Tag: Affinity Marketing

Game Aggregators: New World Order

The times they are a-changing. Everyone has realized this by now (or so we should think). The question therefore is not so much will there be change but how will it look like.

Some of the weakest links in the mobile games value chain would be, it appears, the aggregators. Why is that? Because they do have the least defensible position: they do not own IP, they do not hold unique positions, they do not produce anything, they seem to be at the mercy of both of the groups they are partnering with: game developers to continue granting them distribution rights to their games, network operators and other distribution outlets to continue allowing them to use their channels to get to the end users. As if this would not be enough, now has arisen a creature that seemingly does away with all these middle-men anyway. It is called app store. So is it all doom then for games aggregators? There is a report out (too expensive for me to buy) that would seem to suggest as much, or so we are told.

The argument, in short, is that, with an OEM app store the number of distribution channels that any one developer/publisher needs to reach is drastically reduced (there are maybe 10 meaningful handset manufacturers in the market vs 300+ carriers and other distributors). Even the littlest companies have (or should have) the resource to deal with 10 partners; chapter closed.

Really?

The above works with a number of simple but crucial assumptions, and the boldest is this: carriers will happily let OEM take over the content real estate. Will they now? There are ample signs to doubt this. The giants of the space do not appear to be giving up, in the contrary: Vodafone has already announced its own app store – across handset brands (!) – and it is about to tighten its links with both China Mobile and Verizon Wireless (in the latter of which it holds a large stake). So what will all the OEMs (all with their own app store of course) do when carriers accounting for nearly half of the world’s subscribers wave them off? Cave in? You bet!

Anyway, does this change the game for aggregators? I believe it does and here’s why:

Carriers have traditionally struggled (with exceptions) to run an efficient, customer-friendly content offering. We have therefore seen an increasing trend to outsource the “decks” to third parties, which are – what? -, yes, aggregators.

Carriers are unlikely to concede defeat over the content side, not necessarily because they fear losing out on a lot of revenue (given their fairly average performance, SMS, voice, data, etc will outsell content as a source of revenue very, very significantly) but because of the strategic value of content as well as the unpredictability of its future impact: bear in mind that the emotional attachment to beloved brands, i.e. affinity (Transformers, Ice Age, Playboy, Tiger Woods, …), will remain higher than that to a network operator, and please do not take offense if you are working for one. Do not be mistaken: carriers are being trusted but they are not being loved. There is just not as much emotional attachment to a cellular network as there is to a rodent in love with an acorn…

Carriers do not have to give this piece up either (they call the shots on what goes onto a handset: see an example), they are not even losing money (they even gain: every cent earned through content sales is a cent more than carriers get from the iPhone app store sales…).

However, what carriers do have to do is catch up with the state of the art in selling, and that means an app store. However, it can also be a carrier-operated/driven app store.

An app store, too, does not however solve the dilemma of having to manage a huge amount of content in a way to allow the consumer a choice. One must not throw everything onto a big pile and let them pick out what they believe they like; this type of sales does not register too well: it is time-consuming, intransparent, messy, not good. So one needs someone to manage it. In comes the aggregator.

Or does it?

Aggregators that went around collecting content in a bucket only to throw it against the next wall to see what sticks are likely to struggle (or have died already: RIP Telcogames et al). However, aggregators that actually provide content management as a service to operators thrive (not exclusively on games, mind you). All the big guns in the space, Fox Mobile (f/k/a Jamba), Arvato Mobile, Buongiorno and recently Zed (through its acquisition of Player X) run riot in the space and bid hard for every deal that comes up (and lots of them do!) and gobble up the market. More on the classic D2C side, Thumbplay grew tremendously in the US, SendMe Mobile seems to go from strength to strength, and a lot of smaller ones, such as Rayfusion, etc. seem to more just hang in there, too. Why do they? Because the features that make an aggregator excellent – managing a wealth of content well – are the exact features carriers would look for when outsourcing their struggling content units. And because it is an aggregator’s core business model, they are really good at this, which is crucial in a low-margin business: be efficient or die.

Marketing and promotion is another point. We already see aggregation-type businesses become forces on Apple’s app store, such as Chillingo (from my very own town!). They publish well over 100 games and thrive on iPhone developers capitulating before the challenge to get noticed amongst the more than 50,000 apps currently available. Chillingo can provide marketing and promotion and make sure that a developer’s product gets not only live but noticed, too. It is very likely that there will be others in this space very, very soon.

