The US Center for Disease Control (CDC) is tracking the number of US households that are "wireless only" or primarily wireless. Wireless only means there is no landline in the house; primarily wireless means that people receive "all or almost all calls on wireless telephones despite also having a landline telephone."
My wife and I, and others we know, fall into that second category. We have a landline but rarely use it. It's a number we give out for "official purposes" and it acts as a telemarketing "spam catcher." The majority of people who call that number get voice mail.
The last time I wrote about this data, in June, the CDC reported that just under 30% (29.7%) of American households were wireless only. Beyond this, 15.7% of US homes received all or almost all calls on wireless telephones." In total, 45.4% of US homes were either mostly mobile or wireless only. The CDC findings were based on polling data from the first half of 2011.
Earlier this week I checked back to see if the numbers had changed at all since June. They have; they've continued to grow.
According to CDC data collected between July and December 2011, 34% of American homes are now "wireless only." In addition 16% are mostly mobile, receiving "all or almost all calls on wireless telephones despite also having a landline telephone." This means that a total of half of all US households now rely primarily or exclusively on mobile phones.
The populations, according to the CDC, mostly likely to be mobile only are the following: younger people under 34, adults living alone, those without higher education and less affluent or poor families. Those more likely to be mostly mobile are: affluent adults, parents and adults with college degrees.
Because these data lag about six months we can estimate that the current combined figure is probably closer to 55% of US homes being mobile only or mobile first.
The IAB released its half yearly digital ad revenue report for the US market earlier today. Total "online" revenues were approximately $17 billion, compared with $14.9 billion a year ago. Search was the single largest revenue category and has been for some time. It accounted for 48% of total digital ad revenue in 1H 2012 or $8.1 billion (vs. $6.8 billion in 2011).
Mobile revenue for the first half was $1.2 billion or 7% of total digital ad revenue. That compares to $636 million for the same period in 2011. Ironically the MMA is recommending that brands and marketers devote 7% of their ad budgets to mobile.
As might be expected, the IAB said that mobile was the fastest growing of the various digital ad categories it was tracking.
If we extrapolate from the numbers in the report we can project that full-year US mobile ad revenues will come in between $2.4 and $2.6 billion depending on how good Q4 is this year.
Several data sources over the past week have indicated very high levels of enthusiasm for the iPhone 5 and the iPad "Classic," but not as much interest in the rumored (yet forthcoming) iPad Mini.
Financial services and investment firm Pacific Crest reports that its checks reveal continuing, high levels of demand for the iPhone, which is reportedly hurting Android sales. According to a report in Fortune:
[Pacific Crest's James] Faucette writes that he's seeing several Android-based vendors aggressively discounted previously "high-end" flagship-type products to mid- and low-tier pricing. "While the [Samsung] Galaxy SIII will continue to generate positive news flow as a viable iPhone competitor," he writes, "we continue to believe that as an ecosystem, Android's shipment levels likely peaked in the U.S. as far back as last October and are likely to see further declines in the future if the retention gap doesn't close."
Piper Jaffray found similarly high demand among US teens for the iPhone, as well as high ownership of iOS devices. Based on a survey of more than 7,000 teens the financial frim found 40% owned an iPhone, while 44% owned (or had access to) a tablet. Nearly three-quarters (72%) of those who owned a tablet had an iPad, according to the survey.
These teens were also interested in the iPad Mini, especially if it were to be priced at less than $300. Pricing an iPad Mini creates an interesting challenge for Apple because it's new iPod Touch is priced at $299 and above. Nexus 7 and Kindle Fire tablets are priced at $199; so Apple can't go much beyond $200 in pricing the Mini. However that would potentially cannibalize sales of the new iPod Touch.
In contrast to the Piper Jaffray survey, e-commerce site TechBargains.com conducted a survey of visitors to its site (n=1,332) in September and found only 18% of respondents were interested in an iPad Mini:
Among the 18% who were interested in buying an iPad Mini:
Pricing and features will ultimately determine how popular a smaller iPad tablet turns out to be.
