Tag espn
Mouse No Longer Roars
by mobileman (10/01/2007 - 05:10)
The big news that nearly got lost last week was Disney closing up its remaining MVNO. Now, both ESPN and Disney mobile have failed in the MVNO game.
Despite the MVNO failures, Disney will profit from wireless in a huge way.
What should we as an industry learn from these two expensive attempts?On the surface, both companies have the consensus prerequisites for a successful MVNO.
They have immense name recognition, strong brands, loyal and large clientele, and enough money to fill the Superbowl, or Cinderella’s castle for that matter. Both ultimately failed for similar reason.
Reason number 1:
Disney is not in the wireless services business.
This may seem institutively backwards. After all, what MVNO is in the wireless business before it starts? Answer: Virgin. Which MVNO is successful? See answer to previous question. The challenges of the wireless MVNO business, with thin margins, are unique to big brands. Disney is the premier storytelling and content king.
Reason number 2:
A key to a successful MVNO is retail distribution and promotion.
Disney never seemed to be able to ramp up a critical mass of retailers for its mobile services. This is a curious failure since Disney products are found in many of the largest retail superstores. My assumption is that the toy and apparel buyers at Wal-Mart and Target have little in common with the buyers of telecommunications equipment. The MVNO sale in retail establishments is tough on any level. The retailers are likely to prefer the big post-pay brands that give them a residual on the service contract to a onetime prepaid sale. I cannot remember seeing a single ESPN or Disney phone anywhere I've shopped.
Reason number 3:
Exactly who is going to buy a Disney phone anyway?
Being a father of grade school-aged children, I get opportunities to conduct informal “focus groups” with my kids' friends when they are over at my house.
They all seem to be getting mobile phones around 5th or 
6th grade. The trend is clearly getting younger. I would ask them who would want a Disney phone? The looks of horror I received was uniform. A Disney phone? “That’s for kids!" echoed one 9-year-old, “I want a Krazr!” If this crowd was rejecting the Disney, then who was left? 6-year-olds? The purchasers of these phones were parents. Parents do respond to constant badgering from their kids. (Gee, I hope my kids are not reading this!) Preteens want what teens have – the mainline phones from the big carriers. Not a Mickey Mouse phone.
6th grade. The trend is clearly getting younger. I would ask them who would want a Disney phone? The looks of horror I received was uniform. A Disney phone? “That’s for kids!" echoed one 9-year-old, “I want a Krazr!” If this crowd was rejecting the Disney, then who was left? 6-year-olds? The purchasers of these phones were parents. Parents do respond to constant badgering from their kids. (Gee, I hope my kids are not reading this!) Preteens want what teens have – the mainline phones from the big carriers. Not a Mickey Mouse phone.Reason number 4:
Family plans rule.
This was a huge miss on the part of both ESPN and Disney. In the case of ESPN, Dad is getting on the same phone plan as the rest of the family. For Disney, junior is getting the $10/month family plan deal. You might make a case for single men getting a cool ESPN phone, if ESPN and sports content was not available on every other phone! For Disney, there are very few financially independent 6-year-olds with purchasing power. The whole family was expected to convert to Disney. (Not.)
Reason Number 5Be careful with premium pricing
Both plans were post-paid and premium-priced compared to the big guys. With ESPN content available everywhere and the major carriers quickly catching up with kid-friendly phones and plans, there was no room for a premium-priced Disney alternative.
And now, why Disney can be huge in wireless.
Disney is a content monster. No company has the breadth of “Monday Night Football” to “High School Musical.” The wireless medium is another cash machine for Disney, just like DVD, theater, toys, clothing, theme parks, cable channels and the Internet. They attract and retain audiences in all genres. The mobile audience is, and will continue to be, a lucrative venue for the Disney Kingdom of Content.
Add this link to:
Here comes Google!
by mobileman (09/14/2007 - 04:33)
Here comes Google …
The market has yet to catch its breathe on the iPhone, as rumors of the Google phone continue to circulate. Google, like Apple, is a world-class, capable company that innovates at a dizzying pace.
Its resources seem almost limitless as it sets its sights on a bigger slice of the mobile market. Will it just be a handset? A bid on spectrum, an outright purchase of a wireless carrier? If I were sitting at Google I would proceed with great caution.Google should dust off all the press of the failed ESPN MVNO and learn from it. ESPN has wonderful content, a killer brand and 
is a marketing powerhouse. Their mobile content was on every carrier, with application innovation in sports being pushed and pushed. With these assets as a base, ESPN took the leap of faith to launch an MVNO and become a retail wireless carrier.
is a marketing powerhouse. Their mobile content was on every carrier, with application innovation in sports being pushed and pushed. With these assets as a base, ESPN took the leap of faith to launch an MVNO and become a retail wireless carrier. The skill set to become a successful carrier includes: retail distribution, mobile handset sourcing, customer service, billing, wireless network knowledge, wireless network operations (even if you have an MVNO), and mobile feature innovation across all mobile features (voice, IVR, LBS, games, music, social networking, messaging, etc.). Look at the above list and determine which competencies ESPN had before they decided to place a big bet on wireless?
Great content is not enough. ESPN had an overly expensive phone with limited distribution, a post-pay model, few features other than sports, no family plans, etc.
Virgin Mobile has been successful because they actually ran other wireless MVNO services (in the U.K.) before they launched in the U.S. They had the necessary corporate skill set and have been successful.This now gets me back to Google. On the surface, it has some direct parallels to ESPN. Google’s existing wireless services are very popular and are on most every carrier. They are best in class at innovating web-based products and then applying those features and functionalities to mobile. They have just launched a version of their incredible cash engine, adwords, for mobile applications.
As was the case for ESPN, they are firing on all mobile cylinders. By continuing on their present course, they will be a significant and dominant player in mobile content, search, applications and advertising for the foreseeable future.
Is the talk and effort on spectrum auctions and Google handsets a negotiating tactic for better terms from existing carriers, or is it the far-reaching aspirations of the Web’s most dominant player? Is it a tactic, a strategy, or corporate hubris?
Google clearly has the financial capability to acquire all the wireless network talent and competency it needs to complement its Web prowess, should it choose to do so.
The moves that Google makes, and succeeds or fails at, will have industry-forming impact for years to come.
This is a very interesting time for all of us!
Even these carriers have Google
Add this link to:
Latest comments