No Consumer Cutbacks for Communications, Video, Survey Finds

Cutbacks in home communications and entertainment services have yet to emerge as a measurable trend, despite the ongoing recession, say analysts at Pike & Fischer, who just completed a nationwide survey on that subject.

Most consumers are spending the same amount on phone, Internet and multichannel video as they've spent in the past, the survey found.

Respondents say they would rather keep Internet, video and voice services in their budgets than any other type of expense, including gym memberships, personal care products and apparel.

But the results also point to customers becoming more aware of ways to spend less on those services. One example is people switching to prepaid wireless and dropping their postpaid accounts. In other cases people simply are buying fewer pay-per-view events or ordering fewer on-demand movies.

All of those trends are consistent with consumer behavior in past recessions, and first quarter financial results from a growing number of service providers also suggest the Pike & Fischer survey study of reported attitudes and behaviors is reflected in actual behavior.

Despite fears that "this recession will be different," so far it hasn't been. Knowing nothing other than how consumers have behaved in past recessions, one would have predicted precisely what we are seeing.

The big question marks, though, have been around newer services such as broadband Internet access and wireless, neither of which had become such mass market services during the last recession. But behavior in those two segments seems to mirror video entertainment behavior we have seen over the years.

People are careful about upgrades and premium services. They might be more prone to switch providers to get better prices. But they are not droppoing subscriptions. The single exception is that some pressure continues for wired voice, which is a product category in secular decline.

100 Mbps is Really Nice: How Many Really Need It?

Aside from the general observation that marketing bragging rights are a key reason for touting really-fast broadband connections, one wonders how much real value the typical consumer customer gains.

Cablevision Systems, for example, is on the verge of launching a 101 Mbps (downstream) service costing $99.95 a month. Other service providers have been marketing 50-Mbps services (downstream).

But one wonders how much traction such services will get in the consumer space. To be sure, a 101-Mbps access connection better matches common in-home or on-premises bandwidth supported by Wi-Fi routers.

But it remains unclear how much incremental value the additional bandwidth provides, as many factors affect perceived performance. It won't help to have a really-fast access connection if the servers holding the content one wants to access are not capable of spewing out bits equally fast, if the backbone networks are congested or if there are end user device limitations.

A single user on such a connection (50 Mbps to 100 Mbps) might not have an experience any different from a user with a 10 Mbps or 20 Mbps connection.

To be sure, one can note that bandwidth requirements keep growing. The change from text to graphics generated a one to two order of magnitude increase in bandwidth requirements, for example. A text screen is typically 400 bytes, while a graphic screen can be 50 Kbytes to 100Kbytes, an increase of 10-100 times.

Similar changes can be noted for streaming audio or video. So bandwidth requirements will increase over time. The issue is how much, and for whom.

Locations with many users to support--businesses and large families--will have higher requirements.  In some cases, a family might benefit from having that much bandwidth if multiple users, working simultaneously, frequently are downloading or streaming high-quality video, for example.

Still, one fact is incontestable: the larger the degree of sharing, the more efficient the multiplexing becomes. The ability to share bandwidth becomes more efficient as more users are sharing any single link. So the increased demand will not be linear.

A typical single user, on a single link, might not require so much. By the same token, it isn't clear how much bandwidth a single user, on a single link, actually benefits from really-fast connections, beyond a certain point, as other variables also condition and limit the experience.

That isn't to say access bandwidth requirements are not growing, or to argue those requirements will stop growing. Having the opportunity to buy faster connections is valuable for some end users, particularly those with multiple users in a single household. It is much less clear how much additional utility is gained by the typical single user.

2007 was the Inflection Point for News

This is what you call an inflection point: a dramatic surge in people using the Internet as their primary source of news happened in 2007.

By late 2008 and early 2009, the dominoes started to fall and major U.S. newspapers began to disappear. 

Remote Work Might Pay Off During H1N1 Threat

Yankee Group survey results from April show workers to be highly receptive to a mobile lifestyle:  Fewer than 50 percent of respondents believe their work needs to be completed at their primary workplace.

And 58 percent of workers strongly agree that "allowing employees to work from home benefits companies." Employees who work from headquarters locations are just as likely to think that teleworking is a good idea as those who already are teleworkers.

With the H1N1 virus threat reaching global pandemic status and growing talk of the need to avoid large public gatherings where possible, the value of organized remote work capabilities is obvious.

Not every job can be done as effectively on a remote basis as in a physically co-located mode. But many more jobs can. As it turns out, remote work is not just an employee satisfaction enhancer, a cost reducer and in some cases a productivity-boosting measure, it also provides protection from pandemics and other potential disruptions of civil life.

Disney Joins Hulu: More Pressure for Linear Video

Disney and Hulu announced a new partnership and content distribution deal, under which The Walt Disney Company will join News Corp and NBC Universal as an equity partner in Hulu, an ad-supported online content distributor. The deal means content from ABC, ABC Family, Disney Channel, and SOAPnet, as well as some classic ABC TV content now will be made available on Hulu.

Hulu also has overtaken Yahoo! and become the third-most-used Internet video site, even as Time Warner plans a test later this year of its own distributor-friendly online distribution. As envisioned, the "TV Everywhere" plan will make online content available to paid subscribers to a qualifying cable, satellite or telco linear programming package.

With Apple, YouTube, NetFlix and others looking to grow their streaming operations, distributors might welcome the Time Warner approach, even though Hulu has undeniable traction at the moment.

And therein lies the distributor's problem. If Hulu is able to keep growing, with an obvious ad support mechanism, it necessarily will devalue linear video subscriptions. That isn't to say Hulu will completely replace linear TV offerings, simply that it becomes incrementally more attractive for at least some users.

But content companies aren't dumb. They know with great precision how much value they derive from their distributor partners.  That doesn't mean they will ignore new "direct to end user" venues that essentially disintermediate the middle man. But they aren't going to disrupt profitable arrangements with distributors, either. 

Consumers Wary of Trying New Brands, Are Businesses?

Consumers around the world are more wary of trying new consumer goods products in the midst of a recession, say researchers at Ipsos Marketing. The global survey of consumer attitudes and behavior in 18 countries suggests that more than half of global consumers shy away from new grocery, personal and household products during an economic downturn.

One wonders if that same pattern extends to the business market as well, and explains the lower churn some service providers are reporting. There is anecdotal evidence that business customers, for example, are showing more hesitation about switching communications service providers, even as more seem to be receptive to pitches about "saving money."

Indeed, it would seem that many consumer attitudes also have a parallel in the small and medium-sized business markets. Some 70 percent of global consumers say they are not likely to try a new beauty product, for example. So new products and unfamiliar brands face an uphill battle. That might apply to hosted communications services or even, in some cases, uptake of new IP-based phone systems.

On the other hand, some 80 percent of global consumers say they are "very" or "somewhat likely" to switch from their usual brands to lower-priced brands or brands that are on sale during an economic downturn. That suggests a heightened sense of insecurity is likely in the background whenver a new provider or offer is weighed.

Communications is more a relationship than a one-off purchase, so consumer trends do not translate neatly to the world of communication services. Some 72 percent of consumers say they would switch to "store" or "generic" brands. The analogy would be switching from a recognizable communications "brand" and a company "they haven't heard of before."

“It is discouraging to think that new product introductions and carefully planned brand strategies might suffer from bad timing,” says Sunando Das, Ipsos Marketing VP. But one bit of advice clearly does apply to most communication services.

"Marketers can, and must, focus is value," says Das. Value obviously is a higher priority for consumers during an economic downturn. That doesn't necessarily mean pricing has to change, he says.

But consumer perceptions about benefits compared to cost should be explored to make sure consumers think there is a fair trade-off, he says.

http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/pressrelease.cfm?id=4337&wt.mc_id=1110011&ce=garykim.denver@gmail.com&link=4337&top=

Does it Matter Whether VoIP is Dead or Not?

It's typically pretty easy to get a robust conversation going about whether VoIP is dead or not, and what each of us means when taking a position either way. Interesting viewpoints exist on either "side" of the debate, relevant for technology enthusiasts and developers but rarely of interest to the mass market that will use the technology.

One might as well say, in advance, that now that Twitter seems to be reaching some sort of inflection point or critical mass, lead technology adopters and developers will move onto the next big thing. Technology rarely is interesting to technologists when it is simply "there."

I remember the same thoughts expressed about session initiation protocol. The disenchantment isn't worrisome. Technology enthusiasts simply have different values than mainstream users, who just want value they understand, easy to use, acquire and support, at fair prices.

Technologists love technology. Most people don't care, so most large, successful businesses are built in ways that hide technology from end users. It makes about as much sense to argue about whether "electricity is dead, or not," as it does to worry about whether VoIP is, or is not.

Technology always is most successful, and most ubiquitous, when it is just furniture. VoIP isn't yet "just furniture." But that is where we inevitably will go.

http://blog.radvision.com/voipsurvivor/2009/04/30/it’s-about-time-we-kill-voip/