Print 24 comment(s) - last by TTowntom2.. on Jan 4 at 2:34 PM

Banners coming soon to a Verizon mobile near you

Starting next year, Verizon Wireless will be allowing placement of banner ads on its news, weather, sports and other information sites viewed on its mobiles, according the New York Times.

With space for sale in nearly all forms of digital entertainment, Verizon looks to capitalize on advertisers looking for the next frontier. Verizon acknowledges that selling ad space can be an additional source of revenue for the company, but is approaching the idea of ads with much caution.

“We know we can make significant dollars in mobile Web advertising in 2007,” said John Harrobin, vice president of marketing and digital media for Verizon Wireless. “That said, we likely will not — we want to take it carefully and methodically, and enable the right experience.” More generally, he added, “Mobile advertising is going to take off in 2007.”

Verizon is not the first U.S. carrier to allow advertisements on its handsets. Sprint was the first to launch advertising on its content starting October. As per numbers from Ovum Research, advertisers in 2005 spent $45 million on mobile ads, but that number is expected to more than double this year. Advertising spending will reach a projected $1.3 billion by 2010.

Verizon could be looking to the Internet for an example of which types of advertising are well accepted by users. Harrobin said that during consumer trials, users seemed to accept a single banner ad. “What we don’t want to do is repeat the mistakes of the Internet — spam, interstitials, pop-ups,” Mr. Harrobin said.

Advancements of handsets with higher-resolution displays and faster network technologies, such as EVDO and 3G, will enable richer Web browsing capabilities. Advertisers are likely noticing that new handsets are capable of delivering their message better than ever.

While users may soon have to live with ads taking up real estate on their small mobile screens, perhaps advertisers may usher in a model for ads-supported, subsidized services in exchange for free calls and data.

Comments     Threshold

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

By exdeath on 12/27/2006 10:36:55 AM , Rating: 5
They will charge YOU $0.25 per add displayed, and also you'll still be paying the connection fees normally associated with browsing even when viewing ads.

Yay for free subscription based revenue streams where we don't actually have to produce or provide anything.

*roll eyes*

RE: And...
By exdeath on 12/27/2006 10:40:32 AM , Rating: 5
I bet Hollywood and the music industry are deadly envious of the wireless phone business model; they would love to have you lease everything and have a nickel and dime pay per view setup rather than sell you a disc that you can privately view/trade/sell without them knowing.

Next thing you know your microwave will connect to the internet and you'll be required to pay more fees when popping popcorn if your DVD/pay-per-view box is running at the same time, before the movie will resume.

RE: And...
By FITCamaro on 12/27/2006 12:12:49 PM , Rating: 2
Why do you say that you will be charged a quarter for them to display the ad? The ad is on the web page you're viewing. If you don't surf the web with your phone, you won't even see them. My cell phone is a phone. I don't need to send text messages, email, etc with my phone. What the hell is the point of sending a text message to someone? Just call them.

RE: And...
By Crassus on 12/27/2006 3:01:24 PM , Rating: 3
What the hell is the point of sending a text message to someone?

Well, 1) a short message doesn't require chatting with the person you pass it on to 2) if the phone is out of network reach/switched off the recipient gets the message when the phone gets network service again 3) you don't have to write it down as you've got it in writing already (plus the note can't disappear) 4) you can do that while talking is not possible (conferences, school, restaurants etc.) and so on. Which is why text messaging became so big so fast in Europe.

RE: And...
By FITCamaro on 12/27/2006 11:14:24 PM , Rating: 1
Number 1 is you're only point thats valid. Number 2, ever hear of voicemail? Number 3, oh god not have to write a quick number or something down. And for number 4, you shouldn't be sending a text message during a conference or in school, you should be paying attention, and who says you can't talk in a restaurant on your phone real fast.

People have just become so afraid of having to actually talk to people, they'd rather use something where they don't have to. Which is why number 1 is valid. I actually hate at work how I have to send an email to someone 30 feet away because it needs to be kept on record instead of just walking over and saying it.

RE: And...
By Pandamonium on 12/29/2006 5:03:55 AM , Rating: 1
Open your eyes.
2) Just because voicemail exists doesn't mean text messages shouldn't.
3) Do you really think nobody will *ever* be in a situation where they couldn't find a working pen/pencil?
4) Get off your high horse. What I do at a conference or school is my prerogative. Don't force your values on others. To satisfy you though, text messages are great for when you're trying to get in touch with friends to meet you at a noisy bar/club.

Lastly: people aren't afraid to talk to one another; they're afraid of lawsuits.

RE: And...
By jtesoro on 12/30/2006 8:01:39 AM , Rating: 2
I'm with you. I think all points are valid. Just to add some other uses for text messages:

- for quick info, it can be cheaper (Q: what time will you be ready to be picked up? A: 4:30). Yes, for a lot of people price matters
- good for blasting a message to the gang without calling them up one by one ("hey guys, poker and beer at my place 9:00pm")
- sending info to people without a reply needed ("System still down, tech team estimates uptime in 2 hours. Will send another update at 7pm")

For those who still don't get it, maybe it'll be easier to understand if you consider that instant messaging via Yahoo or MSN Messenger generates a huge amount of traffic. Text messaging is kind of like that, but on your phone.

I will say that it's not be for everyone, but there are still lots of good reasons for using it.

RE: And...
By TTowntom2 on 1/4/2007 2:34:07 PM , Rating: 2
exactly...glad to see someone gets it.

By exdeath on 12/27/2006 10:44:09 AM , Rating: 2
Just say no to 'recurring subscription' based services. Nickel and dime schemes designed to get you paying for nothing.

Microsoft wouldn't get away with charging you $1.00 every time you download and change you're wallpaper on your computer, either from the internet or a disc.

So why do we let mobile phone providers get away with it?

By Chudilo on 12/27/2006 11:16:43 AM , Rating: 2
Hah. That's exactly why there are dozens of tools floating around the internet that allow you to transfer wallpapers/music and such to your phone without paying the phone company.
While they are not illegal they just do not guarantee 100% compatibility. It's up to the software developer (or eventually the phone manufacturer) to ensure that.

Hopefully someday we'll get a common operating system for most phone types and then maybe more standardized applications can be developed.
Actually Verizon started that with putting their software on all phones they sell, which seems like a crazy idea for now, but wait a few years, when there are hundreds of phones with common software on it. It seemed ridiculous to me at first too, when they replaced the terrible software in the RAZR with something just as bad, but easier to use, but then I understood that they're doing the right by standardizing all the phones. PPL will find ways to add features that they blocked, but as long as the software is the same on all phones, maybe they'll release an SDK someday.If there are enough phones that use the program it might be worthwhile to develop something.

By KristopherKubicki on 12/27/2006 12:14:45 PM , Rating: 1
Hopefully someday we'll get a common operating system for most phone types and then maybe more standardized applications can be developed.

Windows Mobile?

By ninjit on 12/27/2006 3:58:17 PM , Rating: 2
Mobile Java?

Screen Space!?
By Mazzer on 12/27/2006 10:40:23 AM , Rating: 2
I have never seen a banner ad on a cell phone screen, has anyone here? To me it would seem that the ad would need to take up a fair amount of screen space to be clear. Of course once you scroll past it no big deal I guess, but I could understand how this might cause some people grief. Thats said, I will continue to get my weather and sports score from my computer where banners are really easy to ignore via large screen.

RE: Screen Space!?
By h0kiez on 12/27/2006 11:05:37 AM , Rating: 2
First there will be ads, then there will be ad-block plug-ins for Mobile IE. Where have I seen this before?

Ads on Cell Phones
By rkrueger on 12/27/2006 11:17:06 AM , Rating: 2
There is no denying it. It's coming to a cell phone near you and there's nothing we can do about it. Cell phones are the next advertising medium. But, given today's present cell phone browser and interface, how can they offer any real value to end users and advertisers alike? Look for new cell phone interfaces that make full use of ads across a variety of formats.

