Draw Something's next step after being acquired by Zynga is to get people to draw brands that that they're familiar with, like Doritos, the NHL, and KFC. It's an interesting exercise in marketing, and definitely a novel way of getting people to interact with companies, but if overdone, I think it will ultimately sour people on the game, especially if they're already tolerating banner ads in the free version.

My thinking is that as a smaller company, OMGPOP was able to make do with in-app purchases of new paints and bombs as their primary source of income with a bit of help from banner ads. Now that Zynga has paid a bunch for the game, they want a return on the investment and are pursuing more aggressive schemes. The popularity of Draw Something has already started to take a dip; daily active users have dropped from 14 million in April to 10 million. If it continues to dive, Zynga will have a hard time closing these kind of deals with big companies.

I'm all for this new take on mobile advertising, but only if it replaces banner ads. If a player picks a sponsored term, the picture could then provide a link to the advertiser's site, or better yet, serve up a media rich iAd that launches for both players. An extra in-game coin would go a long way to inventivize players to sit through a quick video.

Do you guys still play Draw Something? Personally, I found it mostly just embarrassing if you don't have much in the way of artistic talent, but your mileage may vary.  Is this plan to get players to interact directly with brands a smart, innovative marketing move that you're interested in participating in, or a skeezy trick for companies to worm into your subconscious?

Source: AdAge

Australian consumers may have been duped into thinking the new iPad would work on local LTE bands based on the 4G branding plastered on the latest iOS tablet, but Apple is standing by their usage of the term. In a statement to the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission, Apple said:

The iPad with WiFi + 4G is a device which performs in accordance with the descriptor '4G' in terms of data transfer speed. The descriptor '4G' ... conveys to consumers in Australia that the iPad with WiFi + 4G will deliver a superior level of service in terms of data transfer speed (consistent with accepted industry and regulatory use of that term), and not that the iPad with WiFi + 4G is compatible with any particular network technology promoted by a particular mobile service provider in Australia.

Have any of you had to explain to your less tech-savvy friends what exactly 4G means? Do you think the marketing term is actively affecting sales?

Source: The Australian via MacWorld

Back in February, Apple promised that they would be increasing developer revenue share from iAds from 60% to 70%, and today that change has gone into effect. One would hope that this would mean more participation among app developers, especially since the minimum buy-in from advertisers was dropped from $1 million to $100,000 since launch.

Although Apple iAds promised to be way more polished and interactive than your average mobile ad, adoption has been low, and with established players like AdMob offering solutions which simultaneously tackle multiple platforms, there's no sign of iAd's position changing.

Any developers in the house getting anywhere with iAds? Everyone else, have you been particularly smitten by any of the few iAds you've bumped into?

Apple has quickly responded to the accusations that they're misrepresenting the new iPad in Australia as 4G-capable by offering misled buyers a refund on their device.  That's not much of an offer, considering they're all within their 30-day return window, but a sensible answer to those that are unhappy that they can't get LTE access on their new iPads. Apple will also be shooting out e-mails to those who had bought a 4G iPad to clarify what it's capable of, and by April 5, they'll be putting up signs anywhere selling a new iPad reiterating the point. Apple is set to meet with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission on April 18 for a mediation, while a trial is set for May 2, where Apple could face $1.1 million in fines per infraction.

Right now, the new iPad only supports US and Canadian LTE, making any branding abroad as the "Wi-Fi + 4G" iPad a little sketchy.

Following in Australia's footsteps,the Swedish Consumer Agency is actively launching an investigation to determine if Apple's marketing is misleading, while the UK's Advertising Standards Authority is currently assessing complaints made to them.

The new iPad is a great devices, and easily shrugged off claims that it was getting too hot, and though these false advertising claims are fixed easily enough with new packaging, marketing, and signage, Apple may be dinged by a few fines for not taking care of it earlier. There is some defense in that HSPA+ is being marketed by some carriers as 4G,  which is much more likely to be available in these international markets.

I think it's pretty clear that Apple needs to change the wording on the new iPad in areas without compatible LTE support, but how many consumers will be so offended that they'll return their new iPad over the whole thing? A recent survey shows that usage of cellular data on iOS tablets is relatively low.

Source: Sidney Mourning Herald, The Wall Street Journal, PocketLint

The Australian Competition & Consumer Commission is going after Apple for advertising the new iPad as 4G capable, even though it's not compatible with their 4G LTE networks. The ACCC says they're after "injunctions, pecuniary penalties, corrective advertising and refunds to consumers affected" in this case.  Simply enough, Australian LTE operates on on 1800 MHz, while the two new iPad models currently available run on 700 MHz and 2100 MHz. Presumably, Apple will offer support for a wider variety of LTE flavors eventually, but for the time being, Australians and others will have to make do with 3G HSPA+ if they want cellular data on their new iPad.

Telstra, Vodafone, and Optus are both saying the new iPad has "ultrafast wireless" instead of 4G in their banners, but the proper model name for the new iPad in their online shops comes with "Wi-Fi + 4G" tacked on the end, so it's easy to imagine some consumers being mislead. As AT&T has proven, the definition of "4G" is very flexible these days, but it's good to see that marketing wordplay doesn't fly in Australia; with any luck, the ACCC will win this case and get the carriers and Apple to change around the branding.

Australia was one of the first regions to get the new iPad, having joined Canada, the U.S., U.K, France and lots of others on March 16. In fact, it was the first country to put it on sale, and was where the new iPad was disassembled for our viewing pleasure.

Source: ACCC

While some handset manufacturers strive for celebrity endorsements, giving out pre-release devices to build up hype like (John Mayer and the BlackBerry Bold 9000 comes to mind), comments from Shaquille O'Neal, Phoenix Suns forward Channing Frye, and other high-profile personalities indicate even they're stuck on the same side of the impenetrable Apple PR wall as the rest of us.

Bradley Frank, a publicist that was involved with the excellent Old Spice ad campaign, provided an interesting look at what it's like working in close proximity to Apple.

"When we shot the last Old Spice campaign with Isaiah Mustafa, Apple was shooting the iPad 2 campaign on the next sound studio. We tried to check it out, but it was like machine-gun guards, check-in at different stations. They had code names. It was like dealing with the CIA. Then they walked their asses right onto our set, and had no issue doing that. They just walked onto our set! We were like, 'What are you doing? You can't do that!' And when the iPhone 4 came out, I can't tell you how many clients were like, 'We need that early.' And Apple's like, 'No.'"

Despite having a total lock-down on devices prior to launch, once they're out, Apple scores a ton of product placement in movies and TV shows, nevermind the tons of celebrities that go out and get their own iOS devices with or without the help of Apple. Besides, Apple has a finely-tuned hype machine that hardly needs the help of Hollywood to pump up the latest iPad. The only ones outside of the production process who seem to get iPhone and iPads in advance are high-profile media like Walt Mossberg, and even then, they're on a strict embargo which usually lifts a day or two ahead of launch.

Do you guys think it would be too tacky of Apple to seed new iPads with celebrities before us common-folk,  or would it be a reasonable way to increase exposure?

Source: Fast Company

Fiksu, a mobile marketing firm, released some interesting data on how much money top iPhone app developers are spending on promoting their creations. After looking at the top 200 free iPhone App Store for December, the average cost to get someone to run an app more than three times is $1.81. This is up significantly from $1.41 in November. Fiksu also determined that the App Store saw a little over  6 million daily downloads in December, helped in no small part by the oodles of Christmas sales. In fact,m the last week of December saw advertising budgets (and traffic) double. Fiksu gathered up this information through their marketing platform, which spans over 200 million downloads, and 11 billion in-app actions. App Store rankings freeze between December 25 and 28, which creates a rush to get top position beforehand, so you hold that visibility while folks start downloading apps on their new iPhones. Fiksu CEO Micah Adler said:

“For so many app brands, December is a strategically critical month for app discovery. What we witnessed during the month was a ‘land rush’ in which advertisers earnestly spent marketing dollars in order to achieve ranking before the traditional App Store freeze which then would generate substantial organic downloads through increased visibility.”

Of course, if developers just wrote good apps and dropped us a line, maybe they'd get some free advertising by way of our Daily Apps series. Jussayin'.

Forbes has published an interesting account involving the famous 1997 Think Different ad campaign, "Here's To The Crazy Ones", from Rob Siltanen, one of the advertising executives who helped put it all together. According to Stiltanen, Jobs was originally opposed to the TV spot.

CEO of TBWA/Chiat/Day Advertising, Lee Clow and I flew to Cupertino to play the spot in person to Jobs. Only the three of us were in the room. We played the spot once, and when it finished, Jobs said, “It sucks! I hate it! It’s advertising agency s--t! I thought you were going to write something like ‘Dead Poets Society!’ This is crap!”

At the end of the day, Steve Jobs ran with the campaign after Lee brought in Ken Segall -- someone whom Jobs had previously worked with -- to make a few minor adjustments to the spot.



Source: Forbes

Apple's latest ad wants you to buy a $500+ tablet computer that runs App Store apps. Apple wants to sell you shiny things to make money.

Google's latest ad wants you to store personal details about your child's life, from birth, on their servers. Google wants your data so they can sell it (aggregated and anonymized, of course) to others to make money.

Taken in that context, Apple's ad might be obnoxious and highly commercial, but Google's is downright creepy.

That's not an Apple fanboy perspective, that's a privacy fanboy perspective. And it's not iPhone vs. Android either. iPhone users use tons of Google services, including Gmail, Maps, and Search, and YouTube built in, and Voice, Latitude, etc. available via apps. Given over a 100 million iOS devices, we're a huge part of Google's user base, and a valuable part. And for the record, I haven't liked some of Apple's recent ads either.

But I do think about how each company makes money and what they have to sell to make that money. Apple makes almost all their money selling hardware products -- selling to you. Google makes almost all their money selling advertising -- selling you. (Or in this case, your child. Seriously.)

I'm not telling anyone to stop using Google, far from it. I'm a huge Google user myself. What I'm saying is this is not really a good ad.

(Note: As Apple ramps up iAds, this'll be a concern for iOS users as well.)

Both videos after the break.

UPDATE: Again, I'm a huge user of Google services -- this is not intended to scare anyone but simply to inform users, so users can make better informed decisions. Convenience and security are always at odds, and choosing the convenience of free cloud services like Google's sacrifices the security of your personal information. I currently find that an acceptable compromise. If you don't have a problem with it either, than good for you. Enjoy. As long as we all know the deal.

Toyota have released a jailbreak theme in Cydia to advertise their new 'Scion 2011' car range. The theme is available for free in Cydia, by searching for Scion 2011 Theme. The theme itself includes wallpapers of the 4 different models of Scion (tC, iQ, xB and xD) which you can choose for your homescreen or lockscreen, it also includes custom buttons and a custom slider.

Will you be downloading this theme? How many other major companies will follow suit, and start to advertise to the jailbreak community? And will Apple have any response to this, given advertising dollars are now on the line?

[ModMyi]

Apple has cut the minimum purchase price for advertisers on its mobile iAd network from $1 million to $500,000 in an effort to appeal to smaller companies and help broaden the mobile advertising platform, according to All Things Digital.

The new entry point is $500,000, a significantly smaller commitment, particularly for smaller brands and agencies that are creating and producing their own iAds.

When Apple introduced iAds last year they thought it would be a huge success despite some believing it would be a flop, and although Apple is claiming over 60 successful iAd campaigns so far they're also seeing low fill rates and other developer complaints.

Cutting the initial asking price in half should allow more eligible parties to participate in the iAd program, but do you think it will be enough to make iAds a full success for Apple? Let us know in the comments!

[Digital Daily]

iAd has been usable in the United States and United Kingdom since it was deployed, but now developers are beginning to report that they are seeing ad impressions from other countries as well. Part of this could have to do with the fact that the iPad did not have iAd integration as it didn't run a version of iOS that supported iAd. Seeing as iPad will be receiving iOS 4.2 in the coming weeks as well, perhaps Apple now has reason to roll out iAd to additional countries.

This is great news for developers that implement iAd as it will allow the opportunity for them to have a much wider market for potential ad revenue. Any developers on TiPb implementing iAd? If you have, have you seen impressions from countries other than the US and UK over the past few days?

[ MacRumors]

With the Launch of iAd by Apple many companies are choosing to advertise with them instead of Google or Microsoft. Businessweek.com reported that Apple may control as much as 21% of the market by the end of the year. Google will drop to 21% from last year’s holding of 27% and Microsoft, who was only just getting into ads, will drop to just 7% from last year’s 10%.

Not bad for Apple, who wasn't even in the mobile advertising market until they bought Quattro Wireless and announced iAd back at WWDC 2010.

Unilever, whose first iAd made its debut in July, is "extremely happy" with the results of its ad campaigns, Rob Master, the company's North American media director, says in an interview. More than 20 percent of people who click on Unilever iAds—which feature video and an interactive game—check out the ad a second time, he says.

Natalie Kerris, a spokesperson at Apple, reports that since June the number of brands that use Apple’s iAd has doubled. This trend isn’t just affecting Google and Microsoft either as both Nokia and Yahoo ad services are suffering as well.

Have you seen iAds in your apps? Are you any more likely to check out the products showcased in an iAd compared to a Google AdMob ad, or an ad from another network? Is Apple really offering a better experience for both advertisers and end users? Let us know your thoughts.

This is an official entry by Slyfi in TiPb’s next top blogger contest. Think you have what it takes to join Team TiPb? Bring it!

[Business Week via Fortune]

iAds is Apple's attempt to bring the emotion of television to the interactivity of online, but the Wall Street Journal says it's off to a bumpy start. Apparently, part of the reason is -- surprise, surprise -- Apple is exerting tight control over the platform (what, punch the monkey ads aren't good enough for iOS?!). Apple is also producing the ads themselves at this point and there appear to be longer than expected delays getting them up and running even after they've been signed off on.

That has made the creation of the mobile ads laborious, taking about eight to 10 weeks from brainstorm to completion—longer than normal for most mobile ads, executives said. The building of the actual ad, handled by Apple, in some cases is taking two weeks longer than expected, one person added.

Once online, however, they seem to be working.

A Nissan spokeswoman said its iAd "has driven exceptional results to date." The company said the rate of users tapping on the banner is five times the click-through-rate of the Nissan Leaf online campaign.

Those "people familiar with the matter" claim Apple underestimated the demands of the new business and are scrambling to learn how best to deal with the Mad Men of advertising.

Once it gets established, once Apple rolls out an HTML5 development environment for it, once it gets on an iOS 4.x iPad, once we see more of it internationally (I don't think I've seen a single iAd yet, anyone else outside the US?) -- i.e. once it matures -- these problems could go either go away, or just become the constant, mild grumbling we hear with App Store growing pains.

[Wall Street Journal]

iPhone and iPad advertisements have always shown the time as 9:42 and 9:41. Why? Steve Jobs has certain idiosyncrasies and much of the reasoning behind his and Apple's choices are kept tightly under tight wrap so we never knew -- until now.

Scott Forstall, SVP of iPhone software at Apple Inc, has finally given the answer. Scott stated that the big reveal of a keynote usually happens at around 40 minutes in, give or take. In order to have the pictures on the iPhone/iPad sync with the audiences' watches the time of 9:42 was chosen for the iPhone and 9:41 for the iPad.

So there you have it, one less secret in the Apple multiverse and as with many secrets, the answer is simple and reasonable. A part of me had hopped that the reasoning behind the magic time 9:42 was something more eccentric, such as it was the time Steve Jobs first child's was born or the secret code to unlocking Flash on the iPhone. Another part of me is amazed by the thought Apple places into every detail of their advertising.

Either way, mystery solved.

[Secret Lab via NetworkWorld]

It seems Apple has made the move and gotten into the in-app advertising business. The rumor of Apple purchasing Quattro Wireless has turned out to be 100% accurate. The AdMob competitor, Quattro Wireless, was purchased by Apple for a cool $275 million.

"We are thrilled to let you know that Apple has acquired Quattro. We want to share with you our excitement about this news and what it means for our customers. We have built our business by enabling advertisers to reach the right consumers across the mobile web and in applications. We remain focused on delivering more engaging, relevant and useful ads to mobile devices, and improving the measurement and execution of digital campaigns. Together with Apple, we look forward to developing exciting new opportunities in the future that will benefit our customers."

Something also to be noted is that former Quattro Wireless CEO, Andy Miller, revealed in the press release that his title is now Vice President of Mobile Advertising at Apple. The Google vs Apple showdown seems to be heating up. 2010 is going to be an exciting year in the mobile world.

When Google opens their wallet, big buyouts follow, and this time it's iPhone/mobile advertising company AdMob for $750 million, and VoIP startup Gizmo5 for about $30 million.

AdMob is an obvious choice for Google, as it's built mobile and in-app advertising (especially on the iPhone) into a $100 million a year business, enough to get Brin and Page personally involved in the courtship. Says TechCrunch:

Google is gunning hard to dominate mobile Web advertising and AdMob has an early foothold in the display side. [...] Google’s purchase price tells us it thinks the opportunity for mobile display ads is in the billions of dollars, at the very least.

Gizmo5, rather than advertising, could help round out Google's services portfolio. Again, TechCrunch has the details:

Google Talk allows voice calls between users but has no PSTN link to allow incoming or outbound calls to real phones. Gizmo5 does this well already. [...] And Google Voice is a great VoIP and phone identity service, but they have no endpoint for calls. Gizmo5, which by the way already integrates with Google Voice, is a soft phone end point for Google phone users.

Of course, Apple will have to stop considering/reverse the rejection of Google Voice, or Google will have to deliver that killer web app version, before iPhone users benefit from that...

We all know Google isn't a search engine company, they're a company that makes googzillions of dollars monetizing search (and trying to monetize other things) via their AdSense advertising platform. For iPhones, this was previously constrained to the browser window of Mobile Safari (or Chrome Lite for Android users). Now, however, the Official Google Blog announces:

AdSense for Mobile Applications allows developers to earn revenue by displaying text and image ads in their iPhone and Android applications. For our beta launch, we've created a site where developers can learn more about the AdSense for Mobile Applications program, see answers to frequently asked questions and sign up to participate in our beta. Advertisers can also learn about the benefits of advertising in mobile applications.

Advertising lets Google and others supply lots of free services to users. Will it be as successful embedded in apps as it is in the browser? Developers, are you interested in Google AdSense monetizing your apps? Users, would you put up with Google advertising if it meant cheap or free apps?

[Thanks to Icebike for the tip!]

Okay, if you buy an empty iPod Classic, have never owned a CD or bought a piece of music in your life, and are determine to immediately fill that 120GBs to the brim, then $30K iTunes will cost you.

However, if you've already got a sizable CD collection, or music collection of any kind -- even your own compositions -- or want to carry around class lectures or other forms of audio or -- hey -- video maybe, well, it can cost much, much less. Maybe even less than the $15 a month Microsoft would rather you cough up to them for a ZunePass subscription.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not against the subscription model. I don't think it can hold a candle to the iPhone and iPod touches coup de grace -- online streaming music for (pretty much) free -- but for some users subscription is the way to go. (Especially now in the DRM-free world where Microsoft shutting down PlaysForSure didn't threaten to destroy large and dearly-paid for music collections, right Microsoft?). What I am against is bland, ultimately not compelling advertising. Ars Technica lays it out:

As of November 2008, the Zune Pass allows its users to keep any 10 songs per month. In other words, if you wanted 30,000 songs for keeps, just like the iTunes Store, you would have to wait 250 years. The cost would be a whopping $45,000, however. In other words, it's only really worth it if you're OK with the fact that you have to keep paying the monthly fee to keep access to the songs that you don't yet own. Otherwise, iTunes (or any other à la carte model) is the way to go.

And again, the iPhone and iPod touch (for which Microsoft has no competitive offering since they keep denying the ZunePhone and Zune HD is still vaporware) can do better, cheaper with free internet radio apps.

Unless you want an extra $15+ bill tacked onto your monthly services overhead?

