"Soaring Profits" for Broadband Access Providers?

The Phoenix Center says claims by proponents of increased Internet regulation are quite wrong in claiming that firms such as AT&T, Verizon, Sprint-Nextel, Qwest, Comcast, and Time Warner Cable are making "record profits," "substantial profits" or  "soaring profits" that justify further regulation.

Quite to the contrary, those firms are earning at lower rates than the average Standard & Poors 500 firms does, and have done so for the last five years.

The Phoenix Center found that the profitability of the larger broadband access service providers is generally equal to, or below average, for firms in the S&P 500. It would be more accurate to say that profits are "'typical," not "soaring or 'substantial.'

Conversely, content firms like Google and EBay are substantially more profitable than the access providers are,  implying that access providers are not benefiting as much as others in the Internet ecosystem from the surge in broadband adoption and use.

Across all measures of profitability, Google and Ebay are two-to-four times more profitable than the better performing broadband providers.

In fact, the Phoenix Center found that both Wal-Mart and Colgate-Palmolive have much higher profits than the large access providers.

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski has issued a challenge to the industry for data-driven analysis," according to study co-author and Phoenix Center President Lawrence J. Spiwak. "Accordingly, parties calling for regulation need to present more than just hyperbole about 'soaring' profits -- they need to present facts."

"The evidence shows that BSP profitability is fairly typical of American industry, if not a little low" said study co-author and Phoenix Center Chief Economist George S. Ford, PhD. "Based on available evidence, regulatory intervention based on substantial profitability by large BSPs has no basis in fact."

Verizon and AT&T Equity Performance is a Warning Sign

Communications policymakers in nations where the government does not directly own and control key national carriers in their markets always must balance their preferred regulatory outcomes with the possible responses private firms will make to those initiatives.

Put simply, too much regulatory pressure will lead to reduced investment and innovation, not more. The other issue is that every government considers its national communications infrastructure to be a matter of national interest.

That being the case, most governments will not willingly weaken their own carriers.

So take a look at how AT&T and Verizon equities have fared over the last year or so, compared to the Standard & Poors 500 index. Not so pretty.

What that tells you is that investors believe neither company has much in the way of "growth" ahead of it. In fact, many would argue both companies will increasingly be challenged, in coming years, to stay where they are, given major changes in the underlying business models each company faces.

That suggests policymakers should be cautious about making incorrect assumptions about the underlying financial prospects for the firms that arguably are most important to the national communications infrastructure.

It is not as though either firm were Apple, creating whole new industries and muscling its way into other substantial industries with some regularity. Quite to the contrary, innovation and revenue upside nearly universally are now seen as attributes of the application and handset parts of the communication value chain, not the "access" providers as such.

To be blunt, there may be times when regulatory restraint is the right policy. But there also are times when an industry with national economic and security implications faces enough fundamental challenges that "protection or promotion" is the right policy framework.

It is not the job of other ecosystem participants to worry about the financial health of other segments. But it always is the job of national policymakers to do so, when the issue is the health of the underlying national communications infrastructure.

First-quarter 2010 results posted by AT&T suggest the outlines of the problem. Simply, wireless now is the driver of revenue growth.

But wireless is saturating, forcing mobile providers to find new revenue sources. Also, mobile voice, which has been the segment mainstay, increasingly will come under pressure as landline voice has proven to be a product in a declining lifecycle.

The point is that the appropriate regulatory framework for a fast-growing, vibrant industry is different than for an industry that is fundamentally challenged. That is not to suggest industry executives are unaware of the problems, or that they have failed to show agility in the past; they have.

The point is simply that it might be a grave mistake to assume carriers can bear any burden where it comes to regulations that choke off their ability to create new services and revenues. The financial markets already are signaling their views how the industry is situated.

Technology and Telecom Marketing Spend Up in 2010, Gartner Say

Marketing spending among high-tech and telecom providers is picking up in 2010, according to Gartner. The survey found that 44 percent of survey respondents say their 2010 marketing budgets will be flat compared with 2009, 41 percent will increase and 15 percent are likely to decrease.

In 2009 when more than half of respondents reported their budgets would decrease, compared to 2008. None of that is too surprising.

The perhaps more important conclusion Gartner draws from the results is the possbility that there is a  "new normal" in which companies might adopt "steady state" spending habits that never return to their pre-recession levels. That would not be an unusual thought, either.

At least some observers say the increased ability to target messages using lower-cost media might simply mean that marketers can achieve their objects at less cost than previously was the case.

"Marketing has to continue to look at becoming more efficient and cost-effective," said Laura McLellan, research vice president at Gartner. "For some, this means adopting lower-cost alternatives; for others, outsourcing what was once done in-house; for all, it means revisiting how they plan to support the growth of their companies through traditional and new channels, while keeping the core brands strong."

