MAVAM México 3rd Edition - Messaging - English version - May 09,2012

794 views

Published on

Acision's MAVAM México, 3rd Edition, was released on May 2012, bringing new data about the mobile value added services (VAS) in the market. Some key findings:

- Mexico has the largest SMS market in Latin America and the Caribbean

- Messaging service sales (SMS and MMS) in Mexico show year-on-year growth rate of 32% in US Dollars (26% in Mexican Pesos), generating $601 million USD in Q3 2011

- Over Q3 2011, revenues from value added services (VAS) in Mexico represented $1,047 million USD - 38% above the figure for the same period the previous year.

- VAS represents 31% of sales from the services rendered by operators during the same period – on average 6% higher than other Latin America and Caribbean regions.

- 57% of value added services (VAS) sales are generated from SMS and MMS alone

- 98% of mobile subscribers used SMS services over Q4 2011 - 25% of users consider that SMS services will be more important in the future.

Published in: Business, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
794
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
22
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

MAVAM México 3rd Edition - Messaging - English version - May 09,2012

  1. 1. MAVAM Mexico 3rd EditionGrupo Convergencia | Convergencialatina | Convergencia ResearchAvenida Belgrano 680 – Piso 9 (C1092AAT) - Buenos Aires, ArgentinaT. + 54 11 4345-3036info@convergencialatina.com | wwww.convergencialatina.com | research@convergencia.com
  2. 2. Editorial As the global leader in mobile messaging with more than one one-third of the global SMS infrastructure market (as calculated by Informa Telecoms & Media in 2011), Acision launches the third edition of MAVAM Mexico with the special theme ¨Messaging”. This edition continues to demonstrate Acision’s commitment to providing a tool that analysis the trends associated with the consumption of mobile VAS and messaging across the Mexican mobile market during Quarter 4 of 2011 Mexican and how this impacts operators. Net sales of SMS and MMS during the third quarter of 2011 reached $601 million USD, representing 57% of VAS sales for Mobile Operators. Although SMS and messaging stands for a major proportion of mobile VAS today, we have used this MAVAM research to better understand the reasons that motivate or inhibit the use of messaging, with the results represented in this report. We also demonstrate that opportunities based on SMS go beyon the basic beyond service as we know it today with value added, personalized messaging providing value-added, Oliveira Vancrei an enriched user experience through services such as group messaging, auto auto- reply / auto auto-signature and parental control. Acision We also expect IP Messaging services to be a priority for operators in 2012, as VP regional Latin America they seek to deliver new innovative services to compete w with ‘OTT’ messaging services. IP Messaging, such as is RCS e, is key to delivering services that have RCS-e, the same user experience, reach and reliability that users have become accustomed to with SMS, while leveraging the capabilities of broadband IP network and delivering services such as IM, group chat, file transfer and video and sharing. Operators will also begin to adopt cloud based services, which will cloud-based become a prominent delivery model in 2012, also means that these innovations will be brought to market faste faster. With this in mind, this edition of MAVAM has researched the potential demand for new messaging services that enrich and expand the use of messaging, how users use messaging services and looks at business models for paying for each service and driving up operator revenue. We hope you enjoy reading! |2|
  3. 3. Index1. Introduction....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4 1.1. Value Added Services worldwide ............................................................................................................................................................... 5 1.2. Value Added services in Latin America ...................................................................................................................................................... 9 1.3. Value Added Services (VAS) in Mexico ................................................................................................................................................... 122. MAVAM (Acision Monitor for Mobile VAS) ...................................................................................................................................................... 163. Messaging Services (Special Issue) ............................................................................................................................................................... 17 3.1. SMS ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 18 3.1.1. Future importance of SMS ................................................................................................................................................................ 19 3.1.2. Deterrents to broader SMS use......................................................................................................................................................... 20 3.1.3. New SMS– and MMS– based products ............................................................................................................................................. 21 3.2. MMS ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 27 3.2.1. MMS Scenarios ................................................................................................................................................................................ 29 3.2.2. Deterrents and incentives to broader MMS use ................................................................................................................................. 30 3.3. Instant Messaging.................................................................................................................................................................................... 32 3.3.1. Opportunities and deterrents for wider IM use ................................................................................................................................... 