Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Smartphones’

Transparency; reliability; trust: These key terms are rehearsed and highlighted many times in textbooks and business books, academic and trade articles about managing customer relationships. Holding up to them is based, for example, on being honest, truthful and fair when making product or service offers to customers and in any other dealings between a company and its customers. However, those concepts that are good in managerial and marketing theory are too often lost when it comes to practice.

In addition, experts, technology consultants and other advocates of digital marketing are praising the capacity gained by companies to know so much about the behaviour and personal characteristics of their customers. One of the great benefits of this customer knowledge is in enabling companies to construct offers that will closely fit the needs, preferences and consumption or usage habits of their customers. Again, a gap emerges between what companies are supposedly capable to do with digital technologies available to them, including information and tools, and what they actually do. More accurately,  oftentimes companies are not doing enough in utilising those technologies to the intended purpose of creating better fitting offerings and messages.

The present post is based on a true story of a troubling journey to acquire an iPhone from a mobile telecom service provider (it will be called here ‘WM’). But this post is not just about the case of a particular company. Similar forms of problematic conduct are likely to be encountered at competing mobile service providers as well as other telecom service companies such as TV (cable and satellite), telephony (voice and data) and Internet providers. Moreover, at least some of these types of flawed conduct will be familiar to the reader from interaction with service providers in other domains (e.g., banking and finance, credit cards, insurance, healthcare, travel and tourism). In essence, this conduct refers most typically to providers of contractual services, and particularly when services extend over months and years.

An upgrade of a customer’s mobile phone is often accompanied by a modification of his or her service package; it is justified especially when a large generation gap exists between the previous and the new model. Two-part and three-part tariff schemes have been common in mobile communication for many years, splitting the price of service between fixed and variable components. Usage possibilities and patterns have changed, however, with smartphones, pertaining in particular to the online flow of data and the use of mobile applications (‘apps’). Service packages more frequently combine bundles of included (‘pre-paid’) units — minutes (voice), messages (SMS), and data MBs/GBs (mobile websites and apps); the weight of variable cost (i.e., based on price per unit), drops vis-à-vis a fixed cost component.

Subscribed customers are encouraged to pre-commit to ever larger bundles or unit quotas, some of them could constantly be left unspent each month. At least in one category it is sensible for mobile service providers to ‘give away’ a large quantity of messages amid the expanded messaging by customers via free chatting apps (e.g., WhatsApp, Facebook’s Messenger). The marginal cost per unit of any kind could be much lower now for the mobile network companies to make it economic for them to offer larger bundles, and thus attract customers to their ‘great value’ plans (i.e., the customer gets lots of ‘free’ units). Albeit, if customers do not utilise large enough portions of their quotas, they could end up paying for units they never get to benefit from.

A service plan was offered with the new phone purchased, including 10GBs of data, 5000 minutes and 5000 messages per month. This volume signalled a dramatic increase from my previous consumption levels. No doubt the new smartphone could support a huge data volume not possible with the previous semi-smartphone model, but also a volume hard to imagine how it may be used. Nor was it perceivable how to use anything near 5000 SMS. That is the magic of large numbers — they can be fascinating and captivating, yet meaningless at least in a short to medium term. The sales representative at the store and service centre of WM promised that it will save up to 45% of my bill so far. With the service package I get also ‘marvellous high-fidelity’ wireless-Bluetooth earphones, supposedly as a bonus or gift. No other plan was suggested. The relation of the earphones to the discount was not explained. Protesting that I do not really need those earphones did not help. It was awkward, but then it seemed that the enlarged traffic volume, that one might learn how to take advantage of, with a reduction in monthly cost could be worth it. The value of the earphones was negligible to me (but apparently not to WM). That is probably where System 1 got the hold of me. When not feeling on solid ground, swapped with documentation, and distracted, one may fail to pose difficult, intelligent questions;  System 2 remains dormant or blocked. It was a combination of desire to believe the offer is good for me, and to trust the company that it will treat me fairly.

The secret behind the earphones was revealed in the next monthly bill. If paid in cash, their price was about $150 vis-à-vis $900 for the iPhone. I agreed to pay for the iPhone in 12 credit installments (adding  5% in cost). However, the additional and unexpected payment for the earphones was set to be spread over 36 months (+65%! added to price in cash). The discount on service was for 12 months. The payments for the earphones would “eat” much of the discount during the first year. Furthermore, they will drag for another 24 months while the cost of service package returns to its previous level, though of course with a much greater usage allowance. Lesson: Beware of ‘free gifts’ and make sure to get all the details (see more in the section below on contracts).

This has brought me promptly back to the service centre — the staff refused to take their earphones back and gave me another nice demonstration of their performance. However, with the help of a kind supervisor we agreed that payments for both iPhone and earphones will be changed to 6 instalments with no interest (see more in the section on execution).

The Bluetooth earphones may well be a good product and the representatives were right to offer it, but it is wrong to impose the earphones as a ‘bonus’ or incentive if the customer is not interested and declines the offer. Furthermore, at least one other package option should have been recommended that would be more aligned with previous usage in recent months. A smart system should know how to use past behaviour of the customer as a benchmark and propose a reasonable expansion of usage levels of minutes, messages and data. First, it would make the customer feel that the company knows him or her (e.g., needs and usage patterns) and is trying in accordance to provide the most suitable personalised solutions. Second, when the quota of units posits a sensible ‘ceiling’ to the customer it may serve as a goal or an aspiration level to gradually increase his or her usage towards it, and then upgrade the service plan. Otherwise, the customer may be just lost, having no appreciative reference for scaling one’s personal usage levels (perhaps that is the objective, to let customers with less self-control carry away, but that is beyond the scope of this story).

Signing contracts to purchase products or receive services is frequently a sensitive matter and a host of potential pain points. This happens because customers usually cannot fully or even adequately read the contract and comprehend it at the time of transaction, and they are not sufficiently encouraged to spend the time reading and asking questions. The contract for my smartphone included, for example, the terms of payment, basic support, terms of usage,  liability and warranty, etc.. On each desk at the store and service centre of WM stands a tablet in portrait position. Regularly, it displays ads for services and products. However, WM saves on paperwork and employs the screen also to display contracts that can be signed digitally (later sent by e-mail). Reading the contract from the screen is not very convenient and the customer also cannot control the display to the pace of his or her reading. One is quickly brought to the place for signing. The contract for the earphones was separate in origin from the iPhone’s (later corrected); when the representative came to it, he jumped to the signature position which incidentally fell at the top of the screen. When asked to see what comes before, he said this is simply to confirm that I accept the earphones. At that point I wanted to trust him and WM. This turned out to be a mistake. Lesson: Never agree to sign a contract on a screen without seeing the previous screen pages (as you should not do when signing a paper contract). The tablet screen may appear informal and friendly but the contract is binding.

  • In fact, by returning to the issue of service plans, the tablet already on the desk can be used cleverly for displaying service options to a customer while taking into account his or her personal usage patterns. That is, the company can show the customer what would be the cost implication of a proposed service plan given current usage levels, and how it may change if usage levels increase by X%.

On top of all, bad execution of proceedings can temper even actions taken in good faith. It may happen as a result of neglect, lacking proficiency by the staff (e.g., how to use the computer system), or flaws in computer software (e.g., poor execution of instructions). Here are two examples — no attempt is made to guess what has caused them:

As told above, the payment arrangement was changed with special managerial consent to six instalments with no interest, as an option in the contract allows, for both the iPhone and earphones. Unfortunately, a notice from the bank as well as the credit card monthly bill soon revealed that the whole amount was charged in a single payment. The trap is apparently in the phrasing of the contract (translated): “The sum of $$$ that will be charged in one payment (or up to six payments to the choice of the customer at the time of acquisition)”. The phrase ambiguously does not specify in how many (equal) payments, up to six, that (cash) price will be charged. This ambiguity has led to practically ignoring the content in parentheses and what was agreed accordingly. It is noted that a statement on an option of payment in instalments with interest explicitly indicates the number of payments and amount of each one. The phrasing of the first statement must similarly be fixed for that option to have any validity.

In the second case, the company left in place a monthly charge (~$6) for a quota of 70 SMS from my previous service package. Obviously, this number is negligible relative to the new allowance of 5000 SMS a month in the new service plan with the iPhone. They should have automatically removed this obsolete component together with other components from the older plan. The customer service representative at the call centre argued that I should have asked it to be cancelled. That is, instead of apologising for an honest mistake, and possibly reimbursing me for the past month, she made it look as if I may have wanted a non-significant addition of 70 SMS to 5000 SMS (>70:1 ratio). That was already infuriating because it made no sense at all. Lesson: Always check your bills carefully.

The customer journey to purchase an iPhone evolved into a kind of chain of pitfalls, acts of malpractice, and errors of unknown source or cause. It must be emphasised that the troubles are concerned with the envelope of services that enable using the iPhone and not the device itself. It is a story of failure of sales and service representatives to listen, a tendency to repeat answers regardless of the customer’s response (i.e., lack of sensitivity or rigidity forced from above), and possibly a skill problem in retrieving information and instructing their computer systems correctly. Where supervisors or managers do try to fix things, organisational and technological pitfalls may stand in their way. Nonetheless, the more disturbing moments of the experience surface when a customer feels an attempt to manipulate has been made (e.g., by diverting attention or hiding information). Being manipulated generally feels uneasy, because among other things it infringes on a consumer’s autonomy to make a decision in one’s own good, but it is all the more damaging when done just to serve the manipulator’s interest (e.g., make a sale)[*].

Companies and customers alike can help in minimising negative encounters that can spoil customer journeys. Consumers can be more vigilant, pay more attention to details, and ask questions when offers do not sound or look right. Yet in the real world consumers cannot avoid being off guard, erring in judgement, or being complacent — much of the time humans are driven by the intuitive and instinctive System 1 mode of thinking. Companies can make greater effort to ensure customers have the relevant information and comprehend it; be attentive to what customers ask or argue; and overall show respect to customers and refrain from egregiously exploiting their cognitive vulnerabilities — perhaps naïve, but not illegitimate to expect.

