This is very irritating and so customer unfriendly .. I wanted to see a document from Ovum(I found the title through Google). After a fairly long registration process, which included giving my address, whether I was an ‘incumbent telecom operator’ or a ‘new entrant’ – I finally find that the document is a part of their paid subscription!

(If I had known it was a paid document, I would not have signed up for it in the first place)

Not very customer friendly .. and now I guess I am stuck for life with emails from Ovum!

By Tony Fish

Tony fish, co-author of Mobile Web 2.0

Source: Tony Fish on etribes

This Viewpoint focuses on where value is being created. As professionals and industry leaders we understand that market development through the integration of mobile, TV and web creates possibilities and complexity. Whilst it is evident that new interactive and customer engaging services can be created, without the enormous development costs of pre-Internet days; where our limited resources should be focused is still a significant concern. Balancing risk and reward is as much an executive skill today as at any time in corporate history.

With the attention of the world press, Apple has launched the iPhone, however, the iphone doesn’t create additional value for the device and telecoms market. Apple sells devices at the expense of Nokia and Motorola, AT&T acquires additional subscribers from competitors by forced churn, but these activities don’t grow the market. Apple and its global telecom partners hope that through personalization, the newly acquired customers will not churn again, therefore retaining value for themselves through the introduction of a new device (and its children); but no new incremental market value has been created.

The WHAT principle

The focus of today’s services is personalization – the making of your user experience, creating value from the reduction in churn and incremental service revenue, assuming that any incremental margin is not eroded by competitive pressures. The focus on personalization is, to AMF Ventures understanding, a focus on WHAT:– what you as a user want to do; what service you want; what is needed now. The sole benefactor is the individual, but does this create any value? The assumption is that personalization provides focus, and that this focus leads to the ability to deliver engaging and personalized services including advertising. This advertising being derived from the same advertising budgets, which is now redirected from other display channels. Therefore does personalization actually create any new value and will it actually grow the overall spend of the entire market?

Commentators, consultants and media sellers will provide convincing evidence to back their own propositions and the purpose of this Viewpoint is not to debate the personalization opportunity but to introduce the WHO effect. Whilst personalization will increase value for the provider; assuming that there is value for the user, it does not itself create new value for the entire converged industries. However mobile personalization could create value, if the focus is on WHO and not WHAT!

The WHO effect

Personalization has been about the WHAT principle. This has focused on a single customer: ‘you’. The WHO effect is the multiplier. The focus shifts from WHAT, to orientate on WHO you are doing something with. In simple terms when you go for dinner, who are you with? When you are in a business meeting or seminar, who are you with? When you are at a concert, in school, or on holiday – who are you with? The opportunity is that these ‘WHO’s’ are gravitating toward and enjoying the same experiences as ‘you’. The additional profiles of those who you are with, can combine to create a new and incremental market value!

Consider the advertising issue created through personalization, it reaches you – one person in two billion. The world is divided into two billion personalized worlds, only relevant to one person at any given time, and each person with an unequal bite of the advertising spend! The WHO effect would suggest that as you are enjoying something with others, even though it is outside of their personalized preference, it is possible that it would be worth providing information on products and services to the group. The WHO effect is the electronic ‘word of mouth’. It assumes and depends on the fact that we adopt at different rates and some not at all. These issues provide the limitation to personalization and the WHAT principle, but opportunity to the WHO effect.

This WHO effect is not open to the traditional broadcast, TV and entertainment companies, although they are the traditional home of the display advertising budgets. This service could be offered by Web companies, however as your profile and personalization has a dependency on your web access time, it could be difficult. The major benefactor of the WHO effect will be mobile companies as the mobile device becomes the platform to collect data, interrupt the connection and deliver the value.

The opportunity to exploit the WHO effect is not open to companies who want to ‘control’ the user experience and developer environment such as Apple, they can only enjoy the WHAT principle. Open mobile platforms, open access services and developers who services work across all devices will be able to exploit the WHO effect. The multiplier value of mobile is not in knowing WHAT you are doing (location and attention), but WHO you are doing it with; surely the outcome is WHO Google buys and not WHAT!

Development of ‘Mobile Web 2.0’ thinking and debate by Tony Fish.

Tony Fish can be reached at tony.fish at amventures.com

I will be away on holiday for the rest of this week in Switzerland. Will be back early next week onwards ..

I meant to blog this before, Carphone warehouse has published a free report called Mobile Life. on the impact of the mobile phone in our daily lives. Well worth a read. Fast becoming an industry standard

This is true Carterphone principle ! Very interesting!

From Yahoo news:

>>>>

You buy a cell phone, load any software you want on it, then choose your carrier. This vision of expanded consumer choices in the wireless world might be a little closer today than it has ever been, especially with reports that the chair of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is circulating an “open platform” proposal for the upcoming auction of the 700-MHz band.

FCC Chair Kevin Martin told USA Today on Monday that “whoever wins this spectrum” will have to provide a “truly open broadband network — one that will open the door to a lot of innovative services to the consumer.”

He said an open network would mean a consumer could “use any wireless device and download any mobile broadband application, with no restrictions,” except for illegal or malicious software. USA Today and other news outlets are reporting that Martin has sent or is about to send a draft proposal to his fellow commissioners.

Martin noted that, in some other countries, consumers usually take their unlocked devices with them when they change carriers, as opposed to in the U.S., where cell phones typically are locked for use only on a given carrier’s network.

Google Applauds Martin

Writing Tuesday on its public policy blog, Google Telecom and Media Counsel Richard Whitt applauded the reports of Martin’s proposal. Whitt, hired by Google a few months ago, formerly headed up MCI’s regulatory department.

Google, which said it has not decided whether it will participate in the auction, sent a letter to the FCC on Monday, according to Whitt, urging that winning bidders be required to adopt several types of “open platforms.”

A key part of open platforms, Google contends, is that consumers would be able to use any combination of devices, software applications, content, or services. In addition, the company maintains, resellers should be able “to acquire wireless services from a 700-MHz licensee on a wholesale basis,” and ISPs should be able to interconnect “at a technically feasible point” to a 700-MHz licensee’s wireless network.

However, Current Analysis analyst Bill Ho identified potential issues with these ideas, notingthat interconnection and the use of any device could require some uniform or encompassing technological standards, rather than the competing standards that now exist.

Gearing Up for Epic Sale

The auction for bandwidth, scheduled for later this year, is gearing up to be epic. The sale will include spectrum in the 700-MHz band that has been used for analog television since the beginning of that medium, as U.S. TV is going completely digital by mid-2009.

The 700-MHz spectrum is particularly valuable because it penetrates walls and various obstacles more effectively than other frequencies, and the FCC is now developing the rules for the auction.

A 108-MHz block of bandwidth will become available after the analog TV stations complete their transition. Of that 108 MHz, 60 MHz will be auctioned in January 2008, public safety officials will receive 24 MHz, and 24 MHz already has been sold.

Estimates indicate that the auction could yield $20 to $30 billion for the government

<<<<

Source: New Rules Could Change Wireless Forever

I feel strongly about this because technology is the one way in which we can spread democracy and good governance at a grass roots level! So, it’s a ‘wider’ aspect of ‘Open Gardens’ i.e. Open societies!

Compared to the refreshing approach by the European parliament and also Senator Barrack and others, it is indeed strange to see Japan taking this stance.

I have always believed that both Japan and Korea have structural flaws in their society that need to be revised / modernised.

In that sense, the West is a far better place in the long run for the growth of technology and indeed Japan and Korea should learn much from the West in terms of Open societies.

Note that all this is motivated by ‘treating politicians with respect’ i.e.

>>>

Here in Japan, it is seen as important to treat politicians with respect. But such is the deference paid to them; it is hard for anyone to challenge them to try new ways to make the political system better.<<<

But that just impedes the growth of society, maintains existing cartels and fiefdoms.

This is indeed a backward step for Japan!

from the BBC

>>>

Surprisingly, in a country with some of the fastest broadband speeds and a wide internet penetration, it is now illegal for candidates to create new websites or update existing web pages between now and election day, 29 July

<<<

Japan’s old-fashioned campaigning

By Chris Hogg

BBC News, Tokyo

This Japanese politician’s office in Second Life is closed temporarily

Now the campaign for the upper house election in Japan has started, tough rules on how politicians can canvas for votes have come into force.

Surprisingly, in a country with some of the fastest broadband speeds and a wide internet penetration, it is now illegal for candidates to create new websites or update existing web pages between now and election day, 29 July.

So instead, the loudspeaker vans are out on the streets again. The candidates sit inside, waving regally wearing white gloves, smiling and politely asking for votes.

Prof Phil Deans, who works at Temple University in Tokyo, describes it as “almost a throwback to the 1950s”.

“Cars with speakers on the roof, the use of posters, leafleting, and the almost complete absence of electronic media to communicate political messages, is one of the most startling things about the way elections are conducted here,” he says.

Kan Suzuki wants to change all that. He is a lawmaker who wants to modernise the way elections are fought here.

In my constituency, I can only distribute enough [leaflets] for 3% of voters

Kan Suzuki

He has built an office in Second Life, the virtual world where you can work, play and interact with others.

Here, he says, he can get his message out to people who do not normally listen to politicians.

But now that the campaign has started, he has had to close the office temporarily.

“Basically, the election law was drawn up in the 1950s,” he says.

He is also critical of another old-fashioned rule, limiting the number of posters and leaflets that a candidate can give out.

“In my constituency, I can only distribute enough for 3% of voters to get a leaflet from my party. So 97% of voters can’t. How can I reach them?”

Little support

Usually Japan allows its politicians to use the internet to communicate with voters.

But as soon as an election campaign starts – the time when you might well think you would really want to communicate with them – the use of electronic media for campaigning is banned.

Instead it is on the traditional media where politicians hold court – for instance, on ponderous political TV discussion shows that sometimes look like they have not changed in 20 years.

YouTube is more casual… but if the government or any politicians are on the web it doesn’t feel right

Kentaro Shimano, student

Prof Yasunori Sone, a political analyst from Keio University in Tokyo, says Japanese election law is very strict.

“There are many rules and prohibitions. But many parties want a strict law to contain other parties’ political activities,” he says.

“Some of us are trying to get the law changed. But the number of supporters for a change in the law is very small.”

One group you would think would be keen to see the internet used in campaigning is young voters.

In Japan, 95% of people in their 20s surf the web, but only a third of them bother to vote.

Some, though, do not seem keen on politicians using the web to try to win their support.

“I believe that internet resources are not very official,” says Kentaro Shimano, a student at Temple University in Tokyo.

“YouTube is more casual; you watch music videos or funny videos on it, but if the government or any politicians are on the web it doesn’t feel right.”

Haruka Konishi agrees.

“Japanese politics is something really serious,” she says. “Young people shouldn’t be involved, I guess because they’re not serious enough or they don’t have the education.”

There cannot be many places in the world where students feel their views should not count. Perhaps it is really a reflection of the reality – that they do not.

Here in Japan, it is seen as important to treat politicians with respect.

But such is the deference paid to them, it is hard for anyone to challenge them to try new ways to make the political system better.

Tomi Ahonen is very upset and has a long blog about this issue : For industry accused of arrogance, pinnacle of conceit: Customer comes last at Sprint Nextel

Tomi says ..

>>>

CNN has just a few moment ago reported that Sprint Nextel, in its infinite wisdom, has sent 1,000 of its customers a letter informing them that because they have placed too many calls to the calling center asking for help or complaining about the Sprint/Nextel services, they are terminating the customer relationship.

Sprint Nextel must immediately apologize and invite all cancelled customers to return. We cannot allow ANY business to arbitrarily punish customers who call the calling center “too much above the average”

Shame on you Sprint Nextel ! This will go down as the most moronic marketing move by any company ever, worse than New Coke. The Marketing Management at Sprint Nextel better offer their resignations and the CEO better accept them. This is shameful for the whole profession of marketing, not just wireless telecoms.

We will monitor this story and report on its developments. I will dig up Sprint Nextel’s CMO name etc next. But all of you, please join us, blog about this now and condemn this abusive action. No company can get away with this. Not in this new age when Communities Dominate.

<<<

The report is HERE

The report says that Sprint ‘needed to cull its customer base to improve services’.

It is always good to see a British company get funding .. And better still when it is founded by one of my friends .. I have a lot of respect for Luke Razzell’s views and last week, Luke’s startup got seed round funding. My compliments to Luke and his team. Watch this space.