Mobile content: operators "build" providers, and MTS are turning to i-mode does not face

Sales of so-called "mobile content" - the very sweet cake, with pieces that are actively fighting the independent suppliers. Investments in the project are relatively low, costs of equipment and does negligible. But the real return can be measured in tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars a month, good photo faces of Winnie the Pooh or the exposed portion of the female body can be evaluated not in dozens of rubles.



Television advertising mobile erotica and pornography - even the apotheosis of shamelessness, and, above all, shameless Finance: Get a free video clip, sending SMS-message to the number ... "and a couple of seconds at the bottom of the screen:" The message will cost 3.5 dollar. " Any virtual "services" that are activated doroguschy sending SMS, - the subject of a separate conversation, the topic we will return. Firms and firmochek wishing to drop to this source, more than enough, and the competition in this market flared serious.

Audience of consumers is ambiguous. On the one hand, a little bit advanced user is not too lazy to pick up everything you need in the usual Internet and pour into the phone. In extreme cases, will use for these purposes a modern device with a browser and Mini Opera uvilnet to pay for expensive Wap-traffic. On the other hand, a rather crowded the opposite extreme: a considerable number of users are not able to configure the phone to visit the Wap-resources. And even setting over the air or in the office machine, do not know then what to do with the resulting Wap-reference. Accordingly, the task of the operator - as easy as possible to a potential customer how to download paid content. To teach the basics of setting instead Phone Wap-surfing is possible, but in this case can be inadvertently overdo it, and the client skorenko migrates to the group advanced.

MTS: cooperation and confrontation

Relationship operators with content providers recently was not easy. ARPU for voice services is continuously declining, and operators want more money from additional services. Possible without additional cost, even better - while reducing their own costs. MTS for this question is particularly relevant in light of unanticipated losses from a failed project, apparently i-mode. Below we provide a measure of the edited recording of the interview with Pavel Roitberg, director of the department to develop products and services to MTS. For convenience, the main text of our questions, comments and additions here and below are in italics.

Strategically, we expect growth in ARPU per cent of income from additional services. This trend is typical not only for Russia but for the whole world. Voice ARPU as it shrinks, and ARPU from value-added services is becoming more important. From the perspective of content providers in the short term, we do not expect any losses from the shutdown of small providers. Last (by turnover) 100 content providers provide fewer than half percent of income.In the longer term we expect market growth, the expected growth is caused by improving the quality of services and removing barriers (see below), as well as the launch of the MTS line services: a new Wap-portal (launched in the autumn), "Goodok", DSTK (updated menu MTS -Info), etc. The cost of provision of content we do not plan to increase, but we plan to increase revenue. In the first place by providing new high quality services.

Market structure: there is a client, an operator is the content provider and the owner is. The operator relationship with the client and content provider, the content provider - with the operator and owner. The operator has the right to expect that the selling subscriber content is legal and licensed, that all interests into account holders. At the level of the major players, this model has worked. At the level of new players is different. We, as the operator, there is no direct relationship with copyright holders. We talk with copyright holders, but problems with them should decide the content provider.



The situation that evolved from us. At the moment when we began to study the issue, we had over 200 content providers that connect to us directly, and more than 100 - in the process of signing contracts, approving the terms, testing and connecting. On the other hand, in terms of income, 15 "top" content providers account for almost 70% of income. Next 20 content providers give another 20% of revenues, following 35 - almost 10% of revenue. Really all the rest is three and a small percentage of income. Looking at this situation, one wonders "how to live?". Increase in the number of new players became uncontrollable, literally every day we receive new requests. Our dedicated resources to work with providers reasonably limited, in the absence of income growth to increase the resources we can not, but the number of partner companies is growing. As a result, instead of working together (testing, etc.) with the major providers we connect the new ones. We decided to determine the minimum monthly turnover, which we are interested in working with content providers. If a starting point to the turnover of 10 thousand (dollars) a month, then the number would suit our providers will be about 70 companies. These 70 companies accounted for 97% of financial turnover and this - an indicator.

Working with content providers, staff time "hail" connections were unable to carry out its substantive work. But their main job - it's detailed elaboration of ideas and joint projects with large content providers. People were just "drowned" in the new connections are now changing their focus. Now they will focus on heavy paper with those who are directly connected to us.

There is a unique service, and is selling those same pictures and music. Do I need one hundred and first provider that sells the same pictures? Yes, even if it worked poorly and technical base, and it is unclear whether all the issues resolved with the rights holders. We do not consider special cases where it comes to customer service, for example, agreements with banks. Depending on market behavior, this plank of $ 10.000 may be slightly raised or lowered. We have already sent about 60 letters on the trip, while only companies whose turnover amounts to three thousand a month or less. Probably will send more letters 40. We give time to unwind and do not bother those of us connected less than six months. We offered more content providers to become aggregators. We create an internal rating, and the more revenue provider, the more he gets attention from us. With big companies it is easier to work, and we invite them to take under his wing, those whom we now disable. It is clear that some companies would wither away, but it will be those companies whose business does not make sense anyway. I do not want to say that all small companies provide bad content.I just want to say that the content of a large number of small companies, we can not control.

The same picture with the client's perspective. Percentage of people using the content services, rather small. In order to increase this percentage, we need to remove barriers to growth in the number of users of content. One of the barriers - difficulty. In large measure this is the problem of the operator, and we're working on it. Separate big theme - to set the phones. It is also important to ensure the ease of finding and ordering content. The second issue - quality. Given an order of low-quality content or not getting anything, people will always go to the market. It is this problem is typical for situations with uncontrolled growth in the number of content providers. Large service providers are responsible for the quality of their product and will be responsible for the quality of the content of those small providers, which they take under his wing. We will focus on the promotion of branded services, launching a new Wap-portal. We finished the STK-menu (MTS-Info), in September will start DSTK (dynamic STK-menu).

Do we want the exclusive rights to unique content? Probably not. That the service a few months will be with other operators, we are not very worried. More importantly, anyone, this service will be the first time. That is, exclusivity in the first three months for us is much more interesting than the exclusivity of all. As for i-mode, then this service has nothing to do with unique content. Major service providers have worked together and i-mode, and the usual means of content delivery. Very few providers have worked only with the i-mode. The essence of the i-mode was not in the content, and to simplify service. That is, there is a phone that is already all set up, WAP, MMS, etc., all tested, it works and it is very easy to order. Yes, we can better controlled and selected content, perhaps, in this case the only difference.

According to i-mode and its alternatives. At the moment we are thinking and think what to do next. Range of i-mode phones proved to be quite narrow, and update the model range - too slow. In our opinion, this was the main problem. While i-mode works, and we serve have signed, but we do not encourage new subscribers. I think that by the fall, we finally determined. Options, in the end, it turns out only two: either close the i-mode, or start again actively promoted. Now we will actively promote the new Wap-portal, which will be built slightly different principle. There are specific categories and the ability to choose the right content, not on a "first choose one of the 20 providers. All content will be divided into sections and categories, toys - the toys, etc. Naturally, we believe our new portal for better and more efficient

Regarding the allocation of money received from subscribers for content services. There are two types of services. The first - what we call branded services. This is a Wap-portal, "Goodok", DSTK, additional portals that we're going to run. And there is just to content providers that we do not brendiruem, and content providers to promote themselves. For these services there is a certain scale: from 55% to 72%. It is clear that this ISP does is calculated with the rights holders, and bear the cost of advertising. For branded products, where most of the promotion, we are implementing, where everything is under the MTS brand, and under our precise control, the proportion of the income distribution shifted in favor of MTS on the level of 50% or more.

On the issue of income distribution from Wap-traffic. Scheme in which we work with major providers (70 to 30 percent), we believe the fair. In the future we do not plan to pay the providers of the money for the traffic, but we plan to provide users with Wap-traffic packages at discounted prices. What should they be encouraged to load heavy content. We understand that in some cases the cost of loading the bulk of the product is higher than its price.

Incidentally, the "first swallow" from MTS for the supply GPRS-packet can already be seen on the website operator.While this proposal traffic GPRS-internet and relates to corporate clients, it is possible that individual users will be offered packages GPRS-Wap on similar schemes.

MegaFon-Moscow: Express Interview

Our questions on the topic of changes in the relationship of the operator with content providers is responsible Igor Parfenov, CEO of MegaFon-Moscow.

Approximately, with how many content providers the company operates?

By the time we started some cleaning, there were, in my opinion, more than two hundred. Ie it was not the tens and hundreds of service providers.

What is the financial threshold for content provider, it seems reasonable to you?

Some certain threshold we set for ourselves have not set. But if the monthly turnover of the content provider is a few thousand, then it is worthless and is suspicious. In addition, working with such a provider becomes unprofitable elementary: it is necessary to make out an invoice, the act of netting and a whole slew of other instruments. Yes, even if, God forbid, there will be some discrepancies in the billing works ... a lot of skilled staff and to spend time checking and processing account for a few thousand rubles - this is just ridiculous.

Offhand not remember how many contracts with content providers is the company broke off last year?

The exact figure would not like to call, but we are talking about dozens. In fact, many start to think, and after receiving letters of termination are beginning to be proactive, to advertise, etc.

Whether you're working with aggregators?

Yes, we have such a scheme and encourage providers to offer themselves to unite. We are interested in cooperation with one company.