Ron Ventura, Ph.D. (Marketing)

 

[*] Further reading: “Fifty Shades of Manipulation”; Cass R. Sunstein , 2016; Journal of Marketing Behavior, 1 (3-4), pp. 213-244.

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

Touch-screens are becoming the norm of display and interaction on mobile devices, from smartphones to tablets — devices with screen sizes in the range of 4” to 10”. Maximal area of the device’s face is dedicated to the screen, leaving a thin surrounding frame with enough space primarily for the physical ‘On’ button (e.g., awakening the screen, returning to the ‘Home’ display). Most controls for operating a smartphone or tablet and their applications are now virtual, represented as visual icons, symbols and keystrokes on the screen. Users can interact with the device (even for dialing a phone number) by pointing, swiping and similar hand (finger) gestures applied to the screen’s display. It all sounds and feels great, and mostly functions alright, but not all is bright — there is still much room for improvement and better fine-tuning.

The focal devices of this article are smartphones with screens normally between 4” and 5.4” and tablets that carry mostly screens in size of 7” to 10” (extra-size smartphones, also-known-as ‘phablets’, embody a screen larger than 5.4”). They essentially enlarge the real-estate of the screen by doing away with physical controls on the device (buttons and keypads). Operation of the device and interaction with its applications is delegated almost wholly to the touch of virtual controls and other finger-gestures.

This new form of handheld computer-type devices provides a highly advanced class of viewing verbal and pictorial content and interacting with them through manual gestures. Touch-screens were available already in the turn of the century with Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs). The touch-screens of smartphones and tablets are yet empowered in several important aspects: (1) they can be operated with the touch of fingers without need for a pen or stylus; (2) the screens are larger; and (3) the images are in much higher quality. The differences do not end here, if only to mention the communication abilities of the more recent mobile devices. Smartphones in particular can be said to converge a phone and a PDA in a single device, but with some additional capabilities that neither mobile phones nor PDAs have had in earlier times.

The first critical problem to address with touch-screen mobile devices concerns writing. A user is likely to encounter difficulties frequently when writing text with a virtual keyboard — it is rather easy to miss target character keystrokes. The difficulty is not simply in typing text but in getting the words spelled correctly, and overall avoiding character typing errors. The difficulty to produce a text without errors is likely to turn out more acute and agitating with smartphones and the smaller tablets (i.e., 7-8”). It may also cause users to leave spaces in the wrong places, and inversely to concatenate words. Correcting errors can be furthermore annoying when the user cannot find the direction arrows or point his or her finger to stand at the right position of correction; going backspace is not useful if one already moved to another line when the earlier error is noticed or any other correction of text is demanded.

Mobile devices foster writing correspondence texts (e.g., e-mails, chatting, social media updates and comments) even faster than with other modes, specially when users are in motion.  People tend to write correspondence as such more quickly and haphazardly, taking less care to avoid mistakes, and textproofing before sending is usually not in high priority or time-affordable. The result is that producing a well-thought and error-free text message on a touch-screen with a virtual keyboard may be an irritating mission (e.g., either abort message or send it with some errors).

  • Writing alphanumeric text with a 12-key physical pad is hardly convenient, and is usually time-consuming. In that sense QWERTY-type keyboards, physical or virtual, are better. There is yet an important difference to notice: The keys on a physical keyboard (e.g.,  Nokia E5 that followed on the original Blackberry phones) can be quite small but they feel like separated bumpers (i.e., giving the user a tactile feedback where the finger rests) whereas a virtual keyboard is completely flat and smooth. The cost of the physical keyboard is of course the smaller screen.

Mistyping is mostly associated with failure to accurately ‘hit’ the intended character keystroke with one’s index finger, and often enough with the thumb (e.g., when in motion and only one hand is free to hold the device and write). That is because virtual character keys tend to be too small for our fingers used for texting (less so on 10” tablet screens). The kind of errors that may result are typing the wrong character, typing the same character inadvertently twice, or  not typing the designated character. Apparently, failing to execute selected actions also occurs with images, such as when having to press virtual buttons or activating icon and text hyperlinks. These controls could be related to the device and its utilities or embedded in websites and imported apps. These issues are well-explained by Steven Hoober in an article in UXMatters (“Common Misconceptions About Touch”, 18 March 2013). Hoober makes an important distinction between seeing clearly text and icon targets and touching them effectively, and he recommends target sizes for them (in measures of points and millimeters).

Hoober refers to an additional sensitive and critical consideration in preventing users from taking accidentally the wrong action: he calls this ‘preventing interference errors’. He clearly suggests to avoid placing controls for actions with opposite consequences too near each other lest trying to touch-press one control could result in adversely activating the other unwanted control. This applies especially to actions associated with catastrophic results or outcomes that are difficult to undo. For instance, he recommends separating sufficiently the locations of controls for Send and Delete actions (Hoober recommends a distance of at least 8mms and preferably 10mms between centres of the controls [the target point of finger contact]).

Touch-screen devices benefit indeed from a larger screen real-estate for image display. But there is nonetheless competition on that real-estate for the content of display, and competition can be quite tough especially on devices with screens smaller than 7” in size. The competition is prominently between images of controls and the content of device utilities, webpages and apps. It applies primarily to the interface of a virtual keyboard that requires a relatively large space (in some cases up to 50% of screen area). However, there could be other controls needed for operating the device and specific utilities, websites or apps (e.g., designers may have to give up on some pictorial imagery in order to allow enough space for action controls like “Add to Basket”).

Focusing on the virtual keyboard: when called-upon to write, it pops-up and hides  other content of the display (e.g., e-mail message, shopping webpage) in the lower part of the screen. It may hide content that the user actually needs to see while proceeding in composing a message or responding to content in a website. The smaller the screen, on one hand a larger part of the underlying display is hidden, on the other hand the keystrokes have to be smaller. Unlike with a physical keyboard, the virtual one can at least be dropped out when not in use and called again when needed for writing. But it can be disturbing if every few moments one has to drop out the keyboard and surface it again to resume writing. With larger screens there should still be enough space for text in the e-mail message editor that one can scroll; with screens 7” or less one may be able to see only up to four lines at a time and even that in small type difficult to read (changing zoom may help but also cause trouble — more below).

Virtual keyboards on mobile devices are split into two or three displays due to space limitations (e.g., Latin letters as for English or German [but with some order variations], numeric figures and symbols, and an extra keyboard for non-Latin alphabets as Hebrew, Arabic, Cyrillic). But in any particular set of keyboard display, some character keys or controls may have to be forsaken for space limitations. As suggested above, it is most annoying when the direction arrows are eliminated (e.g., on a Samsung 7” tablet) because it makes it more difficult to go back and forth across a text while composing and editing it.

Relying on gestures can save space for screen real-estate and help in making interactions fluid and efficient, but working with a touch-screen has limitations. Raluca Budiu of Nielsen & Norman Group (user experience research and usability experts, 19 April 2015) lists some of the main problems that may arise for users: (1) The leading problem concerns typing, and particularly the need to continuously divide attention between the content written and the keypad area; (2) Poor tactile feedback, small keypads and crowded keys make the typing experience more troublesome; (3) The target size of controls or keys has to be considerably larger with touch interface to optimize reaching time and minimise errors compared with a mouse; (4) Since there can be many target areas on a touch-screen (especially of smartphones), it is easy to make accidental touch errors (see Hoober’s ‘interference error’) — some errors can “leave the user disoriented and unsure of what happened”. Budiu notes that respecting the Undo usability heuristic is furthermore important with mobile devices.

References to those main problems could be found in the earlier paragraphs of this article. Two more issues are addressed below:

Scrolling over a touch-screen — Mobile devices do not apply a scrolling bar — the user can scroll by swiping the index finger in a swoosh movement up or down over the touch-screen. The smaller the screen, and if one is in a landscape mode, more scrolling may be needed (shifting left and right is also possible). Trouble may start when the window display is populated by ‘clickable’ tiles or pictures: if the user does not swipe the finger quickly and lightly enough over the image, he or she may activate the underlying link rather than scroll across the window. When that happens, the user may arrive to a different window display, and one has to find the way back. More disturbing, when the content is online and connectivity can be slow on occasion, the user may remain stuck for a long time before being able to return to the desired location of content and resume work.

Zooming and automatic change of size —  Since type on touch-screens of mobile devices can be small and uneasy to read, one can zoom-in to enlarge the display appearance and the text in it. This is usually done by swiping the index and thumb fingers away from each other over the screen (conversely, one can zoom-out to reduce size but see more content by bringing the fingers closer together). But caution: one has to be accurate, and this does not always work so well. One may accidentally “blow” a picture image over the whole screen, for instance. When writing an e-mail message zooming can be helpful as one toggles between writing and reading the composed text. Yet, these devices are smart and sometimes they try to adjust the size for you according to the identified mode of use; sometimes it is appropriate but on occasion it causes trouble and nuisance. In more drastic cases, whilst trying to enlarge the type on a webpage, the system may lock in a loop and continue zooming-in until the user can see nothing coherent and has to start over again.

  • Note that the scrolling and size problems were encountered much more frequently on a Samsung tablet, either 7” or 10”, than on an Apple’s 10” iPad .

People may discover at times that although they were sure they could see exactly where their hand should reach and act, it somehow missed the target. That may happen because perception augmented by cognitive conception and processes of location and action are not the same in the human brain. These processes are connected (i.e., they share and pass information between them) but are nonetheless distinct. Visual information flows and is processed in two pathways: (a) perceptual but non-conceptual information is passed through the ventral stream to the temporal lobe where percepts are interpreted into meaningful images of scenes and objects; (b) visuospatial (location) and visuomotor (action) signals are transferred through the dorsal stream to the parietal lobe to guide, for instance, our manual movements. The ventral-temporal (semantic) visual system allows to identify a target for action yet the dorsal-parietal (pragmatic) visual system is responsible in parallel for determining where the target is and how to act upon it. Furthermore, action requires only a subset of information from percepts, including size, shape and orientation of a target object to complete a task, much less than what we perceive and even recognize as seeing. The conceptual identity of the target is mostly not required.

