Weaker Market for Fixed Line Services Due in Part to Housing Market Changes

As if fixed-line providers of entertainment video, voice and broadband did not have enough problems, it appears there are fewer households to sell services to, these days.

Lower housing starts and a severe job market are obvious reasons why uptake of new services has been challenged.

But it appears there are other demographic changes at work as well. More young people, for example, are living longer with their parents than once was the case.

Also, more people in their 20s have moved back in with their parents. That is important as younger people represent one of the biggest groups of "single person" households. If there are fewer of those sorts of households, there are fewer potential occupied homes to sell services to.


A 2009 Pew Research survey found that among 22- to 29-years-olds, one-in-eight say that, because of the recession, they have boomeranged back to live with their parents after being on their own. That suggests as many as 12.5 percent of those 22 to 29 have removed themselves from the ranks of households with a possible need for fixed line communications or entertainment services.

Those trends, in turn, seem to have been driven by the recession's impact on younger workers.

According to a Pew Research Center analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics data, as of 2009 some 37 percent of 18- to-29-year-olds were either unemployed or out of the workforce, the highest share among this age group in nearly four decades.

In 2000 there were about 42 million people living in multi-generational households. In 2008 there were 49 million, and one suspects that number grew in 2009.

Google Nexus One: Lessons to be Learned?

New sales data on the Google Nexus One smartphone has most observers concluding that Google has failed with its launch. Flurry notes that the Nexus One has shipped about 135,000 units in 74 days, where Apple shipped a million iPhone units in its first 74 days while the Verizon Droid sold a bit more than a million units in its first 74 days.

"Google Nexus One may go down as a grand, failed experiment or one that ultimately helped Google learn something that will prove important in years to come," Flurry notes.

But the sales curve might suggest something about the distribution channel more than anything else. Droid's sales suggest it is not the Android operating system which accounts for the low sales.

More likely the low sales are the result of a combination of changes in the typical distribution system. Most users buy their devices from carriers, most often preferring a discounted handset with an accompanying contract.

Google has been selling only unlocked devices, and only from a Web site, at full retail price. One could have predicted that would not be popular.

Also, Google initially started out with email support only. Given the history of consumer unhappiness with mobile service provider customer service, that also could have been predicted. When people have a problem, they want to talk to a live person, and they want to talk "now."

Also, though some policy advocates have been loudly calling for sales of unlocked devices as a consumer choice value, most consumers care less about unlocked devices and more about customer support. In an unlocked device scenario, it isn't clear whether it is Google, the handset vendor or the carrier that has the issue causing the problem.

Consumers may have issues with contracts, but they also prefer lower phone prices and the assurance that if there is a problem, the retailer will take responsibility.

What Google's experiment mostly shows is the value and power of an integrated distribution model, with clear responsibility and good customer service support. Unlocked devices do not generally resonate, and neither do full price handsets, especially when customer experience after sale is so poor.

Flurry post

U.S. Wireless Business Twice the Size of Wireline in 5 Years

In five years, the U.S. wireless business will be more than twice the size of the entire landline services business, say researchers at Insight Research Corp.

Keep in mind that the U.S. wireless and wired network businesses were roughly equivalent revenue producers in 2009.

That is but one example of a profound change in the telecommunications business globally, where wireless already has emerged as the key telecommunications service, with wireless accounts outnumbering wireline voice lines by a four-to-one margin.

In 2000 there were 738 million global mobile subscribers. In 2010, there are 4.3 billion mobile subscribers. In other words, mobile users have doubled twice in just 10 years.

It took just four years to double the number of global mobility users, from 2000 to 2004, and just another four years to double yet again, from 2004 to 2008.

All U.S. landline communications spending stood at $161.4 billion at the end of 2009 and will grow slowly to $165.7 billion by the end of 2014, representing a negligible compound annual growth rate of 0.5 percent.

Total U.S. wireless spending stood at $160.3 billion in 2009. But wireless revenue will grow at an 18.4 percent annual rate between 2010 and 2014, reaching $373.2 billion in 2014.

