If you can improve your billing system in such a way that it can charge
email packets sent to special email addresses (e.g. a shortcode) separately
you are in business. This is event based and you can price the packets at a
premium rate or even more smarter, charge a flat premium rate per email.
You can even use the email subject for SMS-like commands. If you are
interested in more information about such a solution contact me off-line.
Arjen van Blokland
At 23:08 02/10/14 +0200, you wrote:
>I've very much appreciated your long post of Sept 26, and sorry for my late
>answer because I read the keitai list not so often. I'm in charge of i-mode
>future at Bouygues Telecom, the French carrier that has signed with Docomo
>for i-mode in France. We launch in one month, on Nov, 15th. I've a simple
>question for you that might be strategic for us : we also face a very
>interesting move of convergence of SMS and TV, and as you maybe know, TF1,
>the first TV network in France is also own by Bouygues group (our mother
>company). For now, we've decided to apply the I-mode model : volume based
>charging for us and monthly premium content fee that we give back at 86% to
>CP. But we are already asking ourselves (and some CPs asks us) how to
>smoothly introduce in the I-mode business model, a way to protect revenues
>from TV/Radio companies and producers that are making growing revenues and
>margins with SMS and SMS Premium. SMS is definitely not an i-mode
>technology, at it has been noted by other posts, because it is all but
>multimedia. We support SMS in our I-mode phones, but it is completely
>separated from i-HTML and e-mail that are,them, closely linked. We could
>think about using e-mail but it's a little bit more tricky to use this way
>through a TV show ("send an e-mail to tf1_at_imode.fr with your answer to the
>vote ?"). We could use an i-mode site with polling system ("Please go to TF1
>i-mode site, BigBrother menu, and vote") and this would be acceptable. But
>the problem is not there : TV shows are typically event-based (big) revenue
>generating systems. Only a few days in the year are really making a big
>amount of money, this occurs for example in the final day of real TV show.
>The i-mode model (monthly subscription) is not generating more revenue for
>the CP (ie the TV channel or TV Game producer) in those wealthy days. We do
>not want as well to introduce a new business model on top of an already not
>so simple model for the end user (monthly 3? to subscribe to I-mode service
>+ packet charges + monthly premium content). So do you have a suggestion in
>order to as well as help mobile multimedia content usage to take off (and we
>definitely think that I-mode business model is a good one for that) as
>protect revenues of event-based very lucrative charging models for some of
>Thanks for your suggestions.
>Responsable expertise i-mode
>i-mode expertise manager
>+33 1 58 17 98 88
>+33 6 60 31 13 59
>De : keitai-l-bounce_at_appelsiini.net
>[mailto:keitai-l-bounce_at_appelsiini.net]De la part de Mark Frieser
>Envoye : jeudi 26 septembre 2002 15:28
>A : keitai-l_at_appelsiini.net
>Objet : (keitai-l) Re: SMS/mobile Internet/TV
>I think you bring up an excellent point about Europe - and consequently
>about other markets - including the US - by using the example of the success
>of SMS-based polling and games linked to TV, radio and other media, in
>addition to functions like deliver screen savers, ringtones and the like.
>Certainly, in terms of a per-download or per usage basis, Europeans pay far
>more (prices ranging from $0.10 to $10 dollars per usage) for mobile
>entertainment than the Japanese. Moreover, many TV and radio production
>companies have been far more entrepreneurial than their Japanese
>counterparts in finding ways to utilize SMS services to extend the
>interaction with various types of content and services. Shows like Pop Idol
>in the UK and others across Europe regularly find that about 1/2 of their
>total polling is enabled through SMS - and with a per usage charge of around
>$1 - $2 multiplied by millions, have generated significant steady new
>revenue streams as a result.
>There are a wide variety of factors that make the European model so
>successful in driving profits, but the overriding factor is that of content
>providers using SMS as a delivery point for a variety of services with a
>level of independence that Japanese content providers can only dream of.
