in due course as part of a structured evolution towards a common goal in order to make life simple for advertisers and consumers. Of course non-standard banners will continue to be used where appropriate, allowing on- and off-portal sites the opportunity to differentiate themselves creatively, as is the case online.
We wish these guidelines had been established before we launched our first services. These have been well researched and take into account different handsets and serving technology as well as what makes a good customer-experience. A common set of guidelines helps the development of any market, and since they are not ‘standards’ as such, they leave room for creativity. The market now needs to focus on what makes mobile different: location, superior socio-demographic profiling and accurate behavioral analysis.
Microsoft, Yahoo!, Nokia, Ericsson, Alcatel-Lucent, and Openwave participated in the creation of these guidelines, as well as mobile marketing agencies Incentivated and Enpocket, amongst others. We were particularly pleased to hear from Hugh Griffiths that Microsoft (also of the UK chapter) will be adopting these standards for its mobile services, which will be launched shortly.

Yours sincerely,

Neil Andrews, Head of Mobile Advertising, 3
Simon Dean, Content and Development, O2
Steve Ricketts, Head of Third Party Services, Orange
James Rowe, Head of Content, T-Mobile
Shan Henderson, Head of Mobile Advertising & Industry Development, Vodafone
All members of the UK chapter of the MMA

The MMA guidelines can be obtained here.

Letter to the Editor: Preventing Mobile Spam

Dear Editor,

A recent report commissioned by Pontis has shown that nearly two thirds of mobile users are fed up with mobile phone spam. 70% of those surveyed found mobile marketing campaigns totally irrelevant to them, with only 11% buying products as a result of receiving an offer from their operator. Although advertisers should indeed be encouraged to develop targeted campaigns that offer real benefits, I believe this survey shows that in order to capture the value from mobile advertising, it is the operators who have the responsibility to reduce mobile phone spam.
Mobile marketing is a unique way for brands to communicate directly with their customers. With advertising agencies seeking to create compelling campaigns that include the mobile channel, operators must address the perception of mobile marketing as ‘spam’ and capture the real value inherent in their networks. At present, operators offer a commoditised transport service to advertisers, missing the opportunity to lock in high revenues through providing a marketing medium that protects subscribers, while supporting advertisers reaching the brand’s customers.
Our research with agencies indicates that operators could generate up to an 800% increase in value of their wholesale messaging by using information they have in their networks today. Instead, operators are encouraging their own commoditisation by even starting to expose the user’s phone numbers to content and application providers.
Operators need to directly tackle the growth in spam that arises through inappropriate and untargeted mobile advertising. The mobile operator owes a duty of care to the subscriber, and those that protect their subscribers first will have a significant competitive advantage - reducing churn and attracting new subscribers.
By collecting and filtering information based on the user’s explicit content preferences and observed behaviour, operators will be able to maximise advertising revenue, drive response rates and maintain the reputation of their brands. It comes down to this: operators that ignore mobile spam will wind up with a larger influx of calls to their customer care department, resulting in increased costs and a significant loss in revenue.
There are solutions available that provide unified mobile customer protection across all cellular technologies, security threats and media types, allowing mobile operators to offer spam protection for specific users, preventing such backlash against mobile adverts and protecting the end user, while providing legitimate advertising campaigns with the information necessary to target subscribers accurately and only with their permission. To date, operators are ignoring the potential cost to their brand, the opportunity for mobile data revenue growth, and committing themselves to the same strategy that led ISPs to decline, and leaving the real value of mobility to the next incarnation of Google.
For the readers of Mobile Marketing Magazine who are yet to do so, now is the time to seize the mobile opportunity or risk being left behind.

Yours faithfully,

Lorcan Burke
CEO, AdaptiveMobile

Letter to the Editor: Restoring Trust in Participation TV

Dear David

Amidst the furore of the most recent premium rate scandals, organisations are inevitably focusing on the negatives of participation TV and applying these to all competition formats. However, there is web-based technology available now that enables organisations to provide free-entry competitions and restore customer confidence, whilst retaining the revenue stream associated with premium rate services (PRS).
Broadcasters need a replacement for PRS. However, with the negative perceptions being reinforced from all angles, any alternative is likely to be viewed with suspicion. The answer is contextual advertising. Through the use of web-based software, supported by contextual advertising, organisations can generate income without charging consumers or indeed identifying them through personal data.
In a time where consumer trust is at an all time low, consumers are as unwilling to provide personal data as they are to pay to enter competitions. However, through the use of a non-intrusive, spam-proof communications tool to discretely alert consumers to competitions and the subsequent results, consumer never have to identify themselves to the organiser.
Removing all competitions is one way of ensuring that public confidence is not destroyed further, but it is not the only way forward. By proceeding with transparency and sensitivity, broadcasters can regaining the public’s confidence and continue to offer the competitions they enjoy.

