Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

How to pay for news?

694 views

Published on

Presentation by Valérie-Anne Bleyen and Leo Van Hove. FLEET-workshop Paying For News, 19th of March, 2009.

http://www.fleetproject.be/nl/home/paying-for-news-workshop/

Published in: Business, Economy & Finance
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

How to pay for news?

  1. 1. 19 MARCH 2009 VRIJE UNIVERSITEIT BRUSSEL PA¥ING FOR N€W$ INTERACTIVE WORKSHOP ON FLEMISH E-PUBLISHING TRENDS
  2. 2. AGENDA <ul><li>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) </li></ul><ul><li>15H45 – 16H15 GROUP DISCUSSION MODERATED BY DAVE BIRCH & CONCLUDING REMARKS 16H15 – 17H00 DRINK </li></ul>
  3. 3. Valérie-Anne Bleyen - Leo Van Hove 19 March 2009 Vrije Universiteit Brussel SESSION 1: HOW TO PA¥ FOR N€W$ ?
  4. 4. INTRO: WHY PAYMENT INSTRUMENTS? <ul><li>1. PAYMENTS MARKET = DYNAMIC AND TURBULENT </li></ul><ul><li>=> CLASSIFICATION  OVERVIEW </li></ul><ul><li>2. PI ~ REVENUE MODEL </li></ul><ul><li>=> SWOT ANALYSIS  INSIGHT </li></ul>
  5. 5. AGENDA <ul><li>I. CLASSIFYING PI S : A MATRYOSHKA APPROACH </li></ul><ul><li>II. PI S OFFERED BY NP SITES: 2008 VS. 2006 </li></ul><ul><li>III. SWOT-ANALYSIS </li></ul><ul><li>IV. CONCLUSION </li></ul>
  6. 6. I. CLASSIFYING PI S : A MATRYOSHKA APPROACH A whole range of criteria can be deployed to classify PI S : <ul><li>No all-encompassing classification </li></ul><ul><li>A mutually exclusive classification = tricky to develop </li></ul><ul><li>After numerous attempts... A matryoshka approach </li></ul>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
  7. 7. ONE OF OUR FIRST ATTEMPTS … <ul><ul><ul><li>1. Banknotes or coins </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>2. ( Electronic ) cheques </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>3. Machine-based instruments </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>4. (Online) banking </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>5. Card-based instruments </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>6. Contactless payment instruments </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>7. E-purses with a physical carrier </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>8. Server -based e-wallets </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>9. Scratch card / code-based e-wallets </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>10. E-mail -based instruments </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>11. Mobile instruments </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>12. Loyalty points / private currency schemes </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>13. Single purpose payment instruments </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Collection/billing services </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Money transmitters </li></ul></ul></ul>
  8. 12. OUR MATRYOSHKA APPROACH … <ul><ul><ul><li>Is broad </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Does not suffer from 'innovation infatuation' </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Is regulation-neutral </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Is general </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Does not contain all relevant dimensions </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Cannot be linked directly with a SWOT </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>! Micro-payments & aggregation </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Prepaid: one big real-world payment is split up into small Internet payments </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Collection: many small Internet payments are aggregated into one big real-world payment </li></ul></ul></ul></ul>
  9. 13. AGENDA <ul><li>I. CLASSIFYING PI S : A MATRYOSHKA APPROACH </li></ul><ul><li>II. PI S OFFERED BY NP SITES: 2008 VS. 2006 </li></ul><ul><li>III. SWOT-ANALYSIS </li></ul><ul><li>IV. CONCLUSION </li></ul>
  10. 14. II. EVOLUTIONS IN AVAILABLE PI S OUR SCOPE: NATIONAL NP S - WE <ul><li>Period June-July 2006 and 2008 </li></ul><ul><li>82 newspapers > 8 countries </li></ul><ul><li>All national, daily paid-for newspapers </li></ul><ul><li>Belgi um ( 9 ) - the Netherlands ( 8 ) - Luxembourg ( 6 ) </li></ul><ul><li>- France ( 11 ) - Germany ( 10 ) - Italy ( 20 ) - Spain ( 8 ) </li></ul><ul><li>- the United Kingdom ( 10 ) </li></ul><ul><li>Listing conform WAN-report (2006) & national coordinating organisations </li></ul><ul><li>Not: </li></ul><ul><li>- regional and local newspapers </li></ul><ul><li>- freely distributed newspapers </li></ul><ul><li>- overly specific target audience </li></ul>DATA COLLECTION = SELECTIVE BUT EXHAUSTIVE
  11. 15. THE TOP 3 OF ACCEPTED PI S OVER THE PERIOD 2006-2008
  12. 16. THE TOP 3 OF ACCEPTED PI S OVER THE PERIOD 2006-2008 <ul><li>OVERALL: NO DRASTIC CHANGES </li></ul><ul><li>CREDIT CARDS  FROM 66.2% TO 63.4% </li></ul><ul><li>CREDIT TRANSFERS  FROM 47.5% TO 52.4% </li></ul><ul><li>DIRECT DEBITS  </li></ul><ul><li>MICRO-PAYMENT INSTRUMENTS DECREASED IN POPULARITY </li></ul><ul><li>LOWERED OFFERING OF PPV ETC. (CF. INFRA) </li></ul><ul><li>CHICKEN-AND-EGG PROBLEM </li></ul>
  13. 17. 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
  14. 18. II. CROSS TABLE 2006 THE BUNDLING OF ONLINE CONTENT VS. NATURE/INNOVATIVENESS OF PI S :
  15. 19. AGENDA <ul><li>I. CLASSIFYING PI S : A MATRYOSHKA APPROACH </li></ul><ul><li>II. PI S OFFERED BY NP SITES: 2008 VS. 2006 </li></ul><ul><li>III. SWOT-ANALYSIS </li></ul><ul><li>IV. CONCLUSION </li></ul>
  16. 20. III. SWOT-ANALYSIS OF THE MOST PREVALENT PI S <ul><li>III.1 CREDIT CARDS </li></ul><ul><li>III.2 CREDIT TRANSFERS </li></ul><ul><li>III.3 DIRECT DEBITS </li></ul><ul><li>III.4 ONLINE BANKING </li></ul><ul><li>III.5 SMS </li></ul>
  17. 21. 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
  18. 22. III.1 CREDIT CARDS
  19. 23. III.2 CREDIT TRANSFERS
  20. 24. III.3 DIRECT DEBITS
  21. 25. III.4 ONLINE BANKING
  22. 26. III.5 SMS
  23. 27. 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
  24. 28. IV. CONCLUSION <ul><li>NP SITES STILL NO FAN OF MICRO-PM S </li></ul><ul><li>+ </li></ul><ul><li>OFFERING OF PPV ETC. REMAINS LIMITED </li></ul><ul><li>AS WELL (SESSION 3) </li></ul><ul><li>= </li></ul><ul><li>CHICKEN-AND-EGG PROBLEM </li></ul><ul><li> IS IT BECAUSE THERE ARE NO EFFICIENT PI S AVAILABLE, THAT NP S DO NOT OFFER PPV, OR THE OTHER WAY AROUND ? </li></ul>

×