It's no surprise that PC shipments are set to decline this year. While the enterprise market remains modestly healthy the consumer market for PCs is weak. And it's not just the economy; demand is fading.
We're in a "post PC" world now; consumers have many more device options to accomplish tasks that at one time could only be done on the PC. Indeed, MS Office is reportedly coming to iOS and Android devices. Office was the last barrier to totally giving up the PC for many people.
IHS iSuppli has projected a 1.2% shipment (not sales) decline from 2011. But unlike shipments that never translate into consumer sales, there can be no sales without shipments.
The company said that not since 2001 has the PC market contracted like this on a global basis:
The total PC market in 2012 is expected to contract by 1.2 percent to 348.7 million units, down from 352.8 million in 2011, as shown in the figure below. Not since 2001—more than a decade ago—has the worldwide PC industry suffered such a decline.
When you step back and look at the broader device market, you can see how much growth lies ahead for smartphones and tablets (and who knows what other connected devices) in the future. The PC will likely chug along in workmanlike fashion but its days of robust double-digit growth are over.
Source: ITU World Telecommunication/ICT Indicators database, Gartner, Morgan Stanley (2011-2012)
Digital marketing agency RKG has released a Q3 report (based on aggregated data from its client base). The report covers search optimization, paid search, social media, email, comparison shopping and mobile. I'll focus here only on the mobile data.
The firm said that tablets (mostly iPads) and smartphones combined to drive 21% of organic search traffic in the third quarter. RKG commented that "this was nearly double the level we saw in Q3 last year." Because of the iPad and iPhone, iOS dominates organic search traffic from non-PC devices. According to the RKG report, "iOS held a 77% share of mobile organic search in Q3, an increase from 75% in Q2."
Operating System Share of Organic Search
RKG also said that "revenue per click" (RPC) was almost the same on the iPad as it was on the PC, while smartphone RPC "languished at roughly a fifth that of desktop." Part of this is because only e-commerce events are being measured and captured. RKG and its clients aren't seeing the indirect impact of smartphones on conversions or purchases that happen later on PCs, tablets or in stores. Accordingly these data are somewhat skewed.
What's interesting to observe in a more "apples to apples" context, however, is the discrepancy between iPad owner-users and Android tablet owners: "the iPad generated an average RPC that was more than double that for Android tablets, including the Kindle Fire and Nexus 7."
Mobile vs. Desktop: RPC by Device
From a paid search marketing standpoint tablets and smartphones cost less and outperform PC (search) advertising. The discrepancy between costs and performance was greatest on smartphones. One reason why this may be so is that many marketers and platforms aren't necessarily valuing mobile correctly because of the conversion-tracking problem. Nonetheless it's a great opportunity for those that aggressively embrace it.
Mobile vs. Desktop: CPC vs. CTR
This week at the Smarter Mobile Marketing event in New York -- I didn't attend because I was at a competing search marketing event -- Millennial Media CEO Paul Palmieri made the case that mobile ad revenues would inevitably grow to keep pace with consumer time spent on mobile devices. Accordingly he projected, based on a Gartner formula, that by 2015 US mobile ad revenues would be approximately $13.5 billion.
Palmieri also pointed out that traditional media grab a much larger percentage of ad spend vs. consumer time spent. However, the underlying assumption is that there's a seemingly inexorable or inevitable logic to the notion that ad spend will catch up with time spent.
In discussing reports that many mobile ad clicks are unintended, Dow Jones newswires cited a very casual projection earlier this year from Mary Meeker -- based on a similar time spent vs. ad spend formula -- that mobile advertising in the US was a $20 billion opportunity. While I don't think Meeker herself assigned a particular time frame for getting to $20 billion Dow Jones stated that would happen by 2015.
Meeker's slide does point out that time spent and ad spend are now almost at parity when it comes to the Internet. However that has taken essentially a decade to come to pass. And even though the mobile market is developing much more quickly than the Internet did, the notion that US mobile advetising (not all spending on mobile marketing) will be $20 billion or even $13.5 billion in three years is just too aggressive.
