Who wants 4G? Talk at BCS on 10 October 2013

BCS OXFORDSHIRE 10.10.13

Who wants 4G?Dr. Ana Isabel Canhoto

Oxford Brookes University

www.anacanhoto.com

@canhoto

© Ana Isabel Canhoto 2013

• Oxford Times…

xxx

2© Ana Isabel Canhoto 2013

• Oxford Times…

xxx


“Set to revolutionise the way business people operate

(…) incredibly quick to send and receive emails,

download files and video call on

the move (…) Streaming HD clips

and uploading and downloading

massive files, will be all in a day’s work.”

Source: Gill Oliver for Oxford Mail

Benefits for Business Users


http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/business/news/10452476.Speed_revolution_for_the_mobile/

“While you are waiting for something, you are stood

at the bus stop, you are at the dentist in the waiting

room, you can watch a

(football) game live now on 4G

and people will flock to that”

Source: Guy Laurence, chief executive of Vodafone UK

Benefits for Residential Users


http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/national/news/10640921.Networks_launch_4G_data_service/

So, who wants 4G?



Value = Benefits – Costs

If Benefits > Costs=> Value > 0=> Buy

Consumption decision


Costs


• Handsets

• Subscription

“I found 4G to be pretty decent with

EE but ultimately I missed my

unlimited T-mobile data and switched back.”

• Usage

“On the whole it drained my battery faster and I was rapidly

going through my 2Gb allowance.”

Benefits


Benefits


Benefits – The 3G case


Roger’s framework for diffusion


• Degree to which the innovation is perceived to be better than the idea it supersedes

Relative Advantage

• Degree to which the innovation is perceived to be consistent with existing valuesCompatiblity

• Degree to which the innovation is perceived to be difficult to understand and useComplexity

• Degree to which the innovation may be experimented withTriability

• Degree to which the results of the innovation are visible to othersObservability

Case study: telephone adoption


“The Americans have need of the telephone, but we do not. We have plenty of messenger boys.” – Sir William Preece, Chief Engineer, British Post Office, 1878

“This telephone has too many shortcomings to be considered as a means of communication. The device is of inherently no value to us.” – Western Union internal memo, 1876

Case study: telephone adoption


• Installation and usage fees were high• Limited reach: geography and ‘No one to call’

Relative Advantage

• ‘Supernatural’ nature of technology• Telegraph provided a permanent ‘hard copy’ of a

client/loved one’s wordsCompatiblity

• A mixed bag- some concerns that would hamper adoptionComplexity

• Limited to rich peopleTriability

• A strong factor, wires depicting presence of productObservability

Case study: 3G adoption


• Required new handsets• Text is good enough• Expensive data access (PAYG was most popular option)

Relative Advantage

• Stay connected, be productive, be entertained• But ‘who wants to see the other person’s face?’ or ‘Why

would I want to have a camera with me all the time?’ Compatiblity

• How could I type the www address on such a tiny screen?Complexity

• Limited – had to purchase phoneTriability

• Distinctive handsets• Distinctive usage behaviourObservability

• 3G auction in UK raised2.5% of GNP







• Everything that a normal phone does and more• 1 device to perform the functions of 3 or more• Clumsy screen + keyboard

Relative Advantage

• In line with main use of phones and progression towards digitalCompatiblity

• Better UX and interfacesComplexity





• Everything that a normal phone does and more• 1 device to perform the functions of 3 or more• Clumsy screen + keyboard

Relative Advantage

• In line with main use of phones and progression towards digitalCompatiblity

• Better UX and interfacesComplexity



Roger’s framework – 4G


Relative Advantage

Compatiblity

Complexity

Triability

Observability

“The buyer chooses between different offerings on the basis of which is perceived to deliver the most value. Value reflects the perceived tangible and intangible benefits and costs to the customer…”

Kotler & Keller (2006, p25)

© Ana Isabel Canhoto 2013 22

Customer value

Needs vs. product attributes


Maslow’s hierarchy of needs


Freud:• Conscious(immediate awareness)

• Preconscious(accessible memories)

• Unconscious(drives, instincts, etc)

Theories of motivation


Product

Reasons for use

Cues

Consumption decision


Value = Benefits – Costs Vi = θRi – Ci

Where:V = Net benefit from consumption of product i R = Gross benefit from consumption of product i θ = Probability of successfully evaluating quality of product i C = Cost of product i

Perceived benefits


θ ≈ 1 θ ≈ 0



Relative Advantage



Relative Advantage



Relative Advantage

‘On the outskirts of cities I can pull quite easily a good 30Mbps (…) In the centre of cities it's much less. (…) In Westfield, where my 3G would not work at all… and I couldn't evensend a Whatsapp, 4G(worked). (…) 4G hasit's advantages but inthe city centre … itwas still nothing toshout home about.’



Relative Advantage

Compatiblity

Complexity

Triability

Observability

Niche appeal

Trend 1: Together alone


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55kOphD64r8

Trend 2: Big(ger) devices


Trend 3: Sharing


time

Use

r co

ntro

l and

eng

agem

ent

Me, the media, right now

Trend 4: Cloud, streaming…


Trend 5: Quantified self

36© Ana Isabel Canhoto 2013Source: https://blog.dacadoo.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Sport-QuantifiedSelf_Das-Handy-ist-mein-Fitnesstrainer-1024x837.png

Trend 6: Web 3.0


Trend 7: Mass customisation


Trend 8: Research-shopper




Relative Advantage

Compatiblity

Complexity

Triability

Observability

So, who wants 4G?


Relative advantage


Relative advantage


Tap into macro trends


Who wants 4G?

Ana Isabel Canhoto

Oxford Brookes University

w: www.anacanhoto.com

t: @canhoto

e: [email protected]

45