Thirty percent of these companies expect to increase budgets by between one and 15 percent, while 13 percent of respondents are planning budget increases of between 16 and 30 percent or more.

Even though the ratio of in-house to external spending is planned to be about 1:3 in 2010, fixed and recurring costs are expected to consume the largest portion (23 percent) of the 2010 marketing budget, according to the majority of respondents. That will be followed by sales channel marketing and programs at 17 percent, and 15 percent of respondents identified positioning and external marketing communications.

source

How Best Buy Wants to Create Business Value from "Location"

It's easy to get caught up in the hype about "location-based services." It's easy to dismiss the notion as well. But Best Buy thinks it can use the location information that increasingly is part of the mobile experience to bolster its sales, according to the Wall Street Journal.

Berst Buy is using Shopkick to create mobile appliucations for iPhone and Android smartphones that detect when shoppers are in or near stores and offers rewards targeted to them.

Shopkick's apps might also use mobile cameras to enable user scanning of bar codes on items to offer product information, coupons or other marketing offers.

None of that is too extremely cutting edge. Loopt provides special offers and coupons from retailers nearby. FourSquare Labs turns physical locaition into a game, where users "check in" at locations.

The goal of the Shopkick app—which is to launch this summer—is "not just to drive foot traffic, but to turn offline stores into interactive worlds" that are more entertaining to shoppers, adds Cyriac Roeding, the CEO and co-founder of Shopkick.

Shopkick expects to be paid for its performance, such as driving additional sales and bringing in new customers.

CauseWorld has also been testing users' interest in less altruistic motivations. In early April, Causeworld offered users 10% off Best Buy purchases in exchange for checking in. Mr. Roeding said a high single-digit percentage of those who checked in at Best Buy during the testalso used the coupon to make a purchase.

To go mainstream, all of these applications may still have to overcome privacy concerns about allowing one's smartphone—and big companies—to keep track of your location.

link

Metaio Crafts Augmented Reality App for Lego

Right now, we seem to be at the "gee whiz" point with augmented reality: you are likely to see a demonstration and say "wow," but not grasp precisely how augmented reality contributes to a business model or incremental revenue stream.

We will have gotten there when we aren't saying "wow" or wondering what the killer app is.

The New Business Paradigm: Popcorn

Nick Thomas, Forrester Research analyst, suggests content business models might emerge in ways
that are similar to what happened in the "exhibition" part of the movie business.

The "popcorn" analogy speaks to the way theater owners make money. Films don’t generally make
much profit for cinema owners. In fact, the revenue model for movie theaters actually is concessions.

Taking a look at media business models that are starting to be challenged in fundamental ways,
Thomas suggests the "popcorn" analogy is fruitful. In other words, content-based companies might
need to look at new revenue streams created around content, if little money or profit can be made from the content itself.

The observation is correct, but complicated. Theater owners make money from popcorn because
they actually cannot make money from selling content, though other entities within the value chain actually can make money directly from creation and selling of content.

You might suggest that in the future, theatrical exhibition might become a vertically-integrated part of a more-unified content distribution business. In fact, that is precisely the situation that once held, but regulators decided that arrangement put too much power into the hands of the studios, so structural separation was mandated.

The point is that under the current regulatory environment, movie studios largely cannot sell popcorn as they are legally barred from being in the theatrical distribution business. Movie theaters are allowed to be in the "sell overseas" business, the pay-per-view, the DVD or on-demand viewing businesses.

Not all options are available for participants in the value chain to make money from the content ecosystem. Licensing, for example, has been a key wrap-around for some content companies who can license the creation of toys, clothing and other products based on cartoon,movie or TV characters, for example.

Performance (live concerts) have become a key driver of revenue in the music business, where at one point it was the selling of records that was the key revenue source.

There is no question but that, under all circumstances, ancillary revenue streams are good for content or copyright owners. The issue is how much potential revenue such ancillary revenue sources might be, and how big they will be.

For U.S. content companies, syndication for TV broadcast, cable TV exhibition, pay per view, international exposition, precorded media and now on-demand have extended the original theatrical exhibition model.

The point is that such ancillary revenue streams have grown over time, but it now appears some of those venues face shrinkage. The whole idea now is what new ancillary revenue streams can be created if demand or profit margins in several of the channels seems to be weakening. "Popcorn" is the right strategic way of thinking about the problem. It will be much tougher to envision, tactically.

link

Big Marketers Shifting Online Budgets to Video Sites

About 57 percent of advertisers surveyed by Advertiser Perceptions say they are shifting spending from television to online vide sites, said Randy Cohen, Advertiser Perceptions president.

The study suggets that 70 percent of big ad spenders, those budgeting $10 million or more,  were likely to move money from TV to online video.