RE: Ads on Cell Phones
By mindless1 on 12/28/2006 1:53:53 PM , Rating: 2
Not quite true, if you have a choice in service there IS a very clear and significant thing you can do- move on to another company. There is no clearer way to tell them you won't accept ads than becoming an EX-customer. Waffle about it instead and you lose that golden opportunity, their loss of customer base has to correspond to the ads being implemented.

The CellPhone market is changing... I think
By ninjit on 12/27/2006 3:57:43 PM , Rating: 2
... for the better I hope.

I agree it's ridiculous that they charge for absolutely everything they possibly can, but there are a few new companies that are trying to go against that grain. is one. Their main thrust is data - web picture messaging, IM, etc. without per unit charges (just the flat monthly fee) - In fact their moto is that they aren't a cellphone company and they don't sell cellphones.

And I just heard of this new one that has recently opened up service here in SD (they started out elsewhere).
Unlimited everything (Talk, Text, Web, Chat) for $50!!! And no contracts.
When I first heard about this I thought htf is that possible? But then it occurred to me that the only reason I thought that was because I'm used to taking it up the ass from the likes of Verizon, Cingular, T-Mobile.

The only problem with the above services is that they have limited coverage areas at the moment - mostly the major metropolitan areas - but that's fine if your spend most of your time in those areas.

I really hope Cricket Mobile takes off - if nothing else just to force the incumbent cellular operators into competing better.

By mxzrider2 on 12/28/2006 9:31:02 PM , Rating: 2
too bad the service blows, no coverage and it costs a ton to roam in most cases. and their customer service is awful. a friend of mine has had his service shut off several times with a context of he did not pay. he payed every time yet they still shut his service off. he finally switched companies. it is a lame company with a good hook.

Bye, bye
By FearlessUser on 12/27/2006 6:02:27 PM , Rating: 2
Yet another reason to dump Verizon after my contract is up. To bad that's a year and a half away...

RE: Bye, bye
By Zandros on 12/27/2006 7:51:46 PM , Rating: 2
You can't cite degradation of service as a valid reason to end the contract?

So how about lowering my phone bill
By phatboye on 12/27/2006 10:41:44 AM , Rating: 2
I wouldn't mind this so much if this would lower my phone bill. But we all know that isn't going to happen.

As slow as verizon's mobile web is they should not put any ads up esp. since they charge for each minute you that you use it. Maybe they can put ads up for people who want to access verizon's moble web for free and have a premium, paid version without ads.

I would never
By aceadoni on 1/3/2007 7:30:30 PM , Rating: 2
That is the reason why I pay for a wireless data card. If I wanted ads I'd go on google or watch TV who would have concieved this idea is crazy the vast majority of cell subscibers don't use wireless web. How in the hell do you go from a device used to communicate with PEOPLE to a device used to sell a product that isin't the device. That is just plain crazy. So say you go on your web enabled phone to get directions cause you are lost and get an ad to buy a gps. I'm sure I'd be more pissed at the time wasted viewing the ad and not getting the information I was looking for but that is just me.

Ads ok for free browsing
By bjourdo on 12/27/2006 11:47:36 AM , Rating: 2
I never use the web browsing functions of my cell phone because of the additional cost, but I would accept ignoring banner ads in exchange for free mobil web service. Wishful thinking I know, but Hey if it happend. I'd use it.

RE: Ads ok for free browsing
By michal1980 on 12/27/06, Rating: -1
"My sex life is pretty good" -- Steve Jobs' random musings during the 2010 D8 conference

Most Popular ArticlesAre you ready for this ? HyperDrive Aircraft
September 24, 2016, 9:29 AM
Leaked – Samsung S8 is a Dream and a Dream 2
September 25, 2016, 8:00 AM
Yahoo Hacked - Change Your Passwords and Security Info ASAP!
September 23, 2016, 5:45 AM
A is for Apples
September 23, 2016, 5:32 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki