Many large advertisers were enamored with Apple?s iAd network when it first hit the scene and companies such as Coca Cola, Geico and Unilever ran interactive campaigns. However, others are simply using iAd to increase app downloads and are not taking advantage of the network?s capability to roll out one-of-a-kind initiatives.

In 2010, Apple unveiled its iAd network in hopes of moving the needle for mobile advertising. But it seems iAd is failing to lure in mobile advertisers.

?I don?t think iAd hasn?t been taken seriously," said Michael Boland, senior analyst and program director at BIA/Kelsey, Chantilly, VA. ?Its relatively low demand is more a result of it being cost prohibitive for many advertisers. 

?It saw an initial surge because of the Apple halo effect,? he said. ?Many large advertisers were enamored by it after Steve Jobs? initial unveiling of the product in 2010.

?But then when it came time to renew those accounts or establish new ones, the iAd ad sales team wasn?t as effective as a Steve Jobs keynote.?

Making strides?
When iAd first came out, Apple charged marketers a $1 million minimum fee to run campaigns through its network.

Since then, the manufacturing giant has lowered the cost to $100,000. 

IAd?s biggest advantage is its ability to launch different features right within the ad unit.

?The ads act like their own app within an app,? Mr. Boland said. ?That?s huge because it doesn?t close the app and whisk users off to the browser, possibly never to return.

?That?s cumbersome for the user, a bad experience for the advertiser, and obviously bad for app publishers who are literally sending users away from their apps,? he said. ?Apple?s iAd solves all that with expandable ad units that reside wholly within the app.

?This more robust and media-rich format also appeals much more to brand advertisers who may have been erstwhile turned off by the compromised quality of ad creative endemic to standard mobile banner ads.? 

According to several industry experts, the price tag is certainly a disadvantage.

"The price tag has made it cost prohibitive for many of the advertisers who can benefit most from the above advantages such as location information and mapping,? Mr. Boland said.

Companies such as Popsicle, Land Rover and Coca-Cola have seen success with Apple?s iAd.

However, others such as Groupon and Mitt Romney, have solely used the network to increase downloads and awareness of their apps.

While driving app downloads may be effective, more marketers are not taking advantage of the tools that Apple is offering.

?A link to download an app can be done from any static banner, so that?s a lost opportunity to utilize all the things iAd actually can do,? Mr. Boland said. ?Apple?s iAd allows for lots of more immersive experiences and calls to action.

?This should involve more games and other things to capture user interest and engagement,? he said. ?The ability to tap into the phone?s native functions like GPS should also compel iAd advertisers to build in more local calls to action such as store locators, mapping, and even local product inventory, in partnership with companies like Milo.

?Not only is that capability there through iAd, but it?s well aligned with what we know about mobile users? high degree of local commercial intent. That gets you much closer to conversions and ROI than asking someone to download an app or watch a video ad.?

According to Tom Limongello, vice president of marketing at Crisp Media, downloading an app is not a fair bargain for being curious.

?For CPG marketers an app download is almost the antithesis of how they promote consumer trial in other channels, trial is by definition something you do before you buy or in the case of mobile before you wait for a download,? Mr. Limongello said. ?I've heard from agencies that they like Apple's iAd network more for the targeting capabilities than the quality of the publisher content.

?The best part of iAd was that it forced advertisers to actually think about the creative and only offer a rich experience,? he said. ?On the performance side they showed that it is important to animate banners with HTML5 and on the branding side they showed that immersive experiences should be expected within ad, and not on an advertiser landing site.  

?However, the iAd doesn't support mobile Web, which means that those users who start are more prone to starting their Web journey on mobile from a social network like Facebook and Twitter almost never see iAds on the article pages of stories that are shared from news and magazine sites.? 

Take advantage
Apple?s iAd campaigns are a model for what excellent, targeted, interactive mobile ads can be like.

However, not everyone is taking advantage of this.

?In the future all effective mobile ads will be hyper-targeted and interactive, most of the current mobile display ads we see today will only cover publishers' remnant inventory,? said Daniella Alpher, a mobile marketing executive.

?Apple?s iAds are a glimpse into that future and should therefore definitely be taken seriously,? she said. ?The iAds offer the most memorable consumer experience out there today, this level of complex ad epitomizes mobile handset and tablet capabilities.?

?Unfortunately they're not worth the effort and cost to most advertisers. As a result we're only seeing iAds from brands that are strong enough not to measure the ads' success primarily by financial return, which basically means the current production and financial models are not sustainable to most of the market. It's not about whether these types of ads will happen, but rather who will figure it out. Either Apple will crack the code and make them worthwhile to more advertisers or someone else will.?

Final Take
Rimma Kats is associate editor on Mobile Marketer, New York