It now appears 2000 was the year U.S. wired voice accounts hit their peak, as they have been steadily declining ever since.

It is a truism that new technologies cause far less change in the early going than observers predict, but also cause more change than expected once the changes really take hold. It is a related truism that tipping points occur with great suddenness. Long periods of gestation, where each year appears to be much like the next, suddenly erupt, with acute changes unexpectedly obvious.

It appears the U.S. communications industry is about to hit one of those important inflection points, where a new pattern suddenly is obvious.

Will Historic Consumer Spending Patterns Hold Up?

Long-term interest rates are quietly heading higher, and consumer confidence is headed lower, economists and financial analysts now say. Rising rates are a drag on the economy, making it more difficult for businesses and households to finance spending and investment.

This is going to slow the economic recovery and challenge my thesis that communications and multi-channel video entertainment businesses suffer slower growth, but still grow, even in recessionary times.

Just to recap, over the last 25 years, in every recession, telecom and cable TV revenues, for example, have grown, year over year. Growth rates slowed, but were never in negative ranges, overall.

That does not mean consumers were not economizing, they likely were. But overall spending on what have come to be viewed as essential services has not faltered in any recession over the last 25 years.

What tends to happen in a recession is that consumers stop buying incremental or enhanced features and products. That can take the form of less spending on premium TV, pay-per-view and on-demand content; delaying the purchase of a new mobile phone or switching to a prepaid account.

Consumers also typically shift spending away from other activities in recessionary times, propping up core communications and video entertainment services.

There has been pressure of other sorts, though. Firms including Verizon and Time Warner Cable mention that housing market distress has lowered new customer acquisition rates. When people are not moving into new houses, or stop renting and move in with relatives, or lose their homes, that reduces new subscriber additions and increases churn.

But there are other structural changes bubbling away underneath. Fixed voice lines mostly have been a case of shifted market share from telcos to cable operators, but also some apparently-growing amount of abandonment in favor of mobile. Roughly the same thing has been happening in the video business, as cable operators slowly lose share to both telco and satellite providers.

Trading market share leaves the overall business about where it was, overall. Over the past decade, though, service providers have benefitted from one truly new product--broadband Internet access--and skyrocketing additional mobile accounts. To the extent voice lines actually are shrinking, not just being shifted to new providers, mobile revenues and broadband have more than compensated for the losses.

In all likelihood, mobile broadband now is going to replace mobile voice as the revenue and growth driver for the next five year period. Assuming there is no change in the underlying rate of mobile substitution, and no sudden replacement of the multi-channel video product by an over-the-top alternative, I would continue to stand by my prediction that, even in the face of sluggishness on the economic front, cable and telco providers will continue to show revenue growth, if slower than they would like.

The real danger comes from some unexpected shift of demand that radically changes spending patterns. That is the sort of thing one cannot anticipate very well, and the reason I spend so much time trying to follow consumer behavior.

related story on growth issues

Seasonally Adjusted, 5% Job Growth in 2nd Quarter, Manpower Finds

Seventy-three percent of companies polled in a new Manpower survey said their will not hire employees in the second quarter. Though 16 percent report they will increase hiring, eight percent will cut, for a net gain of eight percent.

On a seasonally adjusted basis, hiring will increase at about five percent of businesses surveyed. That is up from a decline of two percent a year ago, Manpower says.

That 73 percent of firms plan no hiring is a record-tying high in the history of the poll, Manpower says.

The leisure & hospitality industry has a strong outlook and is hiring. So is the professional and business services sector.

The news tends to reinforce the views of economists and the Congressional Budget Office that U.S. unemployment will stay close to 10 percent though the middle of 2010.

That will almost certainly constrain consumer spending and activity in the housing market, suggesting a sluggish recovery.

There had been some hope, particularly early in the current quarter, that business activity had begun to pick up sharply. It turns out that companies were replacing depleted inventory and that core GDP was not improving in any measurable way, says Doug McIntyre, 24/7 Wall Street columnist.

McIntyre is skeptical the latest attempt at stimulus will work, either. The latest "jobs" bill will focus on direct credits for businesses that hire, more state aid, and more infrastructure investment, says McIntyre.

