Cream

News

Follow Us

Archive for July, 2012

  • Jul
  • 24

How Tablets Are Overtaking Smartphones in mCommerce

How_Tablets_Are_Overtaking_Smartphones_in_MCommerceBack in March, we revealed some rather surprising stats – mcommerce via tablets was rivalling mcommerce via smartphones despite the vastly superior penetration levels of the latter.

And the latest stats released on the impact of tablets on mobile search, mobile traffic and mobile commerce demonstrate their growing influence.

Tablets Now Account for 40% of All Retail Searches on Mobile Devices

The latest figures from the British Retail Consortium and Google Retail Monitor demonstrate that tablets – of which Apple’s iPad has by far the largest market share – are punching way above their weight in terms of their share of retail related mobile searches. Despite have only 1/7 the penetration of smartphones, they’re accounting for almost half of all retail searches on mobile devices.

And retail searches on mobile devices are increasing rapidly – up by 113% in Q2 2012 vs. Q2 2011 compared to an overall increase in retail searches on all devices (i.e. PC, laptop, smartphone and tablet) of just 9%. As a result, mobile retail searches now comprise 20% of all retail searches, compared to just 10% this time last year. 

US Marketers are Shifting Their Paid Search Budgets into Tablets

Penetration of tablet devices may be higher in the US than in the UK, but tablet adoption in the UK is only going in one direction and so US trends represent the shape of things to come.  And US marketers are moving their paid search budgets into tablets.

Devices like the iPad and the Kindle Fire were allocated 7% of search spend in Q2 2012 compared to just 5% in Q1 - a marked increase within a short time frame.

No doubt as a reflection of the extra resource allocated, the share of click throughs on tablets also increased by 33% to 8%, although click thru share still lagged smartphones at 10%.

55% of mCommerce Sales Come via the iPad

According to statistics from Affiliate Window, iPad m-commerce is now outstripping smartphone m-commerce by 55% to 45% (29% iPhone, 11% Android, 3% Blackberry and 2% Other).

Mcommerce sales represented 7% of all sales in April 2012, up from just 2% in January 2011.

In some ways these stats are hardly surprising. Despite UK penetration levels of only c8%, tablets do offer a vastly superior browsing and shopping experience to the small screen of a smartphone, particularly when researching or purchasing premium and luxury products.  And their importance is only going to grow with new models crowding the market, including Google’s Nexus Play and Microsoft’s Surface tablet. 

The challenge for marketers is not only to optimise their site for tablets – and the popularity of the Nexus Play and the possible launch of an iPad 7 inch may necessitate taking account of different screen sizes in the future too – but to re-appraise and re-balance their search budgets between PC, smartphone and iPad to ensure they’re achieving the optimum return on investment.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Tumblr
  • email
  • Print

By: Neil Cunningham

  • Jul
  • 24

3 Examples of How Luxury Brands Are Embracing ‘SoLoMo’

 ‘SoLoMo’ isn’t a new concept, but it’s one that an increasing number of luxury brands are embracing.

So what is it, precisely? Well, ‘SoLoMo’ is where social, local and mobile meet – it involves using the power of social networks to deliver local information to consumers on the go via their mobile devices.

Services such FourSquare and Gowalla were pioneers in this field – using the ‘check-in’ on a user’s mobile to fulfil a social function, locating friends and alerting them to the user’s location, and a local benefit in terms of discounts and coupons from participating retailers. 

So why is ‘SoLoMo’ attracting the attention of luxury brands? Well, firstly, affluent consumers are over-represented on social networks such as Facebook and Twitter. Secondly, affluents tend to be early adopters of technology and are more likely to have the latest GPS-enabled mobile device in their pocket. And finally, affluent consumers demand service which is above and beyond the norm. In short, they have the technology to use ‘SoLoMo’ services and the desire to use them if they help to make their lives simpler.

So which luxury brands have launched ‘SoLoMo’ services and what are they offering? We’ve picked out 3 examples of great applications below:

1. Louis Vuitton’s Amble iPhone App

Louis Vuitton is a brand which is about travel, so where better for the brand to be at its consumers’ sides than when exploring a new city.
With its ‘Amble’ app, Louise Vuitton created a means for visitors to access highly relevant, location specific information from destination insiders using their mobile phone.

