Tag: revenue

  • Signing off voicemail

    Signing off voicemail

    A survey by US phone company Vonage reports cellphone users are ditching voicemail and moving to alternatives.

    Messages left on user accounts in July fell 8% while retrievals fell 14% compared to last year.

    While those figures may have something to do with the billing practices of US carriers, it shows a much bigger trend in the telecommunications sector away from products which have been very profitable over the last two decades.

    Voicemail, like SMS text messaging, has been a lucrative earner for telcos since the arrival of mobile phones.

    Users get billed for calling a number then for leaving a message – often with a few delaying menu items to make sure callers get hit with a couple of billing units. In turn the receiver is charged for being notified they have a message, billed again for retrieving it and then pays a monthly fee for the privilege for all of this.

    Five bites of the cherry for one phone call – nice work if you can get it.

    This entire revenue stream is now dwindling as customers start using Internet based services to send messages. While the telcos charge extortionate rates for mobile data it is still far cheaper per message than the alternatives.

    In many ways the profits from voicemail and SMS were a classic transition effect – a profitable window of opportunity opened for a short period when a new technology was introduced. Now those windows are closing.

    For telcos, they have to find some profitable new channels. Even if they achieve their dreams of becoming media distributors or even content creators they’ll find both of those fields are far less lucrative than the mobile phone networks of a decade ago.

    While telephone companies aren’t going to grow broke soon, today’s data networks aren’t the golden goose many people expect from telcos.

    The smart telcos will adapt and survive, the ones who think the good times of a decade ago are coming back soon are in for a miserable future.

    Similar posts:

  • Creative Quandaries

    Creative Quandaries

    In February, musician, coder and uber-geek David Lowery gave a talk to the SF Music Tech Summit on the difficulties musicians have making money in the online economy.

    Meet the Old Boss, Worse Than The Last Boss is an excellent dissection of the economics of the music industry as it currently stands – and it doesn’t look good for artists.

    David shows how the old distribution model was more rewarding for artists than today’s digital model, the old fashioned record store has largely gone out of business and has been replaced with the iTunes where Apple receive half the income of the local shop but assumes no risk, few costs and a far greater profit margin.

    Similarly, the record labels’ costs and risks haven’t substantially changed but their income has plummeted.

    We’ve seen the controllers of the music distribution business replaced with a far smaller, and more profitable, group of digital gatekeepers.

    A  great line in David’s presentation is just how much money technology company executives are making compared to their record industry counterparts of the 1980s, without taking on the responsibilities for keeping the creative supply pipeline flowing.

    Record labels value content and content creators. Sure they kept a lot of money for their executives (although even mid 90?s music executive pay is dwarfed by tech executive pay.)  But record labels unlike tech companies, know they built  their businesses on those who create content.  Therefore when they were flush with cash they set out to buy the services of as many artists as they could.  This  had the effect of sharing the wealth with musicians.  It may have been uneven it may have been wasteful, it may have not touched every artists and the labels may have pocketed most of the revenue but at least they felt they needed to give something back to the content creators.  They knew artists created something of value.

    The key words in the above passage are “content creators” as the struggles of the music industry are similar to those of writers, photographers and anybody creating original works that can be digitized.

    Probably one of the most interesting aspects of this are that many of the digerati David criticises for their utopian views on technology are themselves marginalised, and often impoverished, by the same economics.

    David links to a number of Huffington Post articles examples, yet it’s Adrianna Huffington and her contemporaries like Chris Anderson who are aggregating paid writers work and turning most of us into digital sharecroppers.

    It’s the Lords of the Digital Manor who are making a return while the bulk of content creators struggles.

    Those digirati, like myself, are making just as poor a living from their work as David’s friends in the music industry.

    What’s clear is we have to find the methods of distributing music and other valuable creative works that benefit the artist or writer, the old models of the publishing, broadcasting and music industries did this – not always fairly, but at least creators were rewarded.

    Right now we’re in a world where information is free and a small group of gatekeepers are controlling what revenues are available.

    It’s unlikely that situation is sustainable and over time we’ll see new models develop to displace the current gatekeepers who may be part of the transition effect to a changed economy.

    The person who figures out the successful model will be the 21st Century’s Randolph Hearst – hopefully they’ll spread the wealth around a bit more than the current gatekeepers.

    Similar posts:

  • Does revenue solve all problems?

    Does revenue solve all problems?

    According to Eric Schmit, Google’s Executive Chairman, “Revenue solves all problems.” Is that really so?

    The truth is it doesn’t. Revenue can solve some problems, while creating others and having plenty of cash coming in may even cover over existing issues that can be ignored while times are good.

    Plenty of governments have found themselves unsuck after rich revenues allowed them to ignore problems in their own society, the Dutch Disease – where a country’s income rises rapidly because one industry booms and crowds the others out – is one example of revenue causing problems. Local Chinese governments are currently dealing with problems bought around by their massive income from selling land.

    In business, owners and managers sometimes find themselves in trouble because they can’t manage the demand that comes with the revenue a growing enterprise attracts.

    Sometimes, the revenue’s fine but there’s no profit. I can earn a lot of money selling bottles of beer for ten cents when everyone else is charging two dollars, but the fact the wholesale price is one dollar means I’m going to grow broke quickly unless I can impress a dumb corporation with my massive customer growth and get them to buy me out.

    The group buying model tends to combine two of the above problems – participating businesses struggle with the demand they generate while the discounts they are giving almost certainly guarantees they are not making a profit on the deal.

    So revenue doesn’t solve all problems, even the most profitable business – legal or not – has its own unique set of problems.

    Life’s easier when your business is profitable, but problems will never go away. Even the good life has problems; deal with it.

    Similar posts:

  • Is the social media business model dying?

    Is the social media business model dying?

    Is the social media business model dead?

    The frenzied rush to release new features such as Facebook’s latest changes, along with Google’s updates to their Plus platform, may be the first indication the big social media business model is broken.

    Driving the adoption of social media services has been the value they add to people’s lives; MySpace was a great place to share interests like bands and music, Facebook’s is to hear what was happening with their families and friends, LinkedIn is for displaying our professional background and Twitter keeps track on what’s happening in the world.

    Now the social media services want to be something else, Facebook wants to become “a platform for human storytelling” where you’ll share your story with friends and friends of friends (not to mention the friends of your mad cousin in Milwaukee) while Google+ wants to become an “identity service”.

    The fundamental problem for social media services is their sky high valuations require them squeezing more information and value out of time poor users by adding the features on other platforms; so Facebook tries to become Twitter while Google+ desperately tries to ape Facebook and Quora.

    Adopting other services’ features is not necessarily what the users want or need; you may be happy to follow a Reuters or New York Times journalist on Twitter for breaking news but you, and them, are probably not particularly keen on being Facebook friends or professionally associated on LinkedIn.

    If it turns out we don’t want to share a timeline of our lives with the entire world but just know how our relatives or old school friends in another city are doing, then the underpinnings of the social media giants value may not be worth the billions of dollars we currently believe.

    This isn’t to say social media services themselves aren’t going away, it could just be that the grandiose dreams of the online tycoons where they become an identity service or a mini-Internet are just a classic case of overreach.

    For Google and Salesforce, whose core businesses aren’t in social media, this could be merely an expensive distraction, but for those businesses like Facebook it could be that Myspace’s failure was the indicator that making money out of people’s friendships isn’t quite the money maker some people think.

    Similar posts:

  • Magazines 2020

    Magazines 2020

    As hundreds queued around the world for the latest Apple iPad an Australian media tycoon told a business breakfast that newspapers were a sunset industry. Where does this leave magazines and other print media?

    The last decade for magazines has been tough, as readers drifted to largely free websites with the advertisers following. The challenge for publishers is how do they follow their markets onto the web while still making money.

    Magazines aren’t unique in this challenge – the media industries, like many others, have been affected by the rise of the web. Magazines themselves sit somewhere between the recording and newspaper industries with news stand sales and subscriptions being a bigger proportion of incom while not having the same newspaper classified income which has collapsed so dramatically in recent years.

    The Shift Online

    We’ve seen a massive shift to the web over the last decade and that movement is only accelerating as advertisers start to follow consumers and the public embraces social media and online gaming.

    PriceWaterhouseCooper’s Entertainment and Media Outlook forecasts the magazine industry to lose 1% of advertising market share – from 5 to 4% of the overall spend – over the 2010 to 14 period with all the losses going online.

    While the magazine industry looks at losing 20% of its advertising revenue to the Internet, figures are similar for newspapers, radio and free to air television with online advertising moving from 18% to 26% of the market. The advertisers are, quite rightly, following the customers.

    Following readers online is the great challenge for the magazine industry, the question is how do they do it and continue to be profitable.

    The Internet Challenge

    The greatest problem on the Internet is making money, businesses have trained web surfers to expect online products – particularly news and entertainment – for free. Even physical goods have become increasingly commoditised as deal of the day and group buying sites have used “cheap” as the main hook for buyers.

    Today’s reader and consumer expects goods they find online to be cheap and any content they discover to be free.

    That isn’t fatal for a business as the broadcast television industry has shown us you can provide free content paid for by advertisers and make a good living while there’s no shortage of merchants who’ve built empires on the fast moving consumer good model of “stack ’em high, sell ’em cheap”.

    Part of the online magazine industry’s response to the challenge of adapting to these models has been to use free labour. The rise of the Digital Sharecroppers, where writers provide content for free, has been the result.

    People have been prepared to provide content for free for all manner of reasons. The problem for publishers, and readers, is quality writing is not sustainable under this model and we’re beginning to see the end result where writers are forced to drive buses and the free content is being increasingly sourced from PR agencies, their tame blogger bunny friends or from content farms more concerned about gaming Google through SEO keywords.

    Free content also reduces the barriers to entry, which are already extremely low in online given a geek with a WordPress site or YouTube account can have a site up and running in a couple of hours for less than a hundred dollars. If content is low quality, there’s little reason for readers to have any loyalty or to stick to any one site.