33 3.4. Advantages of SMS service over instant messaging ................................................................................................................................ 37 3.5. Advantages of IM services over SMS....................................................................................................................................................... 38 3.5.1. Service preference per recipient........................................................................................................................................................ 39 3.5.2. Preference of service depending on the circumstances..................................................................................................................... 40 3.5.3. Service Reliability and Speed............................................................................................................................................................ 42 3.6. Use of messaging services to send Christmas and New Year’s greetings ................................................................................................ 43 3.7. Advertising messages via SMS for discounts and purchases ................................................................................................................... 454. MAVAM Mexico .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 47 4.1. Entertainment .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 47 4.1.1. Types of Files (Images, Music, Games, Ringtones and Videos) ........................................................................................................ 47 4.1.2. Mobile TV and Video......................................................................................................................................................................... 47 4.2. E-mail ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 48 4.3. Mobile Internet ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 48 4.3.1. Deterrents to the Use of Mobile Internet ............................................................................................................................................ 51 4.4. Social Networks ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 52 4.5. Mobile Marketing ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 55 4.6. Mobile Banking and Money ...................................................................................................................................................................... 56 4.7. GPS and Maps ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 575. Conclusions .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 586. Glossary ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 597. Technical File ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 638. Team .............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 64 |3|
  4. 4. 1. IntroductionMobile phone penetration in Latin America exceeded 100% in the third quarter of 2011, although there are stillsome countries like Mexico, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Cuba, and Peru –among others– which have not yet reached thatfigure. The fact that there is more than one line per person is the consequence of some users owning two phonedevices, M2M lines, mobile broadband access (USB modem), and lines which are hardly used or which are notused at all but are registered as active lines.Smartphones and the expansion of Mobile Internet have caused the market to grow and has driven an increase inthe postpaid customer base. Social networks are the top applications for this stage of Mobile Internet.In addition, number portability will be introduced in the leading markets in 2012 and the mobile virtual networkoperators (MVNOs) business will be developed. Colombia is the country with the highest number of operatingMVNOs, generally focused on broadband services. The entry of mobile virtual network operators in Brazil,Argentina, Mexico and Chile, among other countries, is expected by 2012. These operators are targeted at specificniches, and it is assessed that their potential is about 2% of the market. The highest expectations are in VirginMobile, which aims at becoming the first regional mobile virtual network operator focused on the 14-to-34-year-oldtarget.New spectrum assignments in several countries, meant to foster the entry of new players to increase competition,are encouraging the entry of mobile virtual network operators.Said factors make it possible to forecast higher competition in 2012, focused on mobile broadband, driving massiveuse of social networks among prepaid customers, and on creating new applications and businesses. |4|
  5. 5. 1.1. Value Added Services worldwideTo understand the value added services (VAS) business worldwide, we analyzed VAS evolution for the world’sbiggest mobile carriers in various regions of the world. We compared the 3Q values for 2010 and 2011, except forChina Mobile, whose data only allows us to compare changes between 1H 2010 and 1H 2011.The companies evaluated are: AT&T - United States China Mobile – China* Orange - France NTT Docomo - Japan Verizon – United States Vodafone Vodafone United Kingdom Vodafone Germany Chart 1 Vodafone India Operators analyzed* China Mobile 1H 2010 x 1H 2011 |5|
  6. 6. Chart 2Change in share of voice service revenue vs. value added service (VAS) revenue. Between thesecond and third quarter 2011. Except China Mobile, comparing 1H 2010 with 1H 2011 Voice Service VAS Service 20% 16% 15% 10% 6% 5% 5% 4% 3% 2% 2% 3% 3% 0% -1% 0% -1% -3% -3% -3% -5% -4% -10% AT&T United States France Telecom France NTT Docomo Vodafone United Kingdom Telecom Italy Verizon Vodafone Germany Vodafone IndiaSource: Convergencia Research based on carriers’ published financial reports.VAS continues to grow its share of total revenue among the carriers surveyed, independent of country. Positivechanges in voice service revenue contributions are normally explained by specific events, such as regulatorymeasures (reduced interconnection fees – See MAVAM Brazil 9th Edition2) competition or seasonal effect.In more advanced countries, the increase in VAS uptake is mainly based on Mobile Internet revenues driven by theincreasing number of smartphones. In countries where there is still room to grow the number of connections, SMSstill plays a major role in VAS growth.2 http://www.acision.com/News-and-Events/Press-Releases/Brazil/2011/MAVAM-9th-Edition.aspx |6|