Jacob and Jeannerod (2003), distinguishing between Semantic and Pragmatic vision as cited above, argue that pragmatic vision processed in the parietal lobe is more complex and multi-layered than has been theorised and described in literature on vision. Humans may believe they act on whatever they perceive (as an image) but in fact they usually act on the nonconscious signals that arrive directly to the parietal lobe. Recognising and identifying clearly the target and understanding what to do with it are therefore not enough — the target should be designed in a form that permits (affords) the visuomotor system to perform the action correctly and efficiently. The semantic and pragmatic processes occur simultaneously. In some instances the semantic system may assist the pragmatic system but usually deliberate intervention is not needed. A user should not have to tilt the tablet, for example, while trying to accurately and slowly direct his finger to touch the small backward or forward arrows of the browser on the touch-screen. This is an example of an effortful action users should not be driven to.

Using mobile devices with touch-screens has advantages and can be a gratifying experience. But there is also a lot that can be done to improve that experience, moreover if the aspiration is that consumers will use these devices much more frequently for performing more tasks, and especially that they will use tablets more than desktop and laptop computers in the future. Although the touch-screen mobile devices promote to use fingers, they should support the use of a pen or stylus and perhaps even encourage it with smaller screen devices (for typing and not just for drawing). It is also helpful to enlarge the images of keystrokes, icons and symbols as one approaches to touch any of these controls. These are just hints and there are probably many more ways interaction designers can create to improve mobile users’ experiences, making them more effective and enjoyable.

Ron Ventura, Ph.D. (Marketing)

Reference:

Ways of Seeing: The Scope and Limits of Visual Cognition; Pierre Jacob and Marc Jeannerod, 2003; Oxford University Press.

Additional recommended reading:

Mobile Computing; Jesper Kjeldskov; In Encyclopedia of Human-Computer Interaction (2nd edition, Chapter 9); Interaction Design Foundation.

 

 

 

Read Full Post »

In late February the annual Mobile World Congress (MWC) 2016 took place in Barcelona, including a large festive exhibition and a conference next to it. The leading motto of the MWC declared that “Mobile Is Everything“. This motto, directed primarily at people involved in the mobile industry, on either the technology-side or the management-side, could help to increase their interest in the event, create a uniting theme, and energise them to be part of the congress and its community. But what does this ‘invitation’ tell client-companies operating mainly outside the field of mobile telecom and technology? Moreover, what does this call suggest for the lives of consumers?

A little over 100,000 people from 204 countries attended the MWC this year according to MWC official website. Some 2,200 companies were represented in the exhibition; during that time the conference hosted speeches and panel discussions by experts and business leaders. An intensive media coverage on TV, online, and in the press, made sure news from the event reach almost everyone. Everything important, it would appear, has happened that week at the MWC.

Companies were presenting in the exhibition their technological solutions, methods and products. Each company could summarily describe its areas of specialisation by classification in any of 90 different product categories (companies more frequently applied 3-5 categories). A remarkable variety of mobile-related products, applications and services were shown in the exhibition: mobile devices (i.e., latest models of smartphones and tablets); accessories and mobile-supported peripheral equipment (e.g., virtual reality [VR], 3D printing, Internet of Things [IoT]); mobile apps; equipment and services in connection with mobile communication (e.g., infrastructure, business & tech consulting, data analysis). While some companies demonstrated apps as designed to be used by consumers, most exhibitors offered  platforms for developing apps (custom or adapted) and mobile-oriented methodologies and services intended for business clients.

  • The classification appears to single out the salience of mobile apps these days. It is interesting to note that out of the ninety categories, five were dedicated to App Development: General, Film, Gaming, Music, and Shopping.

Key areas associated with digital marketing (e.g., data analysis, CRM, content management) need to be extended from online (PC-based) to smart mobile devices. Clearly, technology companies that were not originally in the mobile industry have to adapt and add digital solutions respectively for the mobile channel. Yet it is no less a challenge for companies in lines of business that only use digital technologies for improving their performance (e.g., food, cosmetics, fashion, retail) to keep pace with the latest developments — in mobile communication to this matter. Some companies may produce their solutions in-house but many others have to hire specialist companies to provide them with systems or services tailored to their needs. Those kinds of companies, offering business solutions in a mobile context, would be found most likely at the MWC.

Mobile Advertising and Marketing was one of the more crowded categories (290 companies classified). One of the issues receiving particular attention in companies’ offerings is targeted advertising on mobile devices as well as improved targeting techniques for mobile apps. This category is closely tied with data analysis (e.g., to provide input for implementing more accurate personalised targeting), and is also connected with topics of customer relationship management (e.g., loyalty clubs) and content management in the mobile environment. For example, Ingenious Technologies (Germany) is an independent provider of cloud utilities for business analytics and marketing automation (e.g., omni-channel activities, tracking customer journeys), and Jampp (UK) specialises in app marketing, offering ways to grow consumer engagement in mobile apps (e.g., combine machine learning with methods of big data and programmatic buying). Exhibitors also addressed an increasing concern of monetization, that is the ability of businesses to charge and collect payments for content or for products and services that can be ordered on mobile devices, especially via apps.

In an era that promotes digital and data-driven marketing, it becomes imperative to cover and analyse data from mobile touchpoints. The category of Data Analysis (148 companies) includes the marketing aspect, yet relates to applications in other fields as well.  Among the applications concerned: integrating predictive analytics with campaign management (e.g., Lumata [UK]); analytic database platform for IoT and processing app-based queries (e.g., Infobright [Canada]); traffic analytics for enhancing urban mobility of vehicles and people (e.g., INRIX [UK]).

In the category of Consumer Electronics (222 companies) one may find: (a) devices (e.g., Samsung Galaxy S7 smartphones); (b) accessories (e.g., SanDisk’s portable data storage solutions, fast charging [Zap-go-charger, UK] or portable power backup [CasePower, Sweden]); and (c) components (e.g., LED components by Ledmotive [Spain]). But there were also some less usual devices such as a wearable device for tracking a dog’s health and fitness, which comes with an app (Sense of Intelligence [Finland]).

  • The area of audio (music) and video playing gains special interest, and is further connected to gaming and mobile entertainment overall. A couple of examples under the heading of consumer electronics: software for audio enhancement (AM3D A/S [Denmark]; a mobile video platform, supporting live streaming and video chat (avinotech [Germany]). Video also appears in the context of content management, such as an advanced technology for accelerating display of video content in HD TV quality (Giraffic [Israel]).

This brief review would not be complete without the rising category of Location Technologies and Services (141 companies). Location technologies and their applications can be found in different areas, not just marketing or shopping. For instance, a French company (Sensineo) offers an ultra-low-GPS tracking and positioning device which may help in locating cars or dogs, but furthermore important, tracing vulnerable people who may have lost their way and need support or medical assistance — location apps and mobile alarm devices emerge as new aids to healthcare. In the context of advertising, we may refer to technologies that bridge online and offline domains (e.g., targeting by combining text analysis of consumers’  conversations in social media and intelligence on where they go in the physical world [Cluep, Canada], eliciting online-to-offline engagement in brand or retail campaigns [Beintoo, Italy]). Another technology (by Pole Star [France]) specialises in indoor location, involving analytics through precise geofencing (i.e., activation as people enter specified perimeters) and proximity detection. The last three examples have apparent relevance to consumer behaviour during shopping trips.

  • In regard specifically to development of shopping mobile apps (46 companies), there seems to be greater reference of exhibitors to technologies that may support shopping utilities but not enough examples for apps that truly connect retailers and shoppers. As an example for a more relevant app, Tiendeo Web Marketing (Spain) offers an app, working in partnership with retail chains, that informs consumers of weekly ads, deals or coupons in their area of residence.

For businesses that are client-users of technologies and associated services, the message is very clear — in order to be accessible and relevant to consumers, the business must have mobile presence. Consumer brands of products and services, and in retail, cannot afford to neglect the mobile channel. Moreover they must have a strong showing because the competition is intense and ‘mobile is everything’. The need to be present and useful via mobile devices (mobile websites and apps) is undisputed. As more consumers are engaged with their smartphones much of the time, and perform more tasks in mobile mode, companies should be there available to them. The idea, however, that this is all that matters for marketing and customer service is dubious. Companies are under endless pressure to keep to-date with continuous advances in technology. Technology and consulting companies remind their clients all the time that in order to be competitive they must apply the most advanced mobile features and tools. But companies have to be available, effective and attractive through multiple channels and the kind of pressure implied by the MWC’s motto is neither helpful nor productive.

The danger is that companies engaged in consumer marketing may neglect other important channels in attempt to develop a strong mobile presence. In fact, this kind of shift to interactions through newer technological channels has been happening for years. The latest shift advised to companies is from Web 2.0 on personal computers to mobile websites and apps. It could mean that companies would be forced to invest more in mobile compatibility of their websites, while neglecting improvement of the functionality and visual attractiveness of their usual websites. One of the implications of the shift to online and mobile touchpoints is reduction in direct human interactions (e.g., fewer brick-and-mortar service branches, fewer service hours, not enough trained and skilled personnel in call centres). But consumers continue to appeal call centres for help, and when faced with inadequate assistance they are encouraged to prefer computer-based interactions. More companies offer customers options to chat by text, audio and video, but on the other hand they also refer customers more frequently to virtual agents. The mobile facilities are not desirable for everyone, and at least not all of the time; having the most advanced technology is not always an advantage, except for tech-enthusiasts.

