Register
Blog
Ads(tia) on smartphones We all know that ads on smartphones are catching up today. The .tel has the feature to advertise three image ads of 300x50 on smartphones with the following structure. - TXT ".tia" "Version" "DisplayPreference" "Preference" "img" "uri". But, wouldn't it be better to have a direct dial to a phone number/VOIP id from the smartphone image, instead of linking to a "uri"? This is very practical, very convenient and saves time for the user (visitor), as navigation will be at least one page less before getting in touch with the advertiser. Similarly, any text ads (sponsored links) that appear on smartphones should have the same direct link to a phone number/VOIP id instead of linking to a traditional "uri". If Telnic can do the necessary modification to have this feature on smartphones by default or as an option and leaving the traditional linking to "uri" for Desktop only would attract more advertisers for the telpages. Cheers! |
Quote:
hear hear. please provide options. ... so that would be 1 less page for smartphone users to need to load ... and provide instant "click-to-call" for advertisers.[/size] |
Great suggestion! As always, optional would be fantastic. Thank you Telnic for listening. |
In fact Telnic should be able to program it ( to redirect) according to the input protocol. Or may be Telnic experts have better ideas. Looking forward for some solution either way. Thanks. |
i'd also like to see this - good suggestion |
yep, I vote for this feature too Mark |
Quote:
Good idea - .tel needs to keep up - Google recently introduced this facility on their “Pay per Call” Mobile Ads - seehttp://telnic.org/forum/showthread.php?p=14806 Mike Seaton[/size] |
A quick comment here, without negating these ideas. There seem to be a couple of competing recommendations going on at present in different threads: 1) Re-size the desktop ad to automatically show on the mobile proxy (for management simplicity) 2) Require an image ad on the mobile proxy to act differently by firing up a URI (for user simplicity?) Whilst both could be accommodated potentially, it would make the control panel extremely confusing with multiple complex options unless I'm missing something? Therefore, wouldn't it be better to enable two different ads as we have already - one for PC and one for smart phone - which can have different end points? |
Quote:
IMO that is a good solution - the only question is whether the mobile ads offer: 1) URL AND Phone links (as the new Google Pay per Call mobile ads do) or 2) URL OR Phone Link (with the decision being specified by the .tel owner in the Control Panel) My preference is for 1) - it keeps .tel in line with the Google approach and also ensures it is 100% clear to the user what will happen after they click. Mike Seaton[/size] |
1) Re-size the desktop ad to automatically show on the mobile proxy (for management simplicity) 2) Require an image ad on the mobile proxy to act differently by firing up a URI (for user simplicity?) 1) YES 2) YES FOR DIAL AN AD as an option. Can't all this be simplified by having power user vs normal user views? I'm all for simplicity for the avg joe but as this tld matures for us original users, many are now power users and require more flexibility. At any raete, give me both options via SOAP and I'll have them available as a tool in no time for those that need it (if no power view). Mark |
Justin, This part is of "divine" importance for us. It should be simple but flexible enough to allows us to do the following: 1- Have an option to load different ads for PC and mobile users. It is two different world of consumers. By default it will automatically resize the ad to fit mobile. 2- Have an option to either put a link URL or phone link (dial or...) Observation after few testing: 1- Url link on desktop does not bother user. It will display the site or whatever on the browser. 2- Url link on mobile is different. Data consumption is high, web may not fit for mobile browser, etc... 3- Let's minimize the need to create more complicated aps or third party aps to achieve our objectives. Many thanks for listening. |
Quote:
In our opinion none of above modifications will have any complex effect on the control panel. At least we (third party developers) will be able to present it to the user in a simplified manner. All we need is the functionality at the receiving end. Thanks for the quick response.[/size] |
Quote:
Re: "for user simplicity" - Top priority - Because user is the "end user" and is the customer. And we must treat the customer as King. Re: "for management simplicity" - We, tel Owners, are the customers of Telnic. Cheers![/size] |
Quote:
Please do not remove existing functionality. Nobody is suggesting that. We just need more flexibility[/size] |
