Most Precious Mobile Operator Brands

And the winner is... China Mobile. Hard to guess, huh? Some research shows that the Chinese carrier's brand is worth $30.79bn. Vodafone and Verizon took the other spots on the podium. The top 10 is below (courtesy of the good folks at telecoms.com). And for some (by now a little outdated) comparison for how they rank amongst other industries, see here.

The study applies a royalty based on forecast of sales, brand strength (from qualitative panel data) which priced in market share, growth, price positioning, market scope, preference, awareness, relevance, heritage and perception. They complement these slightly fluffy markers with data on turnover, subs, churn, market share, ARPU, profitability, etc and then took the average score of the two to determine the royalty rate applicable. Apply tax and (low) discount rate and off you go. Pretty simple, isn't it? And, yes, I still think Cingular was cooler than AT&T... ;-)

China Mobile	China Mobile	China	Asia	30,793
2	Vodafone	Vodafone	UK	Europe	22,131
3	Verizon	Verizon Communications	US	North America	20,382
4	AT&T	AT&T	US	North America	18,886
5	T-Mobile	Deutsche Telekom	Germany	Europe	16,802
6	Orange	France Telecom	France	Europe	15,489
7	NTT DoCoMo	NTT DoCoMo	Japan	Asia	14,871
8	KDDI	KDDI Corp.	Japan	Asia	14,454
9	Movistar	Telefonica	Spain	Europe	10,799
10	Sprint	Sprint Nextel	US	North America	9,661

Juniper to the Rescue...

We can depend on the researchers from Juniper after all (or maybe they simply felt bad after reading my post on their last report). Whichever the reason, apparently the mobile content industry could be worth a hefty $167bn (!) if - yes, if - the operators would resolve to allowing a workable commercial environment, namely by limiting themselves to lower revenue shares. Whatever the caveats (which are, as usual, hidden in the expensive main report) this number is topping even the loftiest predictions to date; right on in times of the doom and gloom. The key apparently lies in whether operators would act as dumb pipes (no richness for anyone) or a smart pipe (lots of play money for all players on the value chain). In their own words:

"If MNOs are to benefit financially, they need to move away from their Dumb Pipe roots to the Smart Pipe model, though they will clash with the content providers which already dominate the Smart Pipe. A compromise needs to be found."

A smart pipe is understood as one where operators would offer flexible, application-centric value configurations, allowing lean, efficient content offerings from third parties. A dumb pipe is one where content (and value) would merely rush through the pipe without any value being added by the operator. The prevailing model in the mobile games world, namely the on-portal approach where operators implement comprehensive vertically-integrated models ("walled gardens") is suggested to be somewhat doomed as content providers would gain bargaining power (presumably through consolidation of the supply side plus entry of meatier traditional media players in music, video and TV).

This is all pretty speculative though, and without some background it is quite frankly impossible to analyse the numbers some more. Mobile content appears to include (as per their report from March) games, music, video, TV, social networking, adult content, gambling and so on, and so forth. However, the exact calculatory basis is again hidden in the depths of the report, so I don't know (do they e.g. take the gross gambling revenue or on;y the rake, which is only a few percentage points of the former). Anyhow, due to these foggy conditions, commentators seem to either merely re-print the PR blurb or mock it (Stuart Dredge thinks that "only gas could do that kind of money"), which is a shame really; just think what you could with this much money...

How many handsets does a game need to support?

GDC Mobile co-founder and, I am honoured to say, my good friend Robert Tercek, came out with all guns blazing against the carriers' demand for maximum handset coverage for mobile games that they allow to publish through their deck. Tercek called it a "lie" that operators basically insinuate that a game will run equally well on every handset, and he called mobile games publishers hypocrites as they moaned and whined about it but still play ball... Well, what else are they to do? Stop publishing games?

Since I still work in this industry, I would not perhaps put it that harshly as Rob did but the question is indeed if the network operators' rationale ("we need to provide for the best possible user experience for every one of our users") stands true when it comes to this. After all: if you offer a full music track for download, your phone needs to be able to support MP3; an old battered brick that only plays monophonic ringtones won't do. To put it into slightly starker contrast still: it would be like an ISP would prevent a web publisher from putting a site live only because there are a lot of PCs out there that do not have the right software support. Or if the Germans would not allow any car to be imported into Germany unless its engine software was geared to allowing a top speed of min 200 mph because otherwise the user could be disappointed with the driving experience on the Autobahn.

Is the assumption that someone who has an old T610 would actually expect to be able to play a modern-day 3D racing game on his battered old handset really correct? If I drive a 10-year-old little Twingo, I know that I will not go 200 mph, Autobahn or not. And I will certainly not blame it on the operator of those roads.

If I want Vista Premium or Leopard, I need the machine to support it. And that is an informed decision I need to make. The operators' approach may have been understandable a few years ago: mobile was a very, very new platform and people had not actually got round to the idea that one could actually do more with one's mobile phone than making phone calls when away from a fixed-line phone. However, this has changed very quickly very much: even my 80-year-old neighbours now communicate via SMS with their kin. I believe it is safe to assume that the consumers of the year 2008 can very well distinguish between a low-end and a high-end phone and will actually appreciate the difference in performance without blaming their operator for a sub-par one when their phone happens to be a sub-par one. Time for change then, folks!

The constraints of having to support hundreds of handsets impacts the mobile games sector manifold: it makes it prohibitively expensive to develop and publish games with porting costs often being equal or even higher than the actual development. The effect is less innovation (how can you dare trying something new if you have to expend so much money before you even get it in front of a consumer?) but also less usage: it is often more of the same as developers try to minimize their cost by re-using engines (Gameloft has used the same basic side-scrolling engine for at least 20 games to date; highly polished and constantly evolving though, to be perfectly fair to them) and running risk-averse design philosophies where they try to stay as close to a proven hit as possible. This will however not drive consumers to get back for more.

I am however doubtful if operators will come to terms with this in the near term, and, let's face it, they are not the originators of this platform mess: isn't it more often the handset manufacturers that fiddle around with screen sizes that differ for more or less every device, that take great pride in running a gazillion different operating systems only to be slightly different to the other guy, that allocate soft keys rather randomly and occasionally swap the green and red call/end call keys from one side of the keypad to the other? Just imagine this last bit on a computer keyboard: is now on your left... try get going with that... Add to that the - yes, they're here still - operators and their specific demands for this, that and the other, and the fragmentation does indeed create an economic landscape that is very hard to navigate.

This is one to the OEMs and the operators alike: get down to business, compete on the strengths of your devices and services and not on some OS and other software tweaks where the upside to the consumer is, if distinguishable at all, minimal.

In the interim, it would indeed be upon the operators to start trusting the good judgment of their customers in the hardware they hold in their hands better and start dropping those old devices from their requirements that will manage to screw up even the best game.

The prosecution rests... ;-)

Vodafone loses brand value

Vodafone has lost 12% of its brand's value, which is now "only" worth some $21 bn, says brand experts MillwardBrown. It's brand value is dwarfed by China Mobile with a cool $41 bn, which makes it #1 amongst telecoms and #5 amongst all brands.

Who holds #1? Google (tempted to say "of course") - the brand is valued at $66 bn and it recorded the highest value rise over the last year with 77%.

In telecoms, a notable mention must be Cingular, a brand that is being eliminated, which added 39% (the third highest climb overall) in value in 2006 and slots in as the 6th most valuable telecoms brand with AT&T, the brand that will replace it, nowhere in sight...