Mobile share of Web Traffic Soon Will Eclipse Fixed Network Traffic in Many Countries

In several countries around the world, mobile Web traffic is close to overtaking Web traffic from computers, an analysis by Pingdom finds. That finding simply underscores the primacy of all forms of mobile communications, content consumption and transactions in developing regions around the world. 


Right now, the countries with the highest share of mobile traffic as part of total web traffic are:


48.87% – India
47.09% – Zambia
44.95% – Sudan
42.36% – Uzbekistan
40.65% – Nigeria
37.95% – Zimbabwe
35.46% – Laos
34.66% – Brunei
31.79% – Ethiopia
29.2% – Kenya

Is Your Mobile Product Providing 10x Better User Experience? If Not, Odds of Failure are High

One rule of thumb used by venture capital investors when assessing technology firms is to look for an order of magnitude better user experience. That rule sometimes is expressed as an order of magnitude better technology performance.

Using that measuring stick, one might argue that, whatever the initial expectations, magazine and newspaper experiences with mobile apps for smart phones and tablets have delivered “end user experience” that is problematic, compared to Amazon’s experience with books.

At the same time, from a provider perspective, mobile apps that were expected to recast newspaper and magazine readership and revenue have proven more complicated than offline publishing, have cost more than expected and provide less profit than expected.

Amazon, on the other hand, arguably has focused on selling digital content with characteristics that are more congruent with the offline end user experience, at costs more controllable and predictable.

While one might argue that tablet and smart phone content availability is not an order of magnitude more valuable to end users than offline versions of those products, one might well argue that the digital versions of songs, videos and books that Amazon sells provide more value than the digital subscriptions magazines and newspapers have tried to sell.

Also, in terms of the “native app versus Web” delivery formats, some content products are better suited, or equally well suited, to Web distribution, compared to app distribution.

Some of the same fundamental questions must be asked of other new mobile businesses that take offline processes, such as shopping, paying and banking, and attempt to create new mobile versions of those products.

Mass adoption will hinge on whether end users perceive dramatically-better experiences, whether we can quantify how much better those experiences are. The notion of “dramatically better” is akin to “order of magnitude” change that can induce massive end user behavior change, while the “incrementally better” notion, with incremental new hassle, is not likely to lead to behavior change.

Looking only at magazine and newspaper apps, there are issues that illustrate the hurdles. Apple’s 30-percent slice of gross revenue is a problem for suppliers, since that is higher than the typical profit margin for a newspaper or magazine publisher. Irrespective of end user experience, it arguably is a “profitless” exercise to sell a digital magazine or newspaper subscription when the revenue split gives a distributor 30 percent of gross revenue.

Among other complications, though, were how publishers could comply with their normal auditing standards used for offline publications, Technology Review notes.

Nor, oddly enough, did mobile apps represent a particularly easy publishing format. Tablets, and some smart phones, support both a "portrait" (vertical) and "landscape" (horizontal) view, depending on how the user held the device.

Then, too, the screens of smart phones were much smaller than those of tablets.

So many publishers ended up producing six different versions of their editorial product: a print publication, a conventional digital replica for Web browsers and proprietary software, a digital replica for landscape viewing on tablets, something that was not quite a digital replica for portrait viewing on tablets, a kind of hack for smart phones, and ordinary HTML pages for their websites.

Not surprisingly, app development costs were unexpected.

But the real problem, some might argue, is that end users expect an online “link rich” experience when using an app for content consumption, much as they expect with Web-based content consumption.

That conflicts with the walled garden that a newspaper or magazine represents. In one sense, a magazine or newspaper is like a compact disc, a collection of items, whereas people increasingly expect to consume items one at a time, in random fashion.

Fundamentally, people consuming in an online channel are looking for songs, not albums. They are looking for stories, not collections.

The point is that transitioning from offline products to mobile products sometimes is not just a matter of authoring, design and software development. Sometimes the product has to be different when it is a mobile-consumed product, not an offline product.

There are many analogies. A mobile payment capability, for example, has to offer an experience that is qualitatively and significantly better than paying with cash or a credit card. It can’t be a little better. It has to be a lot better. And that means it cannot be new experience that is just seconds faster.

There has to be something about the experience that is much better. Maybe a user won’t be able to quantify the changes so easily. But they have to sense that the “new thing” is really lots better than the “old thing.” Slight little improvements won’t motivate change.

You might argue that Square, and other merchant point of sale services offered by Intuit and PayPal have gotten such big traction because they were those sorts of “vastly better” experiences, allowing small retailers to take credit card and debit card payments where they never could do so before.

Something like that will happen for every successful mobile app and use case, period. But most apps and experiences do not represent that sort of clear advantage for end users. Tablets and smart phones, on the other hand, clearly have succeeded in offering user experience and value much better than users had before.