Companies that develop technologies and market hardware and software products and associated services are on a constant race to provide more advanced competent solutions. It starts to be a problem when too many companies are pursuing a single main course — mobile in our case. It is the kind of push induced by MWC’s organizers that should worry us. The interest of GSMA — a consortium of mobile telecom operators, joined by device manufacturers, software companies etc. (“broader mobile ecosystem”) — in putting mobile under the spotlight is clear. However, following the claim that “mobile is everything” can have negative consequences for many stakeholders in industry and also for the general public. There is a sense of rush to develop apps and all other sorts of mobile products and utilities that is concerning. It may never develop into a bubble as fifteen years ago because the conditions are different and better (i.e., stronger technological foundations, greater experience), but there are disturbing signs that should alert stakeholders.

It is hard to argue with the many conveniences that mobile phones, particularly smartphones, provide to consumers. Basically, if one is late for a meeting, wants to set a meeting point with a friend in the city, or just needs to update a colleague in the office about anything, he or she can call while being out on the way somewhere. It has become an invaluable time saver as one can settle any professional or business issues at work while travelling. Yet the elevation of mobile phones to computer-based ‘smart’ phones (and in addition tablets) has expanded greatly the number and types of tasks people can perform while being away from home or office. It is not just sending and receiving voice calls and SMS but also e-mails and various forms of updates on social media networks. Then one can check the news and stock prices, prepare shopping lists and compare products and prices while visiting shops, schedule a forgotten appointment for the doctor, order a table at a restaurant for the evening, listen to his favorite music, and far more. The point is that any minute one can find something to do with the smartphone; people cannot lose hold and sight of their smartphones. Smartphones no longer just serve consumers for their convenience but the consumers ‘serve’ the smartphones.

The motto of MWC could be right in arguing that for consumers ‘mobile is everything’, yet it is also complicit in eliciting the consumers to become even more preoccupied with their mobile devices and adopt forms of behaviour that are not honestly in their benefit. Consumers bear a responsibility to notice these effects and sanction their use of mobile devices reasonably. For instance, people not only can call others when convenient but may also be reached by others in less convenient times (e.g., by an employer). Talking and messaging while travelling on a bus, taxi or train is fine but there are stronger warnings now that people put themselves and others in greater danger if doing so while driving, because this diverts their attention from the road. Being preoccupied with their smartphones causes people in general to look less around them and be less communicative with other people. Immediately sorting every query on a website or app may get consumers hasten purchase decisions unnecessarily and also ignore other channels of resolution (e.g., consulting staff in-store). Finally, relying on mobile devices to find any information instantly online evokes people to make less effort to remember and accumulate new knowledge, to retrieve information from memory, and think (i.e., less cognitive effort).

The motto “Mobile Is Everything” sounds shallow and simplistic. Sweeping generalisations usually do no much good — they cannot be taken too seriously. Perhaps this title was meant to be provocative, so as to fuel the MWC with enthusiasm, but it can end up aggravating. The field of mobile telecom and digital technology has much to show for in achievements in recent years. There is no need to suggest that businesses and consumers cannot do without ‘mobile’ and should invest themselves even more fully into it. Using such a motto is not acting out of strength.

Mobile indeed is a great deal, yet is definitely not everything.

Ron Ventura, Ph.D. (Markting)

 

Read Full Post »

The location-based technology of beacons is a relatively recent newcomer in the retail scene (since 2013). Beacons provide an additional route for interacting with shoppers in real-time via their smartphones as they move around in stores and malls. Foremost, this technology is about marrying between the physical and the digital (virtual) spaces to create better integrated and encompassing shopping experiences.

It is already widely acknowledged that in-store and online shopping are not independent and do not happen completely separate from each other; instead, experience and information from one scene can feed and drive a shopping experience, and purchase, in the other scene. In particular, mobile devices enable shoppers to apply digital resources while shopping in a physical shop or store.  Beacons may advance retailers and shoppers another step forward in that direction, with the expectation to generate more purchases in-store. The beacon technology was received at first with enthusiasm and promising willingness-to-accept by retailers, but these subdued in the past year and adoption has stalled. A salient obstacle appears as consumers remain hesitant and cautious about letting retailers communicate through beacons with their smartphones and the implications it may have on their privacy.

In essence, beacons are small, battery-powered, low-energy Bluetooth devices that function as transmitters of information — primarily unique location signals — to nearby smartphones with an app authorised to receive the information. The availability of an authorised app (e.g., retailer’s, mall operator’s) installed on the consumer’s smartphone (or tablet) is critical for the communication technology to function properly. Upon receiving a location signal, the app is thereby triggered to display location-relevant content for the shopper in-store (e.g., product information, digital coupons, as well as store activities and services).

Additional requirements may be in force such as the retailer’s app being open during the shopping trip or that the shopper consents (opts-in) to allow the app receive information from beacons, but these do not seem to be necessary or mandatory conditions for the technology to work (e.g., an app may be set with ‘approval’ as default). Ambiguity that seemingly prevails about the extra requirements could be one of the sour points in the technology’s implementation. On one hand, the application of beacons is more ethical when setting up at least one of these requirements, and should endow it with greater credibility among consumers. On the other hand, any additional criterion for access of beacons to smartphones — assuming the app is already installed — could limit further the number of participating shoppers and reduce its marketing impact.

  • Only smartphones (and tablets) support apps, not any mobile phone. It should not be taken for granted that everyone has supporting smartphones, hence raising another possible limiting requirement on access for beacons (though in decline in developed countries). Another problem, yet, concerns the distinction between Apple iPhones operated with iOS and smartphones of other brands operated with Google’s Android — beacons have to work with either type of operating system and compatible apps but they do not necessarily do so (e.g., iBeacons are exclusive for Apple’s own mobile devices).

There are some more variations in the application of beacon technology in retail. Beacon devices may be attached to shelves next to specific product displays or to fixtures and building columns in positions aimed at capturing smartphones of shoppers moving in a close area (e.g., an aisle). If the beacon is associated with a particular product, the shopper may engage using the app by actively approaching the phone to the beacon. Otherwise, the app communicates with the beacons without  shoppers taking any voluntary action. Furthermore, some applications of beacon technology suggest sending information other than location signals from the beacon, such as product-related information, and receiving customer-related information by the beacon from the smartphone.

Reasonably, retailers would be interested first in applications of the technology for practical marketing purposes in their stores. However, beacon technology may also be utilised in research on shopper behaviour, a purpose now appreciated by many large retailers.

Marketing Practice in Retail

The instant sales-driven idea of application of beacon technology evoked by retailers is to introduce special offers, discount deals and digital coupons for selected products as shoppers get near to their displays. Notwithstanding this type of application, location-based features and services enabled via beacons can be even more creative and useful for shoppers, and beneficial for the retailers.

Relevance is key in achieving an effective application of the technology. Any message or content must be relevant in time and place to the shopper. That is, the content must be related to available products when the shopper is getting close enough to them. The content should not be too general in reference to any product in the store but to products in a section of the store where the shopper passes-by. Triggering an offer for a product just after the shopper entered a store is less likely to be effective, unless, for example, there is a special promotional activity for it in a main area of the floor. The retailer should not err in introducing an offer for a product item that is not available in the specific store at that time. Furthermore, if the app can link product information with customer information, it may be able to generate better content that is both location-relevant and personalised. The app could make use of accessible information on personal purchase history, interests and demographic characteristics. This higher-level application surely requires greater resources and effort of the retailer to implement.

The beacons’ greatest enemy could be their use for bombardment of shoppers with push or pop-up messages of offers, deals, discounts etc. This practice is suspected as a major fault in the early days of the technology that may be responsible for the slowdown in adoption lately. There could be nothing more irritating for a shopper if every few meters walked in the store he or she is interrupted by a buzz and message of “just today offer on X” that appears on the smartphone’s screen. Retailers have to be selective lest customers will avoid using their apps. It is much more important to produce adaptive, relevant and customer-specific messages and content overall (Adobe, Digital Marketing Blog, 4 February 2016).

  • The grocery retail chain Target, that launched a trial with beacons in 50 US stores in the second half of 2015, committed, for instance, to show no more than two promotional (push) messages during a store visit (TechCrunch.com, 5 Aug. ’15).

More intelligent and helpful ways exist to apply the beacon technology in interaction with the app than promotional push messages. First, content of the “front page” of the app can change as the shopper progresses in the store to reflect information that would be of interest to the shopper in that area of the store (e.g., show hyper-linked ’tiles’ for nearby product types). Second, beyond ‘technical’ information on product characteristics and price, a retailer can facilitate shopper-user access to reviews and recommendations for location-relevant products via the app. Third, if the shopper fills-in a shopping list on a retailer’s app (e.g., a supermarket), and the app has a built-in plan of the store, it can help the shopper navigate through the store to find the requested products, and it may even re-order the list and propose to the shopper a more ‘efficient’ path.

Beacons are associated mostly with stores (e.g., department stores, chain stores, supermarkets). However, beacons may also be utilised by mall operators where the ‘targets’ are stores rather than specific products. An application programme in a mall may command collaboration with the retailers (e.g., store profile and notifications, special promotional messages [for extra pay], content contributions).

In another interesting form of collaboration, the fashion magazine Elle initiated a programme with ShopAdvisor, a mobile app and facilitator that assists retailers in connecting with their shoppers through beacons. As an enhancement to its special 30th anniversary issue, Elle launched a trial project in partnership with some of its advertisers (e.g., Guess, Levi’s, Vince Camuto) to introduce their customers to location-based content with the help of ShopAdvisor (focused on promotional alerts)(1).

Consumers are concerned about tactics of location-based technologies like beacons that get intrusive and even creepy; they become adverse towards the way such apps sometimes surprise them (e.g., in dressing rooms). Indeed, only shoppers who installed an authorised app can be affected, but for customers who installed such a retailer’s app, with other benefits in mind, it can be disturbing at times. The hard issue at stake is how the app alerts or approaches its shoppers-users with location-based messages. Shoppers do not like to feel that someone is watching where they go.

