Earlier this spring, I had the opportunity to discuss one of the current buzzwords, namely gamification, at the Connected Creativity event at MIP TV with the excellent Kevin Slavin (of area/code fame and, more recently, Starling), moderated by entertainment maven extraordinaire, Robert Tercek.
I had posted my slides earlier but now also found the wonderful organisers captured it on video, too. Enjoy!
It was an eventful week but I shall pick Google’s acquisition of AdMob as my top (well, maybe only #2) item. A game changer, the final acknowledgement of the power of mobile, there is a lot one can find to describe the deal and for all the right reasons:
The acquisition of Admob by Google shows Google’s commitment to “mobile, mobile, mobile”, which in itself is encouraging for the sector that is – despite a number of larger players evolving and despite the still relatively recent paradigm shift initiated by the iPhone – still fledgling. That in isolation makes it great news for the mobile sector!
From Google’s and Admob’s respective business perspectives, it appears to make eminent sense, too (and I am not privy to their numbers): Admob will be able to bulk up and cement its leadership position in the segment. Its inventory and back-end ad management will be able to dip into Google’s vast resources, which is great for them. Google probably realized that Admob’s strength meant that they would be difficult to beat. And who you can’t beat, you shall join (or, in Google’s case, buy) them. For Google, it is a smart move as it gives them critical mass in an ad format where they have not nearly been as dominant as for other formats and gives them access to a lot of eyeballs.
The eyeballs bit is, however, maybe the concerning piece of this: Google makes 97% of its revenues from its legacy business using AdSense, AdWords, etc. Nothing much has changed for a couple of years and it has miserably failed with a couple of acquisitions (anyone remembering “the 2 kings have gotten together” [1:00]?), YouTube is a great site but did Google maximize it (yet)? Probably not. Jaiku was more than just a worthy competitor to Twitter; they were history the moment Google bought them (well, it was eventually moved to Google’s App Engine but no one seems to have made much use of it).
As much as I admire Google, the company (where – get this -, when in new product development, you are allegedly judged by the number of failures you managed to produce! Very, very good and gutsy thinking!), it has to get its head around more “modern” approaches to marketing and engagement. Text and display ads alone won’t cut it in the long run… But, in any event, the combination with AdMob will give Google a little bit more of a runway to get this right and – smart companies both of them are – I am sure there is more than enough brain cells to get it right. All good!
It seems to be music week this week: Apple running its somewhat anticlimactic “It’s only Rock’n'Roll” event today, lots of folks pondering Spotify Mobile and now this: the good folks at Forrester Research have released an interesting report entitled “Music Release Windows: The Product Innovation That The Music Business Can’t Do Without”. This is some statement.
The Old Model is Broken
Forrester was kind enough to let me have a glance at the report, so let me dive into its revelations and the underlying rationales, which starts off with looking at the broken model of the industry: in (latter part of) the 20th century, the music industry was mainly fueled by record sales (first vinyl, then CD). With the introduction of digital media and, in particular, ubiquitous broadband connectivity in many parts of the world, it shifted to digital downloads. Unfortunately, it mainly shifted for downloads that people did not pay for. iTunes has only taken a piece of the action. And iTunes’ ¢99 per song model has then contributed to people no longer buying whole albums but only the songs they like most, which somewhat squashes profitability.
Live events, etc used to be a support for record sales. They have recently become the biggest revenue generator for some recording artists (as well as for some labels, at least if they managed to conclude so-called 360-deals with artists) but they cannot alone make up for the shortfall. On top of all that, people like my 14-year-old son use a plethora of services (Spotify, Last.FM, YouTube and probably dozens more of which I do not know) to quench their thirst for music.
Change the Product, not the Business Model
The researchers suggest to re-think the product offering in order to engage the fan more holistically: leverage diverse assets through those maligned 360 deals: they might “feel” a bit tight around the hips but the opportunities are immense: labels and (capable) artist management can create a very rich offering of diverse content. This then ties in into step #2, which sees the industry moving away from (or rather beyond) the classic album model where an artists would release one album per year (or so) and sustain the buzz in promotion thereof (and in between) with concerts, interviews, singles and EPs. With digital distribution, there is no need for that (an album on CD might be maintained as one part of the mix however): one can produce a continual stream of creative products from the artist. This will help build sustainable and longer-term relationships with fans.
The final piece is – put simplistically – the introduction of release windows similar to what the film industry is doing for decades: releases are structured successively with higher product (read: better monetizable) tiers coming first. It is re-vamping a trusty old model though: you want it first and exclusive, you pay more.
The bottom line is – oh, the bliss of buzzwords – the 4 C’s, which are content, convenience, cost and community: The higher the cost, the greater the convenience and the better the choice of content. The authors basically plead a re-introduction of scarcity in order to re-build the perceived value. Convenience ranks above content in terms of the creation of value: and this is where mobile plays a role: it is always with the user, it is always on, it is readily accessible (at least the new generation of phones is). It is arguably why services like Spotify are believed to be a valid revenue stream for labels, at least on mobile…
Community is the Glue
Is community just thrown in for good measure? No, of course not. According to Forrester, “Community enhances social value.” It is the glue that will be the key differentiator from piracy (or so they hope): the thinking is that a sense of community will build some sort of moral cohesion (another C). Here though, Forrester tails off a little. It says:
“Social functionality should be deployed right across the hierarchy.”
Nothing wrong, you say? No, it is not. However, “deploying functionality” is way short of what is needed to build social value. What makes a community? Emphatic engagement with fans, not a set of tools that sits somewhere on the various sites and offerings being operated by some far-away call center. Whilst the principle is right, the suggested execution remains a little shallow. Forums & networks is all they have to offer. Hm. Everyone has them already, so will this work?
The principle does work, I believe, However, the execution is much, much more complex than the analysts reveal. Here, one can make or break this.
Release Windows
The analysts suggest that a release should be tiered by windows: start with a preview, then go into the mainstream for-pay channels (2-3 weeks delayed) and finally release to “free-to-air” (6 weeks delay). The premier window is suggested to being the one where incremental value can be unlocked: first releases, premium value-added content (and no DRM!), etc; users only get this if they pay. Elegant packaging and programming is crucial to convince people of the richness of this. Then they will not defect to P2P sites. CD releases remain in the mainstream window and then, finally after six long weeks, the Spotifys of this world will be able to get it through their ad-supported model, TDC Play, the Danish flat-rate all-you-can-eat model that generated more than 100m downloads in 15 months would be able to add it to their package, etc.
Mobile is in the premium tier (with very few others): Forrester believes that carriers’ and OEM’s efforts, investment and – last but certainly not least – billing relationships merit this. I would suggest that the eye-opener ringtone where one could charge huge premiums for monophonic (!) 20-second-loops would contribute to this conviction, too.
In the “modern world” with smartphones and flat rate data plans, a lot of it of course hinges on how such services tie in with a) the handset (app vs. mobile web), b) the provider(s), namely labels, artists, operators, handset manufacturers, other (mobile) distributors as well as iTunes, and c) the users, i.e. will they adopt it or will they defect to the (free) web side of things after all. The crackdown on piracy in many countries will have something of a disciplinary effect but the jury on this is probably still out.
Is that It?
There must be more in order to create compelling services and products. Otherwise, I cannot see people doing it in sufficient numbers. It could be seen online with Spotify where, anecdotally, only 17,000 in the UK have signed up to the premium service; I cannot believe that the premium music market should be limited to that. The analysts suggest the creation of
“truly 21st century products [...] blend[ing] interactivity, multimedia, multi-platform, convenience and social to create something totally new.”
That sounds awesome but how do you create it? The starting point needs to be the relationship between artist and fan. I have long held that this bond is more than actual musical tastes; it is a lifestyle decision, which is why fans crave to belong to “their” artists’ circles. As early as 2002, a “Britney Spears Mobile Fanclub” was successfully running, and that did not even involve her label! What it did involve though was access (or at least the promise thereof) to Britney (who was, at that time, arguably one of the biggest recording artists in the world). The service combined text (real-time backstage reports from Britney herself!), live concerts, editorial, merchandise, and special promotions to create a rich and comprehensive experience around the artist. And this at a time when a ringtones were just on the rise and premium SMS not widely available! The principle works! It does take however (and that’s a big IF) active involvement of a complex ecosystem of artists, management, labels, merchandise firms, media, etc.
The new generation of artists is of course significantly more tech-savvy (see e.g. upcoming singer Remi Nichole‘s video blogs and tweets): one sees a much higher willingness to participate actively and – even more importantly – authenticly in engaging the fans (“audience” is probably an overcome term in this respect). This can work, and on mobile it can work as a revenue generator, too! But the core is the revised approach to the people (and this is not limited to the music industry): they are not sheep that want to be exploited; if you treat them that way, they bolt. Treat them honestly, fairly, transparently, and you have at least a fighting chance!
A nice piece of rumour was brought out by the fine folks at MoCoNews: allegedly Nokia is in talks with Facebook to cooperate on mobile. And if this was not enough, there is also talk about the mighty Finns taking an investment in Facebook, and this would arguably be somewhat more significant (in cash terms at least) than the $10m stake the Samwer brothers of Jamba-fame acquired last week.
MoCoNews speculates that this could involve something as prominent as the YouTube button on the iPhone. This of course would appear to be a challenge given that most carriers will determine themselves what is and what is not on the handsets that are being sold through their retail outlets. But then Nokia has recently made strides on that front recently (as will be shown below).
A move with Facebook would fit in seamlessly with Nokia’s evolving strategy towards providing entertainment services rather than only being a hardware vendor (albeit the world’s largest by far with a whopping 38% market share globally): 2007 marked a year were Nokia acquired a number of companies and announced a number of initiatives and products that push the company way further down the service provision end than ever before: it acquired digital map specialist Navteq (Finland’s largest acquisition ever), bought the mobile marketing and advertising folks from Enpocket, it struck a content deal with Telefonica and another one with Vodafone, all gearing towards its comprehensive content offering Ovi (see here).
Anssi Vanjoki, Nokia’s multimedia guru, went on record in saying that the Internet will be the tool that will tear down the carriers’ walled gardens. He continues to preach his ongoing theme (I heard about this the first time 2 years or so ago) that carriers are no entertainment companies and should therefore not fiddle with content. That might well be true, I guess. Now, if it comes to the Internet opening those walls, well, Facebook ranks #7 on the Alexa traffic charts. And, distinct to the (few) higher-ranked sites, Facebook’s clean set-up and approach would seemingly make a conversion to (higher-end) mobile handsets easier than with, say, MySpace (#6).
Finally, Nokia tried to coin the phrase of “circular entertainment” (I blogged about it here where I mocked their “survey” approach) where they hold that, by 2012, 25% of all media would be created and consumed from within a circle of peers rather than from traditional media. If or if not the numbers were correct, the concept is very convincing (read e.g. Jaiku-founder Jyri Engstrom‘s rather insightful thoughts on object-centered sociality). Enter Facebook… ‘Nuff said, I guess…
EA‘s Travis Boatman, VP Worldwide Studios, recently commented about the adverse effects Apple’s iPhone would have on the sales of mobile games. He moaned that, whilst the device was good, “it’s a replacement for someone who had a Razr before. They still want their content but there’s no distribution platform in place so there’s a negative impact on the industry.”
