3 Responses to “Vast Majority Of Americans Annoyed By Mobile Advertising, Report Reveals”

  1. Steven James Burks

    Echoing the above two comments, Forrester's most recent report is nothing more than pandering to the fears of a nacent consumer base and already overly sensitive carrier / operator companies.

    The report completely fails to ask *relevant* questions like, "If you could receive free mobile video-on-demand, would you be willing to watch a 15-second advertisement in the mobisode you selected?"

    The overwhelming response to this very relevant question has been, "Yes."

  2. What a ridiculous Forrester report, the question Forrester never asked is how many subscribers would rather pay for access to content or receive it in the traditional ad supported format. Ask yourself how many media formats are provided without ads? TV, news paper, magazine, online, Fierce, Moconews.net all have advertising and now that you’ve gone through this exercise tell me how much content would cost if you had to pay for it…the answer is you can’t afford it. My opinion is if Forrester wanted to provide a one sided report they did a great job of it.

  3. Mark Simmons

    Lots of interesting views expressed in this article. However, Forrester does something I find very annoying-they give you no basis of comparison.

    In order for their results to mean anything, they need to be compared to something known. In this case the key question revolves around how people's attitudes about cell phone advertising compare with their feelings toward advertising on other media. On this point Forrester completely fumbles the ball. Without this, you really can't get beyond conjecture on cell phones as a media for advertising.

    The few surveys I have seen that make this comparison have found that there is no appreciable difference in how people feel about advertising from one medium to another. The results for TV, magazines, radio, the Internet and so on fall within a percent or two of each other.