The title is not just wordplay. It is a classic misinterpretation played out in the advertising world. What type of an agency is best positioned to become master of mobile advertising? I have not heard a convincing answer to this question so far.

The way the advertising industry in general views mobile advertising is quite basic and far from inspiring. Though the mobile advertising has been “the promise” for several years, many good initiatives have simply died as the coming of mobile advertising has been delayed for too long. Meanwhile, the digital arms of the agencies have developed their skills in the fast-evolving web business. Budgets have exploded in the digital space and the results are very promising.

And then, oh yes, there is this mobile business. But with less than one-tenth of the overall digital budgets and with an at least ten times more complex ecosystem, mobile advertising in many cases does not make financial sense for agencies. Clients, however, want to be on mobile and therefore most of the agencies must master the mobile medium—but can they?

According to MobiThinking Guide to Mobile Agencies (July 2010), the top 10 agencies value mostly under $20 million in revenues, but astonishingly their staff numbers vary from a few employees to nearly 500! Their claimed reach is from nationwide to multi-regional (or even global) and they do everything from messaging to m-commerce. That’s a very diverse bunch of companies doing almost everything in mobile. Can a small market support their diversified efforts or do they say things just in case? You decide.

When will the major agency networks embark on mobile at full throttle, and how? Will it be through their existing digital agencies, stretching to cover the increasingly complex mobile ecosystems? Are they buying small independent players? Or maybe they are trying to create the needed know-how organically though their best creative and media agencies. And the biggest question of all—is there a CEO who is willing to invest in this nascent opportunity with much needed determination without a sufficient advertising spend to justify that investment?

It is no wonder that mobile ends up being a sidekick to digital in all discussions. And yet, nearly everyone admits that mobile will, eventually, be a dominant player. But when the inevitable market growth happens, catching up will be tough.

It is remarkable how something as seemingly trivial as a Facebook post could be seen to trigger off an entire revolution. And yet, if popular word is to be believed, that’s what happened in Egypt. One day, a woman decided she had had enough of government apathy, inaction and corruption and announced on Facebook that she was going to the Tahrir (Liberation) Square in Cairo to protest. The announcement went viral and the rest is history-in-the-making.

Twitter’s role in the unraveling of this momentous development was no less critical—in mobilizing the masses within Egypt and garnering support for the protestors internationally. This is probably the reason why countries that want to control popular sentiments try to clamp down on social networking sites. Of course, there is a very strong role that traditional media played in this as well. The power of the people harnessed by social media, however, is the new tool in the hands of the people.

The politics of the matter aside, this demonstrates the power of thought when it is articulated on the internet today. It has the power to transcend the obstacles that offline communication faces. It has the power to draw out unfiltered views for public consumption.

The flip side to this power is that people now feel the need to regulate these articulations. Netizens across the world exult in the liberation that the internet brings with the supposed anonymity it offers. They also find it easy to connect directly with their heroes—Hollywood, Bollywood or real life. And why just social networking, with Web 2.0, there has also been increasing professional and other information sharing—in the form of blogs, presentations, websites and other formats. There is a constantly rising part of us on the net. And with mobile connected devices, this is made even easier.

So what is all this information sharing on the internet, especially over social networks, doing to us?
Even as it gives us a platform to vent and often comes out as spontaneous sharing, it is exposing us to an environment where what we say can be seen or read by anyone. So what you intended as a private joke between your friends and you could land you in trouble because it hurt someone’s political, social or even national sensibilities. People have lost jobs because of what they’ve shared on social networking sites. So, even though on the face of it no one’s stopping us from saying what we want, unsaid (or sometimes even said) codes of conduct are emerging.

In the last few years, after the novelty of social networking wore off (though the usage only increased), people have become more cautious about what they say online. They measure their words more carefully.
This is both, a good and a bad thing. On the one hand online conversation will eventually become more mature and on the other hand, it is making us less spontaneous.

The balance lies between paranoia and exhibitionism. Let’s hope we get there soon.

Gone are the days of thrusting your message at the audience. If you want your target to appreciate what you are trying to say to them, you need to engage with them actively and even allow them to be part of the creation process. People are involved the most where they have been part of the process of evolution.

It is remarkable how few marketers understand this very basic logic and continue to tread the same beaten path. They continue to follow the same ways of pushing their message—one-way ads. If that process were made two-way, the results would grow exponentially.

People today are bombarded with messages across mediums. What are the chances of your message getting their attention? That will happen only if they have been part of the creation process. And for that, the engagement between a brand and its target group needs to be high. This can only happen once you can get inside the consumer’s head.

This is not as difficult as you might think. If you allow the consumer to customize the brand and its message to his or her own specific needs, you have a buy-in and the trust of the consumer.

This concept is what I call Open Marketing. It is a concept we developed for Blyk in 2007. Open Marketing is where the consumer and the marketer both participate and both create value. It is my opinion that if anything will work with the consumer today it is this sense of co-participation and co-creation. It allows them to develop their own solutions and gives them a sense of ownership for the brand.

Ultimately, the brand that partners with the consumer to co-create solutions will be the one the he or she will choose.  People embrace things they create. For that, marketers need to open up their messaging fiefdoms and allow the consumer in.