Whether any political fallout was a factor, 70% of marketers more commonly preferred to target based on demographics, vs. 59% who more commonly used behavioral metrics.

source

Small Cable Operators Think Dumb Pipe Might be a Better Business Model

Not every cable operator thinks over-the-top video is a worse business model than providing cable TV. In fact, some believe providing what might be wholesale services to third parties might actually provide better profit margins than cable TV now does.

"Our video margins are going down year after year," said Colleen Abdullah, the CEO of WideOpenWest Holdings.

Wave Broadband COO Steve Friedman also agreed that the profits from an over-the-top model might be better than the current cable TV business, especially if the new model simply substituted a bandwidth usage model for the current monthly subscription model.

While the dumb pipe model may in fact be better for small operators, that probably is not the case for larger providers.

Probably the worst of all possible outcomes is over-the-top competition from firms such as Comcast, where Comcast sells the video content directly to broadband users, and the local cable modem provider is not able to charge for the additional bandwidth consumed. That is one reason why the dumb pipe model would not work unless some form of consumption-based charging were adopted.

"Over-the-top video will eventually emerge as a challenge to the current model of large, expensive bundles of programming," said Blair Levin, the executive director of the FCC's Omnibus Broadband Initiative. Levin thinks such a move is "inevitable."

The basic tradeoff is that cable operators would essentially trade current linear video subscription revenue for higher broadband access revenues. That essentially was the business decision Qwest Communications made years ago, when it concluded it was better off outsourcing linear entertainment to DirecTV, and building its optical access infrastructure in a way that ultimately is conducive for over-the-top or on-demand video.

"The final inevitability is mobile broadband," said Levin. "We know it's coming. We know it's going to be very, very big."

"In 1994, you could envision as inevitable the Internet replacing existing platforms for communications and entertainment," Levin said. "And based on numerous metrics, that transformation is well underway."

Levin also warned that consumer anger over the cost of cable TV now reminds him of similar sentiment leading up to the 1992 cable act, and that there will likely be "some kind of response, either from the market or from the government," to address those concerns.

Any such move would further limit the upside from linear video and likely propel more movement towards an over-the-top approach.

http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=190749&site=lr_cable&f_src=lightreading_gnews

HD Voice Increases Call Duration, Says Skype

Jonathan Rosenberg, Skype chief technology strategist, says high-definition call quality can increase the length of a voice call 45 percent. That, in turn, could theoretically lead to higher revenues for application or service providers whose services are sold "by the minute." Call duration might have no revenue implications at all if the endpoints are talking on a "no incremental cost" basis, though.

Skype's studies suggest, as you would expect, that audio quality is higher on a high-definition call. The Skype survey suggests there is a correlation between call audio quality and call duration.

With the lowest quality, approximating mobile call quality, the average call lasted about 21.5 minutes. At the highest quality it went about 31 minutes.

It's difficult to say whether the relationship is correlational or causal, though. One variable might be that users on the highest-quality codecs are predisposed to use Skype for conferencing sessions, which would have call duration parameters quite different from a casual voice conversation between two people, for example.

All Online Advertising Does Not "Suck"

No, all mobile or Web advertising does not "suck," as Apple CEO Steve Jobs says. But Jobs probably is right about rich media being an easier way to make ads engaging. Good creative helps, too, as shown by this Google spot for Chrome.

Why Most Advertising Will Continue to "Suck," Despite iPad

It's easy to lament the relative "ineffectiveness" of banner advertising, or for Steve Jobs, Apple CEO, to argue that mobile and online advertising "sucks."

Online banner ads have click through rates of perhaps 0.03 percent, even when lots of people are exposed, some would argue.

Though improving, it remains difficult to match an actual user's present interests, location and spending intentions with a relevant and compelling message, most of the time. So targeting will help.

But even targeting won't entirely fix the problem. Some say rich media is part of the answer, and that makes intuitive sense, as it is easier to create an emotional bond or reaction using rich media, compared to most other forms of messaging.

Rich media banners, on the other hand, might get a three-percent to 10-percent "roll over" rate. If the creative is good enough, users actually will spend time playing around with the content. That can be a game-like experience, video or even compelling content that doesn't use video.

But really-interesting rich media takes time and money to create. And that is going to be the biggest problem. Most campaigns will not support the creation of truly-compelling creative. Think of the ads developed for the Super Bowl and you'll get the problem. If it were financially possible to create that sort of content routinely, marketers clearly would.

There is another angle as well. Much advertising works, even when largely falling on "deaf ears" and "inattentive eyes." Sure, there's lots of waste. But enough eyes and ears are reached, even with simple messages, to justify the marketing expense. Targeted is better, but even minimal targeting, with everyday, run of mill creative, will produce results sufficient to justify the investment.

