Tag Archives: strategy

Scenario Analysis of The Telecommunications Industry

Recently I had the opportunity to do a series of presentations on scenario analysis at the China Institute of Competitive Intelligence 5th annual conference in Shanghai.  I used 3G/4G wireless as a use case for scenario analysis.  The high-level scenario analysis the scenarios I’ve developed illustrate four very different possible futures for the telecommunications industry.

The true benefit of scenario analysis is that it helps decision-makers create strategies with a view of the multiple ways the future may unfold.  The best and most important outcome of a full scenario analyzes is that it enables executives to learn about the trends in their industry, recognize the need to adapt to fundamental change, prepare for the unexpected and continue a strategic conversation (to steal some lines from Craig Fleisher and Babette Bensoussan).

With scenario analysis strategists get a view of multiple possible futures.  They can make several decisions without knowing with certainty which scenario (if any) truly describes the future.  Strategists will be able to identify strategies and tactics that are common to all of the possible futures described by the analysis.  They can determine whether or not there are any steps the company can take to make it more likely that an ideal end state will come to pass, such as lobbying regulators or lawmakers to enact specific policies.  CI professionals can use the scenario analysis to identify milestones as the basis of early warning systems so that the firm can be forewarned of which scenario is likely to be as time passes.

As I undertook this effort I  came to see the true importance of having a diverse team with a variety of perspectives and skills in conducting a full scenario analysis.  For example, it would have been great to hear from at least one network engineer about the challenges of transitioning from 3G to 4G and interoperability among the various wireless standards that are deployed in the market.   CI professionals interested in conducting their own scenario analysis should take the need for diversity very seriously.

A true scenario analysis will be more bound than what you see here.  Good scenario analysis bounds the timeframe, which I have left very vague but estimate as the next 3 – 5 years for these scenarios.  Some scenario analysis can look as far as 10 years into the future.  Also, because the telecommunications industry is a mix of global and local markets as well as regulations a true scenario analysis would likely limit itself to a specific market (telecom equipment or services) or geography (the US, Europe or China).  This analysis is not bound on these dimensions and as a consequence is more “squishy” than a true scenario analysis.

The Four Futures of the Telecommunications Industry

As I conducted the analysis I concluded that these are the  two most important uncertainties regarding the future of the telecommunications industry:
  1. Whether or not telecommunications systems will be largely open (as they are today) or closed (the extreme case being the Bell system in the US prior to divestiture).
  2. The cost of commodities is going to have substantial impact on global economies.  The slower growth curve in the US and Europe versus the growth of China and India is a given.  However, all economies will face the potential for major shocks if commodity prices vary wildly.

With these two uncertainties as my axis that enabled me to create a 2 x 2 matrix of four possible futures:
  1. Telcos Set the Pace: A world of stable commodity prices with closed and controlled telecommunications and IT infrastructure.  Telecom service providers will seek to maximize the Return on Capital (ROC) by sweating existing assets.  Telcos will be slow to roll out 4G infrastructure and prefer to limit new applications to limit the pressure on existing networks.
  2. Google World: A world of stable commodity prices with open telecommunications ecosystems.  New devices and applications excite end users and create new value, driving adoption and requiring telecommunications service providers to upgrade their networks quickly to keep up with demand.  Revenues for telecoms is high here, though ROC is much lower for telcos.  Equipment manufacturers perform very well in this scenario.
  3. Innovation Stagnation: A world of economic volatility and with closed telecommunications systems.  For Americans who remember the telecom industry of the 1970s this is a modern equivalent of that.  There will be no move to 4G during this scenario.  We’ll see a greater consolidation among equipment manufacturers, and could even see telecom carriers purchase equipment makers in a reverse vertical integration play.
  4. Reverse Innovation World: A world of economic volatility but open ecosystems.  Every customer and provider in the IT and telecoms industry is trying to do what they are doing today with lower cost.  Equipment manufacturers from China such as Huawei and ZTE are the big winners in this scenario.  Chinese and Indian business models that function with lower revenue and less overhead are enthusiastically adopted in the US and Europe.

