Verizon to Allow Ads on Its Mobile Phones

srizah tipped us to a New York Times article, which has the news that Verizon is going to introduce ads to their phones. The offerings will show up when users browse the internet via their cell service, and will exclude streaming ads that might not work in the mobile format. Sprint began offering ads right on their cell 'deck' in October, and the article indicates that access to cellphone screens is a going concern with online advertisers. From the article: "Even without cooperation from carriers, advertisers have been able to reach consumers visiting off-deck sites, and such marketing has grown in size and in scope. The first advertisers drawn to mobile phones tended to be quick-serve restaurants and hotels -- businesses that people might want access to on the go. But increasingly, there is traditional brand marketing, said Jeff Janer, chief marketing officer for Third Screen Media, a mobile ad management company that pairs advertisers and agencies with providers of mobile content, like USA Today and the Weather Channel."

Advertising on mobile phones

[astonishedelf]

I was under the impression that we were already paying for the phone service. Granted that there is advertising on Sky and cable services but this is just a drain on battery power. Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

Oh *great*

[scenestar]

So does this mean subscribers get a fucking discount ?

Mobile data pricing?

[Keruo]

Operators here haven't tried the described style of advertising. If I understood it correctly, verizon forces users to use their proxy while browsing, and feeds the ads to customers through it.

I'm not sure about mobile data transfer pricing in US but here in Finland operators charge $(euros)/MB rates depending on plan.
Loading ads while browsing would mean you're actually paying your operator for displaying you ads!

Re:At least for VX8300

[Vengeance]

Yup, I've done the same thing with my old VX7000, and will be doing the same when I upgrade next month.

But still, even if it doesn't affect me directly, this move rubs me the wrong way. Give me a free phone and *maybe* I'll consider viewing ads on it... Free air time too, come to think of it. Of course, TV started out that way and now we pay to view ads there, too. Must be why I don't watch it much anymore.

Remember, advertisers: The more you tighten your grip, the more of us will slip through your fingers. We don't *want* to be barraged day and night with useless promotioh of inferior products dammit.

what's in it for me?

[mwilliamson]

Free cellphone access? Reduced rates? Free internet access from my cellphone in return for these ads?

Re:Advertising on mobile phones

[Salvance]

Yes, you're already paying for it ... but the cell phone providers and advertisers are really just looking our for your best interest ... as the article says:

"The interest of advertisers in the medium stems from a theory that ads placed on mobile phones could create a particularly intimate bond with consumers"

Hmmm... interesting theory. I used to work in marketing, and always love how marketing/advertising folks have this idea that everyone loves ads and that ads make their lives better.

Re:That's a good way to loose me as a cell custome

[CapitalT]

It's called lose not loose LOSE LOSE LOSE GODDAMNIT

pheww... Now I'm ok [/venting]

Double Profits - Verizon Screws Customers Again

[amjohns]

So in addition to charging advertisers for ad space, Verizon will also be charging users for the additional data download. Not just text, but images, and potentially video in the future.

Given Verizon's past on screwing their customers, like locking down BlueTooth features on phones, and even wired data connections on Treo's, why am I not surprised.

Loss of competition

[DJ Jones]

I believe this is an early sign of the conglomeration and monopolization of cell phone carrier services in the U.S. The competition that drove down cell phone prices 5 years ago is on the verge of being suppressed by the success of two or three major service providers. With less competition the consumers are eventually going to see a loss of overall service and an increase in the number of cheap moves like this to increase corporate profits while taking advantage of the consumers limited access to alternative options.

On the other hand, if I was the CEO of Verizon, I would probably be itching for a cut of the advertising profits. It's a global economy, what can you do? Get on, or get out of the way.

Ads can make you switch

[suv4x4]

I don't live in US but my mobile service provider has this annoying habbit of flooding their customers with SMS ads of their latest-and-greatest campaign.

Granted, they sent us the campaign ad once, that's, let's say, bearable. But then they proceeded sending it every day and on every reload. My parents, which have mobiles, are not 100% familiar with the additional features of their mobile phone (besides making you know: phone calls), so those messages confuse them additionally and needless to say every time I receive an SMS I have to go out of my way to stop, open my cellphone, read it, delete it (since it may actually be important).

So this way armed with bad feelings I called them and said "ok, can you please tell your supervisors up the chain that I do not wish to receive any more ads on my personal cellphone, especially I don't wanna receive the same exact SMS message telling me to join your campaign every day. If I wanted to join it, one SMS would be sufficient, thanks".

The answer from the support: "well there's nothing wrong with the ads, I mean: there's also ads on the TV right, if you don't like them, you don't watch them".

Me: "But I pay for this service, why augment it with ads? If I don't want those ads what's the use of sending them to me?"

Support: "Well you also pay for your cable right?"

After a conversation like this you know the root cause of the issue: zero respect for the customer and zero research on what effect their actions have.

Well, guess who's switching to the competition next year (when a new law comes in place that mandates I can keep my phone number..)

Re:Advertising on mobile phones

[Evilest Doer]

Yes, you're already paying for it ... but the cell phone providers and advertisers are really just looking our for your best interest ... as the article says:

"The interest of advertisers in the medium stems from a theory that ads placed on mobile phones could create a particularly intimate bond with consumers"

But I don't want an "intimate bond" with any advertisers! It looks like this whole setup is simply a form of rape.

Define offer....

[txsvxn]

I know that I'm probably old fashioned, but doesn't the word offer indicate the ability to refuse said offer? If a mobile service provider is forcing advertising on you, that's not an offer...to me it's nothing more than the same kind of deal where your neighborhood maffia "offers" you protection against potential damages that might be incurred if you don't pay them.

Re:Advertising on mobile phones

[hobo sapiens]

I like the idea. I mean, I figure that the 3000 ads I see daily aren't enough. I think that products should be more strongly inculcated into my counsciousness.

If my phone service provider starts allowing ads on my phone, I will cancel service. I'd hope that everyone else would do the same. You can't tolerate this type of thing, corporations trying to squeeze out every last dollar at the consumer's expense.

This is MINE, not theirs.

[bjk002]

"I don't see it as unsolicited."

This is MY web connection. I pay Verizon for this service. What you are suggesting is akin to saying that my ISP can force me to view their advertisments before allowing me to surf the web. Nope, sorry, won't wash with me. I am paying a "provider" to provide "access", not "content". there is a HUGE difference here. I don't want their content, so I see no reason why I should have to pay (see bandwidth utilization) for their "content".

As for "If you don't want ads then pick one that does not show ads. You also have the choice of not using cell service at all. There is nothing unsolicited here. Every party enters these agreements voluntarily.", that is a specious argument at best. There are a limited number of players in this field, and if Verizon is allowed to do this, OF COURSE, the other providers will follow suit. Its a revenue stream they cannot ignore. I'm not saying they can not offer this as an optional service, but they will need to re-work the contracts and offer discounts to customers who opt for "content-equipped" access.

I, like I am sure many others here, now depend on cell service. Simply rejecting cell service is not an option, and it shouldn't have to be. There is no argument Verizon, or any other "access" provider can make for these ads other than as a pure-profit center. In so being, they can either offer discounted "access" service along with their "content", or content free access. They can not have it both ways, and my reading of the current legislation indicates that's NOT going to wash with the public or the legislature.

Re:This is on top of text message SPAM...

[the_humeister]

Why should they remain nameless? Tell us which ones they are so that we can avoid them before signing a contract!!!

Urgent

[Sloppy]

We need the software that runs on our phones to be completely seperate from and uninfluenced by the carriers. Phones, like PCs, need to be accountable directly to their owners, not to someone else. We need serving us to be their very first priority. Ads are just one aspect of this conflict of interest, and it's just going to get worse.