So what seems to change is not the viability of being an aggregator but the aggregator’s service to their customers (the carriers!): whereas it may previously have been sufficient to use the “bucket against the wall” tactic, they now have to become better in providing a subtle selection without too much restriction. People will normally welcome a structured environment with pre-selected choices. Just make it a) easy and b) don’t limit randomly or indeed too much. And now get going! 😉

Disclaimer: I hold an indirect interest in Rayfusion.

FC Porto & TMN: A new MVNO is born!

Here’s something nice: after I mused extensively about the sense and nonsense of MVNO models. I have long been preaching that the true reason (other than price) why people might move would be driven by affinity marketing, namely the strong affiliation to a brand, a cause, an organization conveying something in people’s lifestyle that they wish to publicly own up to. So what is one of the strongest affinities people have? Their partner? No, 50% of marriages end in divorce. Their car? No, it breaks down after a while. Their phone? No, they change it every 12-18 months. Their club? YES! Or have you ever heard of a Boston Celtics fan who converted to the Knicks, a 49ers man crossing over to the Raiders? You will not because they do not exist.

Enter the good folks of Portuguese carrier TMN and FC Porto, one of the country’s major football (my American friends, read: soccer) clubs. Rather than fussing about sourcing handsets, staffing customer service and equipping shops in AAA locations, they focus on the real thing, namely the brand. The brief PR release outlines the service roughly: “The Dragao Mobile service offers calls to all networks at EUR 0.16 per minute and SMS at EUR 0.08 each, as well as personalised services for club members and fans. The club’s name will be shown on the handset display, and users will benefit from exclusive content. Customers will also get 5 percent of the value of each top-up returned to their bank account for use on FC Porto products and services. The package includes a EUR 10 card and a Motorola W218 mobile phone for EUR 59.90.”

There you have it. This is as it should be, in a previous post I called this “soft customization”: they utilise and activate the brand values by personalizing the handset and giving users some goodies connected to the brand. For the remainder, existing channels, networks, shops, handsets are being used, making the whole thing a whole lot cheaper. For a network operator, this makes sense as it reduces churn (listen & repeat: “no one ever changes the allegiance to their club!”), i.e. fans will be significantly more likely to stay with a network if it is the one where they have the chance to show their allegiance.

I sincerely hope that this will be successful. I would otherwise have to bury my conviction that affinity marketing is one of the instruments of choice in this industry, and that would be a real shame! 😉

Amp'd files for Chapter 11 – Revisiting MVNO's

One down… Amp’d files for Chapter 11, citing the need for more time to ramp up its systems for demand. I wonder: shouldn’t $360m in VC monies be enough to build systems that can cater for 200,000 customers? Given that Verizon provides the network and Motorola the handsets, that would mean that they took $1,800 per customer on all the rest; a bit stiff. Verizon is the biggest creditor with some $33m in receivables. So their wonderful ARPU wasn’t that great after all, huh?

It’s a bit of a bleak outlook, and whilst the offloading of debt might work this time, it puts some serious question marks behind the model of MVNO Amp’d tried to implement, namely one that tries to build a full infrastructure other than the actual base stations. Now, the question is old: is this really necessary? It has failed often: they are not the first to stop. ESPN did it. Has anyone ever heard of Extreme Mobile again? To remind you: they had announced a Vodafone-powered MVNO in the UK… and the site still says “coming soon”.

Might perhaps be the call for a network provider that possesses some smart backend infrastructure allowing printing of customised invoices, sending of customised messages and provision of customised content be the way out? It would arguably be dramatically cheaper to have a network that rides on the back of a) a brand, b) retail distribution through the likes of Carphone Warehouse, BestBuy, MediaMarkt, FNAC, El Corte Ingles (depending on where you live) and c) “soft” customisation (i.e. through packaging rather than retail channel, etc).

What would be in it for the Vodafones and Verizons of this world? Lower churn! It is hard to get to real numbers but lore has it that the cost of one Mannesmann D2 customer when Vodafone bought them was a whopping $7,800 and that with – allegedly – 30% or so churn p.a. Surely no customer can use their phones enough to make that money back, me thinks… If churn could be reduced by, say, half if customers would stick with the brand due to higher loyalty, then the supporting carriers would make a killing! Customers are way more loyal to the football club they support, their politicial party of choice, the National Trust, U2, their Almer Mater, their home town – you call it affinity marketing, a concept that has been a great success for years e.g. for credit cards. Wouldn’t a combination of this make a lot of sense? The thing that killed the market so far is greed: everyone wanted to own the customer front to end – when all the customer really wanted was good service, etc and this fuzzy warm feeling.

Get onto it. I believe it would work. Anyone here to try?

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén