ScreenAgers (millennials, gen Y, facebook generation, born global) really don't respond to ads us, according to a new white paper from ComScore, based on nearly 1,000 TV tests and 35 digital advertising tests by its ARS copy testing group.

Yet here's the rub: Young people have always tuned out TV ads more than others, according to ComScore, which has research on the subject dating five decades because of its 2010 acquisition of ARSgroup. The gap between younger and older largely disappears when it comes to digital ads, however.

ComScore based the conclusions on surveys showing "share of choice," or the difference between groups of people exposed to ads and those not exposed when asked which among a set of competitive products they'd like to win.

Among the key findings:... ScreenAgers (millennials, gen Y, facebook generation, born global)

• don't respond to TV ads as much as their elders. Younger people were less responsive to TV ads in studies from 1961, 1988 and 1999, and the differences are actually narrowing. The average lift in share of choice among millennials (ages 16 to 29) was 4.6 percentage points in 2011, compared with 6.4 points for boomers. But in 1988, there was an even bigger generational divide of 10.5 to 13.8 points.
• are about as responsive to digital ads as other generations. The average share-of-choice lift for millennials for digital ads in the 2011 study was 6.0, vs. 6.8 for boomers and 6.4 for seniors, a much smaller difference than with TV. It's the first time ComScore or ARS looked at digital ads, as they didn't exist in 1988 and clients weren't paying for many digital ad tests in 1999. And it's not because the lifts were smaller for digital. They were actually higher across-the-board for the digital ads -- though with a small sample of 35 studies vs. nearly 1,000 for TV.
• respond to the same advertising approaches as prior generations. The biggest needle-movers for them in TV ads are brand differentiation, competitive comparisons, information about new products or features and superiority claims. Showing the product and the brand or logo longer also helps. So, sorry, all you agency creatives out there. You haven't heard the last of "make the logo bigger."
• are more engaged in all kinds of media than older folks. In ComScore tests that ask people about how much value they place on a program or website, millennials had engagement scores that were on average 10.3% ahead of boomers for TV programming, but an even bigger 22.2% gap over boomers on digital media. Seniors had the lowest engagement scores.
• may respond less to TV ads, but at least they remember them longer. Millennials are less likely than their elders to recall an ad immediately after seeing it, losing by a 43%-to-54% margin to boomers and seniors on this front. Three days later, it's a different story, as 24% of millennials on average remember an ad vs. only 18% of seniors. One hypothesis is that the fading memories of older folks are to blame, said Douglas Crang, director at ComScore. Fading recall among older consumers is a pattern that has existed in tests since the 1960s. ARS has a long memory, even if boomers and seniors don't.

Image from http://www.prosumer-report.com/blog/2011/11/a-cloudy-forecast-for-screenagers/ which is another report on the same theme

These are US facts....and the data is about discovery, recommendation, influence, programs, experience and who you share with in real time and on the back channel....

http://www.improvedigital.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/DisplayAdvertisingEcoSystemMap12.pdf

The Kindle Fire has a new-cloud Internet browser, Silk, and it has raised some new questions with regards to privacy.

It appears that all of your web surfing habits will transit Amazon’s cloud… just like Google AdWords and Facebook who are also recording/ watching you.

However, Amazon Silk functions in a new way which is unlike anything else currently on the market. Ordinarily, most web browsers such as Safari, Explorer and Firefox connect internet users directly with websites, but Silk filters everything through Amazon’s own cloud-computing services. The company argue that this enables the mobile web experience to be carried out at almost double the speed at which websites currently load.

The privacy brigade say there may be other unintended consequences, stating that the web tracking also applies to secure connections, meaning in theory that Amazon could keep a log of communications made during other online transactions and even on secure versions of sites like Facebook, Twitter and Gmail.  Amazon has responded saying that “Silk keeps a temporarily log of  Web addresses known as uniform resource locators (‘URLs’) for the Web pages it serves and certain identifiers, such as IP or MAC addresses, to troubleshoot and diagnose Amazon Silk technical issues. We generally do not keep this information for longer than 30 days”.

also read http://rossdawsonblog.com/weblog/archives/2011/09/capturing-all-your-browsing-data-the-difference-between-amazons-silk-and-opera-mobile.html

I have written about the "Screens of Life" many times and have focussed on what will happen in a multi-screen world; as the ideals of control and data ownership become complex.

This is a short video about the future of screens but think about sitting in front of the big screen ( TV) with an interactive information screen (tablet) and using your small screen (mobile) to tweet about what you have round/ seen.... we are in a multiscreen world but who controls what and where is your data?

The changing face of mobile

Surprised at the latest Google deal to acquire Motorola Mobility for $12.5Bn, you should not be; Eric Schmidt was very clear back at MWC in FEB 2007 "Mobile Mobile Mobile" and since then Google has focussed both time and effort to deliver andriod (which was itself acquired).  When Schmidt stepped down in saying " adult supervision no longer required" this left open the matured Larry Page to step up from being great at maths and a world leading entrepreneur, to take on the mantel of "world leading strategist and deal doer."

This deal will be the discussion point for the next 3 months and already there are a lot of views circulating about what it means but there is no doubt that depending on your stance you can argue for change. However at Mobile 2 on 1st Sept in SFO - we get the first bite, why not join in. 

