Rdio launched in the US a full year before Spotify, so naturally when Spotify with all it’s marketing dollars and buzz plopped in from overseas I was a bit skeptical. Sure enough, the service wasn’t bad, in fact it was pretty good… but not nearly as good as Rdio. You see, Rdio wasn’t just a music streaming application, it was like my personal music concierge service. It curated music for me based on what my friends and trusted sources were listening to, and delivered it in an easy to use interface. I was swooning from day one. I’d watch in my newsfeed as friends would appear, listening to their music using the popular Spotify service and like a Mac user watching someone on a PC, I’d think… “Why are you using Spotify? Rdio does the same thing…. just so much better.”

Then… last week happened. Spotify Apps.

Spotify Apps came in and shattered my world. Akin to when my parents told me I was Jewish and Santa was never coming again, everything I thought I knew was out the window. You see, Spotify Apps with its wildly open API, allows all the trusted music sources you’ve relied on for the past 5-10 years to curate customized music experiences; essentially building their own little music apps on the back of Spotify’s library and music deliver system.

Spotify is to the music-blogosphere, as steroids are to Barry Bonds career (umm… allegedly), making something good into something great.  Spotify has essentially empowered your favorite sources for music discovery (blogs, magazines etc.) to become a true access point for music consumption.

Reading Pitchfork? Like that song, album? Add it to your favorites. Now you have it on your computer and phone. Spotify Apps have made themselves a blog’s best wingman. You’re going home with that record tonight, because quite frankly… it’s just so easy.

Dear Rdio,

I love you and I know we haven’t been spending that much time together… but there’s someone else….  I’m sorry.

In a January (2010) blog post I attributed platform loyalty to more than just user interface and network availability. Additionally, I stated that a consumer’s investment in applications – many of which do not operate cross platform – would play an important factor:

“Every app purchased on a mobile device represents a small investment by a mobile user in their respective mobile ecosystem.”

Today, Apple far outpaces Google in terms of dollars generated through app purchases. As we’ve learned from Microsoft, there is big money in software. In a staggering figure, Apple accounts for roughly 85-90% of all dollars spent on mobile applications.

These numbers are alarming when one considers that Apple accounts for only 5% of global market share for mobile devices. This is a massive problem for Google, and the longer it goes unchallenged the bigger the problem will become.

The study released by GfK regarding platform loyalty further illustrates the dangers posed by Apple to its competitors. Apple’s 80% retention rate can easily be tied to several factors beyond investments made into the App Store. The study underscores that unseating current Apple users is an uphill, if not futile effort. Imagine how this will translate to tablet market where the iPad enjoys a 75% market share.

Fortunately, the smartphone market is anything but mature with a global penetration rate of 27%. There is still plenty of room for platform growth in the tablet market. The mobile market, whether it be a smartphone or a tablet, represents the future of computing. In two years we’ve seen companies who’ve pioneered and ruled the marketplace diminish in influence, and dance with death (RIM, HTC, Nokia, Motorola etc.).

Microsoft dominated in the 80’s and 90’s and what we are seeing now is a battle for the new king of computing. With no apparent heir, what’s becoming apparent is that a cohesive, cross-device platform will rule the land. With a king yet to be crowned, iPhone loyalty, iPad market dominance, App Store dollar spend and the introduction of iCloud, seem to be positioning Apple as the frontrunner for succession.

First-Ever Browser-Based HTML5 ad for iPad
Wins MOBI and OMMA Awards

New York – Sept. 27, 2011 – Glow Interactive (www.glowinteractive.com), a leading New York-based interactive marketing, advertising and creative agency, today announced that the first-ever browser-based HTML5 “gamified” ad for the iPad, developed by Glow Interactive for USA Network’s show, WHITE COLLAR, and ran on The New York Times’ HTML5 web page in January in conjunction with the show’s seasonal debut, has been recognized by two distinguished industry awards in less than a week’s time.