  7. 7. Chart 3VAS share of total ARPU. 3Q 2011. Except China Mobile, comparing 1H 2010 with 1H 2011 100% 80% VAS % over total ARPU 60% 40% 54% 46% 43% 40% 39% 35% 20% 32% 30% 16% 0%Source: Convergencia Research based on carriers’ corresponding financial reports – 3Q 2011It is interesting to compare the operations of Vodafone UK, Germany and India.In the UK, Vodafone’s VAS represents 46% of service sales and this share is almost identical to its maincompetitor.In the UK, which has a significant number of smartphones, Vodafone’s Mobile Internet service sales have grownaround 3% quarterly/per quarter, while messaging (SMS and MMS) growth is around 2%. However, in Germanymessaging revenues are also growing at 2%, while mobile Internet revenues are growing at 6%.In contrast, India, which has mobile penetration of around 70% of the population, SMS grows at around 43% andmobile Internet at just 2%, mainly because 3G networks were only recently launched (See MAVAM Brazil 9thEdition).In the US, both Verizon and AT&T present similar figures to Vodafone, with VAS growth of no more than 5% perquarter and voice revenues declining by 1 to 3%, depending on the carrier - although in this market VAScontribution (40%) is lower that the European countries where Vodafone operates. In Japan, voice and data growthrates for NTT Docomo are similar to the USA, but the main difference is that VAS (contributing 54% of revenues) isNTT Docomo’s main source of income, instead of voice revenues, on which other carriers depend. |7|
  8. 8. At China Mobile, whose figures only allow for a six-monthly comparison, the number of subscribers grew 11.3%annually between the first semester of 2010 and 2011 to 617 million lines, in a country where 75% penetration stilloffers room for post-paid plan growth. As new users are usually “low usage clients” and the “one client with severalchips” is becoming more commonplace, total ARPU dropped 3% in the first half of 2011, year on year.China Mobile has 35 million 3G subscribers (5% of its customer base). At the end of the first half of 2011, VASrepresented 32.2% of carrier revenues, up 18% year-on-year compared with 5% for voice services, in localcurrency. Of the VAS, the contribution made by SMS has dropped almost 1 percentage point, while revenue forvoice services, Mobile Internet and “other VAS” rose between 0.5 and 1 percentage point.Chart 4Mobile penetration vs. VAS contribution to ARPU. 3Q 2011. China Mobile 1H 2010 x 1H 2011 160% VAS % 3Q 11 140% Penetration / 100 inhabitants 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%Source: Convergencia Research based on carriers’ corresponding financial reports and penetration data from various sources. |8|
  9. 9. 1.2. Value Added services in Latin AmericaThe third quarter of 2011 ended with 607 million mobile telephone lines (including 10.5 million trunking3 lines) in 1Latin America and the Caribbean . The number of lines brings regional penetration up to 104% –taking into accounttrunking lines and 102% without them – although some countries4 have yet to achieve this level of mobilesubscriptions. South America5 and Mexico represent 89% of these lines (540.4 million). The remainder are inCentral America6 (41.7 million) and the Caribbean7 (24.6 million).During the quarter through September 30, 2011, total sales for mobile operators in the countries researched were23,397 billion dollars (without trunking services revenues), up 17% year on year. Convergencia Researchestimates that 2011 should end with sales 14% up on 2010 to 91,500 billion dollars.89% of regional revenues are generated in South America and Mexico (17,138 million US dollars and 3,753 millionUS dollars respectively) and the remaining 11% is split between Central America (1,446 million US dollars) and theCaribbean (1,061 million US dollars).Voice revenues were up 11% between 3Q 2010 and 3Q 2011 to 15,967 billion dollars.Revenues from device sales rose to 2,052 billion dollars, 20% up on the 1,716 billion dollars registered last year.Value Added Services (VAS) continue to show the most robust growth. During the third quarter of 2011 theygenerated 5,378 billion dollars, 40% up year on year. This means that VAS now represent 25% of service revenues(voice + VAS), compared with 21% previously.3 Trunking or Specialized Mobile Service (SME for its initials in Portuguese) is a service of terrestrial mobile telecommunications of collectiveinterest that uses the radio system, mainly, to perform delivery operations or other forms of telecommunications. Sourse: Annex to resolutionNo. 404 of May 5, 2005 (Anatel).4 Bolivia, Paraguay, Perú, Venezuela, Guyana y Guyana Francesa, México, Belice, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras y Nicaragua, AntillasFrancesas, Bonaire, Cuba, Curazao, Haití, Islas Turcas y Caicos, Montserrat, Puerto Rico, República Dominicana y Santa Lucía.5 Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Columbia, Ecuador, Guiana, French Guiana, Paraguay, Peru, Suriname, Uruguay and Venezuela.6 Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama.7 Anguilla, Antigua and Barbados, French Antilles, Aruba, Bahamas, Barbados, Bermuda, Bonaire, Cuba, Curacao, Dominica, Granada, Haiti,Cayman Islands, Turks and Caicos Islands, British Virgin Islands, Jamaica, Montserrat, Porto Rico, Dominican Republic, Saint Kitts and Neves,Saint Vicente and the Grenadines, Santa Lucia, Trinidad and Tobago. |9|
  10. 10. Chart 5Mobile telephony revenue growth in Latin America by service type. 3Q 2010 x 3Q 2011 USD 25,000 3Q 10 3Q 11 Variation 45% 40% USD 23,397 40% USD 20,000 USD 20,006 35% Revenues in USD Million 30% USD 15,000 USD 15,967 25% USD 14,439 20% 20% USD 5,378 17% USD 10,000 USD 3,851 15% USD 2,052 11% USD 1,716 USD 5,000 10% 5% USD 0 0% Total Mobile Voice Service VAS Terminals Phone ServiceChart 6Mobile telephony sales by revenue source. 3Q 2010 x 3Q 2011 USD 25,000 USD 144 USD 23,397 USD 840 USD 543 USD 1,527 USD 337 USD 20,006 USD 20,000 Revenues in USD Million USD 15,000 USD 10,000 USD 5,000 USD 0 3Q10 Voice Serv. Terminals Internet Messaging Other VAS 3Q11 Voice Serv. Terminals Internet Messaging Other VASOf the value added services, SMS and MMS have a 51% market share, with Mobile Internet at 38% and other VASrepresenting 11%. Other VAS revenue flows include, for example, mobile marketing, revenue sharing for contentand application downloads and mobile banking solutions. | 10 |
  11. 11. Mobile Internet revenues have risen 69%, driven by the growth of smartphones, which now represent around 10%of all cell phones in Latin America.Brazil is the biggest Mobile Internet market by revenue and users, although Central America and countries with lowlevels of fixed line broadband penetration also drive significant volumes.Text and multimedia messaging services have seen sales rise by 25%, mainly because there are still countries withvery low usage levels and there are still opportunities to increase usage through devices and other commercialtactics, such as changing pricing plans.The other VAS’s have seen revenues rise by 31%, based on new mobile businesses like mobile payments, mobilemarketing and application downloads, among others.Chart 7VAS Revenue Shares. Through 3Q 2011. Voice Serv. VAS SMS + MMS Internet Other VAS USD 2,052 38% USD 15,967 USD 5,378 75% 25% USD 2,714 51% USD 613 11% | 11 |
  12. 12. 1.3. Value Added Services (VAS) in MexicoAs of the end of the third quarter of 2011, there were 97,062 million mobile phone lines in Mexico (includingtrunking operator Nextel’s 3.6 million lines), which represent an 88.7% penetration over population8.Mobile subscribers in Mexico grew by 9.9% from the third quarter of 2010 to the third quarter of 2011. Mobileservice customers in Latin America and the Caribbean increased by 11.4% over the same period, mainly as aconsequence of an increase in the number of users in Brazil and Peru; both markets grew by 19% and 14%,respectively.Mexico is the second largest mobile market in Latin America and the Caribbean as to number of customers,representing a 16% share in the region. Nevertheless, while Latin America exceeded 100% penetration by the endof 2011, Convergencia Research believes that Mexico will reach that figure by the first quarter of 2013, providingthat the growth rate remains constant.Chart 8Evolution of the total mobile phone lines in Mexico (without trunking). 2008 vs. 2012 (estimate). 120,000 103,227 Number of mobile lines - in millions 100,000 92,222 93,463 94,704 88,001 90,266 79,555 80,000 74,425 60,000 40,000 20,000 0 2008 2009 2010 1Q11 2Q11 3Q11 4Q11e 4Q12eIrrespective of Nextel’s trunking, the market share is split among Telcel (72.8%), Movistar (22.0%), and Iusacell(5.3%). As compared to 2010, Iusacell’s market share grew by almost one percentage point.8 Source: Convergencia Research based on the information disclosed in Telcel, Movistar and Nextel’s balance sheets, the number of mobilephone lines reported by COFETEL (Federal Telecommunications Committee) and the population published by the INEGI (National Bureau ofStatistics and Geography) | 12 |
  13. 13. Chart 9Subscribers per operator. 3Q 2011 (in thousands of lines) Movistar 20,516 22% Iusacell 4,945 5% Telcel 68,002 73%Telcel has an ARPU equal to USD $ 13 ($MEX 154), which is 65% above its competitors’ ARPUs. Movistar has anARPU equal to USD 8 ($MEX 93), while Iusacell just reached USD 11 ($MEX 140). The three operators’ ARPUsdropped in respect of 2010. Movistar was the operator with the highest ARPU drop (-17% in US Dollars and -21%in Mexican Pesos); Iusacell suffered a 5% drop in US Dollars and 9% in Mexican Pesos; Telcel reported a 2%ARPU drop in US Dollars and 6% drop in Mexican Pesos.Chart 10Total ARPU per operator. 3Q 2011 ARPU in USD ARPU in $ Mex USD 14 $180 USD 13 $154 $160 USD 12 USD 11 $140 $140 USD 10 $120 ARPU in $ Mex ARPU in USD USD 8 USD 8 $93 $100 USD 6 $80 $60 USD 4 $40 USD 2 $20 USD 0 $0 Telcel Movistar Iusacell | 13 |
  14. 14. The mobile industry sales from July to September 2011 reached USD 3,753 million dollars (mdd9) ($ 46,008 millionpesos - mdp10), which is 5% higher than the figure for the same quarter of 2010. The revenues from Voice and VASservices reached USD 3,382 mdd ($ 41,458 mdp) in the period, which is 4% higher than it was in the third quarterof 2010 in US Dollars and 1% lower in $MEX, as figures are affected by exchange rates11. The remaining USD 371mdd ($ 4,549 mdp) pertain to the sale of devices.Chart 11Mobile Phone Service. Variation per type of income. 3Q 2010 vs. 3Q 2011(in US Dollars) (in Mexican Pesos) 3Q 10 3Q 11 Variation 3Q 10 3Q 11 Variation USD 4,000 45% 32% 38% $50,000 35% 40% USD 3,753 Revenues in Million USD USD 3,500 Revenues in Million $ Mex 35% $45,000 30% $46,008 $45,770 USD 3,573 USD 3,000 30% $40,000 25% USD 2,500 25% $35,000 20% USD 1,047 18% 13% USD 2,499 20% $30,000 15% $32,014 USD 2,334 USD 2,000 $28,620 USD 758 $12,839 15% $25,000 10% USD 1,500 USD 371 10% $9,713 USD 316 5% $20,000 1% 5% 5% $4,549 $15,000 0% $4,043 USD 1,000 0% $10,000 -5% USD 500 -7% -11% -5% $5,000 -10% USD 0 -10% $0 -15% Total Mobile Voice VAS Terminals Total Mobile Voice VAS Terminals Phone Service Phone Service Service ServiceThe growth of services is the consequence of the increase in sales of Value Added Services (VAS), which grew by38% in US Dollars (+32% in $MEX), while the revenues from voice services dropped by 7% in US Dollars (-11% in$MEX). This variation derives from the drop in the termination rate implemented in May 2011.The revenues from the sale of terminals (handsets) grew by 18% in USD and by 13% in $MEX, as compared to thethird quarter of 2010.VAS generated sales for USD $1,047 mdd ($ 12,839 mdp) in the third quarter of 2011, representing 31% of therevenues from services.Within the VAS category, the messaging service sales (SMS and MMS) represent 57% (USD $601 mdd and $7,367 mdp), below the record set at 60% in the third quarter of 2010. In spite of the drop in the total market share,the messaging services sales show a year-over-year growth rate of 32% in US Dollars and 26% in Mexican Pesos.9 Million US Dollars.10 Million Mexican Pesos.11 The average US Dollar value was equal to $MEX 12.8 in 3Q 2010 and to $MEX 12.3 in 3Q 2011, with a slight revaluation of $MEX ascompared between these two periods. | 14 |
