The first million people who bought VCRs bought them before there were any movies available to watch on them. That might strike you as curious, akin to buying a TV when there are no programs being broadcast.
In fact, though commercialized about 1977, it was not firmly legally established that sales of VCRs were lawful until 1984, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Sony could sell VCRs without violating copyright law, as Hollywood studios alleged.
So what were those people doing with their VCRs? Taping shows to watch later. Time shifting, we now call it. Only later, after Blockbuster Video was founded in 1985, did video rentals become a mass market phenomenon.
So here is the point: quite often, a new market is started one way, and then, after some scale is obtained, can develop into a different business model and use case.
Once there were millions of VCR owners, and content owners lost their fear of cannibalizing their main revenue stream (movie theater tickets), it became worthwhile for Hollywood to start selling and renting movies to watch on them.
Eventually watching rented movies became the dominant use of VCRs, and time shifting a relatively niche use.
That strategy might be called stand-alone use, creating a new market by directly satisfying a customer need, before a different two-sided or multi-sided market can be created, where at least two distinct sets of participants must be brought together, at the same time, for the market to exist. Virtually any online marketplace is such a case.
Others might call it single-player. OpenTable, which today has a marketplace revenue model, originally only provided a reservation system to restaurants, operating in a single-sided market mode, before it then could create a two-sided model where restaurants pay money for the booked reservations made by consumers.
So OpenTable, which operates in a two-sided marketplace--connecting restaurants and diners--started out selling reservation systems to restaurants, before creating its new model of acting as a marketplace for diners and restaurants.
The extent to which that also will be true for some internet of things platforms is unclear, but likely, even for single-sided parts of the ecosystem.
The value of any IoT deployment will be high when there is a robust supply of sensors, apps, devices and platforms. But without many customers, the supply of those things will be slow to grow, even in the simpler single-player markets. Just as likely, though, is the transformation of at least some of the single-player revenue models to two-sided marketplaces.
In other words, a chicken-and-egg problem will be solved by launching one way, then transitioning to another, more complicated two-sided model requiring scale and mutual value for at least two different sets of participants. In a broad sense, think of any two-sided market as one that earns revenue by creating value for multiple sets of participants.
Amazon makes money from product sellers and buyers, while at the same time also earning revenue from advertisers and cloud computing customers.
Telcos have faced this problem before.
Back in the 1870s and 1880s, when the first telephone networks were created, suppliers faced a severe sales problem. The value of the network depended on how many other people a customer could call, but that number of people was quite small. The communications service has a network effect: it becomes more valuable as the number of users grows.
These days, that is generally no longer the case. The number of people, accounts and devices connected on the networks is so large that the introduction of a new network platform does not actually face a network issue. The same people, devices and accounts that were connected on the older platform retain connectivity while the new platform is built.
There are temporary supply issues as the physical facilities are built and activated, but no real chicken and egg problem.
The point is that at least some internet of things or other new services ventures attempted by telcos will eventually require the building of a marketplace of some sort providing value to multiple sets of participants.
The video entertainment business already provides an example, where service providers earn direct subscription fees from viewers, but also advertising revenues from third parties.
In some cases, where content subscription providers also own content assets, they may earn revenue from content licensing to other third party distributors as well.
It remains to be seen whether some connectivity providers also will be able to create multi-sided markets for internet of things or other new industries. There are potential opportunities around edge computing, for example.
The initial value might simply be edge data center functions. Later, other opportunities could arise around the use of edge computing, the access networks, customer bases and app providers. It would not be easy; it rarely is. But creating new revenue streams for some customers who just want edge computing cycles could create foundation for other revenue streams as well.
No comments:
Post a Comment