(Thanks Matt for the tip!)

It's interesting to see how developers try to monetize their work in the iTunes App Store. With the downward pressure towards $0.99 or free apps, many turn to advertising to make up the difference, but users are getting increasingly oblivious to advertising at the same time.

i.TV, as part of their recent update, has tried to make advertising more compelling by making it more interactive. It's an interesting strategy:

: i.TV introduces the world’s first “shakable” ad. This limited release “Shake-down 2 Get Down” campaign from Dockers features Dufon, from the dance expressionist group “Circle of Fire.” When you see the ad pop up, just shake your device to make Dufon dance!

Even if that loses its appeal after the first few times, it will likely still make a stronger impact than static text or banners. Can developers keep the pace of advertising innovation in line with that of the apps themselves? That remains a question.

The i.TV update also includes a dedicated tab for Comcast subscribers, the world’s first “shakable” advertisement, AT&T U-verse listings and major performance improvements.

We get it: Apps are the new Internet. If the recent TV commercials weren't hint enough, if redesigning the Apple Stores to put them front-and-center wasn't crystal clear, Apple has sent out an email reminding us that the iPhone Apps, they are good!

Over 15,000 (20,000 but most counts), Apple focuses on ZAGAT TO GO, Flick Bowling, Allrecipes.com, Weightbot, and iHandy Level.

Apple has long said that software, not hardware was their key differentiator, and they're certainly making sure everyone else knows it as well.

Is it working? Are Apps hooking new buyers the way "just the Internet"-focused advertising hooked previous ones?

This is a huge coincidence since we just had our App vs App: Shazam vs Midomi on TiPB. I love these commercials since they are so simple and really show what the iPhone can do. Well, since I think most carbon-based life forms know what the iPhone is, it is time for Apple to show how the App Store's apps can make a difference in your life. 

Apple has had a recent sting of new ads from baseball to finding a place to eat. This ad deals with [iTunes link] Shazam, a free app that allows you to hold your iPhone up to a music source, and Shazam will tell you what the song is and give you links to videos and even a link to the song on iTunes.

How cool is that?

iPhone ads show cool things being done easily. Case in point, the latest spot featuring Loopt.

Stay in touch with your friends. That's the iPhone. Done.

Maybe that's why the iPhone ranks #1 in satisfaction?

Check out the add via Apple.com

We're never going to let Crackberry Kevin, editor of our sibling site Crackberry.com live this down. Never EVER.

And if you think that's bad, wait until Steve Jobs gets finished giving the WuShi finger to the advertising geniuses over at Vodafone and RIM. We're talking the greatest mellow harshening "Skidoosh!" in the history of the tech industry, no doubt.

Whyzat? Said genii decided to advertise the iClonic Blackberry Storm as an actual iPhone, complete with Home screen and Mobile Safari browser.

Was this the last, desperate surrender to iPhone envy? Were the guilt-laden strings of Marimba playing over and over again in their psyche, forcing them to confess themselves to the world?

Sadly, once the images get yanked, the cronies blamed, and the incident swept under the blogs, we'll never know for sure. But they'll still be hearing endless Marimba in their dreams...

Meanwhile, Engadget and Gizmodo got their hands on the little whole-screen-is-a-button-and-has-cut-and-paste-but-no-WiFi monsters, and they seem pretty happy with the solid Blackberry foundation gaining a little iPhone inspired tech. Our view? Anything that forces Apple, and the industry, to stay competitive and keep on innovating is a boon for all of us.

Right?

Disappointing. Disgusting. Shocked. Offended. You pick the negative emotion and we're pretty much feeling it right now. I mean, how could they, right? How could Virgin Mobile Canada stoop so low...

...As to carry the Crackberry?

What? Oh, you thought we meant the blatantly misogynistic, awkwardly pandering, positively Neaderthal-eque pseudo-sexual advertising that rankles the puritanical roots of Americans but barely raises an eyebrow across the pond in Europe?

Yeah, if Fake Steve were still around, he'd be all over this. Might even suggest who to call for a little competitive escalation.

All we can say is for shame Virgin Mobile Canada. For. Shame...