The trouble with mobile applications: an identity crisis

By Mickey Alam Khan

September 21, 2009

Mickey Alam Khan is editor in chief of Mobile Marketer and Mobile Commerce Daily

Is the mobile application becoming a victim of its own success? At least that’s the sense some industry observers may get listening to the chatter at the various mobile marketing events nationwide.

Just last week panelists at an event in New York whined about the number of applications out there in the marketplace – a euphemism for the Apple App Store – and how difficult it has become to discover them.

Others grumbled about the utility of such applications, especially when the mobile Web is gaining more acceptance as an entry point to the Internet. One of the speakers went so far as to dismiss applications as a fad that will soon be eclipsed by the Web.

And then, of course, there was the inevitable discussion over the cost of mobile applications and the purpose they really serve.

Do application developers have something to worry about? Do application stores have something to fret over? Does Apple need to think again?

Indeed, the application problem is Apple’s problem. Since its launch a year ago, the Apple App Store has recorded more than 1.2 billion downloads of the 75,000-plus applications posted. That is no mean feat.

Now this is a back-of-the-envelope guess, but combined, the number of applications available worldwide would total under 150,000 – the Apple App Store’s database, plus GetJar’s 50,000-plus and a few thousand each from Nokia’s Ovi, the BlackBerry App World, the Palm Catalog and a few others.

If marketers and consumers cannot handle 150,000 applications, what will they do one year down the road – when the number may quadruple?

Many marketers are upset over Apple’s closed network. Well, there’s nothing they can do about that. That’s just the way Apple works with its App Store. There were similar gripes over Google’s algorithms for ranking search results in the early years of the search engine’s existence.

But there is some substance to each one of the issues that repeatedly crop up at one mobile event after the other. What really is the role of the mobile application?

Application developers and Apple haven’t made answering that question easier. Indeed, why would anyone want to have an application when an easily accessed mobile-friendly Web site would offer the same information?

App traps
Put simply, there are several issues with applications: search and discoverability, costs, audience and ROI.

Take search. It isn’t difficult searching for an application within the Apple App Store. Type in a keyword and the application pops up. But, as some say, that’s not how consumers may discover applications. They look to the categories and click on those tabs. And that’s where only the most popular applications show up. What about the rest?

Another issue is the ability to search on the mobile device itself. Consumers, especially iPhone owners, are wont to download plenty of applications. This means the applications may go several pages deep on the mobile phone. That itself presents a visibility issue for the applications.

The final search irritant for application developers is the Apple App Store’s walled garden. Google’s search spiders don’t crawl the Apple App Store, or any rival application store, for that matter. That is a serious blow for visibility and discoverability.

While Apple is not tipping its hand, it may soon create a system where marketers can pay to optimize their applications within the App Store.

In essence, Apple may take a leaf out of Google’s book and supplement organic search with paid search. Maybe an AppWords program is in the making?

Costs are another issue. A smart application is not cheap. For marketers with trimmed budgets, the choice of going mobile itself may be heavily debated. And then when the decision’s made, it need not be a false choice between mobile site and mobile application. But that’s not the way the world works.

In many cases, it is far cheaper to build out a mobile or mobile-friendly Web site than it is to create a mobile application.

While the site is accessed from all devices, the application is limited to the handset model and platform. This limitation is factored into the cost comparisons.

Which leads to the third issue: audience. Once up on the mobile Web, the brand’s site is accessed from all Web-enabled smartphones. Can that be said for applications? No. They are platform-specific.

And that ties in with the ROI aspect. How do marketers justify the ROI on an application? What are the metrics to measure branding or direct marketing success? Are the metrics the same as used for the mobile Web?

The answer to the last question is probably yes, especially if the application is Web-based. Still, marketers need the satisfaction of knowing that the application is showing some returns, either via awareness, engagement or transactions.

This is not meant to be a polemic against mobile applications. They serve a key purpose in the mobile universe.

Indeed, mobile applications are the ideal tool for building brand loyalty with consumers – a willingness to share valuable phone real estate is the ultimate endorsement – and for conducting repetitive tasks on the mobile devices without firing up the Web browser.

Do those utilities come across loud and clear? No.

It is obvious that the mobile applications category is suffering from an identity crisis. Applications must be discussed in marketing language and not technology razzle-dazzle. If applications are treated like a toy, then only children will play.

