The Marketing Arm :: Blog

Q: SMS or WAP? A: That depends.

At an industry conference recently, someone asked me whether brands would be better off marketing with text messaging (SMS) or a mobile website (WAP).  Which is more effective?

As a mobile marketer, it's a little like asking if the subway is more effective than a house.  The answer is completely dependent on the objective and the criteria for decision making, but fundamentally they are complimentary, not competitive. 

In short, WAP is better suited to be a destination (e.g., a house); SMS is designed to get you there (e.g., the subway). 

At this stage in the industry, I’d say consumers are taking the “subway” a lot, but that’s because the “houses” are poorly designed spaces that people don’t want to dwell in.  Community-oriented mobile applications and sites are changing this. 

Still, it’s safe to say the way U.S. consumers interact with their phones today is different from the way they will do so in the next year or two. 

As marketers and brands become more adept at mobile marketing, they’ll use everything the medium has to offer – from SMS and MMS, to WAP, to downloadable applications, to proximity (i.e., Bluetooth, RFID, NFC), even cameras for image recognition and mobile barcodes and digital signage – in a fluid and integrated way that creates a direct marketer’s panacea. 

In other countries, marketers and brands already know mobile is a data-rich, measurable communication platform where consumers use handsets as the ultimate convergence device to engage with brands for utility, entertainment, and information.  In many places outside the U.S., consumers go easily from initial stimulus to repeated transactions in a single setting.

If you’re a marketer assessing whether SMS or WAP makes more sense for your brand, here are a few variables to consider:

1.  Acquisition:   While this is different overseas, in the U.S., SMS and WAP both count on other media (e.g., print, TV, outdoor, etc.) to drive consumers to them.

2.  Accessibility:   While challenges can occur between the consumer and the responding party, SMS is more stable than WAP delivery.  In addition, the challenge of receiving a WAP site exactly as it was designed is compounded by a dizzying number of browsers and handset variations.  Carriers also throttle access to mobile channels with voice being the priority, SMS second, and WAP third.

3.  Experience:   SMS is an opt-in – ideally a double opt-in – medium.  This creates an extra step for the consumer which can take away from the experience.  WAP provides information to users in a more aesthetically pleasing platform.   SMS is a single interaction model while the interaction with a WAP site in multidimensional.  Finally, because the consumer decides when to interact with a WAP site, and is prepared for a response, it doesn’t run the risk SMS does of surprising the consumer.

4.  Adoption and momentum:   SMS is has a larger user base at this point, but WAP is growing faster.

5.  Measurement:    WAP provides similar data to what internet marketers are used to (e.g., unique page views, time spent, referring address, etc.); SMS provides a subset of that dataset.  However, both channels require effort and expense to easily access this data.  The bottom line is that we’re at the early stages of both and they each have their own unique limitations.

5.  Functionality:   SMS gets the nod here, but that’s because most marketers and designers have yet to make the experience a positive one on WAP sites.  Carriers throttle WAP.   WAP can be flaky.

6.  Opportunity:     WAP will grow; SMS is what it is.  That’s why, in overseas markets, we’re seeing an increase in other communication channels like IM.

7.  Context:    Both can be highly-customized on a one-to-one level.  This one’s a draw.

So what’s the answer? 

Ultimately, that’s for the marketer to decide.  Only you know which of these variables is most important to attaining brand objectives.  But now you have the variables. 

Before a brand makes that decision (and if you’re among the 80 percent of marketers planning on shifting your budget into mobile this year) I’d suggest you focus first on the consumer.

If the consumer experience and benefit is at the center of your planning, and you can execute your plans flawlessly, we’ll all benefit from the continued growth of the medium and its growing user base.  -- Bryon Morrison, president, ipsh

Associating a software brand with randomness

I've watched the (original) Seinfeld-Gates Microsoft ad a dozen times or so.  It's somewhat mesmerizing to see Gates at the mall trying on shoes.  And it's kinda funny to relive Seinfeld with Gates playing a George-like character.  

But Microsoft has missed with this unlikely tandem because this industry of personal computing is not about celebrities like Bill and Jerry.  It’s about demonstrating how a complex product is simple to use, makes us smarter and improves our lives. 

Bill and Jerry offer nothing in these vignettes that tells me how Microsoft achieves that and who they are as a brand.    

On the other hand, Apple's commercials pound home a clear message which simplifies and humanizes the Mac.  They're effective because they bring to life the complexity of PCs in terms and images we all understand.  They personify the brand and champion the product, not the people. 

The message is undeniable:  Mac is cooler than Microsoft.

Successful celebrity endorsements are defined by a "good match" with a brand’s image and objectives (at a fair price of course).  As much as I love Jerry, Microsoft has made an ill-advised $10 million investment in “quirky” and “random” and zero investment in their brand positioning.   In the meantime, Apple continues to clearly deliver “trendy” and “desirable” through their portrayal of cool vs. nerdy without leveraging celebrity talent.   Apple owns “cool.” 

Microsoft is obviously trying to grab a share of Apple’s space.   But even in its earliest days Apple stormed the scene with a different, if not cool, approach.  It’s their heritage.   On the other hand, Bill Gates was the nerd who made it big.   Microsoft should not be so quick to distance themselves from this nerdy heritage.   We're all nerdy in some form.   And in Bill Gates case, nerdy was also associated with “smart.” 

Perhaps Microsoft should play their own game, not Apple’s.   It might be a smarter move.  -- Bill Glenn

Palin's frames draw attention...

But that's no surprise, is it?  Whatever celebrities do, wear, and say garners attention.  So why is the press so amazed that people are so interested in her frames?  

It's why Davie Brown Entertainment has a celebrity seeding team.  Like it or not (and for whatever reason), there is a large chunk of the U.S. population who wants to wear whatever celebrities are wearing -- t-shirts, skirts, ties, shoes, lipstick, and yes, glasses frames.

And, like it or not, our politicians are celebrities in their own right.

- Lance Armstrong wears a yellow wristband, people want the yellow wristband.

- Jessica Simpson eats tuna fish on her MTV reality show, people start eating tuna fish.

- Tiger Woods' Nike-branded golf ball rolls in the cup to help him win the Masters, golfers gotta have the ball.

- Reese Witherspoon glides down the red carpet at the Oscars, and whatever she's wearing is what girls all over the country want for their prom dress. 

That people like the frames Gov. Palin is wearing isn't any different.