Last week, Glow Interactive was the recipient of the 2011 MOBI Award (produced by Digiday and presented at The MOBI Awards Gala on September 21) for the “Best iPad/Tablet Advertising Campaign” for the interactive, rich media mobile advertisement for USA Network’s WHITE COLLAR. Then last night at the OMMA Awards 2011 Ceremony, Glow Interactive was presented as the winner for online advertising creativity in the “Rich Media: Single Execution” category for that same ad execution. The OMMA Awards for Online Advertising Creativity “honor those advertisers that push the potential of online advertising creative.”

“We are so proud of the Glow team and every member involved in creating this ad,” said Mike Molnar, managing partner of Glow Interactive. “This ad and the work put into it is a great testament to what innovative and creative advertising can really do to stretch the boundaries on the latest platforms and take engagement to a whole different level.”

The interactive, rich media advertisement was developed for USA Network’s show, WHITE COLLAR, with two main objectives: 1) raise brand awareness and 2) engage viewers to interact with the in-page game to unlock exclusive content of the show. The results of the campaign proved these objectives successful and served as a first-ever industry catalyst to prove a truly interactive “touch and experience” model designed to encourage engagement through a casual game format can work better than the traditional formats. The campaign boasted a total interaction rate of 6.22%, with nearly 36% of total viewers who watched the videos to completion in one day.

For more information about the campaign’s details, including creative credits, objective, strategy and results, Glow Interactive’s MOBI Award submission can be viewed here: http://www.dm2pro.com/articles/20110825_10. The project can also be viewed at http://www.glowinteractive.com/project/usa_network_white_collar_html5_ad.

Press Contact:
Jamie Larson
Intersect Communications for Glow Interactive
PH: 512-296-9611
jamie@intersectcom.com

RIM was successful because it introduced a product that did precisely what its intended audience needed, corporate email and did it well. What happened along the way were a few innovative gems (Blackberry Messenger) an expanded market place (both in customers and competition) and several learnings that other companies would extract to later bleed RIM out.

RIM, seemingly missed these learnings, ignored them or lost focus. When a company continues to turn a profit (in spite of itself), resting on past laurels can blind leaders to changing tides and the subsequent wave(s) that will inevitably wash away those successes.

On Apple’s Q4 earnings call back in October (’10), Steve Jobs said of RIM:

“They must move beyond their area of strength and comfort, into the unfamiliar territory of trying to become a software platform company.”

Ignoring what was incredibly valuable advice, RIM continued to produce Blackberry devices that remained relatively unchanged from one device to next. When faced with innovative devices from competitors they’d focus on their market share rather than their product. Now that their market share has eroded they’ve focused on their positive balance sheets, dismissing what seems to be obvious to everyone else.

Though there are obvious lessons to be learned in what has become RIM’s slow demise, I think there is a slightly less obvious lesson. Your secondary services can offer great opportunity. But companies must create environments that encourage this type of exploration and broad based thinking.

The Blackberry Messenger Application had a value seemingly unmatched in loyalty. The application was able to anchor so many to an outdated device for so long. This only emphasized its value to users.

Herein lies the missed opportunity to innovate and expand. BBM could have become an ancillary business opportunity yet it went unexplored. Rather than innovate, Blackberry chose to hold customers dissatisfied with the majority of the devices’ function for the small part they loved. If BBM was this powerful its presence on multiple devices could have laid the ground for a new business opportunity on foreign land.

Missed opportunities like this are the result of a work environment that doesn’t encourage exploration, innovation and new ideas. Could BBM have become the next Twitter? Groupon? FourSquare? It’s possible but that ship sailed when iMessenger was announced.

Soon after writing this post an open letter by a senior level executive (who probably should be tapped to be RIM’s CEO) highlighted additional areas of anti-innovation and disorder that have contributed to the organization’s downturn.

The most detrimental of these appears to be fear. Fear has its place, but an organization threaded with fear will produce very little in the way of new ideas. Failure is always an option; companies should fail several times over. Just keep these failures behind closed doors and out of the hands of your customers.

When Apple announced that they would be exclusively creating iAds for clients, most industry insiders were skeptical. Turns out they were right, as the result has been delayed ads, delayed campaign rollouts and a slew of dissatisfied customers.

Since this topic seems to be a ‘We told you so” moment, we as an industry should focus on alternative means to delivering a powerful advertising and brand experience through new mobile devices. There is another way advertisers can get quality, rich-media advertising compatible with all popular devices (including iPhones, iPads, Androids and tablets), without Flash and without Apple.

The answer is simple, and yet many have overlooked it as a powerful vehicle for delivering advertisements: the browser. The fact that Apple’s mobile Safari browser has dominated the market should make us all see the magnitude of what this approach could mean billions of impressions, without having to download an app.

Blasphemy, I know, but I’m saying it’s possible to distribute great content outside the world of apps and plug-ins. With that being said, the alternative and logical next step in mobile advertising is to build HTML5 advertisements to run in-browser, not within apps. We’ve seen and heard about the HTML5 video alternative to Flash, but this article is more about how HTML5 will affect advertising and rich-media.

Just like any technology option, the pros and cons of the technology need to be considered when deciding on what to deploy based on the target device, intended audience and environment. At Glow Interactive, we consider ourselves technologists with a creative bent, so we like to embrace all the latest and greatest options and see what we can do with them.

Given our experience in working with HTML5 and other technologies, these are what we at Glow see as the main pros and cons of HTML5:

Pros:

• The technology is built off existing web development standards that have been around for a long time ultimately shortening the time-to-market and need to learn new technology
• An isolated and controlled browser and operating system (OS) environment drastically reduces quality assurance (QA) time and development
• HTML5 offers an alternative to static ads left behind because a user doesn’t have Flash, and with Apple’s devices cant acquire it
• The rich-media ads are cheaper to develop than iAds and don’t require Apple’s involvement or approval process, which could mean the difference to a brand being first or following its competitors
• Fluid, Flash-like experiences can be achieved with ease

Cons:

• Ads would be less immersive, as in-app ads command attention as they are user-initiated with “a lean-forward” approach to consumer advertising
• In-browser ads can be easily overlooked if consumers don’t know what to be looking for
• Purchasing power seamlessly integrated within the advertisement isn’t possible in this configuration
• Although HTML5 is gaining momentum, not all ad-serving platforms and publishers support the delivery of these types of ads (yet)

As mentioned earlier, we developed this list of pros and cons to be fair and open about the possibilities on the table. In order to experience an advertisement built in this environment, just fire up your mobile Safari browser and point it to this advertisement.

This advertisement is a prime example of a rich HTML5 experience replete with videos, animation and content. It takes advantage of touch gestures by allowing users to spin the navigation with their finger, and it functions very much like a Flash banner that you would normally see in a desktop browser. No more static alt-images left behind in an environment that is worthy of attention!

The unit created for the television network Syfy ran exclusively on The New York Times in conjunction with the premiere of Syfy’s smash hit Warehouse 13, the most watched series in channel history was served up by EyeWonder and developed by Glow Interactive.

So the next time you are considering rich mobile advertising, consider an HTML5 banner. We think it provides a solid alternative experience and you won’t be waiting around, watching competitors beat you to the punch.

“If your app uses location-based information primarily to enable mobile advertisers to deliver targeted ads based on a user’s location, your app will be returned to you by the App Store Review Team for modification before it can be posted to the App Store.”

Why does this suck? Because it doesn’t allow developers or advertisers to deliver relevant ads to users depending on where they are. There is a caveat however. If your app is a location-based app, it’s OK to serve geo-targeted ads. If your app is a game, rejected. Apple claims that this is to protect the user experience but really, how would serving location-based ads in a game comprise the user experience?

The real reason, as most see it, is to leverage their recent purchase of the Quattro ad network which will most likely be integrated into the iPhone development SDK.

