An interesting post came up on Mobile Marketing Watch yesterday about the resurgence of application sponsorships. The post cites an article written by Steve Smith of MediaPost. I will let Steve do the heavy lifting, but in summary the article states that not every brand translates well into a mobile application. If you do not have an idea for a mobile app that adds value to your brand, don’t just build something for the hell of it! You will spend big money on an app that hardly ever gets downloaded and even if it does the retention rates will probably be so low that it does not justify the costs. Instead, find an existing mobile media application  - i.e. a newspaper app – whose retention rates are usually through the roof (74% after 30 days) and pay for a run of app sponsorship. You will be able to, at a fraction of the time and cost, leverage the eye balls that someone else has been able to retain and still embed actionable functionality that will give you all the benefits of having your own app. If you have any questions on what I mean about embedding actionable functionality please contact me. A number of the ad units that Spreed is helping to build can be considered apps within apps (actionable functionality) and when grouped together with the sponsorship costs are much less expensive and will provide much more bang for your buck! Here is the article from MediaPost:

The Lost Art of Sponsorship

Now that a bit of the fervor over branded apps has died down, it has become clearer to a lot of marketers that not every brand translates easily into the kind of utility consumers really want on their phone. Some publishers tell me that they are getting a lot of interest from marketers who want to be sole sponsor of new branded media apps. Instead of buying up a new audience for their branded app, they prefer to align with a tool and a media source brand that has already built an audience.