I’ll no doubt be doing more with this analysis and writing more about it in the future.  If you have any thoughts reactions or questions as you read this I would love to hear them.  I will be presenting an updated version that focuses more on the process and value of scenario analysis at the December meeting of the Society of Competitive Intelligence Professionals (SCIP) DC chapter.  You can see more details about that event and register here.

Intelligence Collaborative Inaugural Event 10/22 in Washington, DC

If you’re going to be in Washington, DC on the evening of Thursday, October 22 please join us for the inaugural event of the Intelligence Collaborative.  The title and the topic are “Social Media and Next Generation Intelligence.”  You can read more about the event and register here.

The Intelligence Collaborative is a nascent professional collaboration and networking group for intelligence professionals and those in related fields.  We are purposefully casting a very wide net in this group’s mission.  Our target audience encompasses professionals engaged or interested in commercial intelligence, government intelligence, military intelligence, investigative journalism, strategists of all flavors, fraud investigators and librarians.  I’m sure I’m leaving some people out in that summary, and if you feel remotely interested feel free to check things out.  The event is free, and you can read more about the concept originally launched by my friend Eric Garland on the Competitive Intelligence Community on Ning.  You can also take a view of Eric’s video introduction to the Intelligence Collaborative here:

There will be a brief set of presentations at tomorrow’s event.  One of the reasons these events will be brief is because we will be using the Pecha Kucha format: 20 slides that auto-advance every 20 seconds.  This has in itself been a great learning experience for me, because 20 seconds is NOT a lot of time.  You’ve got to be concise, get your points across very quickly and think very carefully about how you will pull everything together.  And you’ve got to practice like nobody’s business.  You can see a preview of my presentation here:

Cross Post: Strategic Secrecy and Excellence

I am going to be a lazy blogger today and cross-post a forum discussion topic that I posted in the Competitive Intelligence community on Ning that explores the concept of Apple’s strategic secrecy.  My hypothesis is that Apple and other companies earn the privilege to be strategically secret (note: not completely opaque) by delivering customer value and excellent products or services.  Some executives may begin to look at Apple’s secrecy and conclude post hoc ergo proctor hoc that strategic secrecy alone will bring them success.  On the contrary, I argue, secrecy without excellence is a sign of either corporate egotism or incompetence.

Feel free to comment here or head over to the Ning discussion to share your thoughts.

I always look forward to Ken Sawka and company’s “Looking Out” newsletter in my e-mail in-box. The articles are usually very challenging and expand my own understanding of the relevance of curren business and political happenings to competitive intelligence. In this morning’s newsletter Ken poses a question about one of my favorite companies, Apple. Speaking of Apple’s track record for secrecy when the cultural trend is pulling in the direction of openness and transparency: Is Apple’s obsession with secrecy good business?

This article resonates with me because very recently I finished reading the Jeff Jarvis book What Would Google Do. This book touches on themes of openness and transparency and lays out a set of rules for how to be Googley and succeed in our modern business environment that favors “ecosystems” and “platforms” over stand-alone companies. A great video summary of the book is at readitfor.me.

In WWGD Jarvis puts Apple forward as the unGoogle and asks how it is Apple can break all of the rules of being a modern technology company and still be as successful as they are. It is clear that Apple are playing a clever game of chess about when to be transparent and when to be completely opaque. A few examples of Apple’s openness: adoption of the USB port for peripheral connectivity, support for the MP3 file format on the iPod (Sony chose to support only proprietary music formats and effectively ceded the portable music market they had owned for nearly two decades) and what I consider to be deliberate “mistakes” in updating the code of Apple web pages to pique interest in pending product releases.

Jarvis makes the case that Apple get away with this because their products and services are truly excellent. Early this week Jarvis posted an entry to his blog that named The Economist as the Apple of the news media industry. The Economist is able to break almost all of the rules of modern news business (charging for on-line content, no writer bylines) and is much better positioned than most other news media properties to innovate into the new age that is clearly upon us. Apple and The Economist can be rule breakers because, Jarvis posits, the products they deliver are so clearly excellent and in-line with what customers really want.

