How to pay for news?

19 MARCH 2009 VRIJE UNIVERSITEIT BRUSSEL PA¥ING FOR N€W$ INTERACTIVE WORKSHOP ON FLEMISH E-PUBLISHING TRENDS

AGENDA

13H20 – 13H50 SESSION 1: HOW TO PAY FOR NEWS? (Valérie-Anne Bleyen and Leo Van Hove, Vrije Universiteit Brussel) 13H50 – 14H15 COMMENTS & GROUP DISCUSSION MODERATED BY DAVE BIRCH (Director of Consult Hyperion) 14H15 – 14H45 SESSION 2: CASE STUDY: FIRSTGATE’S “ CL ICKANDBUY” (Jean-Pierre Jacobs, Senior Marketing Manager of ClickandBuy Benelux) 14H45 – 15H15 COMMENTS & GROUP DISCUSSION MODERATED BY DAVE BIRCH 15H15 – 15H30 COFFEE BREAK 15H30 – 15H45 SESSION 3: A LA CARTE OU PAS? (Valér i e-Anne Bleyen and Leo Van Hove, Vrije Universiteit Brussel)

15H45 – 16H15 GROUP DISCUSSION MODERATED BY DAVE BIRCH & CONCLUDING REMARKS 16H15 – 17H00 DRINK

Valérie-Anne Bleyen - Leo Van Hove 19 March 2009 Vrije Universiteit Brussel SESSION 1: HOW TO PA¥ FOR N€W$ ?

INTRO: WHY PAYMENT INSTRUMENTS?

1. PAYMENTS MARKET = DYNAMIC AND TURBULENT

=> CLASSIFICATION  OVERVIEW

2. PI ~ REVENUE MODEL

=> SWOT ANALYSIS  INSIGHT

AGENDA

I. CLASSIFYING PI S : A MATRYOSHKA APPROACH

II. PI S OFFERED BY NP SITES: 2008 VS. 2006

III. SWOT-ANALYSIS

IV. CONCLUSION

I. CLASSIFYING PI S : A MATRYOSHKA APPROACH A whole range of criteria can be deployed to classify PI S :

No all-encompassing classification

A mutually exclusive classification = tricky to develop

After numerous attempts... A matryoshka approach

guaranteed vs. non-guaranteed Risk ... ... pre-paid, pay-now, post-paid Moment in time of settlement from the payer’s perspective bank, credit card co, telephone co, software co, etc. Type of intermediary involved in the settlement micro vs. macro Payment size e/m-commerce, POS, etc. Usage context national vs. international Coverage hardware vs. software, token vs. account, server vs. client Type of account traditional vs. innovative/developed for the Internet Type of instrument

ONE OF OUR FIRST ATTEMPTS …

1. Banknotes or coins

2. ( Electronic ) cheques

3. Machine-based instruments

4. (Online) banking

5. Card-based instruments

6. Contactless payment instruments

7. E-purses with a physical carrier

8. Server -based e-wallets

9. Scratch card / code-based e-wallets

10. E-mail -based instruments

11. Mobile instruments

12. Loyalty points / private currency schemes

13. Single purpose payment instruments

Collection/billing services

Money transmitters

OUR MATRYOSHKA APPROACH …

Is broad

Does not suffer from 'innovation infatuation'

Is regulation-neutral

Is general

Does not contain all relevant dimensions

Cannot be linked directly with a SWOT

! Micro-payments & aggregation

Prepaid: one big real-world payment is split up into small Internet payments

Collection: many small Internet payments are aggregated into one big real-world payment

AGENDA

III. SWOT-ANALYSIS

IV. CONCLUSION

II. EVOLUTIONS IN AVAILABLE PI S OUR SCOPE: NATIONAL NP S - WE

Period June-July 2006 and 2008

82 newspapers > 8 countries

All national, daily paid-for newspapers

Belgi um ( 9 ) - the Netherlands ( 8 ) - Luxembourg ( 6 )

- France ( 11 ) - Germany ( 10 ) - Italy ( 20 ) - Spain ( 8 )

- the United Kingdom ( 10 )

Listing conform WAN-report (2006) & national coordinating organisations

Not:

- regional and local newspapers

- freely distributed newspapers

- overly specific target audience

DATA COLLECTION = SELECTIVE BUT EXHAUSTIVE

THE TOP 3 OF ACCEPTED PI S OVER THE PERIOD 2006-2008

OVERALL: NO DRASTIC CHANGES

CREDIT CARDS  FROM 66.2% TO 63.4%

CREDIT TRANSFERS  FROM 47.5% TO 52.4%

DIRECT DEBITS 

MICRO-PAYMENT INSTRUMENTS DECREASED IN POPULARITY

LOWERED OFFERING OF PPV ETC. (CF. INFRA)

CHICKEN-AND-EGG PROBLEM

THE TOP 3 OF ACCEPTED PI S OVER THE PERIOD 2006-2008 BE: - CREDIT CARDS AND CREDIT TRANSFERS STILL N° 1 - ONLINE BANKING REMAINS ACCEPTED BY ROUGHLY 90% - SMS  - DIRECT DEBITS  NL: - DIRECT DEBITS AND CREDIT TRANSFERS STILL MOST POPULAR - ONLINE BANKING REPLACED CREDIT CARDS AS N° 3 DE: - CLICKANDBUY IS N°3 ANNO 2008

II. CROSS TABLE 2006 THE BUNDLING OF ONLINE CONTENT VS. NATURE/INNOVATIVENESS OF PI S :

AGENDA

III. SWOT-ANALYSIS

IV. CONCLUSION

III. SWOT-ANALYSIS OF THE MOST PREVALENT PI S

III.1 CREDIT CARDS

III.2 CREDIT TRANSFERS

III.3 DIRECT DEBITS

III.4 ONLINE BANKING

III.5 SMS

III. FOCUS IN SWOT-ANALYSIS MERCHANT (CUSTOMER) SUITABLE FOR MICRO/MACRO-PM S SECURITY CUSTOMER’S EXPERIENCE (ease of use, trust, anonymity...) REACH COST GUARANTEED PAYMENT

III.1 CREDIT CARDS

III.2 CREDIT TRANSFERS

III.3 DIRECT DEBITS

III.4 ONLINE BANKING

III.5 SMS

III. TO SUM UP...     ~ ATTRACTIVE TO CUSTOMERS  X X X X MICRO-PM S   ~   REACH X   ~ X COST   ~  X SECURITY   X  X GUARANTEED PM SMS ONLINE BANKING DIRECT DEBIT CREDIT TRANSFER CREDIT CARD

IV. CONCLUSION