The theory is that these plans will mainline capital to the place where the employment problem is most acute–small and medium-sized business which tend to have limited access to credit, he notes.

But tax credits for hiring do not improve employment if companies see no increase in the demand for their products and services, he says.

The good news is that we are working our way out of the great recession. The bad news is that it appears to be a tough, dogged slog upwards.

Telco Choice is Not "Dumb Pipe" or "Service Enabler" or "Service Provider"

There's no question that the fundamental business underpinning of the entire global telecommunications business is undergoing a fundamental change from "voice driven" to "broadband driven," and, to a certain extent, from "services" to "access."

That leads to a fear that the future is one of "dumb pipe" access services providing modest revenue and slimmer profit margins than any existing provider can tolerate, without significant downsizing of operational cost.

Many observers suggest service providers will gradually take on more "application enabler" roles, supporting third-party business partners.

At the same time, there is debate about the degree to which any existing video or voice service provider will be able to continue doing so in the future.

But those three choices are not mutually exclusive. For better or worse, "dumb pipe" access is a permanent foundation for every telco, mobile, cable, satellite or fixed wireless provider. That is precisely what "broadband access" is; a simple "access" service.

That does not mean "only" access will be provided. There likely will be some permanent role for managed video, voice, storage, backup and other services. At some combination of value and price, users simply will prefer to buy such "services" rather than use comparable applications.

At the same time, it is likely service providers will find ways to grow the percentage of their revenue earned by supplying services to business partners. That might include billing services, location and device information, hosted processing or storage services.

"Dumb pipe" access is not the only business of the future, but it is foundational, and permanent. In addition to that, though, today's service providers necessarily will have to grow the proportion of revenue they make from "enabling" services, as they manage a likely decline of "services" such as basic voice communications or multi-channel video.

And it is not necessarily that those services decline because of a shift in user demand. The simple existence of capable competitors means market shifts will occur, irrespective of any conceivable shifts of demand. In other words, one does not have to make a definitive bet on "over the top" voice or video to plan on lower revenue from existing voice or video sources. One simply must assume that capable competitors will take some amount of market share.

In other words, at the level of discrete enterprises, cable executives have to anticipate declining video customer base and revenue contribution, while telcos have to assume declining gross voice revenue. No shift of demand to online video or VoIP need be assumed.

To be sure, those forces likely will be factors. But it is not the case that a stark choice must be made between the "dumb pipe" access provider and the "service enablement" or "service provider" roles. All three will remain parts of the overall revenue stream.

Consumer Price Points for Recurring Subscriptions are Fairly Clear

One might infer from average pricing for a variety of services ranging from fixed telephone service to broadband access, wireless and multi-channel video service that consumers have price sensitivity for any single service above $50 a month.

According to researchers at Pew Research and the Federal Communications Commission,  fixed voice costs about $48 a month. Wireless costs about $50 per user, while multi-channel video costs about $60 a month and broadband access costs about $40 a month.

Some of you immediately will note that your own spending is higher than these average figures suggest, with the greatest variability occurring in the mobile arena, as that is a service bought a person at a time, where the other services are bought household by household.

That's worth keeping in mind when surverys suggest there is robust consumer demand for just about any new application or service. Very few products ever have gotten mass adoption at prices above $300. Very few subscription products ever have gotten mass adoption at prices above $50 a month.

That doesn't mean it cannot be done; obviously it can. It simply is to point out that getting lots of consumers to buy a new recurring service at prices ranging from $5 to $10 a month is a big deal.

That's the reason so much consumer-focused content is advertising supported.

Are Broadband, Voice, TV and Mobile Services Really Commodities?

Both industry executives and consumers might sometimes be accused of viewing mobile, voice, broadband and multi-channel TV services as "commodities." Whether that is true, and to what extent, is, and ought to be, a matter of debate, not certitude.

Consider Verizon and DirecTV, for example. You might say that both provide services that other key competitors also provide, and that the features and prices are, at some level, comparable and even similar.
But their offerings are not identical with the offerings of their key competitors, and that appears to be by design, not accident.