The Deal

Google purchased Motorola’s mobile business for $12.5 billion. In doing so, Google brought patents, hardware design, manufacturing and a seat at the patent table. However the context is... Oracle suing, Apple winning, eco-system struggling, Samsung annoyed and Microsoft attacking

Worthy of Note

Google has bought in cash and not shares.  This commitment will reduce their cash balance to $22bn from the mid thirties, but it is cash.  Given the issues that cash purchases delivered to telecoms in 2000/2001 this is an important fact as many ran into immediate issues and sold off key assets.  However, I expect the reason that this is cash is that Google are not expecting to hold the operational assets for long.  An equity purchase could have caused them problems from shareholders when they flip it assuming it completes in Q1 2012

Why now?

Porter 5 forces model is helpful here as it highlights the dynamic nature of the mobile market that Google faces.  Their power is low, their service fragmented and  they are being attacked.

Implications

This deal will be the discussion point for the next 3 months and already there are a lot of views circulating about what it means but there is no doubt that depending on your stance you can argue for change. However at Mobile 2 on 1st Sept in SFO - we get the first bite, why not join in. 

Starting from the view of the world formed by ....

Operators                         Deal does not change anything as we are the controllers of mobile - we keep all manufacturers below 30% market share and make sure it is a competitive supply market.  However, we are still worried about becoming bit pipe....

Oracle/ Sun/ Java             Defence needed as android has been beset with legal challenges from all sides, including a multibillion dollar lawsuit filed by Oracle, but Motorola patents are about wireless tech and unlikely to help.

Microsoft/ Nokia                Attention is off us - heads down lads and deliver. Worth reading the pervious insights on MSFT/ Nokia deal and how to befriend the operators.

Apple                                By purchasing a manufacturer, Google has admitted it needs more than just a free operating system and loads of partners to compete with Apple: they need to duplicate Apple’s successes by totally controlling both the hardware and software of their devices.

OEM 's                             "Google has gone from partner to competitor." 

Media/ Content owners       According to Infonetics, Motorola Mobility was the leader in set-top box revenues last year, and was also tops in hybrid IP/QAM set-top boxes -- that is, the boxes used by operators like Verizon that combine broadcast TV and over-the-top applications. By leveraging Motorola's position with carriers, Google can better solidify its bid to expand Google TV and Android into the living room."

Developers                       At least there is one less system to deal with

Scenarios and outcomes

The production shop

                         In this scenario Google keeps Motorola as is and starts to manufacture it owns handsets.  In reality this could provide short term stability to the fragmented andriod market place and show case devices and move into other screen based markets, but in the long run looks like a new Apple and being open is probably not a true option. Probability in long run 10% as this would not elevate Page to world class strategist who is just following Jobs view of the world.

                         This is the company official line that the acquisition brings 17,000 patents (but are they relevant) to Google and enables them to robustly defend their mobile position and also expand.  It is a $12.5bn investment to get a seat at the table.  Strategically there is a lot of truth in this as mobile will dominate long term strategy and value. Probability in long run 25% as patents only last for a period....

Power to disrupt

                         Imagine Google takes the patents, yes they are useful to defend/ negotiate but also to empower others if free and open. This would reduce the power of others in the market and change the dynamics

                         Imagine Google keeps the patents and sells on production to Samsung to create a global partner across all screens

                         Imagine Google Wallet becomes the model - forget small transaction fees - lets go for user data in every model

                         Probability in long run 65% and Larry Page is now the best strategist in the world and did it without adult supervision.

Back in May I wrote Moving Beyond Recommendation Engines, does personalisation work or are we doomed and I am back thinking again about Eli Pariser: Beware online "filter bubbles"   TED talk as I read his  book.

The premise is that life is filtered, but I will still contend that Internet provides less filtering and more choice than a TV or media editor and it is accessible but you need to know how to discover the content you are looking for.

Tom Weiss (whom I know well) over at TV Genius blogged about keeping TV relevant for each individual and the need for a mix that needs to include not only recommendations, but also TV search, saved search terms , TV reminders, social media suggestions, editorial reviews, popular programming, and the top trending TV shows.  However you social media recommendation will be influenced by who you follow and presented 5 segments.

1. Socialites: Influenced by friends and family, channel surfing, and web and mobile

2. Progressives: Influenced by web and mobile content

3. Re-actives: Influenced by channel surfing and on-air trailers

4. Traditionals: Influenced by newspapers, magazines, and on-air trailers

5.  TV addicts: Influenced by on-air trailers, the EPG, and web and mobile content 

Each group has very different content discovery behaviours. This means that TV providers need to offer a content discovery mix that appeals to each group.  However – what happens we look at the different screens of life  this being all the screens that we interact with as we have expanded beyond broadcast TV.

Should the segmentation (that you follow and take recommendation from) be driven by activity?

• engaged
• creative
• creating
• guiding
• consuming
• multitask
• back channel
• broadcast
• influence
• discovery

Mobile usage is highest among teenagers  From VentureBeat  by Tom Cheredar on 8^th June 11

The teenage demographic spends the least amount of time watching television, talking on the phone or using personal computers, according to a Nielsen report about how young people engage media. Mobile technology appears to be what they use most.

Teens are using text messages to communicate with their social circle over twice as much as any other demographic, the report states. And teens also watch more mobile video content than any other demographic.

The 12 to 17 age demographic viewed an average of 7 hours 13 minutes of mobile video per month in Q4 2010, while the general population viewed an average of only 4 hours 20 minutes.

Not surprisingly, the report also states that mobile advertising has the greatest impact on teenagers.

Implication is for which screen:

There is no surprises here – however the youth are leading on using [interacting with] several screens at the same time. The debate now is about is this a master slave screen scenario or are all screens equal (companions) as this will determine who has control [access] to the data……

from http://www.theconversationprism.com/