Not every movie ever produced is a "hit." In fact, most are either flops or modest successes. That will hold for most advertising as well.

link

To the Extent that Housing Instability Slows Cable and Telco Sales, Look at This

You can draw whatever conclusions you want about this chart showing a wave of option adjustable rate mortgages coming up for resets already and peaking next year, not to mention another wave of sub-prime mortgages that is building and will peak at just about the same time as the option ARMs have to be reset.

I'm not suggesting anything, one way or the other, about the potential for a double-dip recession or anything of that sort.

It does suggest that any company making a business out of services and products sold to consumers probably should assume the post-recession economy we now are in will be difficult.

Is Multitasking the iPad's Opportunity?

About 55 percent of users interviewed by the Yankee Group say they frequently surf the Web while watching TV. Slightly fewer say they use email while watching TV.

And if a new product category develops for devices such as Apple's iPad, that is the use case: people who want a convenient way to use the Web and email while watching TV, using the Wi-Fi connection in their homes.

That isn't to say some people might be able to use a tablet to replace a PC when out of the home, but that might be a subset of the tablet user audience.

Mobile Ad Spending Isn't Hype, But is Dwarfed by Online Spending

Everyone would agree that 2009 was not the best of years for advertising spending. But spending might not reach 2008 levels until 2012 or 2013.

Advertising might not reach pre-recession levels until mid-decade. There is at least some thinking advertising might not even reach pre-recession levels during the current decade.

Mobile advertising, Apple and Google expect, will grow fastest, from a low base. But online Web advertising still will be two orders of magnitude bigger than mobile advertising by 2014, Yankee Group predicts.

U.S. Media Usage Shrinks in 2009

Despite the general trend that Americans consume a bit more media every year, that was not the case in 2009, when U.S. media consumption actually fell about 17 percent in 2009, or about two hours a day, a huge drop.

The conventional wisdom is that media use should increase during a recession, as consumers shift more entertainment to the home, and substitute some amount of entertainment spending for travel, for example. But that doesn't seem to be the case, according to a new study by the Yankee Group.

The big exception was mobile media, which grew 39 percent in 2009.

"We believe the underlying reason is the economy," says Carl Howe,Yankee Group analyst. "It’s hard to spend all evening on the Internet or watching TV when you’re worried about making mortgage payments or trying to find a job."

Online activities decreased by 40 minutes, but TV and video viewing lost a full hour. Web browsing, email and social networking decreased 17 percent from their 2008 figure of 4.9 hours, but TV viewing declined by nearly a third, from 4.3 to 3.3 hours per day.

Music and reading declined the most. "The music, newspaper and magazine industries are all struggling for a reason," says Howe. "Consumers are spending less time with their media."

Listening to the radio and music fell half an hour to just 1.4 hours a day. Reading magazines and newspapers fared even worse; those activities combined total only 25 minutes a day, down from 40 minutes in 2008, says Howe.

Mobile is the only category that experienced growth. Consumers spent 40 minutes per day talking on mobile phones, up 12 percent from 2008. Mobile Internet use grew 36 percent to 11 minutes a day, and texting grew 55 percent to 27 minutes a day.

The Yankee Group findings contradict some other studies which indicate that TV watching was up in 2009. One of the differences is that Yankee Group includes both "at work" and "at home" consumption, while Nielsen only measures "at home" consumption.

But anyway one looks at the matter, consumers spend nearly half of every 24-hour day with media.

Respondents report they spend an average of 712 minutes, or 11.9 hours each day, with various types of media, with the greatest amount of time spent online, using Web browsing, email, instant messaging and social networking for an average of 4 hours and 13 minutes each day.

TV and video represents three hours and 17 minutes watching TV, pre-recorded programs on their DVRs, and DVDs and videos. TV watching takes up just over 2 hours and 19 minutes per day, on average.

Consumers report they spend an average of one hour and 26 minutes each day listening to the radio, CDs or MP3s, while all mobile phone activities consume one hour and 18 minutes on average.

Gaming time now exceeds reading. Consumers report spending an average of 36 minutes each day playing video games, but only 24 minutes reading newspapers or magazines.

Consumers routinely multitask while watching TV. "Two thirds of our respondents say they talk on the phone regularly while watching TV," says Howe. "More than half surf the Web or write email as well."

That is one reason why Apple and some observers believe the iPad will create a new niche in the market. People already have the habit of using the Internet while watching TV, so a more convenient device for doing so should be able to get traction, tablet supporters believe.

Interactive activities engage consumers in ways TV doesn’t. The top four activities on this list are all what the media industry calls “lean forward” tasks; that is, they engage the consumer interactively. Consumers naturally give cognitive priority to these “lean forward” activities over “lean back” ones like watching TV. What does that mean? It means that when consumers multitask, TV advertising takes a back seat to more interactive forms of engagement.