>Specifically, content providers seized on the opportunity to use SMS short
>codes (codes that can be input to send and ask for delivery of messages,
>content and downloaded applications) to deliver services while the European
>mobile content market was starting to develop. SMS short codes allowed
>European content and application providers to create stand alone billing and
>delivery mechanisms independently of the mobile operators, allowing content
>providers to move faster than they would have on a telco timetable, set
>their own pricing and to create a direct channel with between them and the
>Moreover, in Europe it was the content providers that set cost expectations
>rather than the telcos, tightly tying mobile content options to existing
>content in other mediums, and creating pricing models that were most
>attractive to content providers (almost wholly based on pay per use),
>allowing market competition and the attractiveness of content to ultimately
>determine the relative cost level of mobile content.
>This in turn created a situation, unique to Europe (at present) where the
>content providers (rightly) dominate the pricing, promotion and development
>of the mobile content market. Using SMS rather than WAP (which the mobile
>operators will admit was a disaster of their own making) as an entry point
>for their services, the content providers circumvented the telcos to connect
>directly with the consumer, hence creating a new market for services.
>Of course, all major content providers also work in consort with the telcos
>concurrent with their independent efforts, but their development of the
>content market has given them a power in the mobile content market that is
>the envy of content developers outside of Europe.
>The same holds true in other GSM-based markets such as Australia and
>Singapore, though to a lesser degree.
>All well and good, but the question is, how much of this model's success can
>be repeated in the US and Japanese markets?
>In Japan, obviously, the system for the development and dissemination of
>content is much more tightly controlled by the mobile operators, and the
>model for the most part is packet-switched charges split between content
>provider and telco, with a good degree of premium rate and subscription
>services in the mix.
>And, as the content providers rely to a much greater degree on the standards
>and expectations set by the telcos for pricing and billing for services,
>they make a much smaller degree per item sold of profit, and on the whole do
>not control the ultimate pricing of services (e.g., one of the main
>complaints of content providers - this comes straight a conversation I had
>recently with the largest business information provider in Japan - is that
>DoCoMo, KDDI and J-Phone do not allow a flexible enough content pricing
>model to justify the development and dissemination of their highest quality
>- and hence, most attractive - content for mobile users) as in the case in
>Of course, the whole idea in Japan is that you make back what you lose on a
>per unit basis relative to Europe in terms of greater volume, and to some
>degree this is certainly true, but at the end of the day, the fact that
>Japanese content providers do not control the process of distribution and
>cannot set attractive pricing results in a more conservative attitude.
>After all, if you cannot set what you feel is the ultimate best price for
>your services, will you risk your brand and investment money in creating
>mobile services that truly tie into your offline content? It's must harder
>Personally, I think that all the talk regarding the desire on the part of
>Japanese content providers to avoid the risk of server overcapacity is a
>polite excuse that masks the actual reality that it does note make economic
>sense to risk their offline revenue and brands by tying them more tightly to
>Please don't misunderstand me, I think that the Japanese model works well in
>many ways, and that there are many, many successful efforts tying Japanese
>content to mobile platforms, but in comparison to Europe, there is much less
>convergence between mobile and offline media.
>So, to finish this letter what your last point, will the European model
>translate to the US? On a business level, I certainly hope so, but the
>actual reality is somewhat unclear. As opposed to Europe, there are three
>bad early indicators that have taken shape in the US market that were absent
>in Europe (leaving aside cultural factors for the moment) that could make
>the establishment of a European-flavored content market more difficult:
>1. Telcos have more tight control of pricing models and billing methods.
>In the US, the telcos have defined early the pricing models for the US
>consumer for ringtones, logos and interactive SMS at a much lower and less
>attractive rate (about $1-$2 for ringtones and logos and much lower for SMS
>messages - offering flat rate instead of per usage plans for the most part)
>to the content provider than in Europe.
>By setting these price expectations early, they deflate the market's
>potential value for services, making it harder for content providers to
>maximize profit for their services.
>Moreover, US telcos are only now starting to adopt European and Japanese
>pricing models for content - where the content provider rightly receives the
>majority (70% and higher) of revenue for their services.
>2. There are too many types of confusing billing and payment schemes in the
>US market. Between BREW, SMS, WAP, J2ME and others, US telcos are trying to
>define a pricing model based on pay per use, download, flat fee and timed
>use that at present is confusing and hence less attractive to both users and
>content providers than a standardized pay per use or packet-switched model.
>And, while they have time to experiment with the right mix, that window is
>rapidly closing as the consumer starts to use mobile content services,
>receives confusing billing statements and receives what are at present a
>widely-fluctuating quality of services.
>And in terms of pricing and billing models as they affect the content
>provider's thinking, most content providers with the best content still
>think that the market is too early and uncontrollable to justify tying their
>brands to mobile services, making small experiments while waiting for the
>market to evolve for the most part, and saving most of their best content
>for a more mature market.
>3. As the US market has little or no usage of 900 services outside of porn
>- and chargeback rates of more than 60% for 900 in general, and SMS short
>codes for services have yet to be defined and standardized, content
>providers do not have a easy and ready way to charge for their services
>outside of the mobile operators. In Europe, content owners can circumvent
>the billing systems of European operators via the usage of both premium rate
>SMS and "0900" billing systems that are more independent of the mobile
>operators than in the US and Japan.
>There are many other factors that go into the development of the US market.
>At the end of the day, the shape of the business models and services
>provided will mirror both those of Japan and Europe as the market grows and
>content providers find ways to deliver their content for maximum profit. And
>indeed SMS will be used (especially once short codes for premium SMS
>services are standardized) as a crucial delivery system for mobile content
>in the US as in Europe, though on the whole, at this point, the telcos have
>a much tighter control of the marketplace and content providers are more
>beholden at present to the mobile operators in terms of defining business
>models, pricing structures and delivery methods.
>+1 917 664 1606
>Subscribe to the globalwireless mailing list for the latest information on
>mobile devices, applications, services, content and applications from Asia,
>Europe and North America.
>To subscribe, send a note to globalwireless-subscribe_at_yahoogroups.com
>On 25-09-2002 22:28, "Funk" <funk_at_rieb.kobe-u.ac.jp> wrote:
> > Hello everyone,
> > Having talked with many Japanese TV and radio broadcasters about their
> > integration of mobile Internet services and TV/radio programs I assumed
> > that Japan was light-years ahead of the rest of the world. But a report on
> > a recent seminar in amsterdam called "SMS meets TV" suggests otherwise
> > (http://www.europemedia.net/showfeature.asp?ArticleID=12767). European TV
> > stations are using SMS to offer chat services, do surveys, promote
> > interactive TV, and increase viewer ratings. Most Japanese TV stations (as
> > far as I know) are still moving very slowly to offer surveys due to
> > concerns about overloading their systems. On a wider note, this is just
> > more example of how the success of Japan's mobile Internet has little to
> > with culture; in fact the amounts of money that europeans pay to download
> > ringing tones, screen savers, and now participate in TV station-sponsored
> > services suggests that europeans may be more interested than japanese in
> > these services. it is probably just a matter of time before similar things
> > appear in the US as SMS services continue to diffuse there.
> > cheers,
> > jeff funk
> > http://www.rieb.kobe-u.ac.jp/~funk/index.html
> > This mail was sent to address mark_at_consect.com
> > Need archives? How to unsubscribe? http://www.appelsiini.net/keitai-l/
>This mail was sent to address cedric.nicolas_at_helo.biz
>Need archives? How to unsubscribe? http://www.appelsiini.net/keitai-l/
>This mail was sent to address ab_at_tkk.att.ne.jp
>Need archives? How to unsubscribe? http://www.appelsiini.net/keitai-l/
Received on Tue Oct 15 21:25:40 2002