But waiter, please, I did not order this (SMS)...

Now, this has been puzzling me for years: the US carrier policy (I am not sure how many still do it) of charging the recipient of a text message for that message. How odd is that? You sit in a restaurant, the waiter brings you a bottle of wine that you did not order. You do not drink the wine (because you did not order it and you do not like wine) but you are being charged nonetheless. There is even a bolder version of this: the same waiter works for a winery, and they send you that bottle as a marketing trick, say to lure you into booking travel to the Loire wine region. Yet again: you did not order it, you did not drink it, they charge you. No, you say, this is surely not possible. And I agree.

However, the US arm of T-Mobile (and I am sure others before them) is doing just that: if users that do not hold a special data plan (something like a don't-pay-for-wine-you-did-not-order-plan) are being charged for every SMS they receive, be it your teenage son telling you that he didn't make it [home/to school/to your appointment 3 hours ago], be it your partner announcing that he/she is on the tube and will be home in 10 minutes or be it the tourism authority of the Loire region working hard on improving travel to their area - you pay.

This now seems to backfire as there has been a class action filed against T-Mobile US seeking redress for exactly that. According to the report about it, "the plaintiffs allege T-Mobile USA’s texting policy violates federal telecom law and Washington state’s consumer protection-unfair business practices act" but, quite frankly, I would have thought it would also violate a string of other, more mundane laws about contracts and invalidity of coercive business practices, etc. Unfortunately for all of us who like to drool over those incredible sums in US law suits, "the suit did not contain a dollar figure for alleged damages."

It is about time that this stops: it estranges your customers, it provides for horrendous customer experience, and, really they shouldn't say they didn't see it coming...

SendMe off portal: adding buzz (or rather mbuzzy)

The fine folks from SF-based SendMe Mobile have acquired mbuzzy, the latter allegedly being the "first US off-portal community" (it always is in the definition of the terms, I guess). Whatever the marketing spin might be, it is impressive how the small start-up seems to assert itself into the US mobile content market. They had recently announced a deal to distribute Glu Mobile's games and have also closed deals with Sony Pictures and UK game aggregator Telcogames.

mbuzzy has more than half a million mobile users who have downloaded over 15 million pieces of videos, wallpapers and ringtones (they don't call it personalization, which would be uncool as others stop that offering altogether but social media instead) to their mobile phones. It allows sharing of content and consumption both on your mobile and the PC. Pretty much up to scratch then. They will add the viral element to SendMe's content offering, which is effectively a mix of generally available hit games, imagery and music and simple text-based trivia games. They also run SoLow.com, a reverse auction site.

It is good to see that there does seem to be a market outside the carrier decks in the US after all. After the recent announcements (here and here) from Jamba/Jamster and Zingy/Vindigo, one could have started to doubt: Jamba is rumoured to re-focus on Europe (perhaps surprising after their Simpsons coup) whilst Zingy announced a name change and the closing of its personalization business. However, it seems to be the content mix that makes it. If the viral mbuzzy guys leverage that further, even better. Rock on, SendMe!

US ringtone sales down: Novelty wearing off? Nah!

Broadcast Music (BMI) projects that U.S. ringtone sales will dip to $550m in retail sales in 2007, down US$50 million from calendar year 2006.

Here's why according to BMI: "We believe that the ringtone market's growth has leveled off and the novelty phase has ended." You can read more of it here

I do not think this explanation is accurate. I suspect that it is not novelty wearing off but the kids and technology smartening up: 1) phones and computers often come equipped with Bluetooth now, 2) new phones usually are MP3-capable. The kids have figured out how to transfer their favourite tunes to their phones via Bluetooth.

This might result in sub-optimal loops being cut (i.e. the tones not rolling as nicely as a ringtone as a professionally-made one might) but on $1.99 saving per tone (when the full track costs you a mere $0.99 on iTunes), that is a no-brainer. Also: with programmes like Garage band et al, every kid can cut loops into MP3s, too.

This last bit is perhaps the one that killed it off: if a product is unique in that it is defensible against similar products on other media, pricing is not under direct pressure as it is not directly comparable (e.g. monophonic ringtones and recorded music). If it becomes comparable (e.g. MP3's on mobile phones vs. iTunes), there has to be something special justifying a higher price-point. The higher the difference in pricing, the better that USP has to be. 20-second loop cut by a pro? Not good enough...

Conclusion? Bad piece of pricing policy and marketing, I would suggest. Elementary, isn't it? You've screwed up your own market, folks...