iAd has been one of the rare failures from post-PC Apple. Steve Jobs announced it with atypical plomb (see what I did there). Apple made a big deal out of it. Apple charged $1 million a pop.

Advertisers/makers of content ran fleeing in the night.

Prices were slashed.

Nobody clicked.

Now, Apple's VP of mobile advertising, Andy Miller, is:

1. leaving to spend more time with his family or
2. joining some venture capital firm

Still, I don't think iAd is dead. Rather, it merely needs to be re-thought, replaced, and rolled out anew.

Not simply because Apple is at war with Google.

Rather, there's simply no need to leave all that money on the table.

There are 200 plus million iOS devices out there. Over 400,000 apps currently available in the App Store, and about 15 billion apps, give or take, have been downloaded. And, even though almost no one clicks an ad on their smartphone, the very few who do are more likely than not iPhone users.

Offering their own advertising platform to developers for iOS apps for iOS devices, given those numbers, is simply too obvious a business to be in. In fact, it's one line of business where Apple could turn the tables on Google. Take far less of a cut from advertisers than Google does on Android.

How often has Google told us they are "open"? How often and publicly did they complain that Apple wouldn't let Google's high-priced Admob acquisition have access to the iOS platform and iPhone customr base?

Well, lots.

And if you're a regular reader, you have already read my prior posts (example) on how Google essentially practices the same way. Obey their rules, to the letter, which are designed to ensure their monopoly, and all is well. Maybe. They can still throw you overboard if they want. Anytime they complain about others being closed, you can be damn sure they really only want it "open" til they can capture all the profits.

Today's example of Google having two sets of rule books: shutting out AppNexus, an ad exchange platform, which has backing from Microsoft, and which competes with Google's own InviteMedia platform -- just as the online rush for holiday shopping (and advertising) commences.

Yes, it's their toy box, they should get to set the rules.

I'm just letting you know, cause some of you refuse to accept this, that Google cannot be trusted. And, no, they are not open. Believe them at your own peril.

As I read the New York Times (app on my iPhone), I periodically feel guilty cause it costs them real money for the virtual content I read for free. So every now and then I click on an ad to send some coin their way. Today's ad was a no-brainer. A promise of $1 to the United Way if I gave 3 whole minutes of my precious time to completing a survey about soup.

Which I did. Only took me 2 minutes.

Fact is, the smartphone is altering the medium and the message, and advertising and our attention spans. Along with where and when we can receive messages. Along with where the messages come from. It is still much too early to say that Google or Facebook or iAd are asssured marketing riches. How we get and retrieve and access and present information is being fundamentally altered by the smartphone, hyperlocal services, the real-time social web. Such destruction will enable new competitors and new business models. The only certainty is the old order will die. My suggestion: it's absolutely not too late to start your own mobile ad business and seek funding from rich people eager to get in on the next big new.

Apple continues to roll across Asia. Cause that's where the money is. From Japan:

Apple has announced not one, but two huge products set to launch in Japan — iTunes movies and iAds.

Apple is also extending their highly successful iAd service to Japan as well. The Dentsu Group in Japan will be responsible for selling and executing iAd while Apple will deliver the ad content to customers. The Dentsu Group is one of the most successful brand agencies not only in Japan, but in the world.

I'm now seeing various iAd advertisements across numerous iPhone apps. Most suck. The banner strip works better than competitors, like Google. But after that, for most there is no discernable difference in ad content or quality for the standard ads. The high-end iAd promotions are a different scenario.

So sayeth the user. What about from the standpoint of those who create iAds and, better still, those who are compensated by them.

Any app developers out there ready to provide info on:

1. cost and effort in creating an iAd advertisement, versus using a competing tool
2. what kind of revenues are you seeing with iAd?
3. how do iAd revenues compare to your other solutions, if any
4. does it look like iAd revenue will let you support free apps?

iAm interested in hearing your stories.

Yesterday, I expressed my disappointment with my first iAd experience:

http://brianshall.com/content/popped-my-iad-cherry

Today, I have to admit, it felt much better. I can begin to see what everyone else is talking about.

Once again, I was in the New York Times app. As big and bright and beautiful as the iPhone 4 screen may be, there is still a premium on usable space. The iAd banner strip along the bottom of the screen is probably the perfect size, all things considered, althoughit does make you realize how difficult it is to craft exactly the right look, feel and message within such a small space. Of course, music, video, text, graphics, in-app interactivity and location are obviously the powerful lures to mitigate this new reality.

