[3GScottishUser]

From Media Guardian 21/09/2006):

740,000 users a week watched video footage of the World Cup on mobile operator 3's handsets - but it still made a loss, it was revealed today.

As 3's mobile World Cup content was offered free to its 3 million customers, supported by advertising and sponsorship, it did not make money as a standalone service, according to David Stranks, who oversaw the operator's coverage of the event.

Mr Stranks - who joined TV sports producer Sunset+Vine after the World Cup as head of new media - said that offering free coverage of big events, supported by advertising and sponsorship, was the way forward for mobile sports content in the short to medium term.

"People are very happy to use it when it's free, but I'm not sure that, beyond the committed fan, people are willing to pay for it," he told a Westminster e-forum seminar on mobile sports content today.

During the World Cup in Germany, 3 offered video previews of every match, plus two minutes of highlights within five minutes of the final whistle and three and a half minutes within an hour of each game ending.

The mobile firm also provided SMS text alerts and nine-second clips of goals, plus a twice-daily football chatshow.

Mr Stranks said 740,000 3 users were watching World Cup video on their mobiles each week during the tournament, out of a subscriber base of 3 million.

The chatshow was getting more than 100,000 mobile viewers a week.

"This proves that the right event, offered up in the right way, not attempting to duplicate what was being done on traditional TV, can attract the casual mobile user," he added.

"It was a good PR and branding exercise, but it's not a commercially sustainable model."

Mr Stranks said a wider survey of 3's subscriber base had found that 31% of users never accessed content via their mobile and just used voice and text services.

Another 21% had tried using 3's content and given up; 31% were "semi-active"; and only 14% of 3's subscribers used it' audio and video content every week.

Mr Stranks also quoted Olswang research, which found that 37% of respondents said they would not pay for mobile content.

"To grow the mobile sports content market beyond the passionate, committed fan - given these sort of statistics - seems fairly insurmountable.

"At 3, during the World Cup, I think we did prove that with the right event you can do that."

http://media.guardian.co.uk/newmedia/story/0,,1877921,00.html

[Hands0n]

Blimey! Those are big numbers NOT interested or only partially interested in content, free or paid for. I'm not entirely surprised really. What do these mobile ops think of us? That we've got bu99er all to do all day but sit around and watch [and pay for] content that they provide? We have mostly all got day jobs y'know!

Also, why oh why do these folk think that all we want to watch is sport? Have they absolutely no imagination at all? Do they wonder what is on all of those close to 900 channels on Sky? Do they really believe that the terrestrial TV stations transmit only sport, and want a bit of that action?

For sure, the notion of being able to watch SOME television on the mobile handset is novel, but really I, for one, don't have the time during the day, and at night I'll more happily watch my 32" widescreen or 102" projection system rather than go blind attempting to catch up on my regular viewing on a soppy mobile phone handset.



............ seems fairly insurmountable.


Yup. I'd go along with that :D

[3GScottishUser]

So the 4 incumbernts appear to have paid billions for 3G licences to protect their existing voice and text businesses and Hutchison have gambled on carving a niche in the market for content and videocalling.

I suspect Hutch made a bad gamble and the statistics beginning to appear re actual usage confirm that the quest for 'mobile media' growth will never really amout to anything significant enough to justify the vast sums spent on the 3G auction in the UK.

The above is similar to Sky's attempt to compete with the Internet with Sky Active. Sky spent a lot of cash publicising and promoting their modem based text, information and games service but it failed to amount to anything significant. Its still there, but not used by many and their main revenues still come from Movies and Sport.

The lesson for operators might be that its best to make predictions about revenues and growth based on what they know customers buy and want to do with devices rather than stab in the dark making absurd predictions and expecting high company valuations based on services that have no previous track record.

[Alio]

"It was a good PR and branding exercise, but it's not a commercially sustainable model."
No it was simply a expensive way find out the following, wasn't it!


Mr Stranks said a wider survey of 3's subscriber base had found that 31% of users never accessed content via their mobile and just used voice and text services.
I wonder why?......could it be that it's just too bloody expensive!


Another 21% had tried using 3's content and given up; 31% were "semi-active"; and only 14% of 3's subscribers used it' audio and video content every week.
21% gave up?.......could this be that they were sold on the hype and in reality the content was rubbish.......and the penny dropped!
And what the hell is "semi-active"??


Mr Stranks also quoted Olswang research, which found that 37% of respondents said they would not pay for mobile content.
Now there's a surprise ah! :rolleyes:

[3GScottishUser]

Its a lesson all the operators need to heed.

Small screens and daylight dont mix well and make videocalling impractical at many times and in many locations. Same goes for content, video and TV viewing on mobiles.

The press are now just picking up the real deal about visual services on mobile phones, something 3G enthuisasts have known for a long time.

So the notion that a 'mobile media' compnay can produce any major prospect is slowly but systematically being disproved and the focus is returning to voice, text and data.

3G has many applications, none have yet proven to be as important as those which made GSM popular and that in a nutshell is the big problem to date.

[Hands0n]

So the notion that a 'mobile media' compnay can produce any major prospect is slowly but systematically being disproved and the focus is returning to voice, text and data.

And isn't that the fundamental point about a Mobile - it is fundamentally a Phone (capital P completely intentional and very significant). No amount of telling the Customer that a Phone is no longer a Phone will work. That has been bourne out in the short history of 3G. Core business of the damn things is Voice and Text messages.

We will buy into other services as and if we want them - but wholesale? I rather doubt it. I really do feel that the way forward is for 3G and its successors to develop myriad services reasonably priced to attract mass use, rather than Premium based. None of these services cost a lot to provide anyway, so why try and con us out of our hard earned. Let us choose which and when we want - gratefully take the few cents per service and let volume do the work of producing income. Take a leaf out of Wal Mart - they know how to make squillions from commoditising virtually everything they sell. Why do the mobile operators think they cannot do the same with their goods?