The answer to that old “WAP or app” debate? It might be, both.
Ever since the early days of WAP – which, yes, was often crap – media companies and advertisers have struggled with how to approach users on their phones. While wireless Web sites can be relatively cheap and easy to build, they typically offer a user experience that pales in comparison to downloadable applications, which can be prohibitively expensive to deploy.
So many companies are taking both routes, offering applications for specific kinds of handsets – Microsoft Corp. Windows Mobile-enabled phones, for instance – as well as a simple mobile site for use by a broader swath of devices. YouTube recently continued that trend, expanding its mobile site for 3G phones even as it pushes a J2ME application supported by only a handful of devices in the United States and United Kingdom.
The new site provides mobile access YouTube’s entire catalog of tens of millions of video clips. But many of the bells and whistles from the PC site are available only through the application – not the downloadable offering.
“The Java application has some of the more interactive components that we have on our site,” said Dwipal Desai, a YouTube product manager. “You can preload recommended related videos, which you can’t do on the mobile Web site. You can share from the application, and we have integrated uploads to the app, so you don’t have to rely on MMS or e-mail.”
App = investment
Developers looking to deploy mobile applications face a host of challenges, though. Applications require substantial investment, and not only must users be persuaded to download the offering – a major hurdle for any developer to overcome – they must be supported by enough handsets to make their deployment worthwhile.
Those costs were simply too much to bear for New York’s Crisp Wireless Inc., which gained traction in the early days of mobile data building applications for NBC, zipRealty and others. But the company changed tack when overhead costs proved onerous; Crisp now builds mobile Web sites for partners including USA Today, Cars.com and Time Inc.
WAP = LCD
Mobile Internet sites provide a “lowest common denominator” kind of platform that allows developers to address a vast number of handsets at a fraction of the cost of an application. WAP site operators can use device-identification technology to direct users to the most appropriate page for the hardware they’re using, and common transcoding software can make a traditional Internet site usable – if not flawless – on the smaller screen. And while upgrades can be a massive headache for application developers – who must somehow talk users into downloading the new version – wireless sites can be tweaked with minimal effort.
Still, a mobile site is simply inadequate for some uses, according to Kristin McDonnell, CEO of LimeLife Inc., a Menlo Park, Calif.-based mobile publisher that builds applications and Web sites for women.
“We think WAP is great for things that are more information-based, where time lags are acceptable in the user experience,” said McDonnell. “But applications are much faster, because you are having software resident on the phone. Games are something that will always do best as an app as opposed to a WAP (offering). You can handle much more complexity, much more richness with an application.”
McDonnell noted, however, that the wireless Web makes it much easier to share content like videos, photos and mash-ups – the kind of stuff advertisers are increasingly looking to use as marketing tools. Such tactics have been used to plug everything from movies (“Snakes on a Plane” and “Cloverfield”) to retail stores (OfficeMax) to fast food (Burger King). And while some campaigns have fallen flat, well executed, made-for-mobile viral campaigns could be an effective – and inexpensive – way to reach young consumers.
“The beauty of WAP, though, is that it is more viral; it’s also more linkable,” McDonnell said. “You can have growth just through consumer use and sharing, whereas applications typically don’t have a lot of viral to them.”