DirecTV is the biggest satellite pay-TV provider in the United States and competes with other satellite and cable providers.  But that doesn't mean it competes for an identical set of customers, even though there is much overlap.

The company is not exceptionally distinct in aiming to grow revenues in the future by focusing on average revenue per user growth more than growth in the number of subscribers. Indeed, virtually every provider expects to do that.

Nor is DirecTV distinct in that regard. In a competitive, multi-product market, virtually every provider seeks to get more revenue by selling more things to existing customers, not simply adding new customers.
But DirecTV and Verizon seem to be focusing on higher-spending customers, compared to the other competitors in each of their markets.

DirecTV focuses on "higher-quality" subscribers who tend to pay extra for its advanced services like high-definition and digital video recorder  service. In the fourth quarter of 2009, about 70 percent of new DirecTV subscribers signed up for HD and DVR services, for example.  Overall HD-DVR penetration amongst DirecTV’s subscriber base amounting to about 60 percent.

Some observers expect DirecTV’s HD-DVR penetration to increase to 80 percent by about 2016.
DirecTV plans to offer new services include mulit-room viewing and new broadband applications as well. DirecTV Cinema is a movie service that will allow subscribers to watch certain films through DirecTV as soon as they are released on DVDs.

Verizon likewise tends to focus on higher-spending customers as well.

The point is that even as broadband, mobile, voice and multi-channel TV services are highly competitive, they are not, in the strict sense, "commodities." It might not matter whether a sugar product was made from beets or sugar cane. It can, and often does matter, that a firm's customer service, features, devices, packaging or pricing are distinct.

What Kinds of Online Content Will Consumers Pay For?

Consumer willingness to pay for online content seems to be shaped by their current experience with existing media.

Online content for which consumers are most likely to pay—or have already paid—are those they normally pay for offline, including theatrical movies, music, games and select videos such as current television shows, a new survey by Nielsen suggests.

(Click image for larger view)

Content users might pay for tends to be professionally produced, at comparatively high costs, and definitely not user-generated content, including social community content, podcasts, consumer-generated videos and blogs.

Respondents had mixed willingness to pay for newspaper, magazine, Internet-only news  and radio news and talk shows that are created by professionals, relatively expensive to produce and commonly sold offline.

After surveying 27,000 consumers in 52 countries, Nielsen also found 85 percent prefer that existing free content remains free.

Whatever their preferences, consumers worldwide generally agree that online content will have to meet certain criteria before they shell out money to access it. If respondents already pay for a product in physical form, 78 percent believe they should be able to use online versions of the same content at no additional charge.

At the same time, 71 percent of global consumers say online content of any kind will have to be considerably better than what is currently available free before they will pay for it.

About 79 percent say they would no longer use a Web site that charges them, presuming they can find the same information at no cost.

 Only 43 percent of respondents say an easy payment method would make them more likely to buy content online.

About  47 percent of respondents say they are willing to accept more advertising to subsidize free content. Some 64 percent say that if they must pay for content online, there should be no ads.

Netbooks Are Changing Consumer Expectations

A new survey by PriceGrabber.com suggests netbooks have set new expected price points for computer purchases, an outcome many suppliers likely feared would be the case.

The percentage of online consumers who personally own a netbook has increased from 10 percent last year to 15 percent early in 2010. Moreover, 11 percent of consumers plan to purchase a netbook in 2010.

The disparity between the dollar amount consumers are willing to pay for their next device compared to the amount they paid for their last device is evident. About 65 percent of consumers say the maximum amount they plan to spend on their next computing device is $750, even though 52 percent of online consumers spent more than $750 on their last device.

The average price of products in the PriceGrabber.com laptop category dropped to $645 in December 2009, from $808 in December 2008. This suggests a 20 percent decrease in average price.

Netbooks are more of a complement than a replacement for laptops, though. Some 55 percent of consumers do not see a netbook as a feasible replacement for a laptop. Additionally, 63 percent indicate that a netbook is best described as an additional device while on the go, not a substitute for a notebook or desktop PC.