Sincerely,

Lee Ali
Director of Strategy, elertz

Letter to the Editor: Participation TV Scandal

Dear Sir
The news that broadcaster Five has been fined £300,000 by Ofcom for faking winners and misleading viewers in its Endemol-made quiz show Brainteaser must come as a shock to the industry. But the fine - the largest financial penalty ever imposed on a public service broadcaster by Ofcom - highlights much wider problems associated with participation TV that focus on issues surrounding shortfalls with the current regulatory framework. In particular, this shortfall has left broadcasters and service providers in a legislative vacuum that has allowed transgressions like Brainteaser (and others) to take place.  The result of course is damage to consumer confidence and trust in engaging with their favourite TV shows via a participation TV format. 
What the industry needs to do now is focus on restoring this trust. Let’s not forget that before this disconnect, the premium rate industry provided important revenue streams for broadcasters and service providers alike. More than this, premium rate formats have proved to be very popular with consumers, and are now an established part of a broadcaster’s repertoire when seeking to provide its viewers with programme interactivity.
The current regulatory arrangements that are implemented by Ofcom and ICSTIS need to provide the industry with a clear regulatory framework that puts compliance and responsibility front and centre. Clearly, this needs to be addressed so that trust is restored and we can continue to move forward and innovate.   
In particular, there is now a very real need for a legal and regulatory framework that:

…attributes the compliance roles and responsibilities of service providers and broadcasters for premium rate quizzes and competitions

…defines the circumstances under which a competition is classified as a game of skill or a lottery and takes account of abuses of, for example, free entry routes (that currently allow some service providers to avoid game formats being classified as a lottery, a position that is likely to be blocked by the introduction of the gambling act (GA2005) in September 2007

…protects at all times the interests of consumers so that confidence in these game formats is restored and maintained

As a lottery licence holder, we welcome regulation and the forthcoming Gambling Act, since it is expected that much of the confusion around premium rate competitions and quizzes will be dealt a final, clarifying blow when it comes to fruition in September.

Sincerely,

Scott Davies
MD, Million 2-1 

Letter to the Editor: "Vodafone's VoIP Claims are False"

Dear David
I would like to take this opportunity to respond, on behalf of Vyke Communications PLC, to the absurd and irresponsible claims made by Vodafone and/or Sky News concerning mobile Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) services (see The Register article).
Specifically, these claims include the assertions that VoIP is expensive and that it may be used by terrorists to avoid detection by law enforcement.
Mobile VoIP is only expensive if a user places a mobile VoIP call using the internet connection provided by their mobile operator (e.g., from a 3G data connection). This is because of the very high tariffs charged by mobile operators in general for mobile data services. If Vodafone, for example, claims that mobile VoIP is ‘expensive’ for the user when used via the Vodafone mobile data network, it is because Vodafone’s mobile data network charges are expensive. I hope that, like me, you appreciate the irony of Vodafone warning its customers about its own tariff structure.
The Vyke Mobile IP service, like that of many of our competitors in the Mobile VoIP sector, is focused on the use of wi-fi to circumvent the mobile operator’s network entirely. When used in this manner, Vyke’s Mobile IP service offers tremendous cost savings for the user compared to typical mobile operator calling rates. In this case, the only charges that will apply to a Vyke Mobile IP user will be those applied by Vyke and the user’s cost of accessing the internet via his or her wi-fi network.
Stating that VoIP services are unsafe and that they may be used by terrorists to avoid detection by law enforcement is, at best, irresponsible.  In Vyke’s opinion, this attempt to associate public fears over the threat of terrorism with a new and beneficial technology amounts to nothing less than scare mongering.

Sincerely,

Aaron Powers
Vice President of Business Development, Vyke Communications PLC