    There is the other type of free content though, User Generated Content (UCG) consisting of the comments, forum posts and free articles submitted by readers. Many of these followers are fans and this is perhaps where salvation for the magazine industry lies.

    What formats can we expect

    The old magazine format isn’t going to go away, it’s just going to decline as part of the overall distribution. We’re going to see more short and long format online content complimenting the magazines along with a lot of user content in the comments and forums sections.

    We’ll also see more cross platform selling like we currently see with magazines like Better Homes and Gardens though with a much bigger online and interactive component than the present TV-magazine tie ups.

    Content though will be more important than format. The SEO driven plays and content farms are a transition effect and as both search engines and readers become more savvy,  the influence of sites like eHow and The Huffington Post drop away.

    Probably the biggest sleeper though are the electronic readers such as the iPad and Kindle, it is just possible these devices might resurrect the fortunes of the publishing industry in a similar way to the Compact Disk did for the music industry in the 1990s. Certainly Rupert Murdoch is hoping this.

    How will magazines engage with consumers in 2020?

    Successful magazines are going to find the niches where readers and advertisers will pay to be engaged and identified with key groups, demographics and markets. Adding value to readers is going to be the key to revenue on an Internet that is full of noise of movement but with increasingly fewer nuggets of wisdom.

    It’s those nuggets of wisdom, useful analysis and unique worthy content that will be what time poor and somewhat information addled consumers are going to be looking for.

    They are also going to be looking for a platform to get their views heard. So it’s going to be critical that magazines make that platform available through comments, forums, reader blogs and giving loyal and knowledgeable readers the opportunity to write for the publication.

    Engagement is going to mean allowing site visitors some ownership of the content. The more you can build conversations and contributions around content, the more likely it is that readers will come back and the more likely they are to pay for add ons and read advertisements.

    Where will the revenue come from?

    The great challenge in the Internet era is making money online. We’ve trained the market to expect news and information to be free and that genie is now out of the bottle, and despite the paywalls we try to put up, we’re going to struggle to convince readers of our value.

    As writers, journalists, editors and publishers, we’re going to have to demonstrate our worth to the people who are prepared to pay for content. Right now there aren’t many of who will pay for relevance and quality, but things may be changing as readers realise much of what they currently find on content farms is unsatisfactory.

    Subscriptions and advertising are still going to be critical while events, merchandise and other revenue streams are going to be useful revenue centres but it’s hard to see how they will contribute to the bottom line any more than they currently do. It’s also important to remember that successful staging events is an expensive task involving skills many publishers simply don’t have.

    Hyperlocal is a fascinating area for magazines. While much of the focus has been on adopting local search to the newspaper industry it could be that specialist magazines can deliver effective localised products through directories and mobile phone applications.

    For instance let’s say we have an offal magazine for those who like to offal. A Brisbane businessman visiting Adelaide feels like a plate devilled kidneys for dinner. It could be that Offal Eaters Monthly magazine has a paid app or a subscriber site that allows him to find what he wants in a strange city.

    What is the role of the publisher/editor?

    More than ever the publisher and editor are going to have to know their market intimately. At a time when audiences are going to be widely fragmented it’s going to be essential to understand what the readers want.

    User generated content provides an opportunity for publishers and their editors to understand the market and monitoring what is being said by the target audience is going to be a key role of the modern editor.

    Moderating and controlling what’s being said on the platform will also be a key role for an editor. We all know the Internet is God’s gift to opinionated idiots and the risks of defamation, piracy and other brand damaging activity on websites are very real. The editor’s job will increasingly be to filter out the lunatics while encouraging interesting discussion.

    Most people though don’t want to create content, beyond having a quick comment on a post or sometimes joining a discussion. Another important role of the editor is to balance the higher quality, paid content with user generated material to ensure the publication’s site doesn’t dissolve into just another web forum.

    Publishers too are going to be challenged by this and their task is to find the deep niches where these models can succeed then convince advertisers and subscribers that their sites are worth signing up to.

    Given the ease of launching new sites, the key to success is being the trusted leader in your segment. If your content can be easily replicated or bought from another source then the survival odds are firmly against you.

    The next nine years

    We should also keep in mind change isn’t new, broadcast television gave a death sentence to news magazines like Life or the Bulletin a generation ago, and these publications only survived because of indulgent owners.  The magazine industry met those challenges, evolved and survived albeit with great change and a few casualties.

    The same is happening now, the industry is evolving and adapting to the new mediums and the changed behaviour of advertisers and readers. It’s not pretty or easy but the rewards are going to be there for those who figure it out.

    Had we been around when Gutenberg invented the printing press we would have wondered what will happen to all the monks who up until then had spent their lives manually copying religious texts and important documents. Change came to the monks, but not in the ways they expected.

    The web only recently turned 20 and in 2020 it will still be less than thirty years since its invention.  All of us will still be learning, making mistakes and discovering where the opportunities are.

    It’s a time of challenge and the rewards for those who get it right are great. The key for magazines, like all of us, lies in understanding our markets and audiences.

    Similar posts: