Value-Based Pricing

Communications services in the past have been priced based on usage (minutes or distance, for example). These days, there's a greater range of retail pricing, including flat fee for buckets of usage, for example.

But with the advent of IP-delivered video services, service and application providers have a chance to price services in a more natural "value to me" basis. If one looks simply at retail pricing and "bandwidth consumed," text messages "cost" the most based on bandwidth consumed, with voice second. Video and Internet services "cost" very little on a "bandwidth consumed" basis.

But that isn't the point. Text, voice and other communications applications are valued one way; video entertainment or simple Web access another way. In other words, in the communications space, "cost" is not the same thing as "price."

Target and Wal-Mart sell some products as loss leaders to get traffic into the store, so people buy lots of other products with varying profit margins. Communications services aren't any different. Some have have margins for providers, others have slim margins. The key, though, is value to the end user, not "bandwidth consumed."

Text messages "cost" very little, as the network to enable sending and receiving them is a sunk cost. But cost isn't price. Users demonstrate by their behavior that they value text messaging highly, on a "bandwidth consumed" basis. If one letter of a text message requires one byte, then sending or receving 6,553 messages consumes about a megabyte of data.

So a 160-character or smaller message might "cost" 10 to 15 cents. So a megabyte worth of text messaging represents as much as $655 to $983 for domestic usage. International messages obviously "cost" more.

A month's unlimited usage of entertainment video might cost $50, consuming more than a megabyte in a single second of use.

The point is that the retail price of any particular message or service has little to do with the actual "cost" of providing it, any more than the "price" of perfume, luxury automobiles, shoes or applications.

"Price" for a video service has to be vastly lower, on a "bandwidth consumed" basis, than texting, instant messaging or voice. That has little to do with user-perceived value, though.