“This is a major step forward for both Nielsen and our industry. This new system will provide marketers with a better understanding of their ROI, and will give media companies a much needed tool to prove the value of their audiences,” said Steve Hasker, President, Media Products, Nielsen. “Perhaps most importantly, marketers and media companies alike will now have a simpler way to measure the combined reach of TV, the web and even mobile advertising. Reach alone doesn’t tell the whole story, however, and Nielsen intends to combine the ratings with cross-platform advertising effectiveness metrics to provide a complete view.”

Nielsen Online Campaign Ratings will be tested with several industry leaders in Q4 of 2010 including advertisers such as Procter & Gamble and Verizon Wireless, major media agencies such as Starcom MediaVest, and Facebook.

Watch The Announcement

Overview Video

Read the full press release about Nielsen Online Campaign Ratings, including comments from the online advertising industry.

The launch of the Droid by Motorola–which runs Google’s Android 2.0 operating system–is the latest smartphone to be tagged “game changing iPhone killer.”  We prefer to view it as simply a quality choice in a growing line of smartphones rather than something that will stifle the competition. With only 10,000 applications available in the Android market and more than 100,000 available for the iPhone, the Droid–or any Android phone–won’t be killing the iPhone anytime soon. What the Droid will do is advance the use and adoption of web content to a connected device. Android’s integration with popular and widespread Google applications such as Gmail, Google Calendar and Google Voice is a big help as is its ability to run multiple applications (up to six on the Droid). Most users do this on their computers so being able to listen to music while browsing the web and sending email makes a multi-tasking smartphone an appealing option.

The Competition to The Competition

The mobile marketplace is not just a faceoff between the iPhone and Droid; over the next few months, there are at least six new devices on deck that will have large screens like the Droid, keyboards (the Droid has both a virtual and physical keyboard), and an ever-increasing number of applications.

Nielsen’s data from Q3 2009 suggests that if you buy an Android phone, you’ll likely use more of the data features more often than if using any other smartphone.

Also, for the first time in Q3, Nielsen saw more users accessing the Internet on smartphone than that of feature phone users. If this trend continues, we’ll see more than 80% of the devices accessing the Internet being these advanced phones.

The Mobile Universe is Expanding

In Q3 2009, historically the slowest phone sales quarter, more than 25% of all phones sold were smartphones. Expect Q4 to have more than 40% of the new phones sold be smart devices. This is important to watch as smartphones are on track to be the majority of phones in the U.S. by 2011. Projecting Nielsen data out through 2010, we see smartphones crossing 50% of the market by the middle of 2011, roughly equal to 150 million users. This shift could happen much faster with the right conditions such as continued competitive price points on devices, lower “all you can eat” data packages and the increasing consumer need to be connected anytime, anywhere.

By mid-2011, the U.S. should be just over 300 million mobile subscribers. If we assume that we will have over 150 millions uses of smartphones (based on our projections) and that 80% of these users will access the Internet and 60% will access video (given the current data trend these assumptions may actually be low), this means that over 120 million mobile users will be on the Internet and 90 million will be watching video. What we have typically called the “third screen” is quickly becoming an extension of the first and second screens (TV and desktop viewing) especially in some key demographics. Note how Hispanics and African-Americans over-index on Mobile Video and Internet Usage.

Overall, we see mobile media growth accelerating over the next year with more users paying for video and premium content. Remember,  the mobile phone is the one media device that is always within reach. The trend in the U.S. is more interaction, more consumption, and more connected devices. While not a competition killer, the Droid is the next logical step in a market with a wide array of rich media devices. As that trend continues, the battle for better smartphones with better access to content will wind up seeing the consumer as the clear winner.

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski laid out his priorities for the wireless industry at the CTIA IT event last Wednesday. He wants to:

• Bring more spectrum to market to handle rapidly increasing demand for wireless data
• Remove red tape to allow wireless carriers to expand networks faster
• Conduct the regulatory process at the FCC more openly and on a fact-based, data-driven basis
• Codify and enforce net neutrality with special considerations to wireless

I am sure the wireless industry is welcoming the first three priorities of the new Chairman. They represent a welcome and overdue recognition of the situation we are in – more than 270 million American wireless subscribers and more than 42 million of them using smartphones to access the Internet. While the discussion continues about the need for the codification of net neutrality for wireless, it is very encouraging that Chairman Genachowski has recognized that wireless networks deserve special consideration.

Some examples:

1. Wireless data networks that are available to most Americans have only modest throughput.
   Today’s technology allows CDMA network operators (Verizon Wireless and Sprint) to provide a theoretical maximum throughput of 2.4 to 3.1 Mbit/sec and UMTS carriers (AT&T and T-Mobile) a combined theoretical maximum of 3.6 Mbit/sec. For simplicity sake, let’s assume the throughput of a particular cell site sector to be 3.6 Mbit/sec. This theoretical maximum is achievable if only one person uses the cell sector and is standing next to the antenna. The farther the person is from the tower or the more mitigating circumstances there are in between, ranging from interference from other sectors to mundane circumstances like leaves on trees, the less throughput available to an individual.
2. Wireless networks are a shared resource.
   The throughput is shared among all people actively using the network at any point in time.
3. Adding capacity is not always possible due to limited spectrum availability.
   Unlike wireline, where you can always put another fiber cable in the ground or light up another strand of fiber already laid, wireless service providers can’t manufacture more spectrum.

For most applications this does not pose insurmountable problems because a subscriber uses the bandwidth for only a short period of time, the duration of a call or while loading a web page. Such usage patterns are easily sustainable on current networks and are generally described as “bursty” traffic.

Complications start when we move from bursty traffic to streaming. With streaming, a constant amount of throughput is needed by the subscriber to maintain the connection and enjoy a satisfactory quality of service. The constant throughput cannot be used by anyone else. Streaming audio from an application like Pandora or Rhapsody typically uses about 40 kb/sec and can support around 90 concurrent users (a theoretical best case scenario of 3.6 Mbit/second divided by 40 kb/sec) in a cell sector. Wireless carriers allow and even sell streaming audio, which would indicate that there are significantly fewer than 90 concurrent listeners in a cell sector.

It gets difficult when the mobile subscriber uses streaming video in general and with an uncapped video frame rate in particular. Take the Slingbox, a popular device that lets people watch their home television service away from home on a laptop or mobile device. The quality of the picture depends on the uplink speed from their home Internet provider (between 384 kb/second and up to 10Mb/second) and on the download speed of their wireless carrier., In the best case scenario nine people (3.6Mbit/second divided by 384kbit/second) can watch TV concurrently via their Slingbox, effectively preventing any other activity. Without the ability to manage the amount of throughput allocated to these nine individuals, other mobile users in the sector will be out of luck. Currently, wireless network operators do not throttle data throughput, but this exposes them and consumers to a negatively impacted user experience caused by only a few heavy users. Traffic shaping could safe guard against the general slowdown of the data throughput in a cell sector for every consumer, but negatively impacting the viewing pleasure of nine subscribers to enable all users in the sector to receive service. This dynamic, real-time dance of RF engineering would be a forbidden under a purist net neutrality approach.

Another implication of a purist net neutrality rule that would negatively impact wireless subscribers’ service is if one person uses their wireless modem to power their web server – and yes it has happened.

How big is a cell sector? Anywhere from the size of the city block that houses Madison Square Garden in Manhattan, to the size of Capitol Hill in Washington DC to several square miles of corn fields in rural Nebraska.

Considering the relatively fragile nature of RF networks and the reasonable expectation of a majority of subscribers that they can make and receive calls and download the applications they are paying for, it is only a matter of fairness to the majority of wireless consumers that carriers be permitted to allocate network throughput in a fair and equitable manner among all customers.

Over the past few months, the government’s interest in the practice of handset exclusivity has intensified. On the heels of Congressional hearings in July, Verizon Wireless agreed to dial back its exclusive deals with cell phone manufacturers to accommodate smaller carriers. This week the FCC, which has already begun a review of handset agreements, has made the issue a focus of its regular monthly meeting. But no matter what the setting or circumstances, whenever U.S. lawmakers and regulators discuss competition in the wireless industry, the elephant in the room these days is almost always the iPhone.

Since Apple first gave AT&T exclusive rights to carry its groundbreaking device in the United States, concerns about unfair competitive advantages have become a hot-button issue. Apprehensions increased as AT&T sought to extend the deal beyond the 2009 deadline, and reached a fever pitch when Apple rejected a Google Voice application earlier this summer.

Nonetheless, many both inside and outside the industry question the need for more government intervention.

Indeed, before the iPhone came along, far fewer consumers (or lawmakers and regulators for that matter) cared a great deal about handset exclusivity, because most cell phones were utilitarian at best. According to Nielsen’s Mobile Insights report, which surveys 300,000 wireless users every year about their opinions and behaviors, in Q3 2006 – a full year before the iPhone launched – “device” was only the seventh most important factor in choosing a wireless carrier. The percentage of respondents on device has since increased from 2.9% to 6.4% in Q1 2009, yet the category remains in seventh place.

There is no doubt AT&T has benefited from the arrangement. New subscribers between the first quarters of 2008 and 2009 who signed up for “a phone not offered by my carrier” (i.e., the iPhone) jumped from 11% to 23%, and the company has reported that 40% of its iPhone customers switched from other services.
Still, the mobile industry is home to many operators who sell a wide variety of handsets. Currently, there are more than 100 different phones offered by the nation’s “Big 4″ service providers in their retail store, plus hundreds more from the large carrier’s websites and the more than 100 smaller carriers that are operating in the United States.

Even if every handset were required to be accessible across all four networks, only the largest of manufacturers could invest in the infrastructure necessary to produce identical products with different technologies. Neither legislation nor regulation could nor should be expected to change that situation.

It can be argued that exclusivity actually enhances innovation and creates more choice. If, for example, Apple’s iPhone or Motorola’s RAZR were initially available on all U.S. carriers, there would have been minimal incentive for handset manufacturers to create rival products. Though competition would exist, the options would be considerably less diverse.

What is more, the iPhone’s significant technological lead over virtually every other smart phone would probably have virtually destroyed the market for the other handset manufacturers. T-Mobile, like several other carriers, would have had less reason to invest in the development Android-based devices. Palm would not have been able to build the Pre and sell as many as it did in the first few weeks without the support of Sprint. In fact, Palm would have likely died without the Centro, which was custom built for Sprint under an exclusive pact that has since expired.

Beyond the iPhone’s distinct technological advantages, AT&T’s infrastructure would almost certainly limit competition as well. Early on Apple had decided to build its phone on a GSM technology path, the most popular standard for mobile phones in the world. But in the United States there are but two GSM networks – AT&T and T-Mobile. Were the iPhone originally available on both, consumers would pick their carrier based largely on price and coverage. Since pricing can be easily matched, T-Mobile’s nascent footprint would have a hard time going up against AT&T’s more built-out network.

In time – perhaps as early as next year – Apple will likely drop its AT&T exclusivity and build an iPhone in the U.S. that can be used across other wireless technologies. That is about to happen in Europe, where the company is reportedly moving away from exclusive deals because it can now derive greater profitability by not having restricted relationships with only single providers. At that point, new and current iPhone users will migrate to carriers that makes that the most sense for them – still driven by the factors other than “device.”

A version of this article also appeared at FierceWireless.com.

While public awareness of Apple’s iPhone has been significant since its summer 2007 launch, its influence on consumer purchasing decisions remains up for debate.

To try to better understand the iPhone phenomenon, I took a look at the most recent data from The Nielsen Company’s Mobile Insights survey, which asks 25,000 wireless users every month (a total of 300,000 per year) about their wireless attitudes and experiences, including why they chose their current wireless service.

When the results of 1st quarter of 2009 are compared with the 3rd quarter of 2006 as a control for the “iPhone-effect,” some interesting insights emerge. Q3 2006 was the last quarter without solid iPhone news that could sway consumers in their purchasing behavior.

At first glance, the most striking difference between 2006 and more recent data is what changed and what did not. Price remains the most important factor in choosing wireless service. Yet, even with the prominence of the iPhone, surprisingly the availability of a specific phone stayed flat as the 7th most important factor. While increasing in importance from 2.9% to 6.4% handset-choice alone did not bump up in the rankings. It seems that what makes for an outsize share of newspaper headlines, and congressional and regulatory attention, leaves the average American cold.

Not as surprising, economic factors are increasingly important. Family plans that let consumers call other family members for free and free in-network calling have shot up to near the top. Payment options, including pre-paid and unlimited calling and texting offers, are also substantially more important.

This translates into opportunity for:

• Pre-paid providers such as Tracfone
• Unlimited providers Boost Unlimited, Metro PCS, and Leap, each who offer unlimited calling and texting for as low as $40 per month
• The two largest wireless operators in the U.S. Verizon Wireless and AT&T due to the larger free calling circles

Perhaps the most unexpected outcome is the declining importance of network quality as a major factor from 2nd to 5th place. A testament to the success of its consistent advertising message, the number of consumers who perceive Verizon Wireless as having the best mobile network has shot up over the last two years and it leads its closest competitor now by an almost 2:1 margin. Consumer perception of the carrier’s quality has shot up over the last two years and it remains the single-most important reason consumers choose them. While handsets represent popular topics of conversation, economic factors are actually the major driver in the purchasing process.

But just as important as the raw viewership for the NHL and Versus, which is available in 66% of US homes, is the brand behavior of these viewers.

With advertising dollars tight in the current economic climate, the pressure is even greater for sports leagues to demonstrate return on investment to their official partners.  Sponsors are demanding results for their integrated marketing campaigns which include commercial spots, in-game signage, as well as online and mobile extensions.

Data from Nielsen’s people meter sample fused with the respondents of MRI’s (Mediamark Research & Intelligence) Survey of the American Consumer reveals insight into product usage behavior of NHL fans.

For example, how did regular season hockey on Versus perform among groups that used products from official partners of the NHL during the first quarter of 2009?

• Verizon Cell phone users had 44% higher viewership ratings compared to the average viewer.  Verizon was the top advertiser in terms of commercial spend for NHL regular season on broadcast and cable, and also sponsors the Versus intermission report.

• Bud Light drinkers, the official beer of the NHL, had 80% higher ratings than the average U.S. viewer.

• Consumers of Reebok footwear, which sponsors the league’s jerseys and a dasherboard above the blue line in every NHL arena, had 62% higher ratings.

It’s not just about raw viewing tonnage for advertisers looking for highly targeted marketing. They count on the NHL to deliver unique fans, and translate their passion for hockey to their product.

Armed with return-on-investment tools that can provide cross-platform insights, instead of traditional age and gender demos, advertisers can focus on the NHL fan with targeted messaging that expects to make a difference at the cash register.