backtop


Print 14 comment(s) - last by nafhan.. on Dec 14 at 10:22 AM


Google's AdMob is a threat to Apple's iAd in the mobile marketing realm  (Source: gomonews.com)
Apple's iAd made up $95 million of the $630 million market while Google claimed $151 million

Apple has recognized that Google is winning the mobile ad war, and has decided to loosen its grip on the iAd service and compromise with marketers.

Apple's iAd service is a mobile advertising platform for the iPhone, iPad and iPod touch only. It launched in July 2010 and allowed third-party developers to embed advertisements into their applications.

Some current iAd-using marketers are happy with the service, such as Unilever, which is responsible for ads like Dove soap and Ben & Jerry's ice cream. Unilever purchased 13 iAd campaigns and has called the service "amazing" because users typically spend an average of 68 seconds on the ads.

Despite this bit of success, Apple is far from being numero uno in mobile ads. According to a recent analysis by the International Data Corporation (IDC), Google snatched the No. 1 spot in estimated share of U.S. mobile display ad revenue for 2011 with 24 percent ($151 million). Apple sits at 15 percent ($95 million) of the $630 million market, even being beat out by Millennial Media at 17 percent ($107 million).

Google's AdMob service, which the search giant acquired in November 2009 for $750 million, is likely more successful than iAd because of its fair prices and its ability to span a variety of devices. Apple's iAd, on the other hand, has a stiff price like most Apple products and as mentioned, iAd is only available for Apple devices. In addition, Apple has tight control over the creative process regarding the ads.

Apple originally required marketers to commit to a spending limit of at least $1 million, but this was later cut down to $500,000. Also, Apple was charging marketers every time a user tapped an ad, which would quickly eat through the budget.

But Apple is now making some changes in order to beef up its failing ad service. For starters, it reportedly plans to drop the spending limit from $500,000 to $400,000. It will also put a cap on its tap-related charges, where advertisers pay $10 every time an ad is viewed 1,000 times and only $2 whenever the ad is tapped.

In addition, Apple has created a training program in order to show potential advertisers what they can get out of participating in the iAd service. OMD, Apple's media buying agency, has brought its advertising clients to Apple headquarters in Cupertino, California for a tour where Apple designers offer information on its products and marketing, complete with a stop in the Apple store on the way out where companies can buy Apple products at a discount.

Despite Apple's efforts to compete with Google, IDC analyst Karsten Weide doesn't see Apple winning this battle.

"Apple we believe will, over time, fade into the background," said Weide. "It was attempted to make sure that even consumers advertising experience on Apple devices was perfect, but it hasn't really worked."

Sources: SlashGear, The Wall Street Journal



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

.
By StevoLincolnite on 12/13/2011 11:50:49 AM , Rating: 2
Apple will loose the advert battle, that was known from the very beginning.
Apple has never been a high-volume manufacturer, but instead relied on higher profit margins per-item.

That allows other competitors such as Google to flood the market with cheaper and just-as-good alternatives supported by heaps of manufacturers that people will buy up.

The end result is an advert displayed on Android is going to have a much larger audience as more people have the devices and more manufacturers backing and making said devices.

An advert on an iPhone is no more "valuable" than one on Android.
Plus advertising is Google's bread and butter.




RE: .
By Tony Swash on 12/13/11, Rating: -1
RE: .
By retrospooty on 12/13/2011 12:57:39 PM , Rating: 2
"Which must be why Apple's handsets are the number one and number two in numbers sold."

Yet they are being outsold 3 to 1. Of course they are top amungst manufactureres, its a closed architecture nad no-one else makes them. If you wanna talk numbers, talk to the 3 androids sold for every iPhone.


RE: .
By Cheesew1z69 on 12/13/2011 1:15:12 PM , Rating: 3
He won't, we all know it, it doesn't fit into his agenda if it doesn't look good for Apple.


RE: .
By Tony Swash on 12/13/11, Rating: 0
RE: .
By retrospooty on 12/13/2011 2:41:44 PM , Rating: 2
Apple absolutely makes money. No-one was questionning that. YOu just make it sound like they are far bigger and far more important than they are.

