FinPilot2 Final Report â User Acceptance of Mobile TV Services ...
FinPilot2 Final Report â User Acceptance of Mobile TV Services ...
FinPilot2 Final Report â User Acceptance of Mobile TV Services ...
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
7.7 <strong>User</strong> generated vs. pr<strong>of</strong>essionally made content<br />
The panellists had the opportunity to become acquainted with Floobs (web<br />
interface) which is a service where you can share your own video material, and<br />
you can even set up your own <strong>TV</strong> channel on the web. Due to technical reasons,<br />
the mobile version <strong>of</strong> this service could not be included in the trial. In the final<br />
interviews the panellists commented that firms and communities could generate<br />
their own material related to their business and activity for mobile <strong>TV</strong>. The<br />
panellists did not believe that many individual users are willing to generate content<br />
to mobile <strong>TV</strong>. <strong>User</strong> generated content may be meant only for friends and relatives<br />
and this kind <strong>of</strong> content needs to be delimited with restricted access. Panellists also<br />
wondered how this user generated content on mobile <strong>TV</strong> would differ from home<br />
pages or blogs on the web. However, panellists expressed interest in local hobby<br />
groups as potential content providers.<br />
7.8 Pricing expectations<br />
In the start-up interviews the panellists were asked how much they were willing<br />
to pay for watching mobile <strong>TV</strong> and using the add-on services. The panellists were<br />
divided quite evenly between those who were willing to pay a monthly fee and<br />
those who wanted to pay based on the amount <strong>of</strong> use. The average monthly<br />
payment was 9.7 euros varying between 0-50 euros so that eight <strong>of</strong> the panellists<br />
were ready to pay 10 euros/month and six <strong>of</strong> the panellists were ready to pay<br />
5 euros/month. Only four panellists did not want to pay anything for watching<br />
mobile <strong>TV</strong>.<br />
In the final interviews the situation had changed: most <strong>of</strong> the panellists argued<br />
that the payment should be according to amount <strong>of</strong> use, sort <strong>of</strong> “pay per view”<br />
-payment. The arguments for this kind <strong>of</strong> pricing were based on the experiences<br />
<strong>of</strong> the panellists <strong>of</strong> their primary <strong>TV</strong>. Existing subscription channels are sold in<br />
packages that contain some channels that the users have no interest in but they do<br />
not have a choice. The panellists did not like this kind <strong>of</strong> pricing and wanted mobile<br />
<strong>TV</strong> to <strong>of</strong>fer more flexible pricing models. Some panellists suggested that there could<br />
be multiple alternatives for payment, e.g. pay per view, monthly payment and<br />
standing order, from which users could select their best choice. Also some panellists<br />
suggested that the <strong>TV</strong> licence fee should also include mobile <strong>TV</strong> watching. This is<br />
quite reasonable because mobile <strong>TV</strong> in the study did not <strong>of</strong>fer much extra content<br />
compared to primary <strong>TV</strong>, thus mobile <strong>TV</strong> was seen as an additional <strong>TV</strong> set. When<br />
the panellists were asked about the monthly payment they argued that 10 euros<br />
per month would be the absolute maximum payment. Panellists were also ready to<br />
pay one to two euros for informative on demand videos; one example was video<br />
instructions for setting up the digital receiver <strong>of</strong> the primary <strong>TV</strong>.<br />
83
Change language