The largest age group of netbook owners has shifted from 35 to 54 years to 45 to 64 years over the past year, the survey suggests.

In January 2009, 53 percent of netbook owners were between the ages of 35 and 54 as compared to only 31 percent one year later. In January 2010, 55 percent of netbook owners fall within 45 to 64 years of age as compared to 43 percent last year.

Of those consumers who indicate personally owning a netbook, 86 percent also own a laptop and 73 percent also own a desktop. More netbook owners indicated also owning laptops and desktops last year.

The survey suggests there is an opportunity for netbooks to cannibalize other products, though. In fact, 72 percent of consumers see a laptop as a feasible replacement for a desktop, 45 percent of consumers see a netbook as a feasible replacement for a laptop, and 27 percent of consumers see a netbook as a feasible replacement for a smartphone.

Can These Economic Growth and Unemployment Forecasts be Right?

As part of the annual budget, the Obama White House assumes real gross domestic product growth of 2.7 percent in 2010, followed by 3.8 percent, 4.3 percent and 4.2 percent in 2013.

At the same time, the forecast assumes unemployment of 10 percent in 2010, with a decline to 9.2 percent in 2011, 8.2 percent in 2012 and 7.3 percent in 2013.


I'm no economist, but at least some trained economists have to be wondering how growth can occur at those accelerating rates if unemployment remains so stubbornly high. 


There are some obvious answers, including the possibility that the White House does not actually believe both sets of assumptions are congruent, but have some other compelling political motivations for claiming the figures. 


Other forecasts suggest that we will not recover the lost jobs of the recent recession until 2014 or even later. As consumer spending drives 70 percent of GDP, it is hard to see strong growth and high unemployment at the same time.  


Perhaps growth will be higher, and unemployment less bad, than these numbers suggest. As somebody who believes in the vitality of the U.S. workforce and economy, I would not bet against the United States, if impediments are not thrown in its way. 


But then, I'm not a professional economist. 

33% of Users Will Post to Social Networking Sites Such as Twitter

The thing about social or online media is that people use media in different ways. In fact, even thinking about those ways has to be updated from time to time. Twitter and other social networks provide an example. Analysts at Forrester Research have for a couple years used the notion of "social technographics" to describe the different ways people interact with Web content.

Up to this point the focus has been Web sites and blogs. But now social networking is part of the model, as Forrester has added a new category, "conversationalists," to the framework. About a third of people will update their status information on a social networking site or post updates to Twitter.

That is more people than the 24 percent of people who actually publish a blog, for example, while 70 percent read them.

About 59 percent of people maintain a profile on a social networking site or visit social networking sites. About 37 percent post reviews or ratings, leave comments or contribute to online forums.

The analysis tries to describe ranges of online social media behavior, which has lots of people consuming content and relatively fewer creating it.

Conversationalists are 56 percent female, more than any other group in the framework.

Aside from the idea that people have different levels of involvement in the social media content creation process, the new category illustrates an important new feature of social media: the ability to create, sustain and promote conversations.

Do People Expect Too Much from Nexus One?

The Nexus One launch has not gone flawlessly, that is clear enough. Users report their devices are randomly switching between the T-Mobile USA 3G and the EDGE network. Early Apple iPhone devices had the same problem, some niote.

Others are disappointed Google wasn't "more disruptive" of the retail pricing regime, or the lack of multi-touch support for the screen (an input capability using input from two fingers, used to enlarge a section of the screen image by pinching or sweeping the touch points apart or together.

Despite the "earned media buzz," Nexus One's first-week sales appear to fall far short of sales of the Apple iPhone, for example. Flurry estimates the iPhone sold more than a million units in three days when first introduced, and 1.6 million units in its first full week,  while the Nexus One might have sold only 20,000 units.

The Verizon Droid sold 250,000 units the first week it was available, while the HTC "myTouch" sold 60,000 units in its first week of availability.

To be sure, Nexus One, myTouch and Droid all are available on just a single network in a single coutnry. The iPhone initially was available in eight countries and eight carriers.