It's much more likely that US mobile advertising will still be below $10 billion in 2015.
Although consumers have embraced mobile in a big way, there are more than 120 million smartphone users in the US today, marketers are moving much more cautiously and seem to be slow to fully understand the implications of what's happening. There are also "mechanical" and organizational barriers to mobile marketing within agencies and corporations. These behind the scenes "politics" and culture issues are often a bigger obstacle than anything in the broader marketplace (such as fragmentation or the general absence of mobile cookies).
Recently the MMA issued a mobile ROI report that argues 7% of media budgets should be dedicated to mobile -- despite the fact that at least 10% of consumer media time, if not much more, is being spent with mobile. However at the Smarter Mobile Marketing event in New York agencies reportedly said that the 7% figure was too high and suggested that 2% to 3% of budgets was more appropriate.
Reports like the one from Dow Jones mentioned above and others that suggest mobile ad clicks are the product of consumer mistakes or click fraud merely reinforce complacency among marketers who don't want to have to worry about yet another digital platform. They've already got social media, search and display to deal with, without compounding their problems by bringing additional form factors and behaviors into the mix. And while many marketers have done something in mobile often that effort is weak or perfunctory.
The challenges around mobile tracking and attribution, the challenges of the new multi-platform environment and the cultural-organizational issues I alluded to together suggest to me that mobile ad spending and revenue will grow more slowly than the simple time spent vs. ad spend formula argues. The fact that traditional media have maintained a much larger percentage of ad spend vs. consumer time spent is another indication this will take longer than expected. Marketers understand traditional media more than they understand the much more complex digital landscape.
Though consumers will increasingly use smartphones and tablets as primary Internet devices, and while startups and innovation will continue to accelerate the mobile segment, brands and agencies won't necessarily keep pace with consumer behavior and technology development. My guess is that it will probably take at least 5 years to as many as 7 or 8 years to get to the kinds of numbers that Millennial's Palmieri and Mary Meeker are projecting.
In-app messaging provider Urban Airship has just introduced a very interesting new product: Location Messaging. This is the fruit of the company's acquisition of SimpleGeo last year.
Geofencing (Placecast) and ad geotargeting (xAd, YP) have existed for some time. However Urban Airship's new product offers very precise location targeted messaging -- with the ability to mix in other audience segmentation data as well:
As a result publishers/developers are able target specific types of users by location. There's a wide array of possibilities in terms of the way this can be deployed, for loyalty or yield management purposes or to stimulate new sales. There are two qualifications: users must have the publisher's app installed and s/he must have opted in to receive push notifications.
Urban Airship has created 2.5 million "pre-defined geofences" for publishers. However they can also define (or exclude) their own custom geofences. These can be as wide as a metro area (or larger I suppose) or as precise as a park or city block.
There's lots of hand-wringing going on about publishers being unable to sufficiently monetize mobile. However, mobile push notifications offer a terrific opportunity for brands and offline businesses to drive increased sales -- if used judiciously. Accordingly the company shared some performance data with me. It was impressive.
Urban Airship said it beta-tested Location Messaging this summer during the Olympics. The company reported on its blog that "The Official London 2012 app . . . utilized Urban Airship Location Messaging to send more than 10 million location-based push messages to people in . . . Olympic venues." In addition, "Nearly 60% of app users had location-sharing enabled and location-based pushes achieved clickthrough rates of around 60 percent."
Urban Airship CMO Brent Heiggelke pointed out that despite the potential effectiveness of Location Messaging brands and marketers must be extremely careful about the content of messages they send and their frequency or risk having their notifications shut off or apps uninstalled by end users.
I've written about this before: the discrepancy between tablet shipment/sales and traffic figures. On the one hand you have the IDCs and Gartners of the world reporting tablet "shipments," showing iPad rivals gaining. On the other are the companies reporting the actual traffic they're seeing, which indicates the iPad still dominates all other tablets by a huge margin.
IDC's Q2 market share data (based on "shipments") argue the iPad has a 68% global share. That's up slightly from Q1.
However, earlier today, digital publishing platform Onswipe put out some data that show that the iPad's share of traffic generated was about 98%. This finding was based on analysis of almost 30 million impressions on 1200 sites earlier this month.
The iPad's nearest traffic competitor, according to Onswipe, is the Galaxy Tab with 1.53% of tablet traffic.
Ad network Chitika has previously published similar numbers. Earlier this summer Chitika found, based on millions of impressions on its ad network, that the iPad "accounted for 94.64% of all tablet-based traffic." The nearest competitor, again the Samsung Galaxy Tab, had "a lackluster market share of 1.22%."
So while Kindle Fire and other tablet devices (e.g., Samsung Galaxy Tab) have sold millions of units, for some reason these devices are not showing up in the traffic logs of publishers. That could well change in the coming quarter with better Kindle Fire devices and the success of the Nexus 7. But for now there appears to be a strange gap between device sales/shipments and traffic figures being generated by tablets.
Far too often in tech journalism and blogging a provocative headline is betrayed by a superficial or "content-free" article. Such is almost the case with a story in the Wall Street Journal that carries a provocative headline Mobile Ads: Here's What Works and What Doesn't.
In a 1,000+ word article with such an intriguing title there's very little light shed on the subject. Here's the substance in the piece:
In fact the article doesn't do very much to illuminate (beyond search) what types of ads are truly working on mobile devices. And the big discussion that the piece neglects is ad creative. More than any other variable ad creative is responsible for the success or failure of the campaign.
There's also no discussion about various flavors of ad targeting and local targeting in particular (although that's implied in the Zillow mention). The article also says nothing about the efficacy of deals or offers as a driver of mobile ad response. Consistently deals/coupons/offers are cited by consumers as the category of mobile advertising they're most interested in.
Finally, mobile loyalty marketing (vs. media/ad buying) and mobile CRM can be extremely effective marketing tools but these too are not mentioned.
So much for "what works and what doesn't."
Appcelerator released its Q3 developer survey. The quarterly survey this time polled more than 5,500 developers globally on their attitudes toward various platforms and future-trend predictions.
The survey result that's going to get most of the attention is the one that found 66% of developers believe "that it is 'likely to very likely' that a mobile-first social startup will disrupt the market for social applications on mobile devices and take market share from Facebook." Indeed, this describes Instagram before Facebook acquired it for roughly $1 billion.
Other top-level survey findings include the following:
The survey also indicated that developers were interested in Windows Phone 8 smartphones but that they were taking a wait-and-see approach. Only when Windows Phones crossed relatively high penetration levels would developers turn their attention to the platform in earnest. However developers were more sanguine about the prospects for forthcoming Windows 8 tablets.
It's also interesting that despite sales developers don't seem very interested in the Kindle Fire. Perhaps that will change if the recently upgraded line of Kindle tablets sell well.
Finally it's curious that despite continuing market-share gains developer interest in Android continues to erode. This must be a reflection of the challenges of making money on the platform.
Bango says this will allow users to buy game credits, apps and other virtual goods through "frictionless operator billing, paying on their phone, without the need to register personal details."
Bango also has deals with Google (Play), Amazon, BlackBerry App World and Opera's Mobile Store. The company added that its conversion rates are higher than the industry average for carrier billing:
Conventional operator billing is expected to achieve a 40% conversion rate. Put simply, most mobile commerce customers who click ‘buy’, do not successfully buy. Billing with the Bango payment platform delivers an average conversion rate of 77%. Most users who click ‘buy’, do buy.
While carrier billing is useful in countries where there are many "unbanked" or where the specific transaction is likely to be conducted by a younger user, in the US and much of Europe credit cards are a preferred method of payment by most adults.
Carrier billing is much more widely available than other forms of mobile payments for obvious reasons. However carrier fees are much higher typically than credit card fees and settlement can take months depending on the country.
Even though Facebook eliminated Facebook Credits, which was a surprise to me, it's possible that Facebook will eventually acquire a mobile payments provider. Bango's market cap, for example, is only $118 million. Facebook could buy the company and associated revenue stream, as well as a set of global carrier relationships -- instantly.