  15. 15. Mobile Internet sales grew by 70% in USD (63% in Mexican Pesos), and they reached a volume of USD 257 mddin the quarter, representing 25% of the revenues from VAS.The other revenues from VAS12 were USD 189 mdd ($ 2,316 mdp), which grew by 25% in US Dollars (20% in$MEX). Their contribution to the total VAS dropped from 20% to 18% between the third quarter of 2011 and thesame period of 2010.Chart 12Income Distribution per Type. 3Q 2011 (in million USD) Voice Serv. VAS SMS + MMS Internet Other VAS USD 257 25% USD 2,334 USD 1,047 69% 31% USD 601 USD 189 57% 18%Vivo retains top spot in VAS as a percentage contribution to total revenues (23%). VAS represents 18% of servicesales to both TIM and Oi.12 The other VAS comprise revenues from mobile marketing, the revenue share of contents and application downloading, and mobile bankingsolutions, among others. | 15 |
  16. 16. 2. MAVAM (Acision Monitor for Mobile VAS)The MAVAM Acision study aims to analyze the evolution of value added services in Latin America. It has beencarried out in Brazil since 2009. The study was then carried out in Mexico in 2010 and Argentina in 2011.This edition of MAVAM Mexico has been prepared on the basis of the following methodological characteristics:a) 800 interviews were made to people contacted on the Web (Computer Aided Web Interviewing –CAWI-).b) The geographic area covered by the sample comprises all of Mexico’s regions. The sample considers the number of inhabitants, the economic status and Internet penetration by geographic region (it is a Web-based interview), in order to improve local representativeness.c) The survey was made on the Web (CAWI), pursuant to the rates applicable to the socio-economic level, age and gender, which preserve the proportions of Mexican population. Since the number of Internet users (about 41.3 million) is lower than the number of mobile users (about 98 million), and given the fact that the sample represents people who are more familiar with technology, the values obtained in some cases may not be extrapolated to the market aggregate; instead, such values are considered for reference and orientation purposes. These cases are explained throughout the study.d) The services analyzed in this edition include: Messaging Mobile Internet • SMS • Social Networks • MMS • Location services (GPS) • E-mail • Payments and mobile banking • Instant messaging • Mobile Marketing Entertainment This MAVAM Mexico edition was performed by • Music Convergencia Research, in March 2012. • Pictures Sampling participation pursuant to the • Games geographic residence in Mexico: • Ringtones Residence % • TV Mexico City 48% Rest of the country 52% • Video | 16 |
  17. 17. 3. Messaging Services (Special Issue)The globalization of mobile phone services is also means the globalization of SMS services. It can beacknowledged that almost every mobile phone in the world is SMS-enabled. However, as evidenced in othereditions of MAVAM, the frequency of use of SMS differs from one country to another.The expansion of the range of smartphones and instant messaging solutions on mobile phones pose a challenge tothe traditional use of text messages for communicating among people. Therefore, new solutions and products areanalyzed in this edition of MAVAM so as to understand how users engage with mobile messaging services andservices can be adopted to enrich the traditional SMS experience and generate new revenues for operators.The SMS services features researched in this edition are:1. Auto-signature: this function makes it possible to set up a signature or a greeting at the end of the drafted messages (for instance: “I am on holiday”, “I am busy right now / I am not at the office.”)2. White lists / black lists personalization: it enables the creation of contact lists so as to define who may and who may not send messages to the user.3. Automatic forwarding to another phone: it makes it possible to automatically forward the messages received to another telephone number (for example, to your personal / professional telephone number)4. Automatic forwarding to an e-mail account: this function makes it possible to automatically forward the messages received to an e-mail account to have a back-up copy or read them on a desktop PC.5. Groups Messaging (Distribution lists): provides for the possibility of exchanging messages with a group of contacts whose recipients may also answer to the entire group.6. Receipt notification: to receive a confirmation of receipt of the messages sent.7. Searches: possibility to search through saved messages.8. Reminders: to receive scheduled appointment reminders.9. Receiving party pays: possibility of sending messages paid for by recipients.10. Storage services: being able to store every message at a cloud storage service provided by the operator.11. Multiple SIM cards: possibility to send messages from any other device (tablets, dongles, USB modems, etc.)12. Alias: configuration of names or nicknames in a user’s origin number.13. SMS Beeper (Nick Name alias): possibility to receive text messages or calls without revealing the phone number, but through a nickname: people send their SMS to a call center (for instance: 12345) starting with the nickname and following with the message. | 17 |
  18. 18. A comparison is also made between the features that users regard as being the most important in instantmessaging and in an SMS service, as well as the occasions in which users prefer one form of communication overthe other.Although the analysis is focused on the messaging habits among people, it is important to mention that, in thefuture of SMS, communications among machines and the usage models play an essential role as a new B2C(Business to consumer) communication channel, such as for instance, inquiries via SMS for banking services,governmental procedures, etc.3.1. SMSOver the fourth quarter of 2011, 98% of the users questioned for MAVAM used the SMS short messages services,almost three percentage points over the previous edition of MAVAM (with data pertaining to the first quarter of2011).Chart 13SMS use Basis: total sample (1Q 2011: 798 cases; 4Q 2011: 800 cases) 98.3% 100% 95.5% 80% Percentage of cases 60% 1Q 2011 4Q 2011 40% 20% 2.5% 1.1% 2.0% 0.6% 0% I sent text messages over I have not sent any SMS I do not make use the last 3 months over the last 3 months of the serviceSMS use is global, not only because it reaches a penetration higher than 90%, but also because its use does notdepend on gender, age, social class or type of payment schedule. It is noted that, irrespective of the particularfeatures, use exceeds 95% in all cases. 59%13 of users send more than one SMS a day.13 Figures are not comparable to the previous edition of MAVAM, due to the fact that the question has been asked in a different way. | 18 |
  19. 19. Chart 14SMS sending frequency (Only users who send SMS: 786 cases) More than one 59% I send one per day in average 23% Very f ew, I hardly use it 18% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Percentage of cases3.1.1. Future importance of SMS54% of the users questioned consider that, in the future, SMS will be as important for their communications as theyare today; 25% consider that SMS will be more important than today.Chart 15How important do you think SMS will be in the future compared to the present time? (Total sample:800 cases) 60% 54% 50% 40% Percentage of cases 30% 25% 20% 18% 10% 3% 0% More important Equally important Less important I dont know | 19 |
  20. 20. 3.1.2. Deterrents to broader SMS useIt is worth analyzing the deterrents to broader SMS use, or why users do not use SMS more frequently. The mainreason for not using SMS is the user’s preference for voice communications. 77.5% of the users questioned statethat talking on the phone is easier and simpler and 45.4% states that voice is faster.Chart 16What stops you from using SMS on the mobile phone you use most or from using SMS morefrequently? (Total sample: 800 cases) – Multiple choice Talking by phone is easier/ 78% it is more practical/simple Talking by phone is f aster 45% I dont know if the recipient 20% received the message SMS is expensive compared to calling 12% -comparing the price of the minute- I dont need to send SMS 10% Im not able to chat in group 10% I dont like to send SMS 7% I dont know how to do it 1% My phone doesnt support 1% sending SMS Others 14% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Percentage of casesABC+ sectors comprise the highest percentage of respondents who prefer voice communication over SMS.Deterrents to SMS use Socio-Economic Level Total D+ C ABC+Talking on the phone is easier and simpler 25.6% 32.9% 41.5% 100%Talking on the phone is more practical 24.1% 32.0% 43.9% 100% | 20 |
  21. 21. 3.1.3. New SMS– and MMS– based productsThe solutions and products mostly preferred by usersUsers were asked about their willingness to use new products which make it possible to enhance SMS-basedcommunications and when referencing the list mentioned at the beginning of this chapter. The users questionedwere allowed to choose more than one option.Acceptance of all the options was above 50%. The three options most required by users were: being able to sendtext messages from any other device (87.3%); being able to search through saved messages (83.5%) and beingable to automatically forward the messages received to an e-mail account (79.7%).The least-mentioned option was the ‘receiving party pays’ possibility, whereby the recipient pays the cost of themessage sent (similar to the reverse-charge system used in voice services).Chart 17Which of the following features would you like to have available in the SMS service (textmessages)? (Total sample: 800 cases) – Multiple choice Multiple SIM 87% Search 84% Auto-send to an email account 80% Reminders 79% Receipt notif ication 77% White/black lists personalization 76% Auto-send to another phone number 74% Auto-signature 73% Alias 71% Distribution list 70% Use an Alias to received SMSs and 69% calles instead of the phone number Cloud message 65% Paid in the destination 52% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Percentage of cases | 21 |
  22. 22. Most important solutions and productsThe users questioned were asked to state the degree of importance for the same list of options.SMS-sending from different devices was the optioned deemed most important (68.8%). The relevance allocated byusers to the possibility of sending SMS from other devices may be related to the massive adoption of the service aswell as to users being increasingly used to the fact that all the services (voice, data, video) are available on all thedevices at all times. Exploring the possibility of offering this type of solutions constitutes a good businessopportunity for the operators.The fact of getting receipt notification and reading confirmation for the messages sent ranked second in importance(67%). In this last case, it is surprising that, even though only 77% of the users questioned stated they might wantto have this feature available (fifth place of the question analyzed in the previous section), it is a highly valuedfeature.The possibility of sending and receiving SMS without revealing the phone number and using an alias or nicknameranked third in importance (67%). This preference seems to derive from instant messaging services and it showshow the features of different services increasingly tend to converge. The curious thing in this case is that, eventhough this option is considered important, only 68.9% of the users questioned stated it to be of their preference,thus resulting among the three lowest options for the question posed in the previous section. | 22 |
  23. 23. Chart 18How do you assess the importance of each of the services you stated you would like to have?(Only the users who selected the feature mentioned) Multiple SIM 69% 21% 10% Receipt notif ication 67% 23% 10% Use an Alias to received SMSs and 67% 20% 13% calles instead of the phone number White/black lists personalization 66% 23% 11% Reminders 64% 23% 13% Auto-send to an email account 62% 28% 10% Search 61% 25% 14% Cloud message 58% 26% 15% Distribution list 56% 30% 14% Paid in the destination 55% 29% 16% Auto-send to another phone number 55% 31% 15% Auto-signature 54% 28% 18% Alias 53% 29% 18% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Percentage of cases Important / Very important Neutral Not important / Somewhat important | 23 |
  24. 24. Willingness to pay per the product/solution typeWhen the willingness to pay for any of the new services analyzed is evaluated, the option of sending SMS frommultiple devices also ranks first. 30.9% of the users who chose the feature of being able to send messages fromany other device would be willing to pay for the service; therefore, this is the feature with the highest subscriptionintent.The possibility of automatically forwarding any messages received to an e-mail account ranks second in terms ofwillingness to pay for the service (30.5%).Chart 19Would you be willing to pay a fair price for each of the services described? (Only those who selected thementioned feature) – Multiple choice Multiple SIM 31% Auto-send to an email account 30% Distribution list 26% Auto-send to another phone number 25% Use an Alias to received SMSs and 24% calles instead of the phone number Cloud message 23% Paid in the destination 23% Receipt notif ication 19% Reminders 19% White/black lists personalization 19% Search 14% Alias 14% Auto-signature 14% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% Percentage of cases | 24 |
  25. 25. Features that users would be willing to pay Percentage of Average monthly price Features responses the user would payBeing able to save all the messages at an online storage service provided 22.9 $MEX 14.39by operatorCrete contact lists to define who may and who may not send me 18.8 $MEX 13.22messages (White lists and black lists)Being able to personalize the origin address shown to recipient, with the 14 $MEX 12.45possibility to configure alias or nicknamesGet receipt notification and reading confirmation of the messages sent 19.4 $MEX 9.96Being able to exchange messages with a group of contacts, who may, in 26.1 $MEX 9.64turn, answer the messages to everyone in the groupBeing able to automatically forward the messages received to an e-mail 30.5 $MEX 9.5accountBeing able to receive text messages or calls without revealing the phone 23.7 $MEX 9.47number, but through a nicknameBeing able to send messages from any other device – tablets, dongles, 30.9 $MEX 9.36USB modems, etc.-Possibility to search through saved messages 14.4 $MEX 9.36Being able to set up a signature or a salutation which is automatically 13.9 $MEX 8.84copied at the end of the drafted messagesBeing able to send messages to be charged to the recipient 22.8 $MEX 8.12Receiving scheduled appointment reminders 18.8 $MEX 7.51Being able to automatically forward the messages received to a different 25 $MEX 7.4phone numberIn all cases, the users who would be willing to pay for the new services state average values which range from$MEX 7.4 to a maximum of $MEX 14.39 per month. However, there is a wide dispersion and the most frequentvalue for every category is $MEX 1.The option with the highest price average is the possibility of saving and storing SMS online at a server provided bythe operator ($MEX 14.39). The creation of white and black distribution lists ranks second ($MEX 13.22), and thepossibility of personalizing the origin address shown to recipient, being able to set up nicknames ranks third ($MEX12.45).The service showing the highest willingness and importance in the previous sections (being able to send messagesfrom different devices) has an average payment willingness of $MEX 9.36 per month. | 25 |
  26. 26. New features configurationWhen it comes to exploring new business opportunities through SMS, an important aspect consists in makinginstallation easy and in rendering the application a user-friendly service. Therefore, users were questioned aboutwhich would be their preferred ways of making the service available in the subscribers’ devices.43.8% of the users questioned chose to have the application installed in their cell phones, while 17.4% of userswould rather set the service up via SMS, and 12.9% of users would prefer to do it on the operator’s website.Chart 20In your opinion, which would be the best way of setting up the SMS services mentioned?(Total sample: 800 cases) Through an app installed 44% on your cell phone Sending an SMS 17% Through the operators web site 13% Through a WAP portal 11% Through an app installed 10% on your computer Through a complement installed 4% in the email manager Other 1% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Percentage of cases | 26 |
  27. 27. 3.2. MMS32% of the users questioned used the MMS service over the last three months. Only 24% of users had used theservice in the previous edition of MAVAM.In this case, it is worth considering that many users just exchange images.Chart 21Have you sent any MMS from your mobile phone over the last three months? (Only for users whosedevices are MMS-enabled: Total sample (1Q 2011: 798 cases, 4Q 2011: 800 cases) 1Q 2011 4Q 2011 60% 52% 50% 46% Percentage of cases 40% 32% 30% 24% 24% 21% 20% 10% 0% I sent over the I have not sent over I do not make use last 3 months the last 3 months of the service | 27 |
  28. 28. The image-sending frequency is lower than once per week in 41% of cases (active users represent 28% of thesample).Chart 22How many MMS do you think you send per week from the mobile phone you use most?(Only users who have sent MMS over the last 3 months: 259 cases) I send more than one MMS 28% I send very f ew MMS, I hardly send MMS 41% I send one MMS in average 31%Users’ purchasing power influences the use of MMS. MMS use is higher (43.5%) among users in the ABC+socioeconomic level than among users in the C (26.3%) and D (21.1%) levels. These results could be related tothe fact that the highest-end devices offer more media-rich features which foster use and image exchange.Chart 23MMS users by socioeconomic level 160% D+ C ABC+ 140% 32% 120% Percentage of cases 100% 50% 43% 80% 25% 60% 56% 40% 26% 24% 20% 21% 23% 0% I sent MMS over I have not sent any MMS I do not make use the last 3 months over the last 3 months of the serviceThe payment schedule also influences on the use of MMS. 51% of users who have hired post-paid plans usedMMS over the last three months. The figure drops to 28% among users who have hired pre-paid plans. | 28 |
  29. 29. 3.2.1. MMS ScenariosThe different scenarios in which MMS are sent (based on the users who used the service) are special occasions.80% of users choose special dates, such as anniversaries or birthdays to send multimedia messages. Vacationmoments (25%) and meetings with friends (25%) ranked second.Chart 24In which scenarios do you send multimedia messages (MMS)? (Only users who have sent MMS over the last 3months: 259 cases) – Multiple choice 100% 80% 80% Percentage of cases 60% 40% 25% 25% 24% 20% 9% 0% On special ocations On holidays When hanging out Because of work Other (birthays, with f riends duties aniversaries, etc.) | 29 |
  30. 30. 3.2.2. Deterrents and incentives to broader MMS useThe factors which deter users from using MMS or from using MMS more frequently are: price (39%), the fact of notknowing whether the recipient has actually recieved the message (25.6%), and general unawareness (16.4% ofusers have never even tried to send any multimedia messages).Chart 25What stops you from using MMS from the mobile phone you use most or from using MMS morefrequently? (Total basis: 800 cases) – Multiple choice It is very expensive 39% I do not have how to conf irm if the 26% receiver received the message Never try sending a multimedia message 16% MMS service does not work well 15% My cell phone is not set up properly 12% My phone doesnt support it 9% Others 12% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Percentage of cases66.4% of the users questioned state that a price reduction would lead to broader use. 35.9% of users wouldincrease MMS use were they certain about message delivery. Part of the uncertainty consists in that users are notsure that the recipient’s handset may be enabled for MMS receipt.19.6% of users state that they would feel more motivated using MMS if they had targetted package alternatives.This could show an opportunity to offer packages which may contribute to reduce the price per multimediamessage sent. | 30 |
  31. 31. Chart 26What would encourage you to start using MMS or to use MMS more frequently? (Total basis: 800cases) – Multiple choice Cost per message should be lower 66% (f or example: it could cost the same as SMS) Having a receipt notif ication 36% Operators would have to of f er MMS bundle 20% Owning a cell phone able to send MMS 18% Other 4% I dont know 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Percentage of cases | 31 |
  32. 32. 3.3. Instant MessagingInstant messaging use is growing. Only 19% of the users questioned had used the service in the first quarter of2011; the percentage grew to 24% in the last quarter of the year.Chart 27IM use over the last 3 months. Total sample (1Q 2011: 798 cases; 4Q 2011: 800 cases) 100% 1Q 2011 4Q 2011 81% Instant messaging use is broader at ABC+ levels. 80% 76% 32.8% of the ABC+ users questioned use instant Percentage of cases messaging. Only 12.7% of the D+ users questioned 60% use IM. 40% The age factor influences the use of instant 24% messaging. IM use among users younger than 35 19% 20% years old is higher than 20%.For older mobile users, IM use figures do not reach 10%. 25-to-34 year olds 0% are the users who use IM services most, with 29%. Yes NoChart 28IM use per age (Total sample: 800 cases) 100% Yes 94% 92% No 80% 75% 72% 71% Percentage of cases 60% 40% 28% 29% 25% 20% 8% 6% 0% 14 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 65 years old years old years old years old years old | 32 |
  33. 33. The mostly used messaging service is Facebook Chat (49.5%), followed by Whatsapp (39.7%), and MSNMessenger (13.4%). The users questioned had the chance to choose more than one instant messaging serviceoption.Chart 29Messaging services used (Only users who use IM: 194 cases) – Multiple choice Facebook Chat 49% WhatsApp 40% MSN Messenger 13% BlackBerry Messenger - Ping 12% eBuddy XMS 11% Skype Messenger 9% Google Talk 7% iMessage 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Percentage of cases3.3.1. Opportunities and deterrents for wider IM useNot having a data plan is the main deterrent among users who are not using the Instant Messaging service (33%).Not having an IM-enabled device ranks second (27%). And a little trust in sharing information including contacts,messages, and location with any company providing the messaging application ranks third (22%).Among users who used Instant Messaging over the last three months, the three deterrents to increasing IM usemost-widely mentioned are: message loss or delay in receipt (23%), not having a data plan (19%), and the littletrust in sharing information including contacts, messages, and location with any company providing the messagingapplication (18%). | 33 |
  34. 34. Chart 30What stops you from using some instant messaging service or from increasing IM usefrequency from the mobile phone you use most? (Users who do use IM 194 cases; Users who do not use IM: 606cases) – Multiple choice I dont have a data bundle to access the 19% internet 33% 4% My phone does not support IM 27% I dont trust sharing my personal data (contacts, 18% messages, localization, with any company 22% I usually loose messages or I experience 23% delays in the reception of the messages 13% I dont have enough space/capacity in my 11% phone to install the applications 12% 16% I dont like the weekly updates 11% 14% People still contact me and I cant block them I made use of IM services during 6% the last three months 11% Therere no reasons 1% I didnt make use of IM services during the last three months 11% Others 8% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Percentage of casesIn response to the question about mobile phone operator’s providing a new messaging service to compete with IM,63.4% of Instant Messaging service users’ stated that the main requirement for them to subscribe to a newoperator service is if itworks without interruptions. The image-sharing feature and the possibility of sharing videoswith friends rank second (58.2%). The certainty that the message may be received by the recipient in a fewseconds ranks third (58.2%). The forth requirement stated by users having the ability to access all contacts throughSMS whether they have the new messaging service or not. This demonstrates that SMS interoperability acrossservices is a key requirement and an opportunity for operators (51.5%).In response to the same question, users who are not yet using any IM service stated that the main they wouldmove an operator with a new messaging service is that the cost charged for the service must be reasonable(51.4%), guarantee that the service worksranks second (49 %) and the speed of message delivery ranks third(23.7%). | 34 |

×