That's no coincidence. After the iPhone hype, it is proving more difficult for each competing device to illustrate how it is similarly "revolutionary." There's just no way to get around the fact that the iPhone was revolutionary, and so far, the other devices, though unique in many wasy, simply are following in the general mode.

Apple might have seized such a mindshare lead that there simply is no way any other device can "challenge" iPhone. That isn't to say many other touchscreen smartphones will fail to be built and marketed, but simply that the "buzz" hasn't been matched by the same sort of enthusiastic consumer resposne as the iPhone received, simply because no subsequent device, so far, as proven to be such an advance over the earlier generation of devices.

So far, all the other models are "like the iPhone." So far, that hasn't been enough. That's one reason why at least a few of us might think the challenge for all the other devices is to create a unique identity in the market, not to "be the next iPhone." That probably cannot be done at this point.

What device promoters can do is what Research in Motion achieved with th BlackBerry. RIM created an email-optimized device that syncs seamlessly with key Microsoft applications such as "Outlook," in additiion to handling email, capturing a specific segment of the mobile device market and end user base (business users).

But there's more to it than just that. The mobile is a mass market retail business, where marketing, distribution and customer support all matter. As much earned media attention as Nexus One has gotten, it is nothing like what Verizon was apparently able to do with a huge marketing and advertising blitz for its "Droid," or what Apple was able to do, not just with its own earned media campaign, but with a follow-on marketing campaign and network of highly-trafficked retail locations.

The Nexus One is being sold through a Web site, with only earned media support. Verizon launched a $100 million on marketing blitz, including the key Christmas selling season. Suffice it to say many many millions more people know the name "Droid" than "Nexus One."

T-Mobile, whose currernt role in the Nexus One ecosysem is largely indirect, does not appear to have supported the Nexus One launch with its own marketing funds, though it did for the myTouch.

Also, with a few new Android devices now competing for attention, there may be some fragmentation of the message. There's just one iPhone; there are several Android smartphones.

Also, Google might not have priced the device at levels that would drive more volume, though it also is battling the known resistance most end users have to paying $500 or more for an "unlocked" smartphone that only works on one U.S. network (with full access to all the frequency bands) anyway. What does "unlocked" mean to most consumers when the device can only be used on one network?

Beyond that, there is the simple fact that device hype likely outstrips ability to deliver, at this point. Everybody is looking for the first true "iPhone competitor." That might be asking too much.

http://blog.flurry.com/bid/29658/Flurry-Special-Report-Google-Nexus-One-Launch-Week-Sales

Is Nexus One A Particular Threat to Service Providers?

Does Google's Nexus One launch mean anything in particular for mobile service providers? That might be a matter of some debate at the moment. Some observers were expecting something "more disruptive." Perhaps an ad-supported voice service; maybe a completely unlocked device able to work on any carrier's network; maybe a business model that clearly delineates a new role for the handset provider.

That didn't happen. Some observers think the bigger innovation is the way Google is selling from a
Web site. Some might see too much difference there, either. Selling from a Web site isn't too unusual these days, and Apple's retail stores and existing carrier Web sites.already provide models for handset distribution aside from the branded mobile carrier stores.

To be sure, an "unlocked handset" strategy always will be tough in the U.S. market until such time as most carriers are using one single air interface and handsets are equipped with enough frequency agility to adapt to whatever network si providing access. An unlocked handset today means a choice of no more than one or two major carriers (one WiMAX, two CDMA and two GSM).

The other angle is that U.S. consumers have not yet shown any desire to pay full retail price for a handset, when they can get a subsidized device at the price of a two-year contract. People might gripe about the existence of contracts, but they have choices. They can pay full retail for their devices and avoid the contracts. Not many make that choice.

The more interesting observation is about what various Android devices really are. A BlackBerry is an email device; an iPhone is a Web surfing device. Many feature phones are texting devices. Some models are social networking devices, or at least highly optimized for that purpose. Some devices are optimized for navigation.

Could a new niche be developing for a "search" device? Is "finding stuff" a sufficiently robust need that at least one of the Android devices becomes recognized as the single best device for finding things? That seems to me the most interesting question about what the Nexus One or broader family of Android devices might raise.

