Free Newsletter
Fifty-four percent say they don't want or need mobile video
Free newsletter via e-mail
Tools
Seventy nine percent of subscribers still use their mobile phones primarily as a channel to communicate via voice, text and email, with 54 percent indicating their don't want or need mobile video services, according to a new consumer study issued by global management consulting, technology services and outsourcing firm Accenture. Fourteen percent of users surveyed contend mobile services are too expensive, and 9 percent add that video-enabled handsets are too expensive as well. When asked if the availability of mobile content would drive them to upgrade their mobile data plan to include video services, 70 percent replied "to a very little extent."
Other findings of the Accenture report:
- The percentage of consumers watching video on a mobile phone rose from 12 percent in late 2007 to 14 percent in late 2008.
- The percentage of consumers accessing the mobile web rose from 8 percent in 2007 to 23 percent in 2008.
- About a third of respondents indicate web browsing is one of their top three favorite mobile applications.
- Almost 25 percent indicate listening to music on their mobile phone browsing is one of their top three favorite mobile applications.
Although consumers are reluctant to embrace multimedia on their mobile phones, Accenture reports a growing number of respondents are embracing new forms of digital entertainment: Baby Boomers ages 45 and up are increasingly playing videogames on the go and listening to music via MP3 player, although they remain far behind Generation Y in actual usage. In addition, Boomers are adapting to new digital platforms like blogging, social networking and Internet video, but remain far behind younger generations.
For more on the Accenture report:
- read this Twice article
Related articles:
Study: Mobile video viewing grows, but still lagging
Study: Mobile video image quality, speed vex users
Comments
Posted by Lee Wright | March 23, 2009 - 12:29pm
This is a great example of research that is not helpful in making investment and partnering decisions, and this outcome could have been predicted before the study went to the field.
Instead of asking consumers the questions in the study, try this simple thought experiment:
- What percentage of the population watches one or more TV shows regularly?
- Are there live events that caused people to seek out live TV wherever they were? It's easy to think of several, including the OJ chase, 9-11, the flight that landed in the Hudson, many major sports championships, and the inauguration.
The question isn't "Do you want mobile video?" Instead, it's "If you heard that [name of event] was being broadcast _right now_, would you be interested in seeing a live broadcast? [If yes,] Where would you go to watch it? If you also had the option of watching it right here right now using a high resolution color screen handset that you already owned with a plan that you already had, how likely would you be to pull it out of your pocket or purse and watch it now?"
The challenge for the industry isn't whether or not people want it or will use it once it's mainstream, but rather developing the enabling infrastructure and identifying the business model that supports the reliable, affordable, easy to use delivery of live video.
Posted by Anonymous | March 23, 2009 - 12:52pm
Too funny - the headline article following this report is:
"March Madness on-demand traffic up 56 percent"
My take away is that 46% DO care about mobile video and that's more than I expected.
Posted by Cameron Wall | March 23, 2009 - 6:20pm
I agree with Lee, for starters the demographic has to be separated. If you break people into age groups you will get vastly varied results. The demographic they mention is "subscribers" what about the 72% of 16-23 girls that would watch streamed video on a handset for example. That sort of result immediately offers a target market and custom content!
Posted by Anonymous | March 23, 2009 - 8:34pm
This data seem to be from the US but that fact is not mentioned anywhere. I checked and the original article doesn't say it, either. It's OK to be US-centric every now and then - but only if you state it upfront.
Comments (4) | Post a comment