Paul Walsh, the Irish Opportunist

I was unable to attend a dotMobi presentation entitled “Avoiding the Top 10 Mistakes in Mobile Web Marketing” at the Hospital recently. So, I was delighted to receive an email from the Director of PR and Communications to acknowledge my absence with the presentation slides attached. Great communications and follow-up to an event.

I very much enjoyed reading the presentation and it referenced some good statistics along with useful tips.

Useful statistics referenced in the presentation

Among smartphone users in the US, mobile browsing has increased 89% year over year, and page views have increased 127%.

The world market for mobile marketing and advertising is expected to grow to an expected $24 billion by 2013 (vs. $2B billion in 2007) Among 5,398 North American consumers queried by Forrester in 4Q07, 48% said they wish they could look up things online when they’re on the go, but 58% said the mobile Web fails to meeting their needs - moreover, 60% said their mobile device screens are too small for activities outside of making calls and sending text messages.

I was surprised by their hard-sell approach on slide 17, entitled “MISTAKE 4: using a .com name for a .mobi experience”.

Without going into the technicalities of Tim Berners-Lee’s vision of ‘One Web’, as I could almost write a book on my interpretation and I don’t want to subject you to such an epic, their statement is completely wrong, technically speaking.

Is it wrong to use a .com (or any other) domain for a site which works on a desktop computer and mobile phone, or any other device? No, of course it isn’t. Nor is it wrong to use a .com for a site which has been created specifically for mobile phones. In fact, it is desirable in my opinion, to only use one domain as to not confuse users with multiple domains for multiple devices.

It is desirable for your Web site to automatically detect the device being used to access the site and then render the content according to the capabilities of that device. So, when a visitor uses a desktop computer they get a desktop experience and when they use an N95 they get a site which is user friendly on that particular phone. If you’re really good, your site will take into consideration, the additional capabilities that a phone has over a computer, such as GPS, SMS, MMS, voice…

Technically speaking, it is not necessary to differentiate using different domains. dotMobi is a marketing vehicle for its investors (namely Nokia, Samsung, Vodafone and others) and they’re in the business of selling domains - that’s why they say it’s wrong to use .com. But in my opinion, that’s unprofessional. You shouldn’t slag off the competition. Moreover, dotMobi is confusing people. dotMobi is not a standards body. It is a non-profit organisation in the business of selling domains.

According to it’s very first press release (which I can no longer find), it was setup to encourage developers to build mobile-friendly Web sites for the provision of encouraging consumers to buy more high-end devices to access said mobile Web - thereby also increasing the amount of data consumed - which obviously generates more revenue. In other words, set up a non-profit organisation under the guise of helping industry when in fact, it’s setup to generate more revenue for their profit making companies. It’s a bit like Google Android, which comes with Google applications pre-installed each time. Oh, a bit like Microsoft’s OS pre-installed on computers, but without the ‘non-profit, community-loving cloak’.

Sorry, back to dotMobi - that was the plan before they probably realised how flawed it was with companies such as MAXroam demonstrating to operators, what they should have done years ago; offer customers value for money instead of ripping them off with ridiculously high roaming charges. The iPhone is almost forcing operators to provide unlimited data tariffs and handset vendors are being encouraged to stop providing 3 features per model - just put it all in one device! Google Android should encourage operators and vendors to actually collaborate like real stake holders in the same industry. Crap. I’ve gone off-topic again.

For what it’s worth, I don’t think it was wrong to setup dotMobi, we all need to ensure our shareholders are happy. What’s wrong, is the confusion that has been caused and the fact that dotMobi does little to help the situation.

It’s not wrong to use a .mobi domain for sites which are specifically created for mobile phones either, irrespective of how much I dislike the idea. Although some would argue it is.

Some people may wish to use a .mobi domain for mobile friendly Web sites. That’s their choice. It is no more, or less appropriate than say, .org for non-profit associations. Take the BIMA Web site for example - it makes sense to use http://bima.org but unfortunately it has been taken by another organisation. That’s why it uses http://bima.co.uk. Is that wrong? Of course not. However, it is wrong according to the dotMobi presentation. That’s what is wrong in my opinion - it’s sending out the wrong message to the industry behind closed doors, as I’m almost certain dotMobi wouldn’t dare to make such a bold statement on a W3C Mobile Web Initiative mailing list.

Going off-topic slightly, something I never do, the presentation stated that dotMobi generates $10m annually. I suggest they revise that statement because being given a $10M annual budget (as of Year 1) for marketing, is not the same as generating revenue.

My advice to Web site owners and the agencies building their sites: stick with .com or whatever domain you already have. Then, when it comes to adjusting the site to work better on mobile phones, follow best practice design guidelines.

Check out the W3C Mobile Web Initiative Best Practices to find best practice design guidelines for mobile Web development. This is particularly useful if you haven’t designed for small screens before. It’s not particularly useful if you’re a WAP developer, as you’re more inclined to stick to WML based sites.

Disclaimer: Segala is one of the original Founding Sponsors of the MWI.