Part of the key to effective strategic secrecy and overall success in the marketplace is excellence in the eyes of your customers. While this seems self-evident, how many companies and governments have we seen that don’t deliver quality products or services yet remain opaque? How do we regard their secrecy? I tend to regard it as a sign of poor processes and a clear misunderstanding or disregard for the needs of their customers or constituents, indications of either laziness or self-interest.

Many executives, I am afraid, will take the wrong lesson away from Apple’s strategic secrecy and put the cart before the horse. “Now we’re going to be cagey about our widgets and then the cash will just come rolling in!” The freedom to be opaque must be earned.

As always, I am interested in the thoughts of the community here assembled. How do you perceive strategic secrecy and excellence as competitive differentiators? What criteria do you believe (if any) are required before a company gets to break the rules in its industry? What are other companies that are delivering excellence or applying strategic secrecy? Can you have the latter without the former?

Upcoming Competitive Intelligence Article: Web 2.0 Changes Everything

I have been ignoring the blog the past few weeks largely to focus on a couple of efforts I am working on for SCIP.  In the interim I hope that the active sharing of news items I find on Google Reader and Twitter that run along the sidebar of this blog.  I am a religious user of both platforms and they really do serve a niche to give me a means to share items of interest between blog posts or when I don’t have enough time, inclination or insight to justify a full blog entry.

One of the projects that I’ve been working on is an article on Web 2.0 and CI that I needed to get out the door and kept me up until 2 AM Thursday night. The article is probably going to be in the March/April issue of Competitive Intelligence magazine.  Some of the main points that I try to convey in this article are the basics of Web 2.0 and the consequences of network effects, transparency and open platforms on established business models.

I also try to make the point in this article that Web 2.0 platforms increase the need and importance of active, real-time reputation monitoring.  This is a difficult tight-rope to walk, because one of the dynamics I am trying to convey related to corporate policies related to employee use of Web 2.0 platforms (both inside and outside the enterprise) is that heavy-handed strategies won’t work.  My challenge is creating an appropriate sense of urgency around active reputation monitoring and management with the knee-jerk reflex to “lock it down” that one observes in command-and-control oriented corporate structures.  

The downside to the command and control approach is that it comes with a hard-to-measure cost in employee efficiency, satisfaction and retention.  Ham-handed anti-web 2.0 policies are signals to the market (and employment is still a market even if it’s more of a buyer’s market these days) of the value in which the corporation holds individual employees.  The best and the brightest want to go where they are going to be recognized as individuals, allowed to innovate, allowed to pursue individual initiative and rewarded for their efforts.  Heavy-fisted policies about participation and social networks tell these stellar employees that this will not happen here.  It also sends a message to market watchers that a corporate structure lacks the ability to take advantage of bottom-up innovation.  When the recovery does happen I would like to think investors will see these qualities as indicators of staying power and the ability of a firm to generate growth and higher returns on investments.

Your Competitor Doesn’t Always Look Like You

One of my Saturday morning rituals is to sync the iPod with the podcasts that have been captured over night, and the first podcast I listen to each Saturday morning is WNYC‘s On the Media.

Today I heard a story on a group of newspaper executives that are banding together to make the case that the newspaper industry is not suffering as much as some of us might believe from the coverage of this industry in the media in something called the Newspaper Project.  Commentary by Philadelphia Inquirer publisher Brian Tierne makes a strong case for the value and potential of historically-printed journalism to make the transition to digital platforms.  The real take-away for me as a CI guy was Tierney sharing this anecdote (not a direct quote from a transcript but written from my memory):

Somebody asked Lorne Michaels recently what was the competition to “Saturday Night Live” and he said “Guitar Hero.”

This highlights a case I try to make very forcefully when I speak to business people and CI professionals, with varying degree of success.  That fundamental truth is that your competition is any entity that can deliver the same fundamental value to the customer that you do.  

On the surface this sounds obvious.  Most executives and even CI professionals I speak to still operate under the assumption that their competitors look like themselves.  If we’re a capital-intensive, massively scaled, publicly-traded company then all of our competitors will also be capital-intensive, massively-scaled, publicly-traded companies.  They’ll deliver value using the same technology and processes we use to deliver value.  They will extract revenue from their customers the same way we extract value.  The only questions for competitive strategy are “How do we compare in terms of technology features to their offering?” and “What is our price position?”

I have seen this mindset up-close.  Several years ago I told a product manager at a capital-intensive, massively-scaled, publicly traded company that he needed to watch out for disruption to his pricing power from a rising band of capital-light (software-based), exponentially-scalable (peer-to-peer network effect and viral marketing), venture-funded start-up.  ”Hell, we don’t need to worry about them,” he drawled.  ”We deliver an enterprise-grade service with high levels of availability and quality they’ll never be able to meet.”  That competitor now delivers a much higher-quality product that is feature-rich and benefits from considerable network effects that have enabled its platform to achieve massive scale.  Did I mention it’s much, much cheaper than the “enterprise-grade” solution that now pales by comparison in terms of features and quality?

Your unseen competitor might be a private company funded by angel or venture capital– or even a bootstrapped entrepreneur.  It could be a non-profit or an open source provider.  Your competitor could be your customer deciding they can deliver the value they get from you themselves.  Your latent competition could be other necessities that are higher-priority for customers’ in these difficult economic times.  Executives and CI professionals need to expand their concept of “competition” if they are going to maintain or grow revenues and profits.

Jeff Jarvis has a new book out called What Would Google Do.  I have not had the pleasure of reading this book yet (it’s on my Audible wish list).  The premise is very intriguing: think of the Google model for disruption and innovation and ask yourself “If Google was going to enter my industry, what innovation would they use to disrupt the existing business model?”  

  • How would Google use IT to leverage customer activity such as search or service inquiries to actually generate value and create a self-reinforcing process?  
  • Is there a way Google could give away your product or service and generate revenue from advertising or some other revenue model?  
  • What sort of “ecosystem” would Google create by opening up parts of the business process to partners, customers and even potential competitors in a way that captures value of everyone’s efforts for Google and its customers?

These are just three examples off the top of my head.  As I look at any number of industries I see ways to “Google-fy” their business.  I also see the potential inside of companies to apply the same models to business processes to achieve greater efficiency and improve employees’ ability to do their jobs.

We’ve been able to become very complacent in recent decades, and there is a lot of waste and fat in our operations.  Customers have been accepting of higher-cost enterprise-grade solutions that today pale in comparison to low-cost “prosumer” offerings.  They’re going to demand pricing in line with their real needs or turn to disruptive providers.  Companies are struggling to cut costs and are laying off employees and will need to find ways to make their remaining employees sufficiently productive.  To do these things more companies should think like Google and other scary disruptive competitors and be ready to disrupt themselves.  

The economic environment is going to force a change in the DNA of how successful businesses think, and it’s not going to be an option of executives to wait out the recession for a return to the equilibrium with which we have become so comfortable.  These times call for bold, disruptive action if companies are going to come out the other side of the recession prepared for growth.

Social Networking More Popular than Porn: What it Means for Competitive Advantage

A CI colleague of mine passed along a story that had been brought to her attention.  According to Hitwise, social networking web sites have become more popular than porn sites.  I’m sure that there is a lot that can be said about the methodology of this headline-grabbing conclusion.  For the moment I want to either assume that the study is true or that it’s close enough to being true to support the suppositions that I am about to make for the consequences to competitive advantage.  My colleague asked in her e-mail “What is the significance of this?” and I responded thusly…

The take-away for me is that the connectivity delivered by social networking meets a fundamental human need even more ingrained and needed than sexual gratification (to put it bluntly).  


It’s not a fad or flash in the pan.  While the cast of players may change (Facebook, Twitter, etc.) the concept of social networking and subsequent threats and opportunities are here to stay.  Many business leaders are planning to wait out what they see as a fad, and many corporate leaders are maintaining or instituting misguided policies that are based on the assumption that you can separate human employees from something so fundamentally human.  

Policies in information security, public relations, human relations, marketing, sales… the list goes on all have to take this reality into consideration.  Old “sledgehammer” strategies are not going to work going forward.  The best and the brightest are going to go where they can maintain and grow their self actualization through social tools both inside the company, with partners/customers and their social lives.  Many boundaries are going to collapse as a consequence.  It’s not going to be all flowers and happiness because everybody involved is going to have to be a lot smarter.  

Those managers and employees that can apply a modicum of common sense (I hope that I fit in that category) are going to do better than the “zero tolerance” models that existed in the command-and-control world.  Business models that take advantage of social media will do better than those that don’t.

The long and short of the case I am trying to make about social media in general is that it is here to stay.  This is not to cast myself as all ra-ra social networking, web 2.0, this-time-the-revolution-will-not-be-televised dilettante.  I am, however, a firm believer in the human desire for self-actualization and socialization as a fundamental need and a higher level of desire.  While the recession may temper Generation Y’s selectiveness or job hopping looking for that perfect job, these needs are neither temporary nor generational in their nature.  Over the long term (Five years?  A decade?) the need for employers to utilize technology to accommodate those needs among customers and employees is going to become business as usual.  On its way to becoming table stakes some companies will take the smarts needed to satisfy those needs a competitive advantage.

The Fox and the Hedgehog

One of the topics that intrigues me most about intelligence and the process of moving from evidence to data to insight to action is the role the cognitive dissonance plays in human decision-making.  A great presentation on that subject I heard recently is psychology researcher Philip Tetlock’s analysis of the performance of “foxes” and “hedgehogs” in making predictions about the future.  On the whole “foxes” are more reliable predictors than “hedgehogs.”

A hedgehog is a person that holds on to one idea or theory, and all events and predictions are related to that single salient belief.  A fox, by comparison, will pick and choose from a variety of theories or concepts based on what they observe, and will tend to be less partisan.  The dichotomy was best expressed by the Greek warrior poet Archilochus: “The fox knows many things; the hedgehog one great thing.”

That foxes are better predictors of future events according to Tetlock’s research is only one interesting aspect of the research.  Hedgehogs can get lucky from time to time and see very unlikely predicted events actually come to pass (such as those who had been predicting the demise of the Soviet Union since the 1950s finally getting their day in the early 1990s).

Also of great interest to me is the impact that communicating predictions have on decision-makers.  Foxes tend to cache their predictions with a lot of “howevers” and “ifs.”  Hedgehogs communicate rock-solid certainty.  To decision-makers seeking advice, the simplicity offered by the hedgehog is appealing, and the foxes, while perhaps being more realist in their presentation of multiple possibilities and scenarios, are frustrating because of their very lack of specificity.

Rather than a recommendation to stuff a team with foxes, Tetlock seems to be hinting that understanding the fox/hedgehog dynamic can be a basis for building teams of analysts that in aggregate provide truly actionable, reliable predictions.

I don’t think I can do the concept justice in the space of this short blog entry.  I recommend those interested in the concept give the podcast a listen.

The Long Now Blog » Blog Archive » Philip Tetlock – Ignore confident forecasters.

Weekend Thoughts on Industry Disruption

Upon reading this post Ive come to conclude this is something of a stream-of-consciousness post.

Halfway through I am loving this long weekend. With no big plans for the holiday weekend Ive been able to rest, get some exercise and catch up on some of the chores around the house and reading Ive wanted to get done for some time. After several busy weekends in a row this is an excellent respite.

One of the books Im making my way through this weekend is Seeing Whats Next by Clayton Christensen. The first couple chapters are a decent summary of what constitutes a disruptive market entrant and some of the strategies they employ. What Mr. Christensen seems to do best is to lay out an explicit framework for some of the strategies executives understand by might not be able to articulate. These are actually the kind of business books I like best, because they facilitate building a framework for strategic market analysis that underpins conclusions and recommendations. In other words, they make my life easier.