The shopper may believe that if the app remains closed on the smartphone he or she cannot be approached. But if, as reported in CNBC News, a dormant app can be awaken by a beacon signal, this measure is not enough. This may happen because the shopper previously allowed the app to receive the Bluetooth signal or the app “assumed” so as default.  The shopper must take an extra step to disable the function at the app-level or device-level (Bluetooth connectivity). Retailers should let their customers opt-out and be careful in any attempt to remotely open their apps on smartphones (so-called “welcome reminders”), because imposing and interfering with customer choices may get the opposite outcome of removing the app.

The app may display ‘digital’ coupons for the shopper to “pick-up” and show later at the cashier (or self-service check-out). It is reasoned that if coupons are shown at the right time shoppers will welcome the offer, no resentment. The manner shoppers are alerted can also matter, by not being too obtrusive (e.g., “Click here for coupons for products in this aisle”). Shoppers told CNBC News that if digital coupons were offered to them by the app just when relevant, they would be glad to use this option, being more convenient than going around with paper coupons, but they would want the ability to opt-out.

Shopper Behaviour Research

The beacon technology may further contribute to research on shopper behaviour in stores or malls. Specifically, it may be suitable for collecting data of shopper traffic to be used in path analysis of the shopping journeys. The information may cover what areas of the store shoppers visit more frequently, how long one stays in a given area, and sequences of passes between areas.

Nonetheless, there are methodological, technological and ethical factors retailers and researchers have to consider. At this time, there are distinct limitations to be recognized that may inflict on the validity and reliability of the research application of beacons. Ethical issues discussed above regarding the provision of access of beacons to mobile apps furthermore apply in the research context.

This methodology involves tracking the movements of shoppers. Beacon technology may record frequency of visits in each area of the store separately or it may track the presence of a particular shopper by different beacons across the store. A beacon may also be able to send repeated signals at fixed intervals to a smartphone to measure how long a shopper remains in a given area. However, this type of research is not informative about what a shopper does in a specific location as in front of product shelves, and thus it cannot provide valuable details on her decision processes. Hence, retailers cannot rely on this methodology as a substitute for other methods capable of studying shopper behaviour more deeply, especially with respect to decision-making. A range of methods may be used to supplement path analysis such as interviewer’s walk-along with a shopper, passive observations, video filming, and possibly also in-store eye-tracking.

An implementation of the technology for research would require a comprehensive coverage of the premises with beacons, perhaps greater than needed for marketing practice. It should be compared with alternative location-based technologies (e.g., Radio Frequency Identification [RFID], Wi-Fi)  on criteria of access, range and accuracy, and of course cost-effectiveness. For example, the RFID technology employs tags ( transmitters) regularly attached to shopping carts — if a shopper leaves the cart at the end-of-aisle and goes in to pick-up a couple of products, the system will miss that; smartphones, however, are carried on shoppers all the time. Beacon technology may have an important advantage over RFID if location data is linked with customer characteristics, but this is a sensitive ethical issue and at least it is imperative to ensure no personal IDs are included in the dataset. All alternative technologies may also have to deal with different types of environmental interferences with their signals. Access would have both technical and ethical aspects.

A mixture of problems emerges as responsible for impairing the utilisation of beacon technology, according to RetailDive (online news and trends magazine), mainly consumers who do not perceive beacon-triggered features as useful enough to them and retailers troubled by technical or operational difficulties. Among the suggestions made: encourage pull of helpful information from beacons by shoppers rather than push messages, and speed-up calling staff for assistance via beacons (RetailDive, 17 December 2015). A recent research report by Adobe and Econsultancy on Digital Trends for 2016 indicates that retailers are becoming more reluctant to implement a geo-targeting technology like beacons this year compared with 2015 (a decrease in proportion of retailers who have this technology in plan or exploring it, against an increase in proportion of those who are not exploring or do not know). Conspicuously, there seems to be much more optimism about high effectiveness of geo-targeting technology at technology and consultancy agencies than among retailers, who seem to be much more in the opinion that it is too early (2). Agencies could have better understanding of the field, yet it signals an alarm of disconnect between agencies and their clients.

There is potential to beacon technology with clearly identifiable benefits it can deliver to retailers and consumers. It is still a young technology and requires more development and progress on various technical, applied and ethical aspects.  Promotional messages are  important tools but must be used in a good and sensible measure. A retailer cannot settle for a small set of fixed messages. It has to develop a dynamic ‘bank’ of messages, large enough to be versatile over products, (chain) stores, and consumer groups, and maintain regular updates. However, retailers have to develop and provide a more rich suite of clever content and practical tools based on location. Consumers will have to be convinced of the benefits enabled by beacons, yet feel free to decide when and how to enjoy them.

Ron Ventura, Ph.D. (Marketing)

Notes:

(1) “App Helps Target Shoppers’ Location and Spontaneity”, Glenn Rifkin, International New-York Times, 31 December 2015 – 1 January 2016.

(2) “Quarterly Digital Intelligence Briefing: 2016 Digital Trends”, Adobe and Econsultancy, January 2016 (pp. 24-25). The findings are considered with caution because of relatively small sub-samples of respondents on this topic (N < 200).

Read Full Post »

Surveys, being a major part of marketing research, seem to be in perpetual movement of change and development. Many of the changes in recent years are tied with technological advancement. About fifteen years ago online surveys — delivered over the Internet — began to rise as a dominant mode of survey administration; but now, researchers are pushed to perform more of their surveys via mobile devices, namely smartphones and tablets, in addition or as a replacement to being administered on desktop and laptop computers.

Yet some important distinctions between those two modes can make the transfer of surveys between them flawed. Just as much as it was wrong to suggest in the past that survey questionnaires administered in face-to-face interviews could be seamlessly transferred to phone interviews, it would be wrong today to suggest a seamless transfer of surveys from web browsers on desktops/laptops to mobile browsers (or apps).

In the latest Greenbook Research Industry Trends (GRIT) Report of Q3-Q4 2015, the authors suggest that there is still much room for improvement in adjusting online survey questionnaires to run and display properly also on mobile devices. They find that 45% of their respondents on the research supplier side and 30% on the research buyer (client) side claim that their companies design at least three quarters (75%-100%) of their online surveys to work effectively on mobile phones; however, “that tells us that over 50% of all  surveys are NOT mobile optimized” (p. 14, capital letters are in origin). The authors hereby implicitly call on marketing researchers to do much more to get their online surveys fully mobile-optimized. But this is not necessarily a justified or desirable requirement because not all online surveys are appropriate and applicable to be answered on smartphones nor on tablets. There could be multiple reasons for a lack of match between these modes for administering a particular survey: the topic, the types of constructs measured and instruments being used, the length of the questionnaire, and the target population relevant for the research. Consumers use mobile devices and personal computers differently (e.g., purpose, depth and time) which is likely to extend also to how they approach surveys on these products.

  • The GRIT survey of marketing researchers was conducted in a sample of 1,497 respondents recruited by e-mail and social media channels, of whom 78% are on the supplier-side and 22% on the client-side. Nearly half (46%) originate in North-America and a little more than quarter (27%) come from Europe.

Concerns about coverage and reach of a research population have followed online surveys from the beginning. Of different approaches for constructing samples, including sampling frames (e.g., e-mail lists) and ad-hoc samples (i.e., website pop-up survey invitations), the panel methodology has become most prevalent. But this approach is not free of limitations or weaknesses. Panels have a ‘peculiar’ property: If you do not join a panel you have zero probability of being invited to participate in a survey. Mobile surveys may pose again similar problems, and perhaps even more severely, because users of smartphones (not every mobile phone is able to load surveys), and moreover tablets, constitute a sub-population that is not broad enough yet and the users also have rather specific demographic and lifestyle characteristics.

  • Different sources of contact data and channels are being used to approach consumers to participate in surveys. Companies conduct surveys among their customers for whom they have e-mail addresses. Subscribers to news media websites may also be included a in survey panel of the publisher. Members of forums, groups or communities in social media networks may be asked as well to take part in surveys (commissioned by the administrator).

Decreasing response rates in phone and face-to-face surveys has been an early drive of online surveys; these difficulties have got only worse in recent years so that online surveys remain the viable alternative, and in some situations are even superior. Online self-administered questionnaires (SAQ) of course have their own genuine advantages such as ability to present images and videos, interactive response tools and greater freedom to choose when to fill the questionnaire. However, as with former modes of data collection for surveys, response behaviour may differ between online surveys responded to on personal computers and on mobile devices (one should consider the difficulty to control what respondents do when filling SAQs on their own).

The GRIT report reveals that the greatest troubling aspects of panels for marketing researchers are the quantity and quality of respondents available through those sampling pools (top-2-box satisfaction: 36% and 26%, respectively). In particular, 33% are not at all satisfied or only slightly satisfied with the quality of respondents. The cost of panel is also generating relatively low satisfaction (top-2-box 34%). Marketing researchers are more satisfied with timeliness of fielding, purchase process, ease of accessing a panel and customer service (49%-54%). [Note: 33% is compared with ~20% for ‘quantity’ and ‘cost’ and ~12% on other aspects.]

The GRIT report further identifies four quadrants of panel aspects based on satisfaction (top-2-box) versus (derived) importance. The quality and quantity of respondents available in panels occupy the ‘Weaknesses’ quadrant as they generate less satisfaction while being of higher importance. Customer service and purchase process form ‘Key Strengths’, being of higher importance and sources of higher satisfaction. Of the lower-importance aspects, cost is a ‘Vulnerability’ whereas access and timeliness are ‘Assets’. The ‘Weaknesses’ quadrant is troubling especially because it includes properties that define the essence of the panel as a framework for repeatedly extracting samples, its principal purpose. The assets and strengths in this case may not be sufficient to compensate for flaws in the product itself, the panel.

