The promise for iAds, per Steven Jobs, is to change the quality of advertising.  Currently, online ads provide an interactive brand experience, while television commercials provide an emotive experience.  The promise of iAds is to fill the white space between the two and provide an emotive, interactive experience.

A primary benefit of iAds is the lowers barrier of participation.  Since it is built into the new Apple operating system, the ads are a part of the mobile experience, therefore when someone engages with an ad, they do not lose their place.  iAds become a brand interlude within their mobile experience.

It all sounds good, except the iAd still hasn’t fixed one problem for many marketers: them.   While iAds lower the barriers of user participation in ads, the same people are making the ads.  Ads about product styling.  Ads about product features.  Ads about them.

In a recent blog (Some thoughts on creating the killer mobile app) I offered a perspective on core consumer ingredients to build successful mobile apps.  Three consumer tenants include:

• My Money, My Time:  Some people spend time to save time, others spend time to save money.  Apps that assist people in minimize time to save money will be beneficial to shoppers. 
• My Purchase: Shopping is about knowledge (not just information).   Knowledge is the synthesizing of personal needs with product information to determine the appropriate fit.  Thnik about apps combining personal information with product features to make recommendations.
• My Life: Macro digital experiences will accentuate my life (e.g. facebook, YouTube).  Most likely these ideas will be ubiquitous in a person’s life including a mobile experience. 

I would like to add another thought to this list, which is the promise of iAds: interactive entertainment.  I like the lean forward objective of interactive entertainment.  It is not passive – the promise turns the user from an “audience” to a “participant”.   Basic learning theory will tell you the more someone is engaged the more memorable the experience.

Ah, but there is a catch — entertainment is about the audience(not the marketer).  Think of successful Super Bowl ads — the most popular ones entertain the masses.  Successful mass interactive experiences follow the same formula (think Elf Yourself).  In both cases the marketer puts the person before the product.  This is not easy for many marketers who prefer to fill their commercials full of product features and benefits — they make it about them.  And to fulfill the iAd promise marketers must truly do Brandvertainment.  Not an easy chore for many.

Tommy: Let’s think about this for a sec, Ted. Why would somebody put a guarantee on a box? Hmmm, very interesting.

Ted Nelson (Customer): Go on, I’m listening.

Tommy: Here’s the way I see it, Ted. Guy puts a fancy guarantee on a box ’cause he wants you to feel all warm and toasty inside.

Ted Nelson: Yeah, makes a man feel good.

Tommy: ’Course it does. Why shouldn’t it? Ya figure you put that little box under your pillow at night, the Guarantee Fairy might come by and leave a quarter, am I right, Ted?
[chuckles until he sees that Ted is not laughing]

Ted Nelson: [impatiently] What’s your point?

Tommy: The point is, how do you know the fairy isn’t a crazy glue sniffer? “Building model airplanes” says the little fairy; well, we’re not buying it. He sneaks into your house once, that’s all it takes. The next thing you know, there’s money missing off the dresser, and your daughter’s knocked up. I seen it a hundred times.

Ted Nelson: But why do they put a guarantee on the box?

Tommy: Because they know all they sold ya was a guaranteed piece of shit. That’s all it is, isn’t it? Hey, if you want me to take a dump in a box and mark it guaranteed, I will. I got spare time. But for now, for your customer’s sake, for your daughter’s sake, ya might wanna think about buying a quality product from me. 

Ted Nelson: Okay, I’ll buy from you.

Thinking past this humorous exchange, Buy Back Guarantees are an interesting debate is:  Is a guarantee a sign of brand confidence or brand insecurity?

Can you hear me now?
Currently Sprint is offering a 30-day money-back guarantee on their cell service.  Sprint’s share is 18%  in third place behind cellular giants AT&T and Verizon.  They are currently marketing their 4G network, and they own 75% share of the 4G market. 

It seems like they have a lot going for them.  Or do they?  In the battle of the maps (A simple map versus 2,000 postcards.) AT&T and Verizon are saturating the air waves with their claim to dominance.  Verizon owns the 3G map.  AT&T owns a (2G) map, speed, and iPhone exclusivity.  Sprint is (trying) to own 4G — a better, faster network.  Even though 4G is the future, some pundits are predicting Sprint’s market share will decline by over 50% in the next five years.