In the app’s first iteration, users could follow the ‘ambles’ of global celebrities across their favourite cities to unearth insights and tips. The celebrities included Rachel Weisz, Cate Blanchet and Sofia Coppela.

3_Examples_of_How_Luxury_Brands_are_Embracing_SoLoMo

In subsequent releases, the trusted guides became ‘It Boys and Girls’ – city insiders and socialites that affluent visitors could more readily identify with – who offered their own curated tips as the user followed their ‘amble’ throughout the city.

And the social element?  Users can also access the tips of LV Friends – other users that have curated their own tips and insights – and upload their own too.

2. Mercedes “Tweet Fleet”

Money can afford the affluent many privileges, but easily finding a parking spot in a busy city isn’t one of them.

The Park Assist feature built into Mercedes cars was designed to do just this –automatically identifying an empty parking space simply by driving past it.

However, Mercedes realised that if Park Assist identified empty parking spots in busy cities, then everyone could benefit.  So the tweet fleet was born.

A special fleet of cars was created to drive the streets of Stuttgart at the height of the holiday season. Their Park Assists were modified to ‘tweet’ empty parking spots with GPS locations.  Drivers subscribed to the service would be tweeted details of empty parking spaces with a link which connected to a map to show them where that space was.

The ‘Tweet Fleet’, although primarily a promotional vehicle, generated a considerable amount of buzz for Mercedes and some valuable publicity for its in-car Park Assist feature.

3. Four Seasons – The Social Concierge

Four Seasons is a brand associated with exceptional and intuitive service, and their use of Twitter to identify and react to their customer’s needs is a prime example of this.

For example, a comment on Twitter about the poor quality of a Four Season’s Resorts music resulted in an apologetic note from the General Manager, a free bottle of wine and a listing of local radio stations. When a guest complained via Twitter that there was nothing much to watch on TV that night, the concierge pointed out the hotel’s DVD library. And when a guest tweeted about the quality of the bathroom, Four Seasons treated them to a complementary bottle of bath salts so they could fully appreciate the bathtub.

In addition, Four Seasons has embraced the social location service Gowalla to enhance its offering in California. Its Gowalla app offers guests recommendations on sites, restaurants, shopping and ‘hidden gems’ while exploring the region and allows them to earn hotel credits as too.

Although there’s little doubt that luxury brands are starting to realise the potential of ‘SoLoMo’ , fewer than 4% have grasped this particular nettle. For brands that can offer services with genuine utility for their customers, ‘SoLoMo’ offers a prime opportunity to create a point of differentiation, generate some positive buzz and position themselves as genuine innovators.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Tumblr
  • email
  • Print

By: Neil Cunningham

  • Jul
  • 24

Is Connected TV the Future of eCommerce?

There’s a battle going on in households up and down the country.  Just which device is going to become pre-eminent in  ecommerce?

Although PCs and laptops still lead the field, their position has been threatened by first the smartphone, and now the tablet – which despite relatively modest levels of penetration is punching way above its weight.

But there’s another protagonist in this conflict, and one that’s only just beginning to flex its muscles – connected TV. The problem is, the vast majority of the UK public haven’t realised its potential yet. At least, that’s the finding from Harris Interactive after their latest research into the field.

Their findings were that although more than 1 in 10 of people had connected TVs – a greater penetration level than tablets –only ½ of their respondents had actually connected it to the internet.   And although 7 in 10 of those ‘connectors’ used the online services available, only 40% used those online services on a regular basis (at least weekly). 

Is_Connected_TV_the_Future_of_eCommerceOverall, this means that something in the region of 1-2% of the British public are using the online services available via their connected TV on a frequent basis. It’s no wonder that it hasn’t crossed the radar of most marketers yet.

However, despite the widespread consumer indifference to connected TV, most respondents saw it as the future of the living room, and the near future too – 3 in 4 of those surveyed, in fact, including nearly all of those already using connected TV services.

So if most think that they’ll have a connected TV in their house sooner rather than later, what’s stopping them from doing it now? In general, most aren’t finding it a compelling enough proposition to let go of the laptop, smartphone or tablet – for now at least.

So what do connected TV manufacturers need to do to accelerate adoption of their products?

Well, part of the problem is that the eco-system of content for TVs isn’t as developed as it is for other devices.  Where are the apps for TVs?  What about the games designed to be played over a connected TV?  Laptops, tablets and smartphones offer access to a vast array of content on the web – connected TVs just aren’t there yet.

