Wireless Web

What is the future of the wireless web? Is it something simply relegated to mobile usage on smart phones or is it the wave of the future? Competing special interests make this a discussion fraught with peril – the same companies which have invested in mobile technology are also some of the biggest players in the broadband business. Even manufacturers of smart phones have a lot invested in the status quo.

A recent article by the consulting firm McKinsey&Company asked a series of important questions about the future of the wireless web:

1. Will the mobile Web become a substitute for wired access?
2. Will mobile match the performance for fixed access?
3. Where will people go for the best content and Web applications?
4. Which software interface will organize and manage the wireless Web?
5. Which mobile Web are we talking about?
6. What will the pricing model be?

 

Read the entire article here: https://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/High_Tech/Strategy_Analysis/What_shape_will_the_wireless_web_take_2425

Certainly, internet users are not abandoning their fixed connections; rather, they are adding wireless applications to their current web usage. Yet, public preferences are already shaping the debate. According to McKinsey, "[s]urveys show that two-thirds of mobile-phone owners access data on their devices—up from only one-quarter three years ago—with 60 percent using them for basic Internet browsing. Spending on smart phones, meanwhile, has soared from barely 3 percent of new-phone purchases to nearly 20 percent in Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States."

Certainly, mobile technology is a huge democratizing force. Accessing the internet from a smart phone is much less expensive than purchasing a computer and signing up for either a broadband or wireless internet service provider contract. Those communities, typically on the losing side of the digital divide, are suddenly able to access all kinds of information on the internet and to take part in important public debates through mobile technology.

But, the question remains – how will the entrenched interests in the marketplace respond?

It’s the end of the world as we know it…

In an intriguing new study, IBM posits four possible scenarios for the future of advertising. Of course, we all know how technology generally, and the internet in particular, has dramatically altered the landscape of our daily lives. But, other forces are also at work, allowing consumers to being selected the messages they hear – DVR, for example, allows users to simply skip all the advertising during a traditional 30 or 60 minute television program. In a world where advertising rates are determined by "impressions," this is a real blow.

IBM conducted a global survey of 2,400 consumers and 80 advertising experts and asked these groups to grapple with two juxtaposed ideas: the propensity for consumers to control marketing and the openness of advertising inventories (basically, the tension between whether consumer or ad producers will control content and delivery of advertising in the years to come). Depending where the balance is eventually struck, IBM sees one of four potential "new worlds" of advertising emerging by 2012.

You can read the whole report here: http://fuelingnewbusiness.com/2009/09/25/ibm-study-the-end-of-advertising-as-we-know-it/

According to the IBM study, the four alternatives are:

The continuum swings from "continued evolution," where advertisers are still largely in control, sending messages in the traditional one-to-many format in play today while adapting to new technologies like DVR, all the way to "ad marketplace," where consumers almost entirely self-direct the kind of advertising they want to see and share peer-to-peer the messages they prefer.

What do you think? What is the future of advertising in our ever-increasingly customized world?

Foundation + Nonprofits = A Better Minnesota

How can foundations and nonprofits work together to build a better state? That is the question evaluated by a new report from the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy. The authors of this study correctly begin by noting the Minnesota is rich in both nonprofit organizations and generous philanthropists (individuals and foundations). This state, perhaps more than any other, should be a place where these two groups come together – not just in the obvious ways, such as when a nonprofit submits a proposal for funding to a local foundation – but in new, meaningful ways to effectuate community change.

So argues the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy and I think they are on the right track. Foundations should begin using new media strategies to engage in advocacy campaigns that benefit the communities they fund, essentially leveraging the dollars invested by funders into even greater returns for communities in need. The numbers alone make an effective case: for the groups surveyed (approximately 15 organizations in Minnesota), "[f]or every dollar invested in their advocacy and organizing work ($16.5 million total), the groups garnered $138 in benefits for Minnesota communities."

Read the entire report here: http://www.ncrp.org/files/publications/gcip-mn-fulldoc-lowres.pdf

This partnership is especially critical in times of budgetary constraints, economic downturn, and general uncertainty. "Foundations can make a measurable difference by partnering with effective grassroots and statewide nonprofits to advocate and organize for long-term, meaningful change." To do so, the report suggests that funders do the following:

1. Increase the percentage of grant dollars devoted to advocacy, community organizing and civic engagement.
2. Engage board members and donors in dialogue about how advocacy and organizing can help a grantmaking institution achieve its long-term goals.
3. Strengthen peer learning and strategizing about advocacy and organizing.
4. Engage nonprofit partners in strategic planning and grantmaking process of foundations.
5. Apply a racial equity lens to grantmaking.
6. Provide general operating support and multiyear grants.

Minnesota has communities in crisis – organizations and their funders need to join the conversation in more ways than ever before. Foundations should share this report with their boards and trustees; individuals should discuss it with family members and those engaged in making philanthropic choices; nonprofits should identify ways they can bring deliverables into sharp relief so that funders can easily see the social change their dollars will help secure.