So why a guarantee?  My guess is Sprint is not getting through the massive noise created by AT&T’s and Verizon’s marketing.  Also, 4G is better, but it has been difficult to relate to consumers the difference 2G, 3G, and 4G.   Mobile consumers relate to monthly payments, dropped calls, and phone functionality. 

Speed is important, but it’s like buying a 200-plus MPH Lamborghini Murcielago to drive on our interstate highways – it’s nice to have, but you can never (legally) use the speed.  Similarly, the lightweight nature of mobile content does not require a lot of bandwidth (PC wireless users would benefit more, and they are a primary target for Sprint’s 4g network).  Mobile speed may be a core need for future mobile apps, but today a 2G network is more than sufficient for most mobile users.

Will a guarantee work? If a mobile customer were to think about the guarantee, it may seem like just a big hassle.  Moving your mobile service is a little like quitting your bank or cable company — the effort required dictates a permanent move not a 30-day test period.  If you are to switch mobile providers, you will move your number, account, and switch your phone.  Not pleasant.  To reverse it after 30-days seems like double the effort.  

A guarantee appeals most to shoppers who have apprehension with their future purchase.  Sprint’s goal would be to intercept and convert people within their switching window (e.g. expired contract or desire to switch phone/service).   Given this, if a shopper is concerned about Sprint’s service or phone functionality (e.g. think about someone moving from a regular mobile phone to a smart phone), the guarantee may put Sprint on the consideration list, and could result in a purchase if all other factors are equal.

Minivan or Bust
In February, Chrysler announced a Minivan Pledge which is a 60-day, money-back guarantee.   The premise of the pledge is (from the Chrysler site):

We’re giving you 60 days to experience all 2010 Chrysler Town & Country has to offer. Simply purchase a new Chrysler minivan. Enjoy it for 60 days. If you don’t absolutely love it, we pledge to take it back. It’s that simple. Or, whether you lease or buy, you may opt for $500 cash allowance instead. So give us a try. We know you’ll like Chrysler Town & Country so much you won’t want to give it up.

Like Sprint, Chrysler has a lot going for them.  Way back when, Chrysler pretty much invented the minivan, and have consistently been the innovator in the space (e.g. floor storage bins, Swivel and Go seating).   Even innovators can come with baggage.  You can argue the brand took one hell of a hit with the bail-out, bankruptcy, and revolving carousel of owners (i.e. Daimler, U.S. Government, Fiat). 

So why a guarantee?  It is hard to discern if this is a me-too strategy (e.g. GM recently promoted a 60-day money back guarantee), or a smart marketing ploy.  I would argue it is unnecessary.  The problem with the minivan brand is it’s differentiation — it is about the unpredictability of the brand.  A more appropriate guarantee would be a reverse-Hyundai, job loss, buy back guarantee:  If Chrylser becomes insolvent, (company X) will honor our warranty, our service, our great cars.  This mayaddress shopper concerns, but hardly a recommended strategy.

Will it work for Chrysler?  From the recent ads I have seen on television, Chrysler is not over-promoting the guarantee (there is no mention of the guarantee in the ads).  Therefore I would doubt it is being actively used to motivate minivan shoppers to add the Town & Country to their consideration list.  It seems like a more subtle tactic used to keep the Town & Country on the consideration list.   If a shopper is looking for a good product and security, the guarantee may appeal to them. 

There is a subtle tactic being used in the guarantee — the ability for a shopper to opt for $500 incentive.  I am not privy to the numbers, but I would venture to guess there is less financial risk in giving a new minivan buyer $500 than taking their vehicle back after 60 days.  In this case, Chrysler’s hope is the guarantee is the attention getter, while the $500 is the preferred choice.

The apps outlined in the article were interesting.  I could see the appeal how the apps would appeal to certain shoppers.  However, I do believe there is a bigger idea out there.  Albeit not an easy idea to execute, but if successful the application could define the category. 

