Mobile Value Chain

One the enduring myths about the mobile value chain is that users are delighted to pay for goods and services via their mobile, that they’ve long accepted as free via their computers. I’m not even sure where the logic of this begins and ends, but maybe it’s something to do with the fact that mobile content market is already claimed to be 5 times the size of the PC market. Or it could be that users have accepted that they need to pay for the nose, at least until there’s a free alternative.

A good example of this was provided by Mark Curtis of Flirtomatic at last week’s Informa‚Äôs Mobile Communities & User Generated Content conference in London. Mark outlines that the first iteration of the business model was to charge subscriptions at a very reasonable ¬£1.50 ($3) per day or ¬£9.50 ($19) a month. Don’t forget that for most people, that’s in addition to usage-related mobile web data fees.

However, when they moved to a free, ad-supported model, the business really exploded and today they make 10 times the revenues via advertising than they earned via subscriptions. Actually, the average Flirtomatic user views 2,500 pages a month on the service.

So (surprise, surprise) people seem to prefer free models over paid-for models and it will ever be thus.

I believe that the next phase of mobile content will see a a surge in ad-subsidised content – which is not necessarily ad-funded. In other words, ad-funded implies free, with ad-subsidised being reduced cost to the user.

Some services – like Flirtomatic – can be ad-funded. But for many more, ad-subsidised is the best that could be achieved. As an example, if you sell a ringtone today for ¬£3, it’s very unlikely that you’ll be able to generate similar revenues from an ad model, as the numbers just don’t stack up. But you probably could find a way of reducing the cost to the user, while maintaining similar margins.

But in terms of business model, it’s always going to be more attractive in the long term to have a Flirtomatic type model where content is free or user generated and advertising revenues don’t need to be dished out to a number of different players in the value chain.

Full disclosure: Flirtomatic are also partner of AdMob, as well as speaking at the conference.

—–>Follow us on Twitter too: @russellbuckley and @caaarlo

Share this post:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Digg
  • LinkedIn
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Suggest to Techmeme via Twitter
  • Reddit
  • Many mobile applications & services still believe that a premium should apply simply because the service is 'mobile', and not tethered to the desktop. It's become the norm in our 'subscription' world and it's surprising that the 'everything must be free mentality' of the fixed internet has not made it's way mobile.

    The current wave of mobile services are simply hoping to emulate the success of the ringtone market - where consumers paid for content because unlike the internet it was impracticle and expensive to search for free content via a mobile browser.

    More advanced browsers will help to change this, as will the rise in off-deck content and services (ie: those outside of the operator's premium walled garden), and bulk data tarifs.

    I believe much of this is due to the fact that the mobile experience is still perceived to be a closed shop, controlled by the networks - rather than the free-for-all of the internet.

    Time (and Android?!) will change that.
  • Rakesh
    Hi,

    I found your blog a very good source of information. It is very informative!

    I am a student at the Columbia University of NY and currently doing a research paper on the subject of mobile banking. I am of the firm belief that Mobile banking is there to stay and is definitely beginning to gain traction in the United States.

    For that matter I also came across a lot of vendors providing solutions in the mobile banking space in the process of doing my research. And when I look it from the vendors point of view how do I take into account the risk involved in these investments. I want to know how vendors of mobile banking such as mfoundry, firethorn, obopay and the host of other new players entering the market or for that matter new companies provinding mobile software solutions are able to justify there investments.

    In particular what kind of discount factor or cost of capital do they go with when venturing into creating solutions for mobile banking considering that mobile banking has still not started to generate any substantial revenue for banks.

    I would appreciate your advice and suggestions in helping me solve this puzzle.

    Thanks,
    Rakesh
blog comments powered by Disqus