By the way, I have never seen an iAd banner that was anywhere but at the bottom of the screen.

While scrolling through stories I saw three iAds: Dove, JC Penney and NFL/DirectTV. Yesterday's test of the NFL 'contest' didn't go so well. Today, I clicked on the Dove ad. This was a much better experience. The ad was responsive to the touch (ahem), made it clear that I was still within the New York Times app while at the same time providing a new, semi-immersive experience. Since the Yankees are the devil, I clicked on the Albert Pujols picture instead of the one of the guy who's the devil's handmaiden.

I was presented with a well-made video story of Albert and family. Oh, and why a big successful athlete man would use Dove products. Very well done. Great branding. Maybe at some point in my life, when I need soap and see that Dove for men is on sale, I'll try it. Of course, the *only* reason I clicked on the banner itself was to test the iAd experience. If the New York Times is smart, they should get some coin just for putting that banner strip on over their story content.

This was a successful start for iAd, I thought. As I noted yesterday, there is definitely a place for Big Brand on Big Content in Big Ad. If Apple and its developers can capture several percentage points of this, they've done themselves well. I still do not feel, however, that I've seen the future of advertising in the age of the smartphone.

Sometimes, I feel bad for the New York Times so I give them a pity throw. I mean, everyday they give me quality content, delivered fairly quickly to my iPhone. In return, I don't give them bitches a damn thing.

But every now and then, when the mood hits me, and I got time, I'll click on an ad. For reasons I'm not sure of, most of the ads in the New York Times stories, at least on their iPhone app, are for their Real Estate or Movies section. Which I'm sure isn't bringing in any extra cash. I click anyway. Makes em feel good.

Today, however, I noticed a bright, colorful strip at the bottom of the screen. And at the bottom right of that strip were the words, in tiny print, iAd ad.

Now, Apple being Apple, I actually know what this means. They've taught me just like you. It means this is one of those new-fangled, glossy, very expensive, MadMen-type ads, only re-engineered for the social, mobile 21st century experience.

So I clicked on it.

Nothing.

Clicked again.

Nothing.

Fuck it. Next story (apparently, there was a big rally in Washington, DC this weekend).

A different strip appears this time, from the NFL (or DirectTV, or both). I click on this and...the ad begins. Absolutely nothing special, nothing new, not terribly interesting. It's a sort of fake contest slash trivia competition to judge just how much of a 'true' fan I am of my 'favorite' football team.

Yawn.

It's hard to write much more about this because there was just so little content there that I'm pretty much out of things to say. Normally, I would have instantly migrated away from this ad/contest but as this was my very first iAd, I stayed with it, answering all the questions. Video? Music? Slick graphics? Not, really. Think of a nicely done ad-quiz you might discover on your Facebook page. Interactivity? If my responses to stock poll questions can be considered interactive, then, yes.  Perhaps I need to be a big-time football fan cum Foursquare mayor to appreciate this whole effort.

The only real surprise I had was that the ad did not seem to be very responsive. Literally. I mean, it's iPhone. It's iAd. I would select my answer, press it, and nothing.Touch again, then it would finally move to the second question. This happened repeatedly.

The smartphone is the computer. It is becoming the access point -- for everything. Thus, there is a very big potential market for big brand ads on big brand content. Instead of bolting out of the starting gate, however, iAd, is being called back for a false start.

At least the Times made a buck.

I'm all hip to the in-app advertisement. Developers gotta make some money, right? And most (about 60%) of the ad revenue is supposed to get passed along. That's cool. And given its sizable ecosystem, it sure makes sense for Apple to launch its own ad service.

And, as I've told you so often, the smartphone is the computer. If it's not on the smartphone, it pretty much don't exist in my mind.

Meaning: this cool Nissan ad don't exist. Have you seen it? On your iPhone (or iPad)? I know I haven't. Hell, I've not actually seen a single 'iAd' ad on my iPhone to date. Wasn't this supposed to be a big deal. And isn't Apple being too controlling -- even for Apple -- on this? I mean, ads on the iPhone, ads within the app. Cool. Set your standards, force developers to abide by them, take your cut, then get out of the way. Why all the handholding in developing these ads? Why the big costs? The top-down control on the world's first planet-wide bottom-up communications device?

You can't be great at everything. You can, however, waste a lot of time and resources, and miss out on a lot of stuff you can be great at. Anyway, here's the ad that we all should be seeing but none of us are. Not really.