Here we are just a week past the release of the Google Phone and akin to the iPhone, it is one impressive piece of machinery.

But just like Apple’s iPhone, we need more than good machinery and Google exited the gate with shiny new shoes, high expectations and forgot to tie their laces tripping and falling flat on its face.

Let’s consider the environment Google was entering. The iPhone, a device launched in 2007 and largely unaltered since its inception continued to dominate as the gold standard for a mobile device. In 3 years when one considers how quickly technology develops and the sheer investment (hundreds of million of dollars) by companies like RIM, Nokia, Motorola and HTC, to develop the “iPhone Killer,” the fact that no phone has come remotely close to dethroning the iPhone is laughable.

The king of all phones however was tied to the peasant of all carriers (AT&T). The truth was that even the best phone was not enough to sway a majority market share to AT&T. People still value network quality over phone functionality.

With this void in the mobile market there appeared to be a shimmering light. Google, a company whose own innovations have enhanced and touched the online experience of nearly every Internet user, was ready to throw its hat into the ring, not just as a software developer but also as a manufacturer/retailer.

Google? Selling their own phones? This will change everything. Right?

At first, things appeared bright. Recent leaks of the “Nexus One” showed a phone with incredible hardware and a great deal of potential. Would the Nexus One “kill” the iPhone? No. But we don’t want an iPhone killer, we want a market mover, a close 2^nd…anything that doesn’t appear to be developed by someone living under a rock. And this phone seemed to heed that call.

The next big part of this puzzle would the carriers. Would the prayers of Verizon customers be answered? Would Verizon iPhone envy be cured? Kinda. Sorta. Not really… but soon.

T-Mobile was announced to be the first true carrier of the Nexus One with the ability for AT&T users to join in on the fun and a soft availability date for Verizon in the spring (’10).

The final part of this equation would be cost. It was presented that the Nexus One would cost $179 for users with a contract and $529 for an unlocked unchained non-contract phone. Not bad Google.  You even gave us a website to buy the phone. Quick and easy.  Right?

Wait did I say quick and easy? You see I made the same mistake with Google that I made with Apple. I assumed that these innovative companies were vaccinated or immune from the stupid-virus that plagues most cell phone carriers.

Check out what we missed:

1)     If you’re an existing, loyal, returning customer of T-Mobile and ready to sign another new contract they show their appreciate for your returning business by charging you $379 as opposed to $179.

Let’s consider the implications for just a moment. Existing customers, people patient enough to continue using the 2^nd WORST carrier in nation, the small few who have managed to accept the idea that their cell phone service will be crap are being shut out from buying the Nexus One by inexplicitly charging $379. These are supposed to be the easy sales! WTF??

2)     The next revelation is the early termination fee. I’m sorry, early termination fees. Both Tmobile and Google get a slice of your wallet should you realize this whole experiment was a horrible decision… and wait they take the phone back too.

1. Tmobile:   $200

2. Google:  $350

I have nothing more to say on this matter. Those numbers speak for themselves and that is unacceptable.

It is no wonder the Nexus One only sold 250,000 units in its first week. And it’s sad. This is a fantastic device and Google is a great company. But the steps taken in the launch of this device display the arrogance and disconnect mobile providers and manufactures have with their customers.

Google has a hefty hill to climb as the divide between the Apple ecosystem and Google ecosystem draws ever deeper. Simple pricing, broad carrier coverage and low risk trials would have permitted Google to make significant strides in a battle for customers for its mobile camp.

Every app purchased on a mobile device represents a small investment by a mobile user in their respective mobile ecosystem whether it Blackberry, Android or Apple. Google is late to the party and new to the industry.

If Google plans to challenge Apple in a meaningful way (especially when both phone developers find themselves on the same carrier) it will need to demonstrate as much thought to its mobile services as it has to its other businesses. Fortunately for Google, they are… well Google. And they get more than one shot.

I expect that we will see big changes from both Apple and Google in Spring 2010.