Now, is that short-termism or the understandable fear of someone who oversees classic game development studios of being replaced by something else, namely online games. Because this is in fact what the iPhone is promising: a replication of the web on mobile. One could say, it’s the entry of mobile 2.0. Online games on desktops became prevalent with the ascent of broadband and data flatrates. This is exactly the environment quite a few people predict for mobile, too. And whilst it was “World of Warcraft” et al that gave the EA’s of this world the shivers on PCs, it is now the iPhone – but not because it’s the iPhone but because it is the first device that, due to its intrinsically different approach (OS, touchscreen), focuses solely and only on the web as the fulfillment medium of content dreams.
Someone then also smartly noted that “[t]he problem of transferring games to new phones has actually plagued the mobile gaming industry since its inception. When users upgrade to a new phone, they most often can’t bring a game that they bought for their old phone along with them.” And the market data seems to confirm the challenges the industry faces: the percentage of mobile phone users who have ever bought a mobile game increased from 10 percent in 2005 to just 12 percent in 2007; that’s not much…
Moving from downloadable games (or other content items) to ones that can be played (or consumed) online reduces the complexity to users enormously. Due to bandwidth challenges, there are some constraints as to what can be played with a certain level of satisfaction online and what can’t: as a rule, everything turn-based, casual puzzles, etc would appear to be adaptable, heavier, more action-related games can’t. However, is this any different on the desktop or, for that matter, the console? Has anyone ever heard of online versions of Call of Duty or EA FIFA? No, because they would not translate in such a constrained environment. Now, Tetris (published on Apple’s iPod by, guess what, EA), Zuma, Luxor, Bejewelled, Poker, on the other hand, provide a rather splendid user experience even when played online and, lo and behold, they are predominantly found as online games on the desktop, too.
The same applies to other content sectors, too: prior to YouTube, the consumption of video via desktop was niche. One might watch a DVD on a long-ish train ride but who in their right mind would download shorter clips to watch them later (well, maybe with the exception of certain post-watershed offerings)? YouTube came and made it easy to consume AND operated in an environment dominated by an economical usage ecosphere, i.e. data flat rates and sufficient bandwidth, and off it went.
For EA (and any other mobile games publisher) this may mean that, in the mid term (i.e. once now pertinent issues such as data charges, bandwidth constraints, etc have been tackled), users will go online on their mobiles, too, to play such casual titles. However, fans of more intense genres will continue to download. The challenge is therefore not so much someone like Apple and any of their products but the current distribution and commercial environment (namely regarding billing) that would appear to slow down take-up. So, yet again, the finger points to the operators who, from their position understandably (why would they be reduced to a bit pipe if they don’t have to?), are in the way of turning mobile into a media consumption channel like any other. The front is however getting diluted: more and more operators throw their data plans into the open and offer more generous plans to users (led by 3 who even offer dedicated Skype mobile phones with the respective data plan to come with it).
And what will EA do? Well, continue to publish games which only make sense when played on dedicated devices. Oh, and they will probably release the Sims as an online version… Not so bad then…
YouTube appears to have put its mobile site live: under http://m.youtube.com/ you now get a slimmed-down version of the YouTube service. However, that’s about it. The site starts with a warning: “YouTube Mobile is a data intensive application. We highly recommend that you upgrade to an unlimited data plan with your mobile service provider to avoid additional charges.” I see, OK, well, why didn’t you adapt this more appropriately then? Isn’t this somewhat scary???
What follows is clips varying in length (tonight, there were 2 with more than 4 minutes length in the top 10). A couple of categories (highest rated, newly added, etc – in short: the usual suspects) but absolutely nothing that would suggest a specifically mobile offering. I find this rather disappointing. Shouldn’t we be able to expect more when “two kings have gotten together“?
So what is this? Don’t they understand mobile? Didn’t they have enough time to study this during their Verizon exclusive that now expired? Do they not have the resource to design their mobile service so as to provide more than a simple extension of their existing site into mobile (but without the functionalities the online version has)? The WAP offering lacks the very features and navigation, etc that arguably contributed so much to YouTube’s success. They’ll have to up the ante drastically to get going on the small screen, too. This doesn’t cut it!
