My Photo

About Me

  • Hello you. I'm a 38-year old MSc student, studying Advanced Computer Science at Sussex University. I'm especially interested in Internet and mobile software, sensors and pervasive computing, user interfaces, and the process of developing great software.

    Before that I spent 11 years running Future Platforms, a software company I co-founded which makes lovely things for mobile phones, and which I sold in 2011.

    I read a lot, write here, and practice Aikido and airsoft. I live in Brighton, a seaside town on the south coast of the UK, with two cats and a clown.

AdSense

Stalk Me

  • Email me:
    twhume at gmail dot com
Blog powered by Typepad

« User Generated Short Codes | Main | Playful interfaces »

August 24, 2006

Comments

Raddedas

Very very interesting, thanks for concrete stats. Can you break down the 26% further, by handset type? I presume you managed to get a user agent out of them on the wap page which triggered the wap push?

7% failure to click on a link really is also very impressive. Maybe a few of them were in moving vehicles or had bad signals, and a few more had no space left on the phone for the content, but really 7%? The mind boggles...

Tom Hume

Interesting idea... for historical reasons (rather than anything else) we don't actually gather user agents from these pages in such a way that they can be matched up to individual purchases, but maybe we should look into it...

gustaf

Interesting!

So, would you say that it makes more sense sending plain SMS's with embedded URLs even though lots of handsets wont recognize them?

Let's say you dont have WAP-portal access and want to push a download sold from an online site, wap-push or SMS?

Jordy Mont-Reynaud

I don't know if I totally understand the improved (7%) use case... you say you "tried linking directly from the operator WAP page to the chunks of content, and using SMS for billing only" -- does that mean that they got billed by SMS after downloading the content? What were the concrete steps that the end user had to go through to get the content in this case? Your stats sound really interesting, I'm just trying to figure out how the actual user experience compares to the WAP Push case.

Tom Hume

Jordy

We used to have this process:

1. User visits WAP portal
2. User clicks link to buy puzzle
3. User sees "thank you page" on WAP portal
4. User receives premium rate WAP Push message, linking them to their purchased puzzle and billing them

We moved to this process:

1. User visits WAP portal
2. User clicks link to buy puzzle
3. User sees "thank you page" on WAP portal, and clicks on a link on this page to download their purchased puzzle
4. User receives premium rate SMS message billing them

The latter process gave us the 7% wastage.

Laney

Interesting stats indeed, but surely your revised approach leaves the content provider exposed to actually not redeeming any payment? Which is actual a double whammy, as suppliers will expect payment for all items delivered. Or am i missing something here? :)

Tom Hume

Laney: I think so. In both cases the customer is billed, but with the revised approach more customers are getting what they paid for: which can't be a bad thing, no?

The comments to this entry are closed.