Surveys allow researchers to study mental constructs, cognitive and affective: perceptions and beliefs, attitudes, preferences and intentions; they may broadly look onto thoughts, feelings and emotions. Survey questionnaires entail specialised methods, instruments and tools for those purposes. Furthermore, surveys can be used to study concepts such as logical reasoning, inferences, relations and associations established by consumers. In the area of decision-making, researchers can investigate processes performed by the consumers or shoppers, as reported by them. Advisedly, the findings and lessons on decision processes may be validated and expanded by using other types of methods such as verbal protocols, eye tracking and mouse tracking (web pages) as research participants perform pre-specified tasks. However, surveys should remain part of the research programme.

Much of the knowledge and understanding of consumers obtained through surveys cannot be gained from methods and techniques that do not directly converse with the consumers. Data from recording of behaviour or measures of unconscious responses may lack important context from the consumer viewpoint that may render those findings difficult to interpret correctly. Conscious statements of consumers on their thoughts, feelings, experiences and actions may not be fully accurate or complete but they do represent what they have in mind and often enough guide their behaviour — we just need to ask them in an appropriate and methodic way.


The examples below are brought to demonstrate why different approaches should be used collaboratively to complement each other, and how surveys can make their own contribution to the whole story:

  •  Volumes of data on actions or operations performed by consumers, as entailed in the framework of Big Data, provide ‘snapshots’ or ‘slices’ of behaviour, but seem to lack the context of consumer goals or mindsets to meaningfully connect them. One has indirectly to infer or guess what made the behaviour occur as it did.
  • Big Data also refers to volumes of verbatim in social media networks where the amount of data gives an illusion that it can replace input from surveys. However, only surveys can provide the kind of controlled and systematic measures of beliefs, attitudes and opinions needed to properly test research propositions or hypotheses.
  • Methods of neuroscience inform researchers about neural correlates of sensory and mental activity in specific areas of the brain, but it does not tell them what the subject makes of those events. In other words, even if we can reduce thoughts, feelings and emotions to neural activity in the brain, we would miss the subjective experience of the consumers.

 

It is not expected of marketing researchers to turn all their online surveys to mobile devices, at least not as long as these co-exist with personal computers. The logic of the GRIT’s report is probably as follows: Since more consumers spend more time on smartphones (and tablets), they should be allowed to choose and be able to respond to a survey on any of the computer-type products they hold in time and place convenient to them. That is indeed a commendable liberal and democratic stance but it is not always in best interest of the survey from a methodological perspective.

Mobile surveys could be very limiting in terms of the amount and complexity of information a researcher may reliably collect through them. A short mobile survey (5-10 minutes at most) with questions that permit quick responses is not likely to be suitable to study adequately many of the constructs previously discussed to build a coherent picture of consumers’ mindsets and related behaviours. These surveys may be suitable for collecting particular types of information, and perhaps even have an advantage at this as suggested shortly.

According to the GRIT report, 36% of researchers-respondents estimate that online surveys their companies carry out take on average up to 10 minutes (short); 29% estimate their surveys take 11-15 minutes (medium); and 35% give an average estimate of 16 minutes or more (long). The overall average stands at 15 minutes.

These duration estimates correspond to online surveys in general and the authors note that particularly longer surveys would be unsuitable for mobile surveys. For example, 16% of respondents state their online surveys take more than 20 minutes which is unrealistic for mobile devices. At the other end, very short surveys (up to five minutes) are performed by 10%.

There are some noteworthy differences between research suppliers and clients. The main finding to notice is that clients are pressing to shorter surveys, such that may also be applicable to respond to on mobile devices:

  • Whereas just near to 10% of suppliers perform surveys of up to 5 minutes on average, a little more of 15% of clients perform surveys of this average length.
  • Suppliers are more inclined to perform surveys of 11-15 minutes on average (approx. 33%) compared with clients (about 23%).
  • Suppliers also have a little stronger propensity for surveys of 16-20 minutes (20% vs. 16% among clients).

Researchers on the supplier side appear to be more aware and sensitive to the time durations online surveys should take to achieve their research objectives and are less ready to execute very short surveys as clients drive to.

  • Interestingly, the report shows that the average estimated time length in practice is similar to the maximal length respondents think an online survey should take. The authors propose these results can be summed up as “whatever we answered previously as the average length, is the maximal length”. They acknowledge not asking specifically about mobile surveys — the accepted maximum is 10 minutes. This limit is more in accordance with clients’ stated maximum for online surveys (52%) whereas only 36% of suppliers report such a goal (32% of suppliers choose 11-15 minutes as the maximum, above the expected maximum for mobile).

Online surveys designed for personal computers are subject to time limits, in view of respondents’ expected spans of attention, yet the limits are expected to be less strict compared with mobile devices. Furthermore, the PC mode allows more flexibility in variability and sophistication of questions and response scales applied. A smartphone does not encourage much reflective thought and this must be taken into consideration. Desktops and laptops accommodate more complex tasks, usually executed in more comfortable settings (e.g., consumers tend to perform pre-purchase ‘market research’ on the their personal computers and conduct quick queries of the last-minute during the shopping trip on their smartphones) — this works also to the benefit of online surveys on personal computers. (Tablets are still difficult to position, possibly closer to laptops than to smartphones.)

Online surveys for mobile devices and for desktops/laptops do not have to be designed to be the same in content of questionnaires (adapting appearance to device and screen is just part of the matter). First, there is justification to design surveys specifically for mobile devices. These surveys may be most suitable for studying feedback on recent events or experiences, measuring responses to images and videos, and performing association tests. Subjects as proposed here are afforded in common by System 1 (Automatic) — intuition and quick responses (immediacy), emotional reactions, visual appeal (creativity), and associative thinking.

Second, it would be better to compose and design separate survey questionnaires for personal computers and for mobile devices at different lengths. Trying to impose an online survey of fifteen minutes on respondents using mobile devices is at considerable risk of early break-off or worse of diminishing quality of responses as the survey goes on. At least a short version of the questionnaire should be channeled to the mobile device — though it still would not resolve issues of unfitting types of questions posed. Even worse, however, would be an attempt to shorten all online surveys to fit into the time spans of mobile surveys because this could make the surveys much less effective and useful as sources of information and miss much of their business value.

Marketing researchers have to invest special effort to ensure that online surveys remain relevant and able to provide useful and meaningful answers to marketing and business questions. Reducing and degrading surveys just in order to obtain greater cooperation from consumers will only achieve the opposite — it will strengthen the position of the field of Big Data (that worries some researchers), as well as other approaches that navigate the unconsciousness. Instead, marketing researchers should improve and enhance the capabilities of surveys to provide intelligent and valuable insights, achieved particularly by designing surveys that are best compatible with the mode in which the survey is administered.

Ron Ventura, Ph.D. (Marketing)

Read Full Post »

An inspection of the mobile app-based services run by companies like Uber, Gett (formerly GetTaxi), Lyft or Hailo raises important issues about the distinction between taxi and non-taxi ridesharing transportation for individuals. Developments of the past two years seem to have broken the boundaries of driving-for-pay. A utility that started as an option for hailing licensed taxis by a mobile app is turning into an unruly “business” of private drivers. Uber in particular is the source of disruption in the ‘private transport’ sector that is causing much public controversy and protest by professional drivers.

The convenience in hailing a taxi using a mobile app when needed from anywhere a passenger may be in town, instead of hand-hailing in the street until a free taxi shows up is clear and undisputable. Through technology a taxi driver in vicinity is notified and can arrive without further human briefing to the passenger to pick him or her up for the ride — it can save precious time and nervous waiting. It may also help drivers reduce wasted time and fuel whilst wandering between “jobs” until a new customer is found. The applications in market were aimed originally to connect between consumers-passengers and drivers of taxis, black cabs and limousines.

A crucial aspect to notice about those mobile e-hailing applications is that they allow drivers to take customers independently of a present employer or a fleet they may belong to. Briefly, an app of this type incorporates geo-location, reservation management and credit payment functionalities so that a driver is related only with a passenger on one side and the technology company operating the app on the other side. No cash is actually passing between the three parties involved. This arrangement soon proved to have a potential to involve a larger variety of employed and non-employed, trade-licensed and non-licensed drivers.

For taxi companies or syndicates the problem is twofold. Professional drivers often depend on local fleet operators for their license, car and livelihood because of the companies’ strong influence over issuance of new taxi licenses. A license and an authorised (properly marked) taxi vehicle are harder to get without affiliation to a fleet. The new app utility may open a window for changing the balance of power between companies and upset professional drivers. Furthermore, affiliated taxi drivers may occasionally take passengers reached via the mobile app without going through the fleet, and perhaps even without notifying the dispatcher. The fleet operator risks here a loss of control, authority and income (grabbed instead by the tech company — Uber for example collects 20% of the fare).

Some co-operation between the mobile technology companies and local taxi operators and associations may still exist (e.g., authorised taxi vehicles in Israel can be seen carrying a sticker of GetTaxi) but that is less likely now, especially after Uber expanded the scope of drivers it would work with. That is, Uber opened the gate for private drivers, anyone who has a driving license and a car, to provide “private ridesharing” transportation. Subsequently, frictions with taxi fleet operators have expanded into hostile struggles with unions and professional associations of taxi drivers as well as city and state authorities.

Uber, Gett, Lyft, Hailo, and others similar to them, are designated as transportation network companies ; the networks are constructed, accessed and managed by means of mobile applications. The challenge mounted primarily by Uber is the expansion of the network to allow non-formal drivers to transport other passengers in their private cars for payment. The schemes of Uber for this “ridesharing” portion of their network are known in different countries as UberX, UberPop or UberPool. However, the descriptive title of ‘ridesharing’ for this activity is contentious.

