One way to persuade marketers who aren't convinced about the merits of mobile marketing is by holding other channels to the same light.

Last week's editorial, "Who says brands aren't running mobile marketing campaigns," offered evidence that mobile has won the attention of major marketers. Maybe the budgets were not as big as television or mail or print, but it takes an acorn to become an oak.

Mobile, for some strange reason, encourages armchair gurus of all persuasions to pass judgments on the channel, sometimes without the immediate benefit of facts at hand. So let's make a case for mobile by asking the same question of other channels that is asked of mobile.

"Is this the year of mobile marketing?"
Indeed, this is not the year of mobile marketing. Nor was last year. But 2007? It was a strong contender, at least as a milestone. Who won't deny that the Apple iPhone forever changed the face of mobile advertising, marketing, media and content?

So turn the question around. Is this the year of television? The year of print? The year of direct mail? The year of radio? The year of online advertising? The year of outdoor media?

Radio gaga?
Exclude TV, for the moment. What about radio? Aren't the two leading satellite radio networks now one? Why? Not sufficient advertising or subscriber revenues. Not enough reach, too.

And let's see some research on how engaged the next generation is with radio.

Paper tapers
Print? Perhaps this is the year of print advertising -- one of the last years.

Is there any reason for print advertising? Yes, those with vested interests in that channel - or the few profitable publications - will make the case for ease of portability, the number of days or hours that magazine or newspaper copies stay at home or in offices, the pass-along value and quality of advertisement.

Perhaps the only argument that makes sense is print's branding value, and that too is a failing proposition for print business magazines and newspapers unless they are the dominant players in their category, such as The Wall Street Journal or The Economist.

Other than that, who can defend print's late delivery of news and the cost of paper, ink, printing and shipping? Who can defend the call-center or mailing costs to renew subscriptions?

And how can print publishers defend the lack of interactivity unless there is a strong call-to-action in the ad -- toll-free number, email address, unique Web site address or keyword and short code for mobile action?

Mail wail
Who wants to beat up on poor direct mail? The irony is, direct mail works. But only with repeated government intervention -- and much prior to the current economic slump.

The U.S Postal Service each year goes hat in hand to Congress for exemptions from obligations to its pensioners and for handouts to shoulder the costs of running the largest quasi-government bureaucracy.

And yet the consumer is stiffed each year with a postal rate increase -- a First-Class stamp is now 44 cents, up from 42 cents. Mailers too suffered an average 3.8 percent increase in Standard Mail costs.

Who then can make the case for direct mail to catalogers and retailers whose world has come crashing around them in this current Great Recession? Is the USPS helping them with discounts to withstand this downturn with lower mailing rates?

So, again, this must be the year of direct mail -- one of the worst. And it won't get better anytime soon. Mail's woes have little to do with the Great Recession.

Banner year for online
What of online advertising? (Fair disclosure: this publication runs online advertising.)

Online faces the same number of skeptical questions as mobile does. The only way to answer them is to prove to the advertiser the value in targeted banner ads with a strong call to action.

Ah, banner ads. For the longest time skeptics complained about banner blindness and the banner itself. Well, it is 15 years now and the banner and the search ad are the two longest surviving units in online advertising and marketing. Why? Because they work, both for branding and lead-generation.

Oh, and if it hasn't already been noticed, funny how all of a sudden there is new research showing that banner ads work. Where was that research five years ago? Does print business publishing's imminent demise -- and sudden love of online -- have anything to do with it?

So, is this the year of online advertising? In one word -- yes. And in one word, why? Print.

Prime time forever
Did we save the best for the last? Indeed. What about TV? Here's one prediction: In the long run, the three mediums with the longest legs will be the three screens -- TV, computer-based online advertising and marketing, and mobile.

TV's two biggest plus points are its mass reach and the branding power. Also, count the ability to demonstrate products.

And yet who has proved TV's effectiveness down to the last household? Why are programs rated and not the commercials? How does the market measure the ad's effectiveness?

More important, how do agencies and media planners and buyers purchase TV time? Based on surveys and diaries in a few thousand households? Now how scientific is that? Where is the actual statistical scrutiny?

Why hasn't TV been held to a higher standard instead of just empirical data? Why aren't the set-top boxes recording the number of commercials running on that particular TV set each day? How difficult is to aggregate that data on a demographic basis, but assuring anonymity in the aggregation process?

Networks take refuge behind privacy concerns. And yet online and mobile are required to monitor every click? No privacy issue there? It's the same consumer, isn't it?

But TV operates on a different level. It's been around for more than six decades. And it's a safe choice for marketing executives with the budgets. And it's profitable for ad agencies -- far more so than online and mobile.

And so, is this the year of TV? Yes -- and 2010 and 2011 and all the years beyond, as well.

Hard cell?
Mobile is never going to be TV or online. And it should never be print. Screen size, bandwidth and user habits are obvious reasons why mobile will complement the two other screens but not completely replace them.

Indeed, just like any other channel, mobile has its fair share of problems.

Among them are delayed provisioning of short codes for SMS campaigns; lack of standardization in browsers and backend technology; difficulties in measurement; the inability to cookie mobile site visitors; and billing and security issues for mobile commerce.

Add to that the disparate standards for working with various wireless carriers -- the gateways to mobile marketing and mobile Web; the low penetration of smartphones; and a general misunderstanding of the medium -- clear it once and for all, mobile is not Online Junior.

However, given time, most of these teething troubles will disappear.

Aside from online, mobile is the only channel that gives legs to others, such as TV, radio, print, online, retail, insert media, outdoor and direct mail.

Now given some of these rationales, is it fair to ask that trite cliché: Is this the year of mobile marketing? No. But what people really are asking is: Has mobile marketing taken off? To that the answer is: Absolutely, unequivocally, yes.

Don't judge mobile marketing by its budgets, but by its actions. Not everyone can see the plane immediately upon takeoff, but those onboard know they are upward bound.