Amazon is the king of mobile retail; Wal-Mart is the leader of offline check-ins. Last week there were two sets of parallel data released that provided some insight into how consumers are using mobile devices, both for "m-commerce" and in stores.
Data from comScore found that among US smartphone owners “4 out of 5″ are going to retail site/apps on their handsets. Some of this is in-store price and review checking.
ComScore put the total number of mobile-retail visitors at roughly 86 million. Unsurprisingly Amazon was the leading retail destination with an audience of almost 50 million smartphone owners.
These mobile-retail site visitors were both somewhat younger and more affluent than corresponding retail site visitors on PCs.
The number four mobile retailer on the list above, Wal-Mart, is the leader when it comes to in-store check-ins. According to data compiled by LocalResponse this summer from Twitter, Foursquare, Yelp and Instagram, Saturday is the most popular day to check in followed by Friday and then Sunday. Most check-ins occurred in the afternoon or early evening.
LocalResponse also found that men were more likely than women to check in. However gender check-ins by store varied, with Target being the most popular store for women. BestBuy was the most popular check-in retail location for men.
While some retailers are creating incentives for users to check-in, this should be exploited much more aggressively both to get people into stores and as a corresponding analytics tool to indicate the success of various promotions. Hashtags, offers and other mechanisms could be used to track specific promotions. In addition, users could be "messaged" (on Twitter) or otherwise notified (i.e., on Foursquare) while in stores with further promotions and rewards.
In general traditional retailers have yet to fully recognize the potential and utilize social media check-ins for in-store loyalty and sales purposes.
Apple is famous for moving people along to the next software or OS upgrade. And iOS 6 appears to be no exception.
Less than 24 hours after it became available for public download, the new mobile OS was responsible for 15% of overall Apple device traffic on the Chitika ad network.
To measure this, Chitika said it "took a sample of millions of mobile ad impressions coming out of the Chitika Ad network ranging from September 19th to September 20th 2012. The growth rate of iOS 6 was then compared to total iOS Web usage using a time series to illustrate the rate of adoption of the new OS."
I asked Chitika whether they could extrapolate and tell me how many actual devices this represented. They declined to do that.
Source: Apple quarterly reports
If we make the assumption that the 15% of Chitika traffic translates 1:1 into individual devices -- in other words, 15% of the traffic is from 15% of all the iOS devices -- then we can crudely extrapolate using the chart above.
The iPhone 4 and 4S can upgrade to iOS 6. Apple hasn't broken out the sales figures by device generation but everything before Q2 2010 was iPhone 3GS and "below." The iPhone 4 was announced in June, 2010. Since Q2 2010 Apple has sold roughly 193 million iPhones.
It's safe then to say that well over 100 million iPhone 4 and 4Ss are in the market (that's a conservative estimate). If 15% of those now have iOS 6 running that means there are roughly 15 million such devices (around the world) that have downloaded the new OS only 24 hours after launch.
These numbers could be way off but they're probably not.
Today the pre-ordered iPhone 5s are arriving and people around the world are buying them from local stores. Accordingly the number of iOS 6 phones in market could be over 20 million (downloads + sales) within a week or two.
Apple's rivals have been trying to get out in front of the iPhone 5 and the announcement today. Nokia held its Lumia/Windows Phone 8 event last week. Motorola (Google) announced a number of new Android handsets and, of course, Amazon had its big Kindle Fire press conference last week as well. All of these anticipated the iPhone 5 announcement today and tried to preempt it to some degree.
Last night Google's Hugo Barra casually posted some stats on his Google+ page: "Today is a big day for Android... 500 million devices activated globally, and over 1.3 million added every single day."
Android is the dominant smartphone platform in the world -- in case you forgot. And Google wanted to get that stat out there and inserted into the blizzard of articles that will be published today about Apple and the iPhone: " . . . but Android is the market leader with 500 million devices activated globally."
The iPhone 5, as I said on my personal blog Screenwerk," is a critical release for Apple because Android phones have caught up or in some cases surpassed the device (i.e., LTE support, NFC). The new iPhone today must offer a larger screen and LTE support at a minimum to maintain consumer interest.
