Is it time for Operators to stop branding handsets? Alternatives?

[Hands0n]

There cannot be any mobile phone enthusiast who has not noticed the branding of mobile phones that occurs. This has been a long-standing practise by the mobile network operators seeking to drive the use of their own services and to keep the user focussed on who it is that has supplied their mobile phone service.

Sometimes the branding is very lightweight, and in other cases it is so intense that it even breaks the basic functionality of a handset, that which the original manufacturer intended. You may recall how, for example, Vodafone crippled the Nokia N95's native SIP client to prevent VoIP across their network. They were the only mobile operator to do that then.

Latterly, we have Orange, who are well known for their intensive branding of handsets, that have crippled Android's native GTalk functionality in favour of their own network's IM technology.
Orange have crippled gtalk on their branded version of the HTC Desire. They have replaced it with their own branded MSN messenger. The main problem is that gtalk is a key part of the o/s - so when you click to IM someone on maps, email, contacts etc it just doesn't work on the Orange branded version. They have not done this on previous android devices, so I'm not sure why they have started now, it seems ill thought through. Gtalk and MSN messenger use different accounts so you cannot use your google credentials on MSN messenger. MSN messenger is not integrated to the OS (as gtalk is) so a lot of functionality breaks on the phone.

URL: http://www.adambowie.com/weblog/archive/002925.html

I use the above as an illustration of how intensive and clumsy branding actually ruins the customer's experience of the handset. That, in turn, reflects badly on the operator also.

Alternatives are available
Of course, there is absolutely no technological reason for branding to be applied. It is entirely to do with marketing and brand persistence. You can probably blame the operator's marketing team for influencing this bad practise. Its not as if the customer is unaware who the service is supplied by - the branding on the monthly bill is obvious enough.

One sensible alternative is to leave the handset alone, as the manufacturer intended it, and supply it without branding. Some operators do this initially to get the latest handset models out into their customers hands. But later they sell branded models of the same handsets.

Another is to perform some very lightweight branding - entirely cosmetic - such as setting the browser Homepage and perhaps dropping icon links to specific URLs in the operator's network. These could, for example, install the operator's own apps - I'm thinking here of the likes of Vodafone's 360 apps.

The ideal - Soft Branding
This is my idea - I claim all IP rights to it :)

Soft Branding should become a global industry standard. What this involves is the capability of a handset to brand itself to the network who's SIM is inserted into the device. This means that, for unlocked or SIM-free handsets, the device is able to accept the branding of the particular operator over the air (OTA). There would, in effect, be a complete decoupling of operator branding from OS version updates. A true win-win situation all round.

There are so many benefits to Soft Branding that apply not only to the customer but also to the network operator. For example;

No delay to OS updates. Android OTA updates are delayed variously by operator branding. So you have the situation of customers waiting for the operator branding to be completed successfully before being able to make use of the latest version of the OS. It promotes bad feeling and confusion.
The branding follows the network - no longer do you have the situation of an unlocked handset carrying the branding of its original network to the 'new' network.
Avoidance of crippling - Orange won't like this - being Soft Branding should mandate that the OS is not crippled in any way by the branding. Currently, the only OS that gets away with this is iOS. It should be a universal law.
Happier customers - who are then able to make the optimal use of their handset on the network of their choice. Happy customers mean happy network operators.
Easier repairs - should something go wrong the handset can easily be reset to factory state and the entire Soft Branding be re-applied through the re-instance procedure.


There are no doubt other benefits, to customer and operator, that I have not considered here. This is just to get the topic started. But for sure, if manufacturers and mobile network operators collaborated on creating such a Soft Branding API for devices the very many problems and issues we witness today will be a thing of the past.

Think about it. Soft Branding, it makes perfect sense (if we are to have branding at all).

[Ben]

Of course, the purpose of current levels of heavy-handed branding isn't to provide any benefit to the customer at all; it's solely to increase operator revenue, one way or another.

Some operators, Orange and Vodafone perhaps, may even look to branding as being part of the locking package - tying the customer so deeply to the network that they find it difficult to switch, especially if they're planning on taking their device, which they paid for, with them.

There's also an element of spitefulness. Orange may not garner revenue from an IM service directly, but what it does do is deprive Google of a 'way in', a chance at a relationship with a customer that Orange has 'paid for' (despite the fact that, one would assume, mobile networks tend to make a profit on each device sold). The networks, in the UK especially, have long made it clear that they believe to own the entire relationship with the customer, and have been very successful in keeping this up with the big exception of the iPhone.

I remember Vodafone rhetoric going back years about owning the customer relationship. It's a mindset that will continue to plague some MNOs regardless of the sense and logic in liberalising devices and participating in a more open market.