Many probably know car-pooling from their time in college or university: students group together to transport to or from campus in the car of one of the group members and share the cost of fuel between them. Frequently the participants are friends or acquaintances (e.g., classmates, sharing the rental of a house) but at the very least they are connected by affiliation to the same institution. Due to rise in cost of fuel, traffic congestion and air pollution, car-pooling has become more prevalent also among working peers employed in the same organization (as among colleagues whose work is in City A and live in City B). We may see another form of saving on transportation by a small group of people who rideshare a taxi (e.g., for an evening out at a restaurant or on the way back home, dropping each at a separate address). These are usually voluntary and informal arrangements where people related to some degree either ride in the car of one of the group members or hire together a taxi with a professional driver. Uber tries to emulate both and yet enables none of these arrangements.

The term ‘ridesharing’ seems rather ambiguous the way Uber claims to implement it. Uber, Lyft, and others like them, present themselves as platforms for “peer-to-peer transportation”, not as passenger services. But who are the peers when ridesharing with Uber’s schemes mentioned above? There is no guarantee that the driver and passenger are “peers” or acquaintances of any kind nor is there any requirement that a group of people “share” the ride with Uber’s driver. The driver is not formally required to have the same destination as the passenger nor does the passenger’s destination need to be on the driver’s route anywhere else. In real terms, passengers are actually hiring a driver known to them only via the mobile app with none of the assurances that normally accompany the hiring of a licensed taxi driver. Administrative and legal authorities in various countries noticed that this operation occurs in grey area and started to suspend or ban such questionable schemes by Uber in different cities or countries.

  • Given the capital Uber has raised thus far it is valued as of May 2015 at $40bn. Uber operates in more than 250 cities in nearly 60 countries, though in some locations part of its activity is suspended due to legal disputes.

In the Netherlands Uber tried to argue that its UberPop scheme is a car-pool service as opposed to a taxi service. However, the Trade and Industry Appeal Tribunal in the country rejected this defence claim because it failed the legal requirement of taxi drivers to have a special license. The ruling on 8th December 2014 determined that “drivers who transport people for payment without a license are breaking the law“. UberPop was also banned a day after by a court judge in Spain because drivers lacked official authorisation to offer driving services. It should be noted that the cost of the ride is not estimated and agreed by the co-passengers with the driver to share but it is a fare determined by a third-party tech company. Moreover, people in a private, non-formal arrangement also usually do not deal with each other by credit cards. The claim of Uber sounds naive and unrealistic or simply a case of pretence.

By the end of 2014 Uber was dealing with additional legal restrictions and bans from the US (e.g., Portland, Orgeon; Nevada; and even in Uber’s hometown San-Francisco) and Canada (Toronto), through Europe (e.g., Paris, France; Berlin and Hamburg in Germany) to India (New Delhi) and Thailand in Asia. A map chart by The Telegraph depicts all the places where Uber is operating and where its activity has been banned or curtailed. The UberPop service is currently under scrutiny in Paris for failing a law passed late last year that regulates the services of chauffeured cars vis-à-vis taxis; Uber’s office in Paris was raided by police in March, confiscating mobile phones and documents (*).

In face of the rising criticism in Europe Uber adamantly argues that it is a technology company, not a transport company; thereby it does not own the vehicles nor hire any of the drivers who engage in its schemes, including UberPop. In the view of Uber, its mobile technological platform only helps in mediating between the drivers and passengers. Yet the European Commission is not hurrying to accept this argument, underlying Uber’s own complaints that national laws in Europe unjustly constrain its competition with taxi services. Uber may not directly transport people but its digital platform has an impact on transportation, a spokesperson for the EC commented in response. Indeed, can Uber defend itself as merely a technology company without taking any responsibility for the effects of its mobile app’s activity on the physical transportation services?  This matter is now under examination by the EC as part of an overall study of the taxi and chauffeur service industry.


The brand (corporate-root) name “Uber” (originally Über in German) is problematic on two counts. The company transmits through its name that it owns a superior transportation network. First, it is an arrogant claim that may be perceived as provocative particularly by licensed taxi drivers for being contested by Uber’s network of private drivers who operate above them and the rules of transportation service that confine them. Second, the name is quite insensitive because of the associations it may bring to mind that carry a strong negative connotation from the 1930s and 1940s. In addition, the attempt of Uber to justify themselves as only a technology company not responsible for the operation of transportation itself alerts one to think that the company is not inasmuch “Über Alles” (above all) as it is “Über Chuchem” (over-smart in Yiddish). The choice of name was not clever. It is already wide-spread around the world, but the name is tainted and may levy a price in future.

Uber and competing technology companies succeeded in introducing alternative private transport solutions for a reason: consumers who have become too frequently unsatisfied and even frustrated with the service delivered by licensed taxi drivers were open to the new type of “ridesharing” solutions. It may be triggered by complaints on low in-time availability, high cost and lack of reliability (e.g., not taking a shorter route, attempt to evade turning-on the taxi-meter). Sometimes it could be a feeling that the driver did not feel obliged enough to be kind to the passenger. Surely, many taxi drivers are honest, reliable and friendly, but the image of their service is tarnished by those who are less so. Obviously. the use of an e-hailing app is only part of the story here.

The main goal is protecting the quality and safety of taxi rides and other private chauffeur transport services. The business model offered by Uber is threatening to cause more damage than improve the situation — one cannot let these services be operated without oversight by official professional transportation agencies. There are some major concerns to address: (a) assuring the driving qualifications of the private drivers (though seeing how some authorised taxi drivers behave on the road makes one wonder also about their qualifications and the traffic rules they abide to…); (b) approving the physical fitness of the private driver; or (c) certifying the technical fitness of the private car used. Uber has already been charged with not making proper checks on the drivers who join them. Uber, though not alone, cannot be left to set its own rules for drivers.

The issue of cost and how ride-fares are measured is receiving special attention. Uber in particular has been charged with surge pricing (i.e., enacting a higher rate at peak hours when taxis are more difficult to get), a conduct other companies distance themselves from. More generally, the GPS-based assessment of fares is a subject of debate — is it accurate enough and can it be allowed in place of approved taxi-meters? According to Transport for London (TfL), fare calculations on smartphones are sufficiently divergent from taxi-meters’ for smartphones not to constitute a conventional metering equipment. Cab drivers in London went on strike to protest to TfL the special status of Uber, yet in a strange twist this stand may be used to protect Uber as a non-taxi service — TfL promised to investigate and resolve the conundrum. The fares at Uber are normally 15-20% lower than with licensed taxis. Passengers have to trade-off the expected saving against uncertain outcomes (e.g., reliability, safety) when riding with unauthorised private drivers. The decision may be different however if drivers applying Uber’s app were approved by official agencies.

A complex problem developed in multiple countries and is going to be difficult to sort out. In the short-term, taxi associations may collectively set-up or continue contracts with local mobile technology companies for operating sponsored e-hailing apps and guarantee 5-10% discounts to their users-passengers. In the long-term, it will be necessary to amend wounded relations between taxi drivers and consumers, and to consider if and how to accommodate different classes of authorised-licensed drivers, all kept under oversight of official professional agencies. Meanwhile, the mobile tech companies who probably sense the difficulties in the transport sector are already looking for new frontiers, to expand the use of their apps in other services (e.g., deliveries).

Ron Ventura, Ph.D. (Marketing)

(*) Uber Gets Reprieve in Paris in Fight on Low-Cost Service, International New-York Times (with Reuters), 1 April 2015.

Read Full Post »

In the past ten years the China-based Lenovo has been moving persistently to hold a leading position in the computer and information technology markets around the world. After making strides in the personal computer global market (desktops and laptops/notebooks), Lenovo is set to take a leading role also in the market of mobile devices, smartphones and tablets, worldwide. Lenovo is ambitious and unrelenting — it does not want to be cornered to its home-base in China; instead, it aspires to be recognized as the brand that comes from China.

Lenovo already has a range of models of smartphones developed “in-house”, from entry-level and low-cost to advanced full-featured 5” screen models, which it markets mostly within China. They are doing well selling in China — Lenovo is in second position (13%) after Samsung Electronics (21%) [1]. And with hardly any reach beyond the country and other emerging markets (e.g., BRICS), it is enough for Lenovo to be ranked fifth globally in 2013 (see chart below). However, that may not be enough for Lenovo to break out of its current markets and expand into markets of developed countries, as it did in the PC business.

As a reminder, in 2005 the company acquired IBM’s PC business, a startling move at the time, in order to make its way into Western markets. The most lucrative asset purchased was the ThinkPad brand of laptops, valued primarily by business users. Apparently in view of the success of that venture, Lenovo concluded in January 2014 its deal to purchase Motorola Mobility (MM) from Google for $3bn. The deal is still pending regulatory approval in China and the US, yet the debate on its ramifications is already widespread. As done before, Lenovo shows that in order to reach Western markets it is ready to stand, at least for a while, on the shoulders of Western well-known brands. The Wall Street Journal noted that considering how the acquisition of the PC business from IBM helped to take Lenovo out of the shadows around the world, and the company’s success in building a leading PC division, the latest deal should be worrying for Samsung Electronics.

Lenovo’s CEO Yang Yuanqing further declared recently that Lenovo is restructuring in order to focus on four main business groups: PCs (desktops & laptops), servers & storage, cloud computing, and mobile devices (smartphones & tablets). Notably, in late January this year Lenovo also bought from IBM its x86 server business ($2.3bn). Thus, Yang presents the company’s latest moves as part of a greater plan to expand its activities and market presence. As if to underline the company’s ambitions, Yang said in an interview to Fortune Magazine, he wished that Lenovo could sell 100 million smartphones in 2015 — that is twice the combined sales volume of Lenovo (45m) and Motorola Mobility (10m) in 2013. Thereby he made it Lenovo’s mission to surpass Apple and Samsung(2).