Before I paint a vision of what that could be, let’s first briefly review the mobile apps discussed in the article.  I grouped the mobile apps based on perceived shopper benefit: saving money, knowledge, and convenience.  Note that some apps may fit into multiple benefits.

Saving Money
Some people spend time to save money, others spend money to save time.  When a person is driven to save money, they view their time as an investment to get the best deal.  The lowest price, coupons, rebates, are priorities.  These shoppers are willing to drive out of their way to get a deal.  So it is not a question of ”if” they will drive out of their, rather it is a question of “how far” they will.

•  Yowzadelivers coupons to nearby stores based on GPS-ing the shopper’s location. 
• ShopSavvycompares store prices (through scanning the bar code) with  online and at nearby retailer pricess.  Also includes coupons and allows users to make online  transactions.
•  The Find will locate retailers, both online and offline, that carry desired products, will compare prices of the product, and even calculate the cost to drive to each store.

Shopper Knowledge
Making an informed decision is a desired benefit for many shoppers, especially on a high-consideration purchase.  Achieving this goal is not always easy.  It is not for lack of information — the internet provides an abundance of information on products, pricing, and product reviews.  No the issue isn’t information.  The issue is gathering knowledge to determine what is the right product.  What product meets the shopper’s needs.

• RetrevoQ uses texts and tweets to provide shopper with information about electronics equipment including pricing information, reviews, and whether it is a good buy.

Convenience
Sometimes it is a manner of getting in and out quickly.  For many shoppers going to a mall is an experience.  A social journey where they explore stores and take in the ambiance of the mall.  For others it is a task.  They prefer not to waste time. Get in. Get out. Or get to where their desired location as quickly as possible. 

• Fastmall provides interactive maps displaying the quickest route to stores and it can remember where their car is parked.
• GroceryIQ (now owned by Coupons.com) allows consumers to create grocery lists, organize them, access coupons and share lists with others.

By reviewing the list of apps one can see the inherent benefits of each app.  However, I do think there can be more benefit.  The true killer apps will get more personal.

Get Personal
Right now the apps listed are rather impersonal, and a bit pushy.  Pushing coupons to the phone.  Pushing prices to the phone.  Pushing reviews to the phone.  We need to be a little less pushy, and take a more empathetic view of the shopper.  Make it more about them.  Make it personal.

Mobile phones are digital wallets. Potentially, they have reams of personal data.  Mobile phones know who we know.  They carry our contacts, our social groups, our trusted advisers.  Mobile phones also know where we have been.  They can capture visually a place or the specific GPS location.  Mobile phones can learn our tolerances.  They can record how far we are willingto travel for certain items like shopping or dining.  Mobile phones can learn our time-value relationship.  By combining these factors and more we can match shopping information with our personal code will generate knowledge.  If the app can fuse  our personal information the shopper environment think of the possibilities. 

My Meals
We don’t eat ingredients, we eat meals.  We all have favorites meals. So, imagine GroceryIQ with a taste layer – finding and recommendingfood and recipes based on personal or family food genres like ethnic flairs (e.g. Thai, Italian), and then incorporatingthe recipes into your shopping list. Also, imagine a time layer – accessingyour calendar to determine how much time you have to cook and making meal recommendations (then pullingrecipes, coupons into the list).  There are sites on the web that do aspects of this today.  The challenge is combining the elements together in a seamless experience for the shopper.

My Money, My Time
Some people save pennies, some save dollars, some just spend. The variance is mostly explained by how we valuate our time.  As stated prior some people will spend time to save money, others prefer to spend money to save time.  There can be an app for both.  Apps like Shop Savvy and The Find could be fine tuned to understand a shopper who is willing to wait a week (for shipping) to save ten dollars, while another shopper may willing to spend $30 to buy the product today.  The Find is headed down this path with the ability to calculate the driving cost to each store.

 My Purchase
Many marketers (and tech people) think what people need is information.  This is a misconception.  People do not need information, the internet, publications, and retail environment offer an abundance of information.  No, what the shopper needs is knowledge.  In the case of shopping, knowledge is the synthesizing of personal needs  with product information to determine the appropriate fit. 

Think about a high-consideration purchase like an HDTV.  The mobile app can combine electronics advise from experts with your friends with your personal needs and home environment.  The goal of the app is to not push the information, rather synthesize the information by fusing the data points into knowledge.  Think of this as a three step process.

The first step would be to create a personal foundation.  The app could capture a picture(s) of where the television is to be located including room lighting, distance from viewing area, and accessibility to cable, stereo and internet/wi-fi.  The app would also ask the shopper questions like budget, primary television usage (e.g. movies, sports, gaming), and brand preference.

The second step would be to fuse this information with product data (e.g. specs, pricing, product availability) and expert reviews.  This overlay would inform the shopper about product fit with their needs, product reliability through expert reviews, and where the television can be purchased (and for how much).

The final step is to fuse it with social information.  Mobile phones are a gateway to our social network.  For important purchases, most shoppers seek advice from someone in their social circle.  Maybe the person is a tech geek or fashion savvy or just a friend whose opinion matters.  From the shopper’s perspective the social circle could provide first-hand experiences from people who either bought the product recently or knows someone who has.  Based on this first or second hand experience, the shopper would receive additional input.

It is not about My Phone, it is about My Life
Based on the last example, you get the idea of the depth and breadth of an app.  However, the complexity of the app brings up a final point: the best apps should be integrated into our life – accessible from multiple access points and not limited to just our mobile device.   Think about facebook, YouTube, or Twitter — they began as experiences to accentuate different aspects of a person’s life.  Each began by fulfilling a need.  Each has multiple touchpoints including a mobile app.

Generating an app solely for a mobile device is limiting.  While there are merits of mobile, there are also restrictions.  The more complicated the application, the more cumbersome the application usability within the limited screen realestate.  The more visual the application, the more difficult it will be to shrink it to a mobile screen without compromising visual aesthetics.  That is why the best mobile apps will transcend the device - the best apps will emanate from the shopper within the shopping experience.

Let’s face it these advertising giants are not messing around.  Per Ad Age, Verizon spends $3.7 billion to $3.1 billion for AT&T (compare this to the soda giant, Coca-Cola which only spends $752 million).  In other words, both advertisers have enough money to pummel any message into your head using many media channels at a very high exposure frequency. 

But sometimes you don’t need to see a commercial 20, 30 or 300 times.  Sometimes you just need once.  This is where the simplicity of the Verizon Map is impactful.  A consumer needs to just see them once, because the maps are  visually compelling and easy to understand.  It starkly demonstrates the difference, whether on television, in a magazine ad, or in a store front window of the corner cellular store.  So many ads today barrage consumers with a multitude of value propositions, industry jargon, and competitive claims — all within 30-seconds or a full page ad.  Simplicity rules.  It breaks through.  It is impactful (another ad in this genre is Apple’s MacBook Air ad).

AT&T’s advertising response to the Verizon Map Ads lacks the impact.  Having Luke Wilson chuck postcards around an over-sized U.S. map doesn’t seem to refute Verizon’s claims.  The fact the commercial uses postcards also may give the commercial an antiquated, out-of-date feel (seriously, when was the last time you sent a postcard). 

It seems obvious Verizon got AT&T’s attention, but are they getting the general public’s attention?  The first test will be the reaction of phone switchers in the current holiday season.  Currently AT&T’s share of the market is 29% which is three percentage points behind the market leader Verizon (per Ad Age).    New Verizon phones like the Droid combined with 3G coverage can be a compelling gift for many.

A second test will be if (or when) Apple creates an iPhone that runs on the Verizon network.  AT&T’s market share is bolstered by the iPhone, and if you are buying a 3G iPhone which service provider would you choose?  Personally, I am an iPhone and AT&T customer, and I am waiting to see if a Verizon iPhone appears in the near future.  If so, I am bolting, because of the difference in coverage.

In a way this is a bizarre twist for me.  While I am not a big fan of AT&T cell coverage (thanks to the maps), I am a big fan of U-verse, AT&T’s cable offering (conversely, not a big fan of Comcast).