Matters always can change, but at least for the moment, it does not appear the Nexus One is especially disruptive of the existing mobile business model or standard practices, either.

http://connectedplanetonline.com/mobile-apps/news/googles-nexus-effects-0115/?imw=Y

New Verizon Wireless Pricing Shows Growth Strategy

Verizon Wireless today announced that it is introducing new data, prepaid, and voice plans on January 18, 2010. The single biggest change is a new mandatory data plan requirement for all 3G multimedia devices. For "feature" phones, that will mean a $10 a month charge for use of up to 15 Mbytes. 

Smartphone packages remain at $30 a month. 

But Verizon also introduced new unlimited postpaid plans for voice ($70 a month) and unlimited talk and text for $90 a month. Prepaid unlimited plans sell for $75 a month for voice, and $95 a month for unlimited voice and texting.

"Nationwide Unlimited Talk Family SharePlans" will be $120 a month while "Nationwide Unlimited Talk & Text Family SharePlans" will cost $150 a month.

All Family SharePlan pricing includes the first two lines of service. The new plans do not apply to existing customers, though any current customer can change to any of the new plans without a penalty or contract extension.

So heree's the strategy background. Verizon wants to build the biggest-possible data customer base before it launches its new fourth-generation Long Term Evolution network. That's an essential part of getting a financial return on the 4G investment, and also reflects the growing importance of smartphones as a percentage of total devices sold and the importance of data service revenues.

Verizon also wants to protect its base of "high-value" customers by simplifying pricing plans, providing more value and encouraging uptake of higher-end plans. Verizon expects to see higher data penetration, higher average revenue per user and less churn, with lower-end customers moving up to unlimited plans in greater numbers. 

Verizon believes the moves to unlimited plans also will reduce operatinal costs. Since a large percentage of customer service costs are driven by consumers concerned about their usage and overages, unlimited plans will blunt the volume and cost of handling such requests. 

Strategically, the data plan moves also are a reflection of the vanishing voice revenues business, and the absolute centrality of data revenues as the mainstay of Verizon Wireless revenue. 

Are Emerging Market Consumers Different?

A new study by Accenture suggests that, in a globalized world, consumer demand for a wide range of technology products is remarkably similar, at least among those emerging market buyers with disposable income.

In fact, consumers in emerging markets are twice as likely as those in developed markets to purchase and use consumer technology in the next year and are more willing to pay a premium for “environmentally friendly” consumer electronics products, says Accenture.

The Accenture survey of 16,000 consumers in four “mature” countries (the United States, Germany, France and Japan) and four “emerging” countries (China, India, Malaysia, and Singapore) suggests current and future spending and usage patterns for 19 different consumer technologies, including smartphones, high-definition TVs and computers, is remarkably similar in developed and emerging markets, with one exception: developing market consumers are more likely to buy smartphones, PCs and other devices over the next year.

Compared with consumers in mature countries, consumers in emerging countries are more than two and a half times as likely to buy a smartphone during the next year (52 percent  compared to 20 percent).

Emerging market consumers also are more than twice as likely to have bought a smartphone in the past year (67 percent compared to 32 percent).

Twice as many emerging market consumers are likely to have bought a computer in the past year (40 percent vs. 20 percent). They also are more than twice as likely to have at least occasionally played video games on handheld devices (58 percent compared to 28 percent).

Do they use social networking? Yes, at about a 69 percent rate, compared to 38 percent in the developed markets.

Emerging market consumers also are significantly more likely to pay a premium for consumer products marketed as being environmentally friendly (84 percent compared to  50 percent).

“One of the reasons for this emerging-country growth is the rapid expansion of the middle class with its substantial disposable income,” says Jean-Laurent Poitou, managing director of Accenture’s Electronics & High Tech industry group.

“Furthermore, our research shows that the increased demand for smart connected wireless devices such as smartphones is being driven by social-networking applications.

“Emerging-country consumers use mobile devices more than they do computers to access Internet-enabled applications and services, and consumers in mature countries are also headed in that direction.”

Is Broadband "Satisfaction" Directly Related to "Bundle" Savings?

The conventional wisdom is that high-speed broadband access is becoming a commodity bought by consumers primarily on the basis of speed and price.

A recent survey by Parks Associates also showed that there is not all that much difference between consumer satisfaction with any of the broadband network types.

With cable modem service and digital subscriber line as the baseline, consumers said they were a bit more happy with fiber to the home, and a bit less happy with either satellite broadband or fixed wireless broadband.

So the differences are a matter of performance, or speed or price, right? Well, maybe, and maybe not.

The Parks Associates survey also found that consumers were more satisfied with any broadband service purchased as part of a bundle, less happy when broadband was purchased a la carte. Since the primary end user benefit from buying any bundle is the cost savings, one might conclude that consumer satisfaction has less to do with the technical parameters (speed and reliability) and mostly to do with "saving money."

Since satellite broadband and fixed wireless services rarely are purchased as part of a multi-service bundle, that fact alone would explain lower satisfaction with either satellite or fixed wireless services.

A Look at Consumer Satisfaction with Broadband

One can get a good argument about whether consumer satisfaction with any communications or entertainment video service is strongly related to customer loyalty.

The conventional wisdom is that "happy" customers are "loyal" customers, but that always has been tough to demonstrate in the consumer communications market.

Churn rates for "satisfied" customers often do not seem all that different from the behavior of demonstrably "unhappy" customers, though few would argue there is no relationship between "satisfaction" and "loyalty."

Some new analysis by Parks Associates illustrates the issue. As it turns out, "satisfaction" with various broadband access services is relatively comparable across platforms and networks. Fiber to the home fares better, satellite broadband and fixed broadband a bit worse than either cable modem service or digital subscriber line.

But the differences are not quite as pronounced as one might think. With cable modem and DSL service as the benchmark, FTTH does a bit better and wireless a bit worse. But FTTH, while "above average," and wireless "a bit below average," are fairly close to the baseline.

At the margin, FTTH customers are a bit more happy, wireless customers a bit less happy. But the link between satisfaction and churn is not precise, nor linear. Other surveys tend to show that overall consumer satisfaction with most entertainment video, mobile and fixed line services is reasonable, but not typically among the products consumers routinely say they are most happy with.

Grumbling and grousing just comes with the territory, it seems.

Americans are Happy with their Products and Services, Sort Of

A new study by the Government Accountability Office suggests 84 percent of U.S. wireless users are "very" or somewhat" satisfied with their wireless phone service. That isn't to say there are no issues: there are.

The GAO says 10 percent of users are "dissatisfied" with their service. About 12 percent say they are dissatisfied with billing, 14 percent are dissatisfied with terms of service, 11 percent unhappy with call quality and 12 percent dissatisfied with customer service.

But 76 percent of respondents are satisfied with billing; 72 percent satisfied with terms of service, 85 percent satisfied with call quality and 70 percent satisfied with customer service.

In terms of complaints received by the Federal Communications Commission from end users, 55,000 were unhappy with billing and rates. About 14,000 were unhappy with call quality, 13,000 complained about contract early termination issues and 12,000 were unhappy with customer service, GAO says.

In terms of complaints, billing issues were more than 400 percent more common that complaints about call quality, contract termination or customer service.

In some ways, in fact, the GAO study suggests a higher degree of satisfaction with wireless service than other surveys might suggest. The American Consumer Satisfaction Index, which ranks consumer satisfaction on a scale running from zero to 100, with 100 being the top score, might suggest less happiness, not only with wireless, but also with cable TV and satellite service, with declining scores for wired voice service.

Did U.S. Consumer Communications Spending Hold Up in 2009?

We will have to wait a while for 2009 figures to be compiled, but history suggests that, when the figures are available, U.S. consumer spending on communications will come in about where it always does, at about 2.3 percent of disposable income.

The reason is that, year in and year out, during booms or recessions, that is what U.S. consumers have spent on communications. The composition of spending changes: more for mobile, more for broadband, less for other services. But as a percentage of disposable income, behavior is remarkably consistent.