An unintended leak on the Apple site indicates that there will in fact be LTE support. We'll see what else in less than a half hour.
Ahead of tomorrow's iPhone 5 launch -- perhaps they'll call it the "iPhone Cinq" -- there's lots of smartphone data flying around. Today Pew released some new demographic data about smartphone ownership (penetration higher among younger and more affluent users). And yesterday Nielsen discussed smartphone adoption among younger users:
Overall, young adults are leading the growth in smartphone ownership in the U.S., with 74 percent of 25-34 year olds now owning smartphones, up from 59 percent in July 2011. Interestingly, teenagers between 13 and 17 years old demonstrated the most dramatic increases in smartphone adoption, with the majority of American teens (58%) owning a smartphone, compared to roughly a third (36%) of teens saying they owned a smartphone just a year ago.
According to the US Census Bureau there are roughly 21 million teens in the US (according to 2008 data). Pew surveys have shown that 88% of US adults own mobile phones. Pew says that 77% of teens have mobile phones and 23% have smartphones. Nielsen is saying the overall teen smartphone number is much higher: 58%
If 23% of US teens have smartphones that translates into roughly 4.8 million people. The Nielsen 58% figure equals roughly 12.1 million teens who own smartphones. If we average the two sets of numbers it comes out to 8.5 million teens with smartphones approximately.
Using population data and the Pew survey figures, that would mean roughly 120 (or so) million US adults owned smartphones in the US today. Beyond this we can add 5 - 10 million more for teens. That would mean today we're looking at something like 125 to 130 million smartphones in the US.
Millennial Media is out with its quarterly device barometer: Mobile Mix. The report tracks the top devices and operating system share on its network. It's based on a different methodology (share of ad impressions) vs. Nielsen or comScore, which both rely on surveys.
It's not a totally "objective" view of the marketplace. But its helpful to identify and monitor trends on a directional basis. The three big trends identified in the document are the following:
Here are the charts that illustrate the above:
In the future the tablet market will be a contest between Apple, Google and Amazon. Samsung, unless it decides to price things much more aggressively, will be marginalized -- at least in the US.
With Android increasing its dominance around the globe, the US market seems to be something of an anomaly. Measurement firm comScore reported this morning that Apple has gained share in the US.
The iPhone now represents one out of every three smartphones in the market. Android also grew its share slightly, while Windows has continued to lose share according to comScore:
The firm also said that 114 million US adults own smartphones, representing just under 49% of the mobile subscriber population (using a base of 234 million). Nielsen, Pew, Flurry Analytics and others have found, however, that more than 50% of US adults own smartphones.
Flurry asserted recently that more than 70% of US adult mobile subscribers owned smartphones.
Millennial Media is out with another vertical report. Last time it was travel; this morning the ad network released a report on Entertainment. It was generated in conjunction with comScore. From my perspective, there were two pieces of interesting data in the document -- although the case studies in the report are also interesting.
One was about mobile purchase categories. The other was Millennial's "post click" campaign data for the Entertainment category. This data reflects the objectives advertisers are trying to accomplish with their campaigns.
The report said that "convenience" was the chief motivation for buying something on a mobile device (vs. online or in-person). Roughly two-thirds (63%) of smartphone owners cited this as the rationale for m-commerce. Convenience (vs. price) is typically the major reason for buying online as well.
Between 20% and 35% of US smartphone owners have ever made a mobile purchase according to several studies released in 2011 and 2012. Paralleling the data in the chart above, digital content (books, movies, apps, music) leads m-commerce overall. However we will see a broader range of e-commerce transfer over to mobile over time.
The problem of entering credit card information is a major barrier to mobile commerce today. Those vendors that have stored credit cards (in other words direct relationships with consumers [i.e., Amazon]) will see much more volume than those asking consumers to enter 16 digits. A majority of mobile e-commerce efforts will need to find some third party solution (e.g., working with PayPal, Amazon or solutions such as Card.io) if they want to generate sales from smartphones. Tablets are a different matter; entering credit card information is not as much of a barrier on those devices.
