That is, seven of every 100 Americans accesses the Internet via his or her phone and does not have broadband at home or at work or school.
This smartphone-only group included 15% of all respondents aged 18-29, 13% of all respondents with a household income of less than $30,000 per year , 12% of all African-Americans and 13% of all Latinos. As the lower incomes would suggest, costs loom large over their smartphone experience: about half of all smartphone-dependents have had to cancel service because they couldn’t afford it or have frequently hit data caps
These findings have two broad and challenging implications for marketers.
1. Have a mobile-only communications segment/strategy
Superbowl 49 had more viewers than any other in history. Turns out that football wasn’t the only thing on everyone’s mind:
That’s right: 3% of you were using dating apps on your phone or tablet during the game. By my calculations, that’s 1.6 million Americans (114 million viewers x 46% using apps x 3% using dating apps). Roughly speaking, the population of Philadelphia was looking for love on Sunday night. (Understandable, given that a 10-6 record didn’t merit the Eagles a playoff berth.)
If I were Match.com or even Ashley Madison, I’d really want to break those numbers out further (male vs. female, straight/gay/bi/etc., age ranges), but if nothing else, I’d at least consider running local TV spots in key markets during the game and have football or I-hate-football content or offers on the app as well.
For the record: I logged one Tweet and ten Facebook updates. I even spoke with my wife during the game, so don’t get any ideas!
When marketers discuss using consumer data to drive content or offers in addressable communications such as email, apps or on-site messages, sooner or later the word “creepy” comes up. Front-and-center stand such examples as the New York Times’s infamous “father learns of daughter’s pregnancy via direct mail” article.
However, even ordinary consumers in ordinary situations may feel that a marketer has violated some form of privacy when it reveals too much about what it knows in an email or SMS.
We all agree that we want to avoid creepiness, but I don’t think we marketers, as a group, have established a working definition of creepy. While no one would deny the creepiness of the lubricant example above, would an offer for sports equipment or kitchenware have raised an eyebrow? How can we create a standard for what kinds of data are off-limits? Continue reading →