And in the same way that connected TVs are some way from being a family’s hub for accessing the internet, they’re also some way from being a hub for the family’s own content. Although catch up and on demand services are included, the TV is a long way from being integrated with other devices to download, store and showcase family photos and videos, for example.

Perhaps the market needs the attention that Apple could bring? An Apple TV has long been rumoured and Apple would not only bring something well designed to the marketplace (from an aesthetic and UI perspective) but would likely have the solutions to the barriers to adoption mentioned above.  The iPod was accompanied by iTunes, the iPhone by the app store – Apple don’t only create hardware and accompanying software but compelling content eco-systems too.

If connected TV does overcome some of its challenges, then marketers will need to sit up and take notice. Although TV catch up and on demand services like BBC iPlayer, 4OD and YouTube top the list of most popular services used by connected TV users and desired by non-users, 40% of users and 34% of non-users would use their sets to shop online. 

Suddenly, the prospect of people clicking through from ads directly to brand websites doesn’t seem too distant, and clickable video platforms become more compelling for brands.  And what a showcase for premium and luxury brands the large format of a connected TV would be?

That may be the future and if Apple enters the market, as we’ve seen with the iPhone and iPad, that future could be here sooner than we think.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Tumblr
  • email
  • Print

By: Lucy Jennings

  • Jul
  • 9

10 Reasons to Invest in a Mobile-Optimized Website

10_Reasons_to_Invest_in_a_Mobile_Optimised_WebsiteIf there’s one piece of advice we find ourselves giving more often than others at present it’s ‘make sure your website is optimized for mobile usage.’

If your site isn’t yet optimised and you’re looking for some facts to justify the investment, we’ve picked out 10 key statistics from the latest (2012) wave of Google’s Mobile Planet research into smartphone penetration and usage in the UK which will make for more than a convincing case.

1. Smartphone Penetration in the UK has Reached 51%

That compares to 29% at the end of Q1 2011 (as reported by Ofcom), so adoption is not only widespread, but it has been rapid.

2. 78% of Smartphone Owners Don’t Leave Home Without their Phone

It isn’t just a personal device, it’s the personal device.

3. 76% of Smartphone Owners Have Browsed the Internet on their Phone

Browser usage is not a minority pursuit on smartphones – 3/4 of users have done it. It’s still behind talking and texting, but ahead of app usage (67% of smartphone owners).

4. 71% Go Online At Least Twice a Day on their Smartphone

52% of smartphone owners are using their phones to access the internet 4 times a day or more.

5.  92% Expect to Spend the Same Time or More Using the Internet on their Smartphone Over the Next 12 Months

57% expect to spend the same time using the internet on their phones in the next 12 months, 35% more time and only 4% less time.

6.  52% Have ‘Searched’ Using their Smartphone after seeing an Ad on TV

And 41% have searched on their phone after seeing an ad in a magazine, 34% after seeing an ad on a poster.

7. 85% of Have Used their Phone to Look Up Information on a Local Business or Service

And 44% have gone on to visit the website of that business or service.

8. 65% Expect Mobile Websites to be as Good as PC Websites

The expectation of 2/3s of smartphone owners is that sites used on their smartphones will be as easy to access and navigate as sites they visit using their PC. If the site isn’t mobile optimised, this won’t be the case.

9. 55% Make Purchases on Their Smartphone at Least Monthly

13% make purchases at least weekly. This frequency of purchase is only going to increase.

10. 17% Have Used Their Phone to Research Products or Services In-Store.

More and more people are using their phones to enhance their in-store experience.  Not only could a poor mobile site experience be losing you sales as customer search for items you don’t have in stock, it could be the catalyst for competitors to make sales while customers are in your stores if their mobile site is superior to yours.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Tumblr
  • email
  • Print

By: Neil Cunningham

  • Jul
  • 9

Is CTR a Worthless Way of Measuring Online Advertising?

Ever since digital advertising was in its infancy, the click through rate or CTR has been a critical performance criteria.

However, in terms of online advertising at least, the first doubts about the correlation between a click and purchase intent were raised back on 2008 by comScore in their ‘How Online Advertising Works: Whither the Click?’ study.  ComScore found that a small subset of browsers, 10% in total, were responsible for 80% of clicks on online advertising. Worse still, for premium and luxury advertisers in particular, those ‘clickers’ tended to be younger and on lower incomes.

