Ordinarily I can't be bothered to write negative critique stuff - in private or in a public blog. But when this "infographic" came across my Zite feed...well, let me be substantive so the critique has some value. If you're going to choose a style and a form, do so because it's more effective at communicating.
Here are the facts, ma'am.
- In the last 3 years, cell phone traffic has increased 5000%
- Mobile ad spending was expected to grow 80% in 2012 and reach $2.6 Billion.
- Mobile traffic is expected to increase 18 fold by 2016.
- By 2014 there will be more mobile users than desktop and laptop users globally.
- 50% of smartphone users watch video on their mobile device.
- 75% of US smartphone owners watch video on their smartphones, and 26% do so every day.
- 92% of mobile video viewers share videos with others.
- Online videos account for half of all mobile traffic.
Is it "cell phone" or "mobile" or "smartphone" ? Oh, wait - if you pull a bunch of random stats from other people and attribute them (however illegibly), you're not supposed to monkey with their choice of terms.
Do I care what was expected in 2012, now that we're in 2013? Seriously? You can't be bothered to find the most recent data, or projections into the future.?
Then there's smartphone video viewing. Rossiter says 50%, Google says 75%. Are we supposed to pick which one to believe?
Leaving those citation nits aside, it's just the sheer waste of space and time that irks me about this. 8 sparse bullets become a longform-scrolling blue nightmare. No comparison or relationship between data. No insights. Just the Smurfs edition of Illustrator coughing up random decoration and whitespace. Tell me, please, why this is better. I don't see it. Grrr!
Dear clients - if we ever do something this ineffectual, please show us the door.
--md