Without such value, new revenue models and businesses will not succeed in the mobile realm.

Why "Mobile First" Makes Sense for So Many App, Content, Device, Service Providers

According to some projections, mobile Internet usage will overtake desktop usage before 2015. That's why a "mobile first" strategy makes so much sense. 


Microsoft Tag recently attempted to sum up this constantly changing space with a single infographic. 

Amobee: the Biggest Mobile Ad Platform in the Mobile Service Provider Business

The typical professional working in the telecom business can be forgiven for not knowing mobile advertising platform Amobee, any more than the typical professional knows all that much about the details of all the other myriad of activities routinely conducted by tier-one mobile service providers globally.

So here are a couple of quick reasons tier-one service providers need to know about Amobee. First, Amobee is a mobile advertising platform designed from the ground up to enable mobile service provider advertising operations, functioning intentionally as a digital ad agency, not just an ad network.

Second, Amobee is owned by Singtel, which operates in some 20 countries throughout Asia and serves 434 million mobile customers and has investments in Bharti Airtel (India), Telkomsel (Indonesia), Globe Telecom (the Philippines), Advanced Info Service (Thailand), Warid Telecom (Pakistan) and PBTL (Bangladesh).

Third, Amobee’s client roster includes Nokia, BMW, AOL, eBay, Zynga, Skype, Google and Barnes & Noble.

In other words, Amobee is carrier friendly, built to scale and already has shown traction with some of the biggest names in advertising.

In mobile advertising, as in everything else a tier-one service provider does, scale matters. To really be financially interesting, a tier-one service provider needs revenue opportunities of some size.

In mobile advertising, that means the biggest brands, with the biggest budgets, which is why Amobee has been built essentially as a digital version of a Madison Avenue agency.

Amobee, owned by parent Singtel, was intentionally created as the digital and mobile equivalent of a Madison Avenue agency, not an “advertising network.” Amobee also was created with a global clientele in mind, the sort of advertiser that might very well need to support its products in countries on many continents.

That is quite a daunting task. Ignore for the moment the need for “creative” approaches for different cultures, in many languages. The simple act of placing ads (“insertions”) on a number of mobile networks in each separate country, plus many different mobile advertising networks, and you get some idea of the sheer complexity.

The whole idea is to make the task of reaching huge mobile audiences efficiently, working with one contact point, not dozens to scores of different mobile companies and similar numbers of ad networks to get the required coverage.

Consider that between the Singtel audience of 434 million, and screens served by other customers Vodafone and Telefonica, the Amobee reach is about a billion people. That’s serious scale.

In the latest news, Amobee has acquired a 3D specialist operation known as Adjitsu, a feature Admobee CEO Trevor Healy believes will provide an edge in a young mobile ad business that nevertheless, from a creative point of view, “can be quite static and pedestrian.”

The other very-practical angle is that one thing a brand does not want is a viewer immersed in a 3D program to suddenly find themselves watching either a high-definition or standard-definition video ad, if video is the ad format the advertiser prefers.

Tablets Win Because 75% of All PC Use is Content Consumption, Sharing

Tablets, at least in developed markets, are not direct substitutes for personal computers, though they are substitutes for many of the key activities people also can do on PCs. 


Most early surveys suggest that people owning tablets also own PCs, making the tablet a new device in the consumer electronics environment, not generally a replacement for a PC. 


Content consumption is the reason tablets potentially can displace most of the functions of a PC. 


Some surveys also suggest that 75 percent of activities conducted on PCs consist of content consumption or content sharing. 


Still, the ability of a tablet to support email, social networking and Internet apps does show how much traditional PC application value has shifted to content consumption and "light" text communications. 

“The use of applications such as email, social networking and Internet access, that were traditionally the domain of the PC, are now being used across media tablets and smartphones, making these devices in some cases more valued and attractive propositions,” said   Ranjit Atwal, research director at Gartner. 


“Consumers will now look at a task that they have to perform, and they will determine which device will allow them to perform such a task in the most effective, fun and convenient way," says Atwal. "The device has to meet the user needs not the other way round.”

In a real sense, the developed region "computing" market now has fragmented into distinct segments, with various devices providing some "lead" value as a platform. Smart phones are the most portable, real-time computing device. Tablets tend to be used at home, on the couch, and are a casual, content consumption platform. Notebooks are the portable computing device while desktop PCs increasingly are an at-the-office "work" device. 

For "Real Time" Help, People Use Smart Phones

Some 70 percent of all mobile phone owners and 86 percent of smart phone owners have used their phones in the previous 30 days to perform at least one form of real-time activity, according to Pew Internet & American Life Project. 


Some 65 percent of smart phone owners say they have used their devices to get turn-by-turn navigation or directions while driving. About 15 percent report doing so on a typical day.


Some 41 percent of mobile phone owners have used their devices to coordinate a meeting or get-together.