Now, a new report from comScore, in association with ‘intent targeting company’ Pretarget, tries to hammer the final nail into the coffin of the concept that CTR is in any way an accurate measure of the effectiveness of an online ad.

The study, which analysed more than 263m ad impressions over 9 months across 18 advertisers in a range of industries, measured the correlation between various ad related metrics and conversion, as defined by purchases and requests for information.

Of the 4 measures analysed – Clicks, Gross Impressions, Viewable Impressions and Hover/Interaction rate – the metric which showed the weakest correlation with conversion, and by some considerable margin, was clicks (0.01 correlation). This was followed by gross impressions (impression served, 0.17), Viewable Impressions (ads actually rendered in the viewer’s browser, above the fold – 0.35) and Hover/Interaction Rate (viewer mouse hovering over the ad, 0.49).

So if this latest study is taken a face value, the fact that an ad is served (with no proof it’s been seen) to the viewer is a better predictor of conversion than a click on that ad. Someone who hovers over an ad with their cursor is 49 times more likely to convert than someone who clicks on that ad.   Surely, click thru rate has been entirely discredited and agencies and their clients need to look at other forms of ad interaction to measure ad effectiveness?

Well, not quite, because display ad firm Criteo has just released a study that, if not wholly resurrecting CTR as a primary measurement criteria for all online ads, certainly casts an element of doubt into the debate. 

Their study looked at users exposed to Criteo retargeted ads – a sample of 147m users. This sample was split into 2 – clickers (those who had clicked on the Criteo ad) and non-clickers (those that hadn’t).  They then looked at sales that clickers and non-clickers had completed online during Q1 2012.

The study found that clickers tended to be more valuable than non-clickers – generating 1.13 online sales per 100 browsers exposed to the ad versus 0.39 for non-clickers.

Criteo_Clickers_vs_Non_Clickers_Buying_Propensity

Clearly, there are lots of holes that can be picked in this methodology.  Criteo only looked at those people who had clicked (or hadn’t clicked) on their ads, not those who click (or not) on online ads in general. The sample of clickers, given their average CTR of 0.7%, would have been much smaller than their sample of non-clickers, although still no doubt statistically relevant. And browsers weren’t tracked to their purchase of the brands Criteo was serving the ads for, just to online purchases in general.  Despite these shortcomings, it does at least suggest some correlation between people who click ads and people who have a higher propensity to purchase online.

Criteo produced 2 other pieces of evidence to back up their argument.  Firstly, clickers formed a higher percentage of their advertisers’ sites regular buyers than they did occasional buyers or non-buyers. Almost half their regular site buyers were ad clickers – given that only a fraction of people that viewed the ads would have been clickers, again this suggests a strong correlation between intention to purchase online and ad clicking.

Finally, Criteo’s study found a direct correlation between the volume of clicks and the volume of sales – those that clicked heavily also bought heavily.

Criteo_the_More_They_Click_the_More_They_Buy

So where does this leave the CTR debate? Well, firstly no-one is challenging the effectiveness of online advertising per se.  And we’ve argued for a while that CTR tells far from the whole story – ads are influencing those that see them and much of their reaction to those ads is clearly happening post click. We don’t judge offline ads purely on direct response so why should we judge online ads in the same manner?

The debate now is clearly about whether CTR has any relevance at all in determining the effectiveness of an online ad – do clicks indicate a genuine intent to purchase or are most accidental or spurious, undetaken by those who have no intention or means to purchase. 

Criteo’s study suggests that for retargeted ads, at least, it’s too early to discard it as a measure as there does seem to be a correlation between clickers and purchasers. We mustn’t forget that retargeted ads are highly targeted and relevant to the browser – being served post a visit to the advertiser’s site.  And the audience is self-selected too.  If there is to be a correlation between clicks and purchase, these are the ads to deliver it.

However, for other forms of online advertising, CTR would seem to be measuring the tip of the iceberg at best, and sending misleading signals at worst.  In these cases, CTR needs to be complemented by other forms of measurement such as ad hover/dwell rate and/or ad dwell time to give advertisers a more accurate measurement of the effectiveness of their campaigns.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Tumblr
  • email
  • Print

By: Carla Burgess