That's a question that often comes up when discussing hurdles that service providers face when trying to pitch advertising agencies on mobile programs their clients should run.

For most agencies this is a replay of the late 1990s, when an upstart medium promised unlimited eyeballs, plentiful clicks and an interactivity never seen in any other channel. The Internet was hyped to the point where it was bound to under-deliver. But a dot-com meltdown later, agencies got the strength versus weaknesses argument down pat.

Luckily for mobile, it hasn't yet suffered this scale of hype. And whatever chatter there is, it's focused on that tired old theme, "Mobile marketing is a year away." Which is good news in a way, because by default, the mobile channel is under-promising and over-delivering, if reading the stories this publication runs is any indication.

Admittedly there are plenty of failed mobile programs that don't get discussed in the press or at the many wireless industry events nationwide. They should, and service providers should not be afraid to say in the odd case that the emperor has no clothes.

It would save much disappointment and money for all players to have knowledge of failures aired in public. And it would be the brave and smart thing to do.

Problem is, if agencies hear only about the successes, they still know only one side of the story.

If mobile service providers and wireless carriers have to take mobile marketing to its full potential, they must educate ad agencies on mobile marketing best practices, privacy and targeting concerns and programs that have worked and ones that have failed.

Premium price for premium channel
Mobile service providers should also prove to agencies that mobile can offer a return on investment that should not be judged by Internet standards.

For one, the mobile medium is the most personal of all channels. Mobile programs are currently complex to execute, at least compared with a straightforward online or print ad buy.

Also, the gatekeepers -- carriers -- are most zealous about protecting the subscriber experiences on their network. After all, a botched mobile program can cost two parties that customer -- the carrier and the marketer.

So, it's only fair that the cost-per-thousand for impressions will be higher on mobile than the Internet. The returns are also better in terms of typical response to texting programs and mobile coupon offers, for example.

Successful mobile programs prove that opted-in consumers are engaged and assured of some value in return for their attention.

Agencies must not harbor this fallacy that they can price mobile marketing on par with the Internet. The math won't allow that. Once that mindset changes, they can prove to their clients how it's worth the extra dollar to be where the consumer is -- on the mobile phone.

Now here's another thing that mobile service providers need to do to sway agencies: prove that the mobile channel works in conjunction with others. It certainly is an ideal complement to retail, print, television, direct mail, outdoor media and the Internet.

The mobile channel also plays a key role in extending loyalty programs to another channel.

Few agencies run campaigns these days that are not multichannel in nature. Why skip out at the last mile? That should be part of the argument.

Mobile is the newest electronic channel. But it's a premium channel and should be positioned and treated as such and charged for accordingly. It is central to gap marketing (see story).

Be it today or tomorrow, media planners and buyers in agencies know they've got to have a presence on the fastest-growing media channel worldwide or risk the wrath of clients and neglect of consumers.