Vonage's fourth quarter results won't be released until next month, when you can bet observers will be scrutinizing the company's marginal cost of acquiring new customers, compared to the marginal revenue Vonage is able to eke out. Which isn't to say Vonage has yet lost its lead in the subscriber race, according to TeleGeography. For a large part of the community, the issue is Vonage's ability to outrun its burn rate. Also, at some level there's a sense that an independent provider can't survive in a mass market dominated by the likes of Comcast, Verizon and at&t. There's truth in the observation: oing toe-to-toe with cable or dominant telcos isn't wise. But that's possibly not the point. The notoriously difficult telecom industry also is a place where specialists always have been able to carve out sustainable businesses. They might not be on the scale of a Comcast, Verizon or at&t. But it's hard to explain away the survival, and in some cases, thriving business models put together by quite indpendent specialists of all sorts.
Many observers, including this one, have been pointing out for some time that stand-alone long distance isn't a viable business model. And though the rule might correct as far as it goes, there are salient exceptions. Skype, for example. Some mobile resellers, IP-based dial-around, smaller integrators, telecom agencies, some interconnect firms and competitive local exchange carriers, some fiber-based access providers, some hosting companies and ISPs are able to make money in an environment that says they can't.
Sure, Vonage is trying to beat the odds. Providing it can carve out a niche, it will. The issue is whether it can do that. Of late, Vonage chief strategist Jeffrey Citron has been arguing that Vonage has unexpectedly left the "early adopter" and "early majority" markets and begun to target the core of the mass market. One would have to argue that cable companies are doing exactly the same thing. But it doesn't feel right. Surely the typical cable customer isn't the same customer that Vonage continues to attract, even though both would say they are selling into the core of the mass market.
To be sure, I can't put my finger on precisely why the Vonage "mass market" customer is psychographically different fromt he typical "cable voice" customer. Citron points out, and we have no reason to doubt him, that the incremental customers Vonage now is picking up have demographics of any core mass market customer. There's little doubt, though the cable companies provide no evidence for the thinking, that the typical cable customer also has pretty "normal" demographics.
It just doesn't feel right. The demographics might be similar. But there is something about a typical Vonage customer that is distinct from a typical cable customer. They are, in other words, distinct segments of the mass market. I'd bet that Vonage customers are more likely the "traveling" or "untethered" sort of worker, for example. Neither can I believe the typical Vonage customer is the same age as a typical cable customer. Vonage customers, even the mass market customers Vonage now is getting, have to skew younger, and have to be more comfortable with technology, compared to the typical cable customer.
Cable customers, in other words, likely are a "segment" of the mass market, as are Vonage's customers. If that is true, then Vonage's efforts to add other features, such as Wi-Fi support, more mobile calling features and so forth, shoudl pay off. Vonage's customers have to be more venturesome where it comes to replacing traditional calling services, even if Vonage is said to be a simple "minute stealer" service.
Is Vonage a competitor to cable voice? Most might say "yes." I don't think so. I think both are appealing to distinct customer segments within a broad "demographic" that only appears to be the same. Demographics, in other words, don't tell the story. There still is something about the psychographics of the customer bases that is distinct.
No comments:
Post a Comment