Comments on "The trouble with mobile applications: an identity crisis"

1. Duda Mobile says:

   September 22, 2009 at 8:29am

   Mickey,
   Good article, see also my blog that discusses the pros and cons of mobile web vs. mobile apps: Agree, see also my blog that discusses the pros and cons of mobile web vs. mobile apps:
   http://blog.dudamobile.com/mobile-website/mobile-web-vs-mobile-apps/

2. patrick mork says:

   September 21, 2009 at 5:45pm

   Mickey,
   
   Very good piece and great analysis. I agree there are a number of issues that we as an industry need to address to turn apps into a viable marketing tool.
   
   None the less, I think it’s a bit simplistic to group all app stores into the same basket. Certainly we have common issues but we also have different responses to these issues.
   
   Search. With regards to discovery of apps there is no doubt that as you get more apps into an app store it becomes harder for consumers to find what they want. GetJar has two ways around this. From a developer point of view we allow content owners to pay for visibility using Pay-Per-Download. This allows them to bid for placement. If they are among the top bidders they get placement. If they get downloads they pay us and if they don’t there’s not cost apart from their time. From a consumer point of view consumers also determine which apps are the most visible. They do this with reviews and downloads. If apps are good and get excellent reviews and downloads this pushes the apps up the ranking where more consumers see them. If the reverse happens they disappear from view. So our system is a democracy of sorts. It’s transparent and merit based from the consumer’s point of view. It’s also fair to content owners who use PPD. They only pay for downloads they get. This also addresses your point about ROI. How many mediums actually allow the content owner to pay for an “action”?
   
   The issue around discovery on the handset is another issue entirely. Here the only thing we can agree is that Apple’s iPhone makes the best use of its real estate. Other handset manufacturers clearly waste theirs. Most common handsets have a big, empty welcoming screen with some graphics and the time. They then compound the error by having downloaded apps be downloaded to the applications folder, which is somewhere hidden deep in the phone. I’ll leave them to address that but it should be easily fixable.
   
   Costs. I think it’s hard to assess this because there aren’t any fair comparables. A solid app may cost you 50-100k to make but it depends what you do with it and on which platform. By contrast, a great TV spot will cost you several hundreds of thousands of dollars while campaigns done by high end agencies can even reach into the millions if you include celebrity endorsements. That’s before you even buy a media plan. Then again, who is getting awards for making great apps? On GetJar by comparison, you spend whatever you want on your app but you bid whatever you want to promote it and only pay for the downloads you get. ROI? Likewise, if you build an app and promote it using Admob the costs are significantly lower and much more realistic. You tell me what marketers and their finance directors would prefer ☺
   
   Audience. Here I’m afraid your point isn’t quite accurate for two reasons. First, as an alternative to an actual apps, brands can actually simply upload their site to GetJar in the form of a mobile site shortcut. This means it’s merchandised as an app to consumers but actually is simply a shortcut that works across most handsets and multiple platforms including Android, Blackberry and Java. The second is that Symbian apps for example will run on Java phones as well as Symbian phones. In this case they are cross platform. Though I agree with you that general platform fragmentation makes things more expensive for marketers and more difficult for consumers there is also the 80-20 rule in app downloads and some sites provide free download stats by handset (stats.getjar.com) which allow developers and agencies to cherry pick which handsets they should develop their app for based on actual download numbers. Our suggestion here is simple: start with a good mobile site and make sure this is a great experience for your consumer. Once you’ve gotten to grips with this and understand what your consumer expects from his /her mobile journey than build an app and build it based on who your audience is. The thing that is key to remember here is that the mobile web will never offer the depth or powerful experience of a native (app built for a specific platform) application. The reason for this is that handsets evolve far more quickly then the networks they run on and therefore are always a few steps ahead in terms of performance, memory and speed. The mobile web may be great for some mundane consumer applications but for a rich branded, experience that will really impact consumers, the application will generally be more robust.
   
   ROI. The biggest issue I see here is that marketers have to change how they measure mobile. It’s like trying to measure the Internet 10 years ago using GRP’s! Apps aren’t about impressions or clicks. They are about engagement. Brands have to ask themselves a simple question: am I looking for exposure to a lot of consumers or do I prefer a lasting engagement with fewer users? In an age of increasing competition for user attention cost-per-engagement is what the next advertising war should be all about…
   
   Patrick Mork
   VP Marketing
   GetJar
   
   
   
   
   

3. Kevin Foreman says:

   September 21, 2009 at 12:10pm

   Great article. Thank you. I suspect a big shakeout will occur shortly, where meaningful useful apps will be discovered and used and shallow apps will start to disappear.
   
   Further, the metric of success will evolve from today's "downloads" to tomorrow's "usage". It happened on the web. Its happened on Facebook. It will happen with apps too, especially with so many having and advertising-based business model. Remember advertisers don't pay for downloads, they pay for an audience. Downloads are necessary but not sufficient.
   
   Kevin