Media Strategies Editor Jim Meskauskas takes a look ahead at what the biggest trends will be for the online media and marketing industry in 2008, and how it won't matter.

Every year, I like to look back at what the big stories were for the year prior. I like to revisit the big headlines. It reminds me of the good and bad times I may have had over the year. But in particular, it lets me review the trends our business realized and compare them with predictions made about those trends (for example, "Social networks will become more open in 2007," true. "Microsoft's Windows Live services will gain real momentum next year, thanks to Vista," not so true).

When I'm done with this, I like to make predictions about the year to come for the sake of organizing my own focuses.

But mostly, I like to join the industry's pack of pundits and practitioners in putting a stake in the ground about what is going to happen with the industry we all know and love. If I'm right more than I'm wrong, it establishes me as insightful with the kind of predictive qualities the marketplace deems valuable. If I'm wrong, I still keep the job I have and everyone pretty much forgets about it once the year is underway.

This year, I'd like to make some ANTI predictions, things that I think WON'T come to pass in 2008. Things that I think belong more in the "hype" file rather than in the "ripe" file. Of course, there is always room for interpretation.

1. Mobile will NOT be the big thing in 2008

I do hate to say it, on account of I wish it wasn't true, but Doug Weaver has said it time and again, and he continues to be right: mobile is like soccer in the U.S. (or "futbol" if you prefer), it is always just this side of becoming the next biggest thing. We can continue to talk about the problem being that the devices just aren't there yet (which is true), or that the carriers have been a major impediment (which is true), or that the metrics are not well developed enough to know just what I'm getting as mobile advertising and whether or not it is working (which is only kind of true).

The real barrier to mobile is the application itself. The killer application continues to be our ability to use cellphones for remote voice communication. While texting is immensely popular with many people, that doesn't mean it can also serve as a successful advertising vehicle. 

You want to look at what stands to become some of the most effective mobile advertising? Look at 1800Free411, where advertising messages can be delivered to those calling directory assistance based on the category of business or service they are looking for. Look to advertising that integrates the non-speech killer app of mobile -- texting -- into the messaging, such as getting audiences to text questions about offers, or answers to questions for a contest, or prompts them through the use of outdoor advertising to text requests of some kind.

Mobile is just that -- you are on the move -- so take advantage of that in the kind of marketing used to incorporate it. Ads on a phone are not the answer.

2. Social networking will NOT be the killer advertising platform of 2008

I know it's something that we can't stop talking about. I know I certainly can't. But social networking will not be the darling of marketers, at least not by virtue of its usefulness as an advertising vehicle.

Marketers will be drawn to social networks as an adverting vehicle for the same reasons they are drawn to any media vehicle: the size of its audiences and the popularity it enjoys. That does not, however, always translate into viability as a means for delivering advertising. Toilet paper, after all, is also rather popular. Certainly everyone I know uses it. But I have yet to see ads on it. This is not to equate delivery systems, but rather to demonstrate that widespread use is not a sufficient condition for carrying an ad message. There are two reasons why social networking properties will not be the killer advertising platform of 2008:

• Social networking is just a communication format, not a media vehicle, per se. Social networking is the first decade of the 21st century's email. In the early days of email, you had either enterprise systems or software, or both for a cost. Or there was free email branded by its provider (Hotmail, Yahoo!). But aside from being a domain, do any of the free online email providers, even Gmail, really have a brand? Do any of them offer any specific value to marketers looking to advertising that can't be had anywhere else? Not really. What they offer is scale (the audiences are huge) and some targetability. Certainly the kind of information available about users will lend itself to greater levels of targetability, but as we've already seen, the community is going to police itself against that targetability going too far. 
• The environment as it stands today (I'm thinking of Facebook, but MySpace certainly suffers from this as well) is simply not very good for advertising. Loud and busy, with applications all over the page, there is a new one added every time you click on a message from someone who you kind of know challenging you to a quiz you've not taken before, and which comes automatically with yet another Facebook plug-in (can you tell I'm trying my best not to use the word widget?). And do we marketers really think that our intended audiences are going to like our commercial messages any better if they are coming from a person we only sort of kind of know but are in their Friend network because someone in our network was challenged to a "Celebrities Without Their Make-up On, Part III" quiz?

3. Agencies will NOT be where the big ideas come from

It really does pain me to say this, and I won't be making any friends in doing so, but this year we are going to see more advertisers striking deals with media companies where the draw to the marketer for the direct relationship was the idea brought to the table by the "Media Company." The agencies will play mostly logistical roles. Clients don't care where those big ideas come from, so long as they get them first. The agency might serve to midwife the big idea, but because they are caught in a precarious position between being yes-men (and women) borne of fear of being fired by a client, being squeezed on fees that are tied to the transactional elements of their business (i.e. buying) and not being compensated fairly for their ideas, there is little market incentive for the agency as a business to be the source of big ideas. 

This will not be true in all cases, of course. Shops focused specifically on brand imaging, the creative elements of messaging, or even things like "brand narrative," like Campfire, will continue to be compensated for their messaging and image strategies. But where media comes in, the agencies are at a disadvantage.  

The truth is, one never really knows what's going to happen in the future, especially when it comes to online advertising. I know if I did, I would have taken Google more seriously years ago when what I was thinking at the time was: "Aren’t they just stealing Ted Meisel's idea? How could they possibly beat Overture (né Goto.com)?"

But predictive analysis is our game, so why not take this time to play a little.

Media Strategies Editor Jim Meskauskas is vice president and director of online media for ICON International, Inc., an Omnicom Company. Read full bio.