The chart above reflects campaign objectives, comparing entertainment companies (including movie producers and theaters) with Millennial's overall customer base. As might be expected, driving to a video view (e.g., movie preview) is the most common campaign objective.
Video (assuming a decent WiFi or network connection) is a very effective ad format in mobile. This is especially true for movie previews, which are regarded as content and not ads by most consumers.
In addition to video views, the other two most common campaign objectives were: driving to a social media page/site and "m-commerce" (buying tickets). Those consumers that have movie ticket apps installed (e.g., Fandango), with a stored credit card, are going to be increasingly likely to buy tickets via smartphones over other methods.
In the US smartphone penetration crossed the 50% threshold earlier this year. And two new reports show that smartphone growth and dominance are accelerating.
The first is a forecast from IHS iSuppli, which projected that 54% of mobile handset shipments in 2013 would be smartphones. This would mark the first time that smartphone shipments will dominate feature phones. It wasn't supposed to happen for three more years.
Part of the popularity of smartphones is driven by "culture," as well as the convenience and value of having a smartphone. But smartphone adoption is also being driven by price. Subsidized smartphone pricing in the US often makes the devices as cheap to buy ($49 - $99) as feature phones.
Separately, Flurry Analytics said in a recent report that 78% of US mobile phone users now own smartphones (iOS or Android devices).
This caught my attention because this figure (78%) is obviously much larger than the Nielsen and Pew numbers that show 50%+ smartphone adoption. Pew, comScore and Nielsen extrapolate from survey samples to calculate the total number of smartphones in the US market.
I exchanged emails with Flurry seeking clarification of this 78% figure and what it represented. Flurry confirmed my interpretation was correct.
The company is saying that 78% of US adults with active mobile devices are on iOS or Android devices. Flurry says that its data are based on actual usage and its population of device owners globally is in the hundreds of millions.
Flurry now says there are 165 million active smartphones in the US today. That compares to a PC Internet population of roughly 220 million.
My view about mobile payments is the following: once people have a positive concrete experience of using mobile payments they'll be sold, so to speak. Most people haven't had those experiences yet. Accordingly there's skepticism or indifference about mobile payments in the US. This, despite more than 20 companies scrambling in a kind of land grab that anticipates a glorious future right around the corner.
Several consumer surveys in the past 12 months indicate Americans are concerned about security and privacy or don't see the need for mobile payments: "see no benefit," "easier to pay with cash or credit cards" are some of the obstacles facing mobile payments adoption. Roughly 70%-75% of survey respondents say they aren't interested.
I'm the first to point out that attitudes and behavior are often two different things. The survey data are surprisingly consistent. Also consistent are findings that consumers in the 25-55 age range are typically the most interested in mobile payments. More educated, urban and usually more affluent consumers are also typically more interested.
We just completed a survey (n=1,501 US adults), which asked whether people were interested in using their phones as mobile wallets, instead of cash or credit cards. The results are very consistent with other surveys from UC Berkeley Law School, the US Federal Reserve and others.
About 29% of respondents (a decent number) say they have varying degrees of interest. Those who are most enthusiastic, however, are a tiny minority (6.8%).
Again, as people start to have real experiences of mobile payments, I believe these numbers will start to rise. But these findings reinforce the notion that there's a mountain to climb. Providers must educate consumers, reassure them on security/privacy and offer them tangible benefits for trying and using mobile payments systems.
An exception to all this is Square and its various imitators (PayPal Here, Intuit's GoPayment, PayAnywhere, etc.). In most of these scenarios the consumer isn't doing anything new; there's a familiar card swipe. The change is all on the merchant side. However as consumers develop familiarity with and start to trust these providers that becomes the basis for trying some of their "more exotic" payment services, where there is a behavior change (e.g., Pay with Square, PayPal Mobile apps).
While we believe that the mainstreaming of mobile payments is "inevitable," the timing and the specific services/platforms that will mainstream them have very much yet to be determined.