Nothing Changes with Sunrise New Face and Strategy

Sunrise, the integrated Swiss alternative operator, recently changed its logo and strategy in an attempt to re position itself as the real and only alternative to Swisscom.

It's not the first time, in the last 8 years Sunrise had tried everything to increase its market share and become a real threat to Swisscom and Orange and a major player in the market.

With alternative successes and failures Sunrise has modified several times its prices, services and position in the market achieving only confusion and lack of trust from its customers.

First: Sunrise, do what you do best and don't confuse with different and conflicting messages your customers!

Sunrise's customers are unaware of the differences between the new and the old Sunrise.

Prices models changed, yes, but why?

At the end of the day nothing really changed!

The same basic price plans that diAx introduced 8 years ago, with some variations but - at the end of the day - the same. There is a lack of innovation.

Second: Decide! What is your business like?

Accessing your homepage a mobile phone welcome me. Almost immediately I realize that your strategy is focused only on the mobile market.

I do not see any information on your fixed and broadband businesses; and it takes some time, several clicks, to find them.

I understand that you are not doing lots of money with them, but if you want to be an alternative to Swisscom you should actively bundle, pack and supply your products as communication services. Not as separated products.

Are you shifting the attention of your customers to your core business?

Clever, business-school type strategy, however, in doing this you are now very similar to Orange. Why should customer choose you instead?

Third: Learn from your mistakes and take the best from other markets.

You have the unique opportunity of becoming the 'only' real alternative to Swisscom.

Don't miss it with 'cleaver' top-down strategies, instead try hard to be different, unique!

And actively communicate, every time, your uniqueness.
:-)

Net Neutrality: Who Pays for it?

In the last two days I had the pleasure to meet and discuss with Martin Cave, Director of the Centre for Management under Regulation, Warwick Business School, Coventry. He came to Switzerland to present his views on the economics of the ICT market at the annual Comdays. A must be event of the Swiss ICT industry.

Martin highlighted a contradiction of the Net Neutrality principle. Capacity doesn't come for free. Someone has to pay for extra capacity used for new services and the investments operators do for providing a good QOS.

I personally agree with the basic concept of any-to-any communication of the bit and net neutrality. I also respect the decision of some governments to block inappropriate content, such as porn and offensive material. I personally disagree that providers can decide what kind of services I - customer - can have (e.g. block my Skype or Zatoo packets).

As Martin said, someone has to pay for the 'neutrality'.

I agree with this principle, let's look together what the options are:

- operators, can recover investments from the monthly broadband subscription or from advertising: a mix of paid and advertised support model might be the solution.

- Operators, can charge a premium for valued content (efficient pricing) to recover these costs.

- Service providers (e.g. google) can support the extra costs with a revenue sharing model.

- Finally, governments, communities and philanthropic associations.

I know, it's not so easy to pick the best option. However, we should be aware that we will be confronted with this dilemma soon.

As already argued in this Blog there is another risk, the formation of new bottlenecks from network / content to distribution. The distributor of the 'information' (everything that can be digitized) might be the next real monopolist. See for example, the rights for sport events, such as Euro08!.

More Info:

6. Biel-Bienne Kommunikationstage, 25. / 26.10.2007, im Kongresshaus, Biel

ICT Industry strategic landscape

In the last years in the ICT industry many firms had a strategy focussed on implementing technology, rather than effectively managing resources.

I believe that the industry is now at a new, so-called, transformation point, where the environmental pressures to transform and adapt to the context are not sustainable.

In this case, to evolve and mature I would suggests to integrate all systems and successively manage the resources.

Online advertising and the decline of the broadcasting sector

On 19. September Ofcom, the UK independent regulator and competition authority for communications industries, hosted a briefing to address current and future regulatory issues in the UK broadcasting sector.

What impresses is not not the regulatory agenda, that aims to promote the development of next generation communication services, such as HD TV, but the status of a part of the traditional broadcasting sector.

In particular, the broadcasting sectors is facing new forms of competition from telcos, cable operators and 'search engines'. Competition comes mainly from production of programs and in advertising budget; "launching additional channels has been successful but not enough to offset losses on core channel".

Advertising

Since 12 months ago online advertising agencies, such as Adsense and Doubleclick, did not compete directly with traditional advertising agencies for a share of the advertising market.

What happened?

Traditional advertising agencies did recognize the opportunity of online advertising, but were not able to adapt and transform their value-chains, in particular production and distribution, and corporate strategy to the online world. Combining online and offline advertising would be too destructive to their businesses. As in the 60s TV changed the market, now Internet shifts part of the advertising market to new communication tools that have (for the moment) the exclusive advantage over TVs to be interactive and the response measurable.

The online advertising is already dominated by digital-born firms, Google owns Adsense while Microsoft owns Doubleclick, that have two advantages over traditional advertising agencies to know the technology and the market well. On the other end, advertising agencies can produce unique advertising propositions for Internet as they have the right human assets and capabilities.

Broadcasting companies can reduce competitive pressure by doing what they do best and concentrate on their core capabilities, produce shows and entertainment. Good quality shows will attract advertisers and new interactive technologies will fill the gap between the online and offline broadcasting sector.

This a evolution and not a revolution, don't panic!