The motivation for Lenovo to invest in developing its mobile device business further should be clear. The market for PCs is declining: global shipments are dropping for the seventh consecutive quarter and IDC predicts that this trend will continue in coming years. Annual shipments of 2013 (316m) are expected to be 10% lower than in 2012 and 14% lower than 2011. Among the top five brands, only Lenovo may not see a decrease in PC shipments for the year. Lenovo just managed in 2013 to tie-in with HP, at around 16% market share each (3). Business enterprises and other organizations are more likely to continue to buy and use PCs, especially laptops, but consumers are moving more quickly to smartphones and tablets for satisfying their information and entertainment needs.

The global sales of smartphones (based on vendor shipments) meanwhile grew in 2013 by 38% year-over-year, surpassing one billion units, according to estimates of IDC. As seen in the chart below, Lenovo is currently in close contest with LG and Huawei, all three showing remarkable growth rates in 2013. Yet they are still a significant distance from the leading Samsung. The second-runner Apple enjoys a comfortable lead over the next three competitors, but its growth rate in 2013 has been the most modest. Apple might have more to worry about Lenovo’s plans than Samsung, given also Apple’s lingering penetration in China, largely because their handsets are considered desirable but not affordable enough for many young people (4).

Smartphones: Global  Market Shares and Sales Growth 2012-2013

Smartphones: Global Market Shares and Sales Growth 2012-2013

Yang sounds confident that Lenovo can replicate with MM what it achieved with ThinkPad from IBM, based on many similarities he finds between the pairing of Lenovo-IBM PC and that of Lenovo-Motorola Mobility, and the companies being “definitely complementary” (5). However, MM may be in a weaker position than ThinkPad or IBM were at the time of acquisition. MM is already detached for a while from the mother-company Motorola, so it is not clear that it can still enjoy the privileges of that name as before. Motorola is not on Interbrand’s list of Best Global Brands, and neither is Lenovo; Apple is ranked first in 2013 and Samsung is in the 8th spot. Motorola, once a leader in mobile phones, was already seriously behind the competition in developing satisfactory smartphones when it sold its Mobility division in 2012 to Google , inherently a software and Internet company.

Google, on its part, can take the credit for re-invigorating the Motorola Mobility business by producing up-to-date improved models Moto G and Moto X, reliant on advantages of Google’s Android operating system, now passed-on to Lenovo. It also brings to Lenovo a talented, highly capable staff. Nonetheless, the effort to grow MM within Google ended unsuccessfully after less than three years. Google did gain an access to more than 2,000 patents of MM that it has already utilised and will be allowed to continue to use to improve and enhance Andorid.

The keywords for Lenovo are (perceived) quality and credibility. The company remains concerned with raising the perceived quality image of products it develops on its own. Its advanced smartphone models, for instance, are targeted primarily for audiences in Western countries but those smartphones will be difficult to get accepted without the endorsement of a familiar and trusted brand in this product domain. Lenovo could rely on its achievements in the PC-laptop domain, yet its management, justifiably, does not believe this would be sufficient to extend to the fiercely competitive smartphone market. The greater strength of its corporate brand today, and specifically of its laptop brands for business (ThinkPad) and home-leisure (IdeaPad) should in the very least provide a solid support to build upon, although a brand like Motorola is expected to be the door-opener in developed economies.

  • It may be noted that in the US PC market Lenovo was ranked fourth in Q4 of 2013 (holiday season) with a market share of 10%, quite behind HP (26.5%), Dell (23%), yet closer to Apple (14%); in Europe, the Middle East and Africa its status is relatively better, second (15%) to HP (20%)(6).

Forrester Research’s analyst Frank Gillett is in opinion that Lenovo does not quite require MM for technological capabilities as a phone company; it is specifically after the brand name. He explains: “Buying Motorola Mobility is a much quicker way for Lenovo to access the premium smartphone market. Motorola has not been shooting the lights out with designs or sales volumes in smartphones, so the value is simply in brand recognition.” Nicole Peng, analyst with research firm Canalyst, essentially agrees while emphasising that the name “Motorola” is meaningful and should help in entering Lenovo’s smartphones mainly to the US; it would be useless in China where the presence of “Motorola” is currently miniscule (0.2%). She adds: “People don’t associate Lenovo so much with phones. But with Motorola, people automatically think of it as a phone brand.”  That is, Lenovo was seeking “Motorola” as an intangible asset.

Still, one may rightly get the impression, vis-a-vis the chequered record of Motorola Mobility in recent years, that the potential contribution of this brand to Lenovo is overrated. In his interview to Fortune (7), Yang admitted that he was interested in MM even before its acquisition by Google, and he had told Page about it. Eventually Page returned to Yang and offered Lenovo to take MM over, and they did. Yang suggested that lately the time was ripe for Lenovo for making the handover. The question is, whether both sides did not lose precious time, letting the MM division “cook” at Google instead of being repaired by a company that is rooted in the business of hardware equipment and handsets. It could have been a much more swift transition from Motorola with better prospects for capitalizing on its brand equity. Lenovo is contemplating how to balance between the Lenovo brand and Motorola Mobility. Yang suggests that in regions like the US and Western Europe it will focus at least in the first stage on leveraging Motorola while in China it will maintain the Lenovo name for its models. However, at some point it may introduce a combined-endorsed branding like “Motorola by Lenovo” to push forward the brand in China. That may be even a better strategy to implement in the West soon enough, as it did with “ThinkPad by Lenovo” to establish the linkage with the new parent. Nevertheless, it seems that Yang is aware of the state of MM when he says that Lenovo will have to grow the Motorola brand.

Suspicions about quality of products from emerging markets is a disturbing issue that concerns companies such as Lenovo. It may be infiltrating consumer attitudes even in China with regard to domestic products — Lenovo has recruited American celebrities NBA player Kobe Bryant and Hollywood actor Ashton Kutcher for its China advertising in attempt to portray their brand as more American or global (8). Deepak Advani was Chief Marketing Officer of Lenovo in 2005-2008 (brought in from IBM). In an interview to marketing professors Dhar and Sudhir of Yale University School of Management in 2009, after returning to IBM, he suggested that the difficulties of companies from countries like China and India with low perceived or expected quality are similar to those that were facing companies in Japan in the 1970s or in South Korea before the 1990s. Henceforth he proposed: “What Samsung and Sony and Toyota did was shift the focus away from where they came to what they did. And what they did was really exceptional.” Indeed a lesson worth considering: Should Lenovo leverage its country-of-origin currently, or postpone it to a later stage when the excellence of its products is already established?

Anything that goes on in the competition between smartphones cannot be dissociated from the battles of the operating systems (OS). Software companies are fighting for the number of handsets that will run with their respective OS. Google’s Android is practically the undisputed “lord” with 79% market share in 2013 (up from 69% in 2012), followed remotely by Apple’s iOS (15% down from 19%) and Microsoft’s Windows Phone (3.3% rising slightly from 2.4%)[BlackBerry is effectively pushed out with 0.6%; source: IDC]. Apple is in a unique position because it voluntarily restricted its iOS to its own iPhones, and that rather seems to constrain the company more severely as time passes in marketing its iPhones.

Google on the other hand works to get Android installed on as many smartphones as possible from different sources, particularly of the major device manufacturers. And that is almost obviously behind the deal with Lenovo: Google’s objective to expand the operation of more smartphones using its Android OS; Wall Street Journal notes however that Google signed new contracts with both Samsung as well as Lenovo to solidify their reliance on its OS.  Larry Page, CEO of Google, congratulated the deal with Lenovo and complimented their expertise in hardware and global reach and expressed confidence that they will preserve the distinct brand identity of Motorola Mobility; he sees the deal as a stage in a long-term partnership with Lenovo. This approach is welcome, though it may have been possible to launch earlier.

It is appropriate mentioning here the acquisition of Nokia mobile business by Microsoft last September. Nokia, like Motorola, was once a champion of mobile phones that trailed behind in smartphones. Microsoft was already in relations with Nokia for two years to replace the latter’s Symbian OS with Windows Phones on their smartphones. Yet, the deal to hand over Nokia phone division to Microsoft ($7.2bn) has become disputable. The motivation of Microsoft is sensical, to push forward its Windows Phone with the aid of handsets of a company it managed to capture and get under its control as owner. That sounds alarmingly familiar. Following the experience of Google with Motorola Mobility, it is legitimate to question whether Microsoft as a software company (notwithstanding its Surface tables) will be able to do better.

Lenovo is taking upon itself a complex challenge before it dares to challenge the major competitors Samsung and Apple. Because the brand it purchased may have to be salvaged before it really proves productive in expanding Lenovo’s smartphone business, particularly in Western countries. On the one hand, the company has a very good record in building its PC (mainly laptop) business with the aid of ThinkPad from IBM, which works in its favour and increases its chances of success. On the other hand, Motorola as a smartphone brand could be less ready to employ and more difficult to benefit from than expected. It will be interesting, and important, to follow how Lenovo deals with these internal and external challenges, and especially how smartly it succeeds in combining between the brands.

Ron Ventura, Ph.D. (Marketing)

Notes:

(1) “King of PCs, Lenovo Seeks to Dominate in Smartphones”, Eric Pfanner, International New-York Times, 28-29 December 2013 (figures for China from Canalyst research firm).

(2) “Lenovo CEO on Apple, Samsung: ‘Our Mission is to Surpass Them'”, Fortune Magazine (Online with CNN), 30 January 2014 (excerpts from an interview Miguel Helft with Yang Yuanqing). http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2014/01/30/lenovo-ceo-on-apple-samsung-our-mission-is-to-surpass-them/

(3) Press Release: “Garter Says Worldwide PC Shipments Declined 6.9% in Fourth Quarter of 2013”, Gartner Research, 9 January 2014; also Ibid. 1 (global market estimates of IDC). http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/2647517?fnl=search

(4) “Can Apple Win Over China?”, Bill Powel, Fortune Magazine (Europe Edition), 29 December 2012, 166 (7), pp. 33-38.

(5) Ibid. 2.

(6) Ibid. 3 — Gartner Research Press Release.

(7) Ibid. 2.

(8) Ibid. 1.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »