Phone.Com Launches Channel Program

There comes a point in a company's development when it makes sense to market to new customer segments. So it is that Phone.com is launching a channel partner program expected to extend the company's sales effort to businesses with five to 20 employees. Up to this point, Phone.com has sold directly and exclusively from its website, and many of its customers are small businesses that understand the value of a hosted business IP telephony service.

The new channel programis expected to be based on partners such as phone interconnect dealers, value-added resellers and other relatively technical firms that might normally sell premises-based phone systems, but find they are leaving business on the table because some firms cannot justify buying a new IP phone system, but might be amenable to buying a hosted equivalent.

"I have found that Phone.com's best channel partners are existing customers of ours," says Joel Malof, channel partner program manager. "Our target markets for channel partners are firms with two to 30 lines."

The ideal channel partners are firms that can provide first-level customer support, and typically will be more-technical firms such as phone interconnect dealers, for example.

Partners can earn a success fee for closing a new account, equivalent to a month's recurring revenue after a new customer has been on board for 90 days. Then there is a recurring revenue payment based on a percentage of revenue, and depending on volume of revenue.

The program starts at three percent and goes up to 10 percent, says Malof. "A $20 a month residual is not so interestingm, but at 100 of those, it is interesting," says Malof.

A customized web address is given to customers, with the agent's ID embedded in it," says Malof. "That's how we give them credit for the sale."

"We will have no direct sales force that agents are competing against," says Ari Rabban, Phone.com CEO.

What is iPad Cannibalizing?

If Apple Macintosh computer sales are up 39 percent, while iPod sales are down 17 percent, might that imply that sales of the Apple iPad are cannibalizing iPod sales? That is what Piper Jaffray research analyst Gene Munster appears to believe.

U.S. Mac sales are up 39 percent year over year for the month of April, and in fact have been up, year over year, every month so far in 2010, according to researchers at NPD. NPOD's data also suggests Apple iPod sales are down 17 percent year over year for the month of April, and have been down for half of the initial months of 2010.

It stands to reason that at least part of the market share the Apple iPad is getting is coming at the expense of other products or suppliers.

At the various least, consumers might be forced to put off buying something else if they decide to buy an iPad. But at least some observers think Apple is cannibalizing itself.

"April NPD data gives us the first sign of the degree to which the iPad cannibalizes iPod or Mac sales," says Munster. "From the early NPD data, it appears that the iPad has a minimal cannibalization impact on Mac sales, and could be slightly cannibalizing iPod sales."

Given the average selling price of the Mac, which is about four times greater than that of a typical iPod, that likely is good news for Apple, at least in terms of revenue, Munster thinks.

link

Will 4G Adoption Mirror 3G?

Adoption of fourth-generation network services likely will miror adoption of 3G services in Europe, says Decaln Longeran, Yankee Group analyst, and that has to be seen as modestly good news, but not "great" news, as adoption will not be as fast as many will hope.

"Our assessment of the early days of 3G, from spectrum auctions through to the first one or two years of commercial services, tells us a lot about where 4G is today and where it’s heading," Lonergan says. The big danger is massive overpaying for spectrum, which happened with the 3G spectrum auctions.

"Overpaying for licenses will quickly destroy the 4G business case, just as it did for 3G in several countries, including the U.K. and Germany," says Lonergand. On the other hand, if bidders show reasonable restraint, they should be in a better position to the extent that the auctions will be dominated by incumbents, unlike the situation when 3G licenses were awarded.

There will be no new 4G contestants, Lonergan predicts.

Adoption will take longer than expected, he says. "Remember, it was a full five years after commercial launch before 3G handset ownership reached 6.5 percent penetration globally, and 4G will follow a similar path," he says.

The technology won’t sell itself, he says. Faster speeds will only provide so much incentive, and it is applications that could provide the bigger push to adoption.

Handsets matter more than most people think, as well. Early 3G players failed to understand the importance of quality and choice in their handset portfolios, Lonergan says. Prepaid plans might also be essential, as 3G adoption in Europe was severely hindered in the early stages due to limited availability of prepaid plans.

Coverage also matters less than most people think. Consumers don’t obsess about coverage, except in the places where they use their devices most. That might especially prove true where 3G service is available as a backup.

On the other hand, 4G is being deployed in different circumstances, where a reasonable base of mobile broadband customers exists, and new applications that take advantage of higher bandwidth and lower latency already are getting traction, ranging from video and social networking to mobile apps related to navigation and location.

The first commercial European 3G service was launched by Telenor in December 2001, with commercial 3G services launched in 2003 by 3 in the U.K. and Italy.

But it is worth remembering that 3G also promised major performance enhancements to existing mobile services, . new services, including video telephony, multimedia content and enhanced end user experience. Right now, 4G mostly promises "faster" broadband.

The issue is whether the shift from 1 Mbps to 3 Mbps, or 3 Mbps to 6 Mbps, represents so much a change in end user experience. One might argue the Apple iPhone or iPad represents something users find tangible, not the additional bandwidth.

One might argue that mobile Web access, like mobile email before it, and smartphones, are what is driving 3G adoption. Applied to 4G, will there be unique drivers, or will 4G simply be a 3G experience, albeit with more bandwidth?

In August 2005, for example, the Yankee Group predicted, at a time when 3G penetration in Western Europe was in the range of 0.5 to two percent, that by 2009, 3G penetration would reach 52.6 percent of the population. In reality, average 3G penetration in Western Europe was 27 percent as of December 2009.

The key takeaway from this comparison is that even 3G forecasts that were regarded as too conservative five years ago have proved to be too aggressive.

A new wireless technology will not in itself excite most consumers, no matter how amazingly super-fast its proponents claim it performs. Back in May of 2006, when 3G services had been actively promoted for at least two years in several European countries, Yankee Group conducted an end-user survey that suggested 29 percent of end users had no idea whether they had a 3G phone or not. About 27 percent of respondents claimed they owned a 3G phone. Of course, it is not always the case that a 3G phone uses a 3G connection, either.

In the U.S. market, matters are even more complicated, as various 3G platforms will be available nationwide by the end of 2010, and T-Mobile USA's network might actually operate faster than 4G networks, so even speed will not be a clear differentiator.

Handsets, on the other hand, could be more important. In the first 18 months after launch, Japan's DoCoMo failed to build any real momentum behind its 3G service, and 3G users accounted for well under one percent of the company’s total mobile customer base. Then DoCoMo moved aggressively on handsets, and penetration grew.

At least in the European market, prepaid service plans have been important. Prepaid was first introduced to Europe in 1995, and it was a major factor in the rapid growth in mobile services during the past 15 years, Lonergan notes. Mobile services penetration has now reached 130 percent of the population, and prepaid accounts for the majority of these connections, fully 54 percent at the end of 2009.

Back in the early days of 3G, most of the focus (misplaced, as we now understand) was on video telephony because this was one of the few services that 3G could support and 2.5G could not. It should therefore have been a 3G marketing manager’s dream, but it turned into something of a nightmare due to unreliable performance and largely apathetic consumers.

But the single biggest difference between 3G and 4G is the world of demand into which they were born. Smartphone penetration and use of mobile broadband applications clearly is different today than was the case when 3G first was being introduced.

Mobile broadband (the laptop/dongle version) is a good example. This service didn’t exist when 3G was introduced. Neither did the iPhone.

Consumers in 2010 understand the differences between a 2 Mbps, 7 Mbps and 20 Mbps connection. In 2001, most did not.

It took five years for 3G penetration to reach 6.5 percent of global mobile users. Our projections for 4G follow a similar curve: relatively slow adoption in the first three years, with a noticeable pickup in years four to five, says Lonergan.

Some possible areas of upside include handset options, retail pricing plans and indoor coverage. "No matter how lousy the service provider's network or customer service, if they achieve the right balance and choice in their handset portfolio and price plans, just about any provider can build market share," Lonergan says.

Indoor coverage possibly could be a differentiator as well. In the early days of 3G, it was assumed 3G would be used by individuals out and about and as a complement to home land-line broadband service. 4G might be different: onsumers might use it more as a substitute for some home broadband usage, as they already use their 3G mobiles indoors.

Marketers Still Can't Measure Social Media Return on Investment

Analytics continue to be an obstacle to heavier use of online, social media and mobile marketing campaigns, a new survey by Omniture suggests.


About 80 percent of survey respondents believe the ability to measure return on investment from online marketing activities is important, but only 31 percent of marketers can effectively measure it today.

About 86 percent of respondents think the conversion rate from online marketing activities is important to measure, but 25 percent cannot effectively measure it.



Only about 30 percent of marketers using mobile channels are able to measure mobile app conversions and, overall, only 23 percent say they are "very satisfied" with their current mobile measurement capabilities. That suggests there is pent-up demand for easier to use and easier to measure mobile marketing support.

link

30% to 50% of All Advertising Will be Digital Within 8 Years, Google Exec Argues

"I personally expect in the next five to eight years 30 percent to 50 percent of advertising will be digital," says Nikesh Arora, Google's president of global sales, referring to online direct marketing, advertising and branding campaigns.


While Arora admits it is a bold claim, he backs up his forecast by pointing out that in the U.S. 10 percent of advertising is already digital and in the United Kingdom it is 20 percent.

In fact, late last year the U.K.'s Internet Advertising Bureau announced that online ad spending had risen above television for the first time.

Video will tip the balance, says Arora. If so, Apple's bet on creating a content-consumption tablet device might be precisely on target. The issue there is whether the iPad will be for video consumption what the iPod was to music consumption.

"I think mobile is a fantastic opportunity," says Arora.

link

BT to Launch Own "Tablet," But Isn't Aiming at iPad

BT plans to launch its own touch-screen, tablet style computer, which inevitably will be seen as a way to compete with the Apple iPad, though BT apparently is not positioning the device in that way, and the comparison likely is misplaced.

The Telegraph reports that although no official details have been released by BT, the new device will have a screen larger than the 3.5-inch display found on the iPhone, but smaller than the 9.7-inch screen on the iPad.

In principle, the device could resemble the existing "OpenTablet 7," which is more an "advanced telephone" than a mobile device.

The BT device appears something more along the lines of the "Internet appliance" several telecom carriers have attempted to popularize in the past, though building on mobility rather than the fixed-line network. Previous attempts have focused on an easy-to-use device connected perhaps in a kitchen that allows light web browsing.

OpenPeak's "OpenTablet 7" can be used as a wireless, detachable tablet and features 3G HSDPA connections. It isn't yet clear what connectivity options BT will offer, but up to this point similar devices have been viewed as ways to enhance the value of a fixed-line connection by enabling use of new appliances and devices on those networks.

BT positions the new device as a cross between "a mini PC" and "the telephone of the future," which is roughly how the earlier attempts have been framed.

In a sense, that positions the new device as the latest attempt to build a "smart" fixed-line telephone, not a mobile tablet computer.

That will be the big issue. Prior attempts to create such an appliance have not gotten traction.

Shift to Prepaid Wireless Continues

I doubt this is news to anybody who follows subscriber trends in wireless, but prepaid accounts continue to grow, accelerating through all of 2009 and 2010 so far.

Up to a point that might be considered a good thing for  service providers who have made a business of prepaid, especially some of the regional providers.

But it never is too helpful when the "big guys," or at least some of them, decide they have to play in the prepaid segment, as Sprint now is doing.


The new "Common Cents" service is the fourth prepaid brand Sprint supports, after Boost Mobile, Virgin Mobile and Assurance Wireless, which is a government-subsidized cell phone program for people who are under or close to the poverty line.

Under the new plan, customers will pay seven cents per minute for phone calls and they will be charge seven cents per text message.

Wal-Mart is planning to sell phones, costing $20 to $70, in more than 700 stores.

Sprint will also give customers a break by rounding down on the minutes used in order to aattract more subscribers. Sprint says that "with minutes that round down after the first minute, not up, consumers get more minutes for their money."

In the first quarter of 2010, Sprint lost 578,000 postpaid subscribers. But it gained 348,000 prepaid customers.

Sprint also positions each of the prepaid brands in different segments. While Common Cents is geared toward value customers, who aren't looking for much beyond basic cell phone and texting service, Virgin Mobile's and Boost Mobile's services offer more data-centric plans that target the youth market.

TheVirgin Mobile and Boost brands have been offering flat-rate pricing for all-you-can-eat plans for $50 a month. Soon Virgin Mobile will also offer a $25 plan that comes with unlimited texting, e-mail, and Web surfing, plus 300 minutes a month of voice service. For $40 a month, customers can get 1,200 voice minutes.