About 35 percent they have used their phones to solve an unexpected problem that they or someone else had encountered. 


As you might expect, 30 percent used their devices to decide whether to visit a business, such as a restaurant. Some 27 percent have used their phone to find information to help settle an argument. 


About 23 percent have used their phone to look up a score of a sporting event, while 20 percent looked for traffic or public transit information.


In addition, 19 percent used their mobiles to get help in an emergency situation.


Overall, these “just-in-time” mobile users amount to 62 percent of the entire U.S. adult population.

Despite "Showrooming," Retailers Move to Support Tablet, Smart Phone Apps

Despite the danger of showrooming, where shoppers investigate merchandise in a store, then check prices and buy online, major retailers seem to be embracing mobile shopping as shoppers show growing mobile shopping behavior.


The most popular shopping activity, performed by 57 percent of shoppers, is looking up store information, another study suggests. Half of shoppers compare prices on their mobile
devices, while 39 percent  read product descriptions and 38 percent made a purchase, according to a study by Kantar Media and Compete.  

Other popular shopping activities include searching for coupons, checking to see if a product is available in store, and checking the status of an existing order, Compete and Kantar Media say.

Up to this point, mobile shopping has been largely a matter of content purchases, though more respondents say they have bought “electronics” than “books.”

Among those who have made a purchase on a mobile device, 40 percent have bought movies, music, and videos, 31 percent have purchased electronics and 26 percent have bought books. Home items, such as furniture, kitchenware, and garden supplies are the least popular items to buy.

Some 68 percent of the retailers have developed smartphone apps and 59 percent
have smart phone-specific sites.


But retailers have their own reasons for embracing mobile inside their stores. From a retailer perspective, mobile point of sale is of high interest in the retailer, hospitality and field service verticals. Some 66 percent of retail, hospitality and field service managers surveyed on behalf of Motorola Solutions are interested in mobile point of sale solutions, while 42 percent of retail respondents are currently piloting or starting trials within the next 36 months.

A majority of respondents are focused on using mobile POS for sales associates on the store floor or to speed buyer check out, the study found.

Retailers also are embracing mobile POS  pilots and trials to eliminate the high cost of traditional cash registers and accept customer payments wherever and whenever needed. Some 55 percent of those surveyed even plan to incorporate the ability to take cash as part of their mobile POS operations.

Fully 71 percent of respondents that indicated interest in mobile POS are using or planning to use it to improve customer service and also intend to provide access to inventory management (51 percent), pricing (48 percent) and merchandise returns (42 percent) applications.

In December 2011, Motorola's holiday shopper survey also found that a third of store visits ended with an average of $125 unspent due to missed opportunities to purchase. The survey also found that inefficient payment processes were one of the leading contributors to those lost sales. In that survey, more than 43 percent of shoppers agreed that their shopping experience improved when store associates used mobile POS devices.

About 16 percent of surveyed retailers currently have a mobile POS solution deployed, while less than nine percent have completely mobile or portable checkout systems.

On average, retail respondents anticipated replacing more than 36 percent of their fixed POS as a result of migrating to an mobile POS.

About 41 percent of field service respondents intend to use mobile POS for taking orders and selling in the field. About 39 percent plan to support banking transactions. But a third also see “management of the business” applications and 24 percent will automate work orders.

In retail settings, there is more emphasis on “coverage on the showroom floor,” check out and loyalty programs. And despite the emphasis on use of mobile devices as payment terminals, support for cash, checks and credit cards and debit cards are far more important modes of payment. Just nine percent plan to support contactless payment.

Fully 82 percent plan to support credit card payment, while 55 percent plan to take debit cards. Some 45 percent plan to support cash payments, while 36 percent plan to support payment by check. About 16 percent say they plan to support PayPal or some other online payment service.

Respondents suggest that 48 percent of cashiers and point-of-sale staff will be using mobile POS. In 53 percent of cases, the intention is to use fixed POS or self-checkout terminals for actual payment. In about 40 percent of instances, payments are expected to be processed by associates using mobile POS. In about 23 percent of cases, the shopper’s smart phone will be the payment terminal.

Some 47 percent of other sales associates will be outfitted with mobile POS. About 37 percent of customer service personnel will have mobile POS capabilities.

Also, a third of “store clerks” and 31 percent of field sales professionals will be using mobile POS. For retailers, 71 percent see “better customer service” as a tactical goal.



HawkPartners, a Boston-based marketing consulting and research firm, reviewed the mobile and  tablet offerings of the top 100 US retailers and found that less than one-third of retailers have optimized, or even  adjusted, their sites for tablets.

Rather than investing in separate iPad sites (or iPad apps),  most simply use their existing websites, which translates into a clunky and often frustrating shopping experience for
consumers.

While over two-thirds of the retailers have iPhone apps, only half offer the ability to purchase using the app, the study suggests.