Borrell Associates, Inc

About Us

We help online media companies identify and increase their share of local online advertising revenue through fact-based research, proprietary data, consulting and comprehensive sales training

Sign Up

Archive for October, 2010

Profiles of the Future

Wednesday, October 27th, 2010

eMarketer’s recent publication of various mobile ad spending forecasts portrays Borrell as a radical outlier. Naturally, we agree.  And we’re eager to point out that we’ve been an outlier many times in the past, particularly in the early years of forecasting a new trend.  Each time, our forecasts eventually became true.  As one commentator put it, “Either Borrell knows something the other [forecasting] companies don’t know … or Borrell is way off base.” The statement is half correct. We do know something they don’t know. But first, a few words about Arthur C. Clarke.

For those of you who don’t remember him, Clarke was one of the last century’s greatest science fiction writers. His stories foresaw communication satellites, self-aware computers (remember HAL?) and many other marvels of technology we take for granted now or will in the near future. Clarke was also a futurist: a student of forecasts and predictions. His book, Profiles of the Future, first published in 1962, talks about two failures common to forecasters of all stripes – a failure of confidence, and a failure of imagination.

When forecasts are too timid, too sensitive to the commonly held values of others, that is a failure of confidence.  In his book, Clarke recommends that most forecasts should have their effects tripled and their time to occurrence reduced by half – in order to make them more accurate.

When forecasts are too mild, and show too little change from the present, that is a failure of imagination.  Clarke’s opinion here is buttressed by research conducted in the 1970s by the International Association of Experimental Psychologists. Their research found that only one in every 10,000 people can envision a future much different from the present.

So, what does all of this have to do with mobile ad spending? Just this: we believe most forecasts we’re compared to suffer from the failures Clarke identified. Here’s why. The hardest part of forecasting mobile is determining where the dollars fall in comparison to online as a whole. However, many who forecast this space look at “mobile” as its own entity – separate and distinct from online. In such a case, any forecast must use as its base the number of discreet mobile devices available, and then try to attach spending levels to that base.

Borrell takes a different course. We believe that mobile is, in fact, a subset of online. Our forecast is also supported by expected changes in computing devices capable of receiving and processing mobile ad messages. By our count, there are roughly 45 million of these devices being used in the U.S. today – mostly smartphones and iPads. By 2015, the count will have ballooned to more than 144 million, with much of the growth among other devices – including most laptop computers, cameras, game machines, GPS devices, and even cars.

Within five years, each of these device categories will be able to receive and react to mobile advertising messages. The new Apple laptop is a good early example of this trend. It can download apps and contains GPS and 4G technology.  So, in our forecast, it’s not so much that mobile devices take over as it is that most computing devices become mobile. Based on this more expansive view, the majority of online ad spending will be targeted to mobile devices by mid-decade. By then, the differences between a “mobile” ad and an online ad simply won’t exist.

In reality, our forecast looks at mobile so differently from others that we are forecasting different things. It’s no wonder, then, that they look so different. Our numbers are neither timid nor mild, but we strongly believe they are on the right track.

We think Mr. Clarke would approve.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Reddit
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn

Cannibals!

Wednesday, October 20th, 2010

One of the most amazing things to me is how so many media managers continue to live in the past.  No matter how the present confronts them, they still remain convinced that the good ol’ days will return if they can just defend the “core product” a little harder.

A few weeks ago I was asked to take part in one of Borrell’s webinars. We provide them to subscribers to keep them current with the latest information we’ve developed.  The latest one concerned mobile apps, and at the end came a question that evoked a flood of memories. “What can we do to keep these apps from cannibalizing our online business?” asked a worried man from the Midwest.  “It’s the wrong question,” I answered. “If you’re worried about one part of your potential eating another, then you’ve already decided that the part you depend on most is a loser. The better question might have been, ‘How quickly do I have to move to take full advantage of this opportunity?’ ”

Here’s another poignant episode. A meeting of newspaper executives was recently held in Dallas. The subject of the day-long seance? Collective newspaper strategies to guide mobile marketing growth — to protect core products, no doubt.

So, let’s talk about core products. In the old days, these were the products your media outlet had depended upon for the bulk of its revenue for decades. Newspapers, for example, counted classified ads as a core product.   In 1997-98, when the Web brought the first serious challenge to the newspaper classified franchise, industry execs watched their recruitment ad volume drop, but were reticent to move them to Websites. After all, that would smack of cannibalism. Later on, of course, when the upsell became popular, they embraced the practice with all the gusto of leaping witch doctors.

Newsrooms argued forcefully about putting content on the Web, fearing cannibalism of readership. Of course, now we know that most of the folks who get their news from the Internet don’t read papers anyhow, so that cannibal is mighty thin.

I’m talking about newspapers because I spent a lot of time in that industry, and was there when many of these discussions and events took place. Similar stories can be generated for any offline media choice — broadcast TV, radio, direct mail, directories, even cable. In every case, when the decision makers were confronted with a new, disruptive technology, they tried to think of ways to block or bend it to keep things as they were. In every case, they failed.

In any business, your core should be what powers your business, what keeps it strong. When it no longer empowers your business, but instead needs your protection, it is by definition no longer a core. So, the next time people in your media outlet start muttering about cannibalism, don’t hide in a corner with them. Embrace the challenge, learn how to win with the new rules, get out your knife and fork, and enjoy the feast.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Reddit
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn