Why mobile can bring back the value to the Internet

Andreas Constantinou 3,902 views
Vote This Post DownVote This Post Up +6 rating
 
Loading ... Loading ...

[Mobile payments hold great potential far beyond what we have seen today. Research Director, Andreas Constantinou, looks at why has the Internet lost its value historically and argues that mobile payments stand to bring this lost value back to the Internet]

mobile-plus-internet

The debate over reversing the loss of value in Internet-based media is long standing. Most observers argue that the Internet has disintermediated the traditional distribution channels, including music labels, news publishers and books. In other words, the Internet bulldozed what was previously the long and bumpy silk road between content publishers and content consumers – and at the same time allowed everyone to become a content producer in what Wired aptly called nanopublishing.

At the same time, a more fundamental change has occured. The tsunami of nano and mega content has arrived via the Internet (ie the PC screen), not via the traditional channels like retail stores, music megastores, bookstores, news kiosks or the 7-Eleven across the street. This has had a fundamental impact to the value of the Internet, due to the fact that there is no convenient, ubiquitous payment mechanism to use on the Internet.

Let me explain why. To pay for goods like news, information, music or books you go to a retail store, hand over the cash, get your change back, and presto in the equivalent of two clicks you re’ done. Same with a credit card; hand out your VISA, sign here and walk away. All it takes is two clicks.

On the contrary, to pay for content arriving via the Internet you need 10s of clicks. Take your credit card, type your name, address (30+ clicks), now enter the 16 (s-i-x-t-e-e-n) digits of your card, don’t forget your expiry date (another f-o-u-r digits), oh and your CVC2 number (another t-h-r-e-e digits). Now let me check all this. And oops by the way your password provided doesn’t match so you have to enter all this again. Not to mention: do I trust this website with my credit card details? The sad truth is, that for any small amount, or as much as you ‘d pay for a newspaper, a magazine or a music CD,  60+ clicks are not worth the bother.

In the attention economy of today, each click churns customers. I would argue that its the lack of 1-click, convenient micropayment mechanisms that the Internet lost its value, not ‘pirated’ music, neither the democratisation of publishing. The poor adoption rates of paid-for content incentivised content producers (both the nano- and the mega-) to reduce their price to zero and thus establish a perception that everything accessed on the Internet is free.

Yet people are willing to pay for perceived value, not matter how small. Value can be created through convenience, choice, flexibility or customisation, as long as payment mechanism does not stand in the way.  iTunes, Spotify, and the array of paid-for music sites have combined convenience and choice with effortless payment; Spotify brings in around 35% of the digital music sales in Sweden, while 80% of Spotify users said they stopped filesharing.

So what does mobile have to do with all this?
Here’s the paradox. When applications are freeware or shareware on the Internet, why are people willing to pay $2.5 on average per iPhone application by the bucket-loads bringing Apple’s an estimated $2.4 Billion a year? Why are ringtones costing upwards of $1 when you can Google the same song for free? Why are people willing to pay over 1Euro for texting their vote to the Eurovision song contest or fork out $0.80 for virtual ice cubes on Flirtomatic?

Value exists in mobile, but not because mobile operators still run the game; walled gardens have fallen long ago. It’s because mobile phones offer a 1-click convenient way to pay for goods delivered over the mobile channel; applications, ringtones, competitions and social networking services included. And it’s all charged to your mobile phone bill. How more convenient could that be?

That’s the part where operators proudly claim that they own the downstream billing relationship to the user. But what they seem to ignore, is that they do NOT own the upstream billing relationship to the millions of content providers, nor the millions of goods providers that operator through non-mobile channels (retail, mail-order, web, etc). This is because mobile operators, sitting comfortably in their ivory castles have imposed extortionate revenue shares (typically 30%-60% of total revenues) with upstream content providers that can be justified not in terms of the value they add, but of the near-monopolistic exclusivity on payments charged to the users’ phone bill. Compare this 30-60% commission with the 2%-4% rates that credit cards charge. Mobile operators have so far failed to seize the upstream billing relationship as they only understand the value of the short head (as opposed to the long tail).

How mobile can bring back the value to the Internet
Mobile payments are making a big buzz in the industry, especially in developing countries like many parts of the African continent, where traditional banking infrastructure does not exist and mobiles offer an extremely fast and convenient way to exchange money between individuals in rural areas. But mobile payments have an equally important potential in the developed world, in extending upstream billing to content distributed over the Internet.

The most visible efforts to extend mobile payments to the Internet are those from iTunes, Google Checkout and Paypal (for purchases through an on-device storefront), and recently Amazon Mobile Payments (for purchases via a web page). All of these efforts are quite limited in terms of both their downstream addressable market and their upstream range of content publishers they have so far integrated with.

Mobile operators have a unique and unexploited potential in this game. Think of Internet payments which are authorised by entering your mobile number below the ‘buy now’ button. You get an SMS confirming the amount and the seller, you reply and bingo – in 3-4 ‘clicks’ you ‘re done. Such a payment mechanism is both trusted and ubiquitous. The only element missing from the recipe is reasonable commission rates of the order of 2%-4% charged by credit cards. Indeed, operators can reach where VISA cannot. Vodafone’s Vittorio Colao recently remarked how “mobile accounts are a fantastic payment platform for all digital goods”.

There’s a second, slightly more exotic scenario. Consider that Nokia with near-40% handset market share decides to equip all of its mobile phones with NFC capabiliies (NFC chipsets cost $2-$2.5 today and are expected to drop to $1 in 2013 according to this report). If Nokia decides to invest in deploying PC NFC readers under subsidy to Nokia phone buyers, then it has a chance to become a trusted provider of Internet micropayments. Or as Stefan Constantinescu (a Nokia connoisseur) argues in an open letter, Nokia should invest in creating a wireless payment infrastructure in retail stores starting with western and northern Europe, much like DoCoMo did in Japan.

Whatever the next 2-3 years hold, mobile payments have great potential for bringing back the lost value to the Internet.

Comments welcome as always,

- Andreas
follow me on twitter

07Oct2009
James

I hear you on the Nokia front; however, what they lack is an exisitng recurring billing/monetary relationship with the consumer. THe operators / Paypal / banks have this and this is the larger friction point. For Nokia to succeed it needs to partner with one of the aforementioned groups to quickly drive adoption. Otherwise they will need to invest in some of marketing scheme to incent their users to do so; however, history has told us this doesn’t always work – see google checkout

 
07Oct
Elad

Dozens of tedious clicks can indeed reduce purchase rate, however if you are loyal to a certain store (or a mesh of stores, such as eBay) – then all you have to do is login to your account which already has most of the clicks saved from the time you established the account (that is if you allowed saving credit info).
On the other hand – pay-by-sms is not as easy as it sounds. SMS can be lost (e.g. due to low signal) or delayed (due to network congestions). But the real problem is with security and fraud. Phones must support protection features against malicious use, e.g. when they are lost, stolen or simply unattended.
Another issue I see is with the phone bill that grows as a result of billing for purchases. When users who make small-money purchase decision almost without thinking (much like sending an SMS) will start that notice their monthly bill remembers each and every of these decisions, and that the total sum may be too big, so next time they want to buy a $1 item they will recall it and might think twice before buying. Somewhat like a diet – you eat without notice until one time you meet the scale and discover that you’ve gained some extra kilos and decide to go on a diet :) Combining various bill under single umbrella of your mobile account could trigger a purchase diet.

 
08Oct
Guenter

Brilliant article, but: Africa is NOT just one country…

 
12Oct
Fragkikatos Vagelis

Being already involved in the e-comerse for several years,we would love to be among the very first, offering this sort of payment method to our clients.
So, the sooner the better1

 
12Oct
yanis

Nice review on the current situation.
The problem with payments provided by service providers (like telcos/e-retailers) is that they are not a bank and dont have the processes, experience and will to become one.
The reason for the success of payments based on premium SMS is that it is not used for “advaned/high cost” services.

 
13Oct
Andreas Constantinou

James,

Nokia do lack an existing monetary relationship with the consumer – same as Apple pre-iTunes. Apple makes it difficult to NOT enter your credit card info as part of the iPhone unboxing process; in other words the trick is to get the CC info at the peak of the ‘honeymoon’ experience. Nokia can do the same. Plus Nokia have a very sophisticated, global marketing machine (which btw Nokia considers one of their unique selling points) that can educate consumers about ‘what you can do with your phone’. Finally, they have a stronger consumer brand than Google, so might succeed where Google Checkout failed.

- Andreas

 
13Oct
Andreas Constantinou

Hi Elad,

Right – Amazon have introduced their mobile payment system for people who already have accounts (and CC details) with Amazon. But I would argue this is a very small proportion of the 4B mobile phone user base.

Re: Pay by SMS: agreed, there is no guarantee for 100% delivery of an SMS, but I don’t think it’s a deterent; you send another one. Re: security and fraud: I would ask what’s the percentage of people losing their phone vs losing their CC. Given that people are more attached to their phones (they use it more often), it’s likely to be reported as stolen more easily. Plus the SMS payment system can work by sending you a confirmation code by SMS which you then type into the web page. So even if your phone is lost, the would-be-thief doesn’t know where to enter the confirmation code.

You make a really good point about ‘combining various bill under single umbrella of your mobile account could trigger a purchase diet’. What I think will happen at that point is that you ‘ll get two bills from the operator: one for your mobile/data traffic and another (different colour/style) for your ‘mobile supermarket’ purchases. It’s again a question of consumer perception and educational campaigns towards changing established perceptions.

Andreas

 
13Oct
Andreas Constantinou

Guenter – you are right, I ‘ll fix (embarrassment emoticon) :)

Vageli – we ‘ll let you know, although Greece is not likely to be the country where SMS micropayments are launched :(

- Andreas

 
13Oct
Andreas Constantinou

Yani,

I was proposing that telcos can be transaction gateways like VISA or Google Checkout – banks carry financial risk underwriting liabilities, and that is a different story. Re: success of premium SMS, I would put that down to televoting, competitions and other brand-led campaigns where the customer surplus is high (to not mind paying a premium on an impulse) and the volume of participation is high (so that there are 10s/100s of thousands of users paying so as to offset to large revenue cut eaten by the operator and aggregator(s).

- Andreas

 
13Oct