Fragmentation of Directories on Handhelds...How Many Apps Does it Take?

I’ve been delving into local search applications that have been specifically designed for iPhones and have been struck not only by the sleek designs of the apps but also by the micro view they offer on how the directory business in general has been unfolding. Directories have moved from traditional rigid category-based search experiences to sleeker search sites and have recently moved heavily into vertical directories incorporating user generated content and other social media.

On the traditional side of the spectrum are tools that act as pocket yellow pages. AT&T is a good example of this type of application.


Launched by Avantar, a sister company to Yellow Pages Directory, the app has a number of features including:

• Auto location detection
• Map & Directions
• One tap location modifier
• A contacts area to “bookmark” businesses
• Tap to call

Firmly rooted in the tradition of the directory user experience, the consumer is still faced with fields to fill. Granted, the bolder tap opportunities make the experience a bit easier but for some reason it still feels like the search experience of old.

Remember the first time you held an iPod? Do you recall the slight confusion surrounding the wheel? How long did it take before you realized “wow, this is a better way”? Well, the newer generation of applications is all about this shift in navigation.

One example of this can be seen with the Where To application. Where To is owned by German based FutureTap and while it is based on the same data exchange as any other directory, the app’s unique proposition is a sleeker, more intuitive user experience. It's currently powered by Google Maps but is moving towards enhanced listing data. So the difference between this offering and that of the traditional yellow pages offering is this:


• Find whatever you want without any typing

Finally, I’ve been watching the vertical directory frenzy manifest itself at the app mall. Applications are popping up that specialize in finding anything from Doctors to Burger Kings. Admittedly, I’ve asked myself (more than twice) if these applications have any future. Do consumers want multiple applications on their handhelds to find products and services that were once contained in one access point?


One vertical that seems to be experiencing significant lift here is the travel/restaurant business. Free apps like UrbanSpoon, Local Picks and Yelp are developing some attention. Even the pricey ($29.99) Zagat app seems to be gaining some users.

In the local mobile landscape the obvious user behavior will always win and the categories of growth will undoubtedly reflect these behaviors. I’m not saying that vertical apps don’t have a place in app land but doesn’t it make more sense for consumers to use one app that streams specialized data from the verticals into one access point?

To finish the analogy between traditional yellow pages and their evolved apps, independent publishers started producing competing books and delivering them to consumers. In some areas across North America, consumers have to chose between more than two yellow pages books!

When surfing randomly through reviews of applications (all applications including games and gadgets), the reoccurring theme on a negative review is "don't waste the space...". I think the app mall is starting to fill up with fragments of utility that users may find interesting for one fleeting search...

The Evolution of Widegtry…Planet of the Apps…

In 2007, I wrote about widgets. Netvibes, a company based out of France had caught my attention as they were on the front lines of creating miniature, portable content distribution channels. My attention (and I know I’m not alone), is now drawn more closely to the "widgetization" of content to iphones and other handheld devices.

Monetizing widgets on the web has been associated with portals and sponsorships around the content. Today, there’s a crossroad on how to monetize widgets (apps) on handhelds.

In researching the topic I’ve found that there has been a lot of discussion in the application communities around valuating the route of advertising supported applications vs. subscription (fee based) models.

Interestingly, some of the early data is showing that the biggest issue is one of usage frequency for the applications. The ad-supported models require critical mass to become a viable marketing channel. Some data that I’ve seen shows sharp drop off rates after 1 or 2 uses. I’m assuming that this is for a number of reasons but I think the top one might be that the applications to date have been largely marketed (through word of mouth) as novelty items. Consumers download the applications, use them once or twice and then get bored or forget they have them. This would support the fee-based model we see today from the iTunes store.

Killer applications that warrant sponsorship have yet to arise out of the frenzy. I think that this is because we haven’t even scratched the surface of the content that is available to be widgetized.

There are a number of ways that content providers can get into the game and use the app ecosystem. It’s a fluid environment where the users are fickle and drop applications every day for newer, better ones. This may lead to network solutions that provide multiple channels (apps) on a consistent basis to guarantee distribution.

I knew that there was a connection between Netvibes’ model and the business of applications but it’s been hard to articulate. Maybe I just see iTunes as a major content distribution channel that somehow convinced users to pay for what was once free on sites like Netvibes. These applications are after all, a collection of widgets – no?

With the imminent launch of the RIM application store and the many others that are sure to follow, the need for content providers to re-think their distribution strategies is critical. Thinking out loud…”Creating branded widgets may not be the best use of time and resources”.

It’s early days and it’s already fascinating to visualize the new generation of distribution brokerage.

Funnel Bidding...Adnetik's Approach to Media Metrics & Pricing

I’ve been reflecting on a recent metrics presentation I saw at the IAB Mixx Canada Conference in March. I had a great discussion with Nathan Woodman, Global Managing Director of Adnetik, a Havas Digital company that is attempting to change the way we valuate online media.

I was curious after hearing his ultra logical methodology, why it’s so difficult to adopt change despite consensus that our current methodologies for media evaluation, pricing and inventory are archaic.

Nathan’s presentation outlined the short history of online media models. He walked through the initial bridge from traditional media (CPM) and eventually got to the performance-based models we are seeing now. I think the quantum leap was in jumping from a model that pays for a placement to one that pays for an individual that is in a specific consumer mind-set.

As marketers we must look to the purchase funnel to gain a deep understanding of the distance between awareness and purchase. Each business may have its own particular staging criteria for their respective sales cycle and Woodman was talking about applying a value associated to each of these stages so that the advertiser could bid accordingly.

Google search tells the automotive industry that the value of the “new car” keyword is ridiculously high due to competitive market bids but those dealers or manufacturers that have employed cross platform/media analytics know that they may be much wiser to invest in 3 exposures of the cherry red mini on a vertical site because that exposure is trending to be an indicator of further depth (yes, further than search) down the purchase funnel. All things measured (and bought) equally, the marketer should be able to reallocate funds to bid higher on the display ads.

Deep breath…”So as a marketer, I can start to allocate funds to various stages of the purchase funnel based on my internal intelligence of the likelihood of the prospects changing to customers”…Exhale.. Is that so complicated?

It has the flavour of behavioral targeting yes, but this is not invading privacy as much as it is employing common sense and technology that is available here and now to start buying according to real value. Analytics have become much broader in scope. Optimization is not just about pumping funds into keywords that are working or into display ads that are getting clicked on.

The logic is beautifully simple but the horror sets in when you try to explain the underpinnings of the system and how the values are calculated etc. I guess the answer to the original question is that change is difficult when it’s not easily explained. The more equations you show to prove validity, the more you lose the audience.

My opinion of this model is that it is fair and that it works in a network environment that can provide this volume of inventory. I think it will take a long time for publishers to jump on the band wagon unless there are some case studies produced that show equal or greater earnings potential to the respective properties. It’s interesting to think that inventory that was previously thought of as second tier, could once again be deemed premium (in a micro-transaction kind of way).

It’s all so deliciously complex. Nathan is on to something but I’m not sure the apple hit as many heads as it ought to yet…

Monetizing Video Content on the Social Grid...Overlay.TV

I had an opportunity to catch up with Ben Watson, VP of Marketing for Ottawa based, Overlay.TV to get an update on the company’s development and direction.

I wrote a piece about the company’s launch about a year ago and from my discussion with Ben today, it was clear that the company was not only maintaining its course by allowing users to create hot spots on their videos and photos (a scalable affiliate network model), but that it was also starting to see a greater demand from developers to create rich media experiences using the technology.

With over 750 affiliate partnerships, the company provides its users with thousands of products to promote within their content. As the adoption rises and the product skews increase, Overlay.TV continues to gain valuable insight into best practices for video monetization. "We're starting to get a clear picture of what is working and what is not...some content creators generate click through rates at 6% and engagement rates in the 16% range and some fall at the very low end of the spectrum" said Watson.

There has been a lot of product development going on an Overlay.TV over the past year. Most recently, Overlay.TV announced that it would open its API to software developers so that they could build engaging video experiences. The tools offered include applications, widgets and other customized solutions to enhance the interactive features of online video. Overlay.TV’s new Labs website features the SDK download, registration for a developer key, sample projects and more.

Following are some product offerings that are starting to make waves for the company:

Product Endorsement Videos - As an example, Overlay.TV has partnered with famous vlogger and social media expert iJustine to produce various product endorsement videos, with a tongue-in-cheek tone, where creators have the power to literally put products in iJustine’s hand.

Karaoke - Kids can use this application as they do on Kidz Bop to sing along to their favorite songs using lyrics Overlayed in the music video and their sing along appears right inside the video itself.

In Game Video - One thing that is currently missing from in-game videos like World of Warcraft is player stats, and serious gamers always check out stats. This widget combines data and video so gamer stats are integrated with the video.

iXLd – A tool for creating free band websites which includes integration with XLSuite to provide a fan club-building platform along with the video benefits of Overlay.TV’s technology. Bands have five free design options to choose from.

Ben talked about a case study that really brought the power of these tools to life. Disney implemented a sing along feature to their Jonas Brothers site allowing fans of all ages to record their voices into the sound tracks and submit their masterpieces to be posted on the Jonas Brothers’ wall of fame.


What I found fascinating is the level of engagement that Ben described:

• 54% of the users that visited the Jonas Brothers site hit record and created content.
• 10% of those users went on to create two or more recording after the first one. Fans started to invite their friends and use the tool as a new type of video game.
• 8% of the users ended up submitting content to the Jonas Brothers site in hopes that it would be posted.

From a media efficiency standpoint, Disney’s investment was minimal as the content was re-purposed footage from a previous recording.

I think this case study is somewhat the groundbreaking because to date, advertisers have largely viewed video as a media that could be distributed online. Slap it on to YouTube, promote it through search and hope it grows wings. The Disney application of Overlay.TV tools changes the distribution content to an interactive one. The social aspect is brilliant because user generated content will significantly increase the chances that wings will grow once it hits the social grid.

(Check out this fresh British ComScore release showing Facebook's growth as a video content property from 2008 - 2009 140%!)

Ben was in Austin at the SXSW show as we were having our chat and expressed that bands were showing a keen interest in the Overlay.TV platform. It occurred to me that bands also need a form of CRM and this is a great example of the tools that might be made available to “pwomote band awareness” ;)

This and a number of other social media examples are starting to create an urgency for new media valuation models. There is no question that agencies and publishers are adapting and delivering against the possibilities offered through social media, but the value of delivery is not in line with what the advertisers are paying. We're starting to reach the point where these initiatives can no longer be sold as "tests".

More on this over the next few days...