Mr. Christensen breaks down the three basic categories of customer targets for a disruptive market entrant as follows:

Non-consumers: those who do not use a product either due to its cost or requirements for technical expertise. These customers likely have a need or application for a product or service, but no means to employ those products. One example is the telephone itself, which displaced the telegraph (an example Mr. Christensen employs) partly because it did not require knowledge of Morse code. A second example would be the personal computer, which ended up displacing the mainframe market by making computing accessible to a wider range of hobbyists and non-Computer Science professionals both on the basis of lower cost and reducing the need for specific expertise.

Over-shot consumers: those consumers whose needs are far exceeded by the functionality of the products on the market. These are the customers that can often be heard saying, I only want it to do X. These customers are easily targeted by low-cost market entrants that provide products that only do X and leave Y and Z by the side of the road. These overshot customers are pleased to buy a simpler product at a lower cost, and market incumbents tend to respond to new market entrants targeting this segment by focusing on their higher-end, high margin customers and generally ceding this space. One example of this is the low-cost airlines that were once ignored by the mainline carriers but now command respect from an industry in turmoil. This is an interesting dynamic however, because many customers insist on the Swiss Army Knife solution even if they dont need all of the bells and whistles. Examples of the latter phenomenon include customers who eschew low-cost word processor and spreadsheet software in favor of continuing to use Microsoft Word and Excel, even when the low-cost softwares files are perfectly compatible with widely used software. In other words, in some domains customers continue to insist upon a higher functionality tool regardless of whether or not they leverage the higher functionality regardless of the higher cost.

Under-shot consumers: those consumers whose requirements are not met by the current product set. There are specific features and functions these customers desire, and they can often be observed saying If only id did X. These are the consumers that are generally willing to pay a premium for incremental functional improvements to a product. A disruptive market entrant has the potential to target these customers by offering a product that does X. However, since these consumers are generally the high-margin customers of the incumbent, it is much harder to introduce a disruptive strategy at the high end. Incumbents do not cede this ground.

Reading this book, I cannot help but think of the market for computer operating systems. Several of the responses Mr. Christensen attributes to incumbents threatened by new market entrants bear a strong resemblance to what Microsoft executives have to say about Linux. The potential disruption in the operating system environment occurs along each of the dimensions Mr. Christensen outlines. Non-consumers in the third world are targeted with very low-cost PCs running Linux. Overshot customers in the server market run Linux because it does not have all the bells and whistles (and performance overhead) of the Microsoft OS for servers. Undershot customers can leverage the open nature of Linux to add to the capability set of the OS. While Linux threatens the Microsoft product set on each dimension, the appeal to non-consumers and over-shot consumers is particularly interesting as Microsoft continue their feature creep in future versions of their software.

In a somewhat related consideration, I took a look at a post from a few months back from Robert Cringely. In this post, Cringely covers have a $70 box could challenge the telecommunications industry. This post details how a Linksys router/wireless access point running Linux can be employed in a mesh network. Mr. Cringely outlines how an enterprising broadband or voice over IP provider could employ a franchise strategy to extend wireless broadband in a particular area. This is a very interesting example of potential disruption to the traditional telecommunications indsutry. Perhaps incumbent telecom providers have well-recognized this, and this is why they have been fighting municipal Wi-Fi efforts so strongly. This recent piece from Forbes talks a bit about efforts to deploy wireless mesh Wi-Fi in rural America. The mind boggles at the opportunity to mesh small towns and neighborhoods with pervasive wireless broadband and voice over IP. Maybe I need to figure out something for my hometown of Harmon, Illinois. With technology such as this small-town America could begin to close the digital divide that exists between rural America and large cities.

Voice over Wi-Fi Another Strategic Dimension

The industry newsletter FierceWireless just announced the Fierce 15 for 2005.

I was curious to see that 3 of the 15 companies are focusing their business plans around the integration of mobile and Voice over IP technology. This raised a question in my head about how thrilled the wireless carriers themselves would be (or in this case not) to see customers have the ability to bypass their networks using voice over Internet. Specifically looking at environments where customers can connect via Bluetooth or Wi-Fi to a computer or router to use the Internet to make calls. Everybody gets all worked up about users being able to use voice over Wi-Fi from hotspots, but I actually think more popular locations for this would be from work or home. Witness, for example, that Vonage and Skype recently making pushing into integrating Wi-Fi phones into their offerings, primarily intended for home or office use.

What this integration would really result in would be customers able to use their mobiles at home or work and completely bypass the carriers network. These are two places where customers spend a lot of time, so this development would really cut in to customer usage of their services. Functions like SMS and data services would also be able to bypass the carriers and run over the Internet.

One significant challenge which could represent a roadblock to consumer freedom is the question of call switching on the public telephone network. Carriers still hold a good number of cards in that regard, and its going to be a challenge to route calls over the appropriate infrastructure without their participation in some way. In other words, users will not have the convenience of a single contact number until carriers agree to play ball (or are forced to do so).

There are any number of strategic implications for companies involved in the voice and mobile services space. Wireless carriers such as Verizon Wireless, Cingular and others should be prepared to focus more on custom applications and information services independent of infrastructure, including perhaps adopting the routing of calls over the Internet as a value-added service of their offerings. They should also be prepared to see a big hit in their per-minute and data usage rates and adjust their price plans accordingly.

Mobile phone manufacturers stand to take back some power from the carriers in all of this. Ive written a couple of times now about how the dominance of the carrier is putting handcuffs on manufacturers, as demonstrated by Motorolas delayed introduction of the iPhone (presumably on the objection of a major carrier partner). Once again this presents the manufacturer an opportunity to market the device independently from the carrier.

Voice over Wi-Fi and mobile virtual network operators (mentioned earlier) are just two of the many strategic issues leaders in this industry segment need to keep in mind as they move into the future.

Meditating on Satellite Radio

There was an article today in the New York Times talking about how satellite radio is forcing commercial broadcast radio to change. This was an interesting read and gave me a moment to focus on some thoughts Ive been having about satellite radio recently.

Begin Product Placement

The thoughts were driven in part by a laoner car given to me by the local Acura dealership while I was having some work done on my own vehicle. The laoner had XM radio, and I found myself channel surfing among the 80s, 90s, dance and news channels during my drive. I have to say that I was impressed by the ability to manage my adult-onset attention deficit across a subset of XM channels. It takes a mighty arsenal of music and news to keep me sated, and XM did a pretty good job of it.

End Product Placement

Theres something that concerns me about satellite radio, though. I have to wonder if the business model for XM and Sirius is tied too tightly to the technical method of distribution for their programming. I really enjoyed their programming, and I dont see any reason why much of it could be delivered over terrestrial airwaves once digital radio takes off.

The Times article points out that major radio networks are looking at digital radio (or HD Radio as the Washington Post tried to brand terrestrial digital radioyuck) to offer subscription-based services with fewer commercial offerings. As much as I dislike commercial broadcast radio today I can recognize the potential competition that the medium will present for satellite radio at the cutting edge of broadcast technology.

One of the things I think XM and Sirius need to do is to begin to offer some of their content on a subscription basis via a terrestrial, digital broadcast infrastructure. This will go a long way to alleviating the challenge from digital radio. XM have already proven (at least to me) that they get the programming side of the game.

Secondly, I think XM and Sirius have an opportunity to deliver a more realistic kind of content over their satellite infrastructure. Being broadcast over airwaves not regulated (or less regulated, anyway) than terrestrial broadcasts allows the programming to be truer, more realistic and (lets face it) more raunchy than any terrestrial broadcast services will be able to provide.

Thirdly, I would love to see XM and Sirius move towards offering subscriptions to individual channels across both platforms. In other words, if I am an XM customer, but I want to listen to Howard Stern, I can subscribe to that channel from Sirius and receive it over the equipment I already have installed on my vehicle.

Finally, and this is something I believe XM and Sirius both have done very well is their ability to serve national radio audiences such as major league baseball fans and over-the-road truck drivers with specific content for their consumption.

So, those are my thoughts on satellite radio.