Calm down man, its just a company. just breath.


RE: .
By Solandri on 12/13/2011 8:38:15 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
And yet with just three handsets Apple still takes the lion share of the profits in the phone market.

And yet you argue that Apple products aren't overpriced.

A large profit margin in a market economy is a dead giveaway of a market inefficiency. Inefficiencies come about because of lack of supply (inability to produce enough to meet demand), or excess demand (people hyped up to buy stuff that's not really worth what they're paying). The market corrects inefficiency by encouraging competition which lower prices. Something Apple has been fighting tooth and nail with its patent lawsuit campaign.

An initial large profit margin is a sign that a company has struck upon a previously untapped market via a new product. A large profit margin which persists is a sign of market manipulation and/or corruption. It is not something to be proud of unless you're constantly introducing new types of products.


RE: .
By its tom hanks on 12/13/2011 1:05:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Just like happened with the iPod. Oh wait a minute.....


hahahahaha apples ONE long term success... nice example of apple's success among real competition and avoidance of the real situation (surprise!)


RE: .
By nafhan on 12/13/2011 1:14:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Which must be why Apple's handsets are the number one and number two in numbers sold.
Apple sells 3 handsets, and that's it. Other phone OS's have multiple manufacturers creating handsets and re-badging them based on carrier, the phase of the moon, etc. Not an ideal situation for the consumer, but it does make things like your statistic significantly less relevant.
quote:
Just like happened with the iPod.
There are some major difference between what happened with the iPod and what's happening now with phones, now. Including:
--The MP3 player market basically didn't exist before the iPod. This is not the case with smartphones.
--Apple controlled/controls a majority of the market for stand alone MP3 players. This, again, is not the case for smartphones.


RE: .
By Tony Swash on 12/13/2011 2:20:08 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The MP3 player market basically didn't exist before the iPod. This is not the case with smartphones.


That's simply not true

quote:
Apple controlled/controls a majority of the market for stand alone MP3 players. This, again, is not the case for smartphones.


The interesting question is how did Apple do that given that, other than the click wheel which Apple has the patent for, the iPod didn't really contain any technology that anyone else couldn't have had if they had wanted.

The reason the iPod is interesting is because it may be that the tablet market is more like the iPod market than the phone handset market.


RE: .
By its tom hanks on 12/13/2011 8:24:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That's simply not true


wait a minute now, you're the one always asking for "evidence" (even though you're blind to it yourself), where's yours for that statement

quote:
The interesting question is how did Apple do that given that, other than the click wheel which Apple has the patent for, the iPod didn't really contain any technology that anyone else couldn't have had if they had wanted.


most of us are smart enough to figure out that our phones are not only on us pretty much all the time, but they double as mp3 players as well, so we don't give a company another $200 for a device we already own in order to achieve more cool points.


RE: .
By nafhan on 12/14/2011 10:22:05 AM , Rating: 2
So... The Rio and the Nomad came out before the iPod. You're saying one of the marginal late 90's MP3 players created the market for those devices? I'm sticking with what I said in my previous post.
quote:
The reason the iPod is interesting is because it may be that the tablet market is more like the iPod market than the phone handset market.
Are you drawing some kind of conclusion from that, or just making a random statement? The exact statement you're making may be true, but there's enough differences between the two that it's a pretty meaningless statement.


RE: .
By MrWho on 12/14/2011 7:36:59 AM , Rating: 1
Whatever it is you're smoking, please send me some. It appears to be much stronger than anything on sale over here, either legal or otherwise!


RE: .
By pixelslave on 12/13/2011 3:22:36 PM , Rating: 2
Well, you overlook a fact -- iOS users are more likely to "pay" for an app than Android users. Because of that, they are less willing to see ads. Less ads, less ad revenues. Since Apple's iAd only serves iOS devices only, it has nowhere else to gain market share. It's simple math. Apple creates a market that is not favorable to mobile advertising, how can they expect a big return from serving ads?


"We’re Apple. We don’t wear suits. We don’t even own suits." -- Apple CEO Steve Jobs














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki