Telecom-India http://tejas-iimb.org/articles/62.

php

TELECOM INDUSTRY PRICING: WHO IS EATING INTO WHOSE SHARE?
Faculty Contributor: Seema Gupta, Assistant Professor Student Contributors: Tejas Dave, Maria Cheryl Fernandez, Akhil Gupta, Pulkit Jain and T Srirathivarman
In this article we look at the evolution of pricing in the Indian telecom industry and analyze Airtel’s and Tata Docomo’s post paid plans to identify the strategies underlying these plans. We simulate these plans based on the information provided on the operator’s website for the Mumbai Circle, incorporating the caveats inherent in the plans. The analysis reveals significant crowding in Airtel’s postpaid plans whereas Tata Docomo offers plans at distinct price points, drawing parallels with Verizon and AT&T’s pricing strategy in the American market.

The Indian Telecom story has caught everyone’s attention the world over. The number of subscribers in India has crossed the half a billion mark, next only to China1. Along with the subscribers, the number of operators in India has also increased. The entry of new service providers, with MTS & Uninor being the most recent and the operators’ pursuit for a stronghold in the telecom market has led to tariff based price wars for attracting new customers.

Evolution of Pricing in the Indian Telecom Industry
The pricing in the Indian mobile service providers’ industry evolved over three phases, with call charges steadily falling through the phases. Indian service providers’ pricing evolved over three phases. The first phase was an introduction phase, from 1995 to 2000. The incoming and outgoing calls were priced around Rs 14/minute, which made the service a luxury, attracting significant snob appeal. Eventually the outgoing call prices dropped to Rs 9/ minute and incoming to Re 1/minute (towards the end of this phase), attracting a greater segment of the population. Thereafter, in the Growth phase which lasted from 2000-2005, the outgoing call rates dropped to Rs 2/minute while the incoming calls became free of charge. Many new players entered the market during this period, such as Reliance, which set new benchmarks for pricing. Following an aggressive strategy to attract a huge customer base, Reliance forced other operators to change their plans according to its offerings. Interestingly, what followed is the maturity phase where Tata Docomo used the 1p/second billing to gain entry into the crowded market. Tata Docomo’s strategy is reminiscent of Reliance’s pricing strategy from the growth phase. The other operators reluctantly followed suit and added per-second billing plans to their existing product portfolio. This is one of the reasons for the crowding seen in Airtel’s postpaid plans, among others, as it continues to offer per-minute billing options also.

Price Plans
The biggest driver of growth in telecom industry is the development of pricing plans catering to individual needs and requirements of people at the prices they are willing to pay. A plethora of price plans are available today such as prepaid, postpaid, lifetime validity, Closed User Groups, corporate plans or some combination of these. We will restrict our analysis to the postpaid plans as they exhibit individual usage patterns and preferences, which govern the prepaid and Closed User Group plans.

We analyze the prepaid plans of these two subscribers in Mumbai Circle for product line structure. difference across products for different usages and then compare them to international players AT&T and Verizon for positioning. Airtel & Tata Docomo. 1. Exhibit 1: Airtel’s Product Line Two separate trends are evident. whereas Docomo has a relatively small product line with individual products at clearly differentiated price points. 2. Product Line Airtel has a vast product line as shown in Exhibit 1 with 18 offerings2. These trends are in terms of the kind of usage by the subscriber.We consider the price plans of two service providers at the extreme ends of evolution. four different usage patterns emerge according to which a user can select the pricing plans: 1. 4. Local or STD phone calls 2. 3. with several products at same price points differing in terms of call rates for STD versus local usage or with lower call rates to Airtel phones. Local calls to same network cell phone Local calls to different network/landline STD calls to same network STD calls to different network/landline . Calls to a phone on same network or to a different network Combining these two trends.

which should become cheaper for higher usage. When there is a mixed STD-Local usage. we simulated their usages for durations of 100 to 2000 minutes for different usage patterns. However. The customer has an advantage if a major portion of his calls are to cell phones on the same network but this advantage is also constrained by the specific caveats of the plans. These simulations helped derive insights as to how the price borne by a user evolves as his usage changes under different kind of usage patterns. Certain plans have lower per minute rates but they also turn out to be costlier throughout due to high rental. but this is a difficult analysis for an average user and could possibly be a pricing technique of the company to exploit information asymmetry. but they do not vary across the plans. Airtel For local calls to Airtel phones. we can infer that Airtel uses its pricing plans strategically to increase its market share by giving customers incentives to talk to other Airtel users as it costs less. This implies that it probably is a way for the company to charge more while giving the perception of lesser bills per month. Airtel positioned its price plans quite close to one another. Exhibit 2: Docomo’s Product Line Product Comparison To compare the pricing plans of Airtel and Docomo. and certain other plans that incentivize local calls made to the Airtel Network. Such a pricing strategy has a network effect. and assuming that other telecom operators will be similar to . However. Comparison Across Product Lines: Cannibalization and Differentiation Cannibalization occurs when the same service provider positions two of its products so close to each other that they eat into each other’s market share. different plans turn up to be cheaper for different duration of usage. The current pricing strategy of Airtel is thus misleading as far as mixed local usage is concerned. for the high rental plans. Docomo The plans offered by Docomo are non-overlapping and distinct in terms of the fixed rentals when looked at upfront. Similarly. The bill that a customer had to pay under different plans was different in each scenario. the pricing is close and intertwined and there is little difference across the plans. Pricing plans of Docomo (shown in Exhibit 2) have different calling rates for different kinds of usage. the plans are quite close to each other. as more people will adopt Airtel as the user base increases. As we saw in the previous section. do not become cheap even much beyond 2000 minutes of usage.Airtel has specific plans that distinguish between local & STD users. for local calls to other subscribers. and followed the expected trend.

making the analysis practically valid. AT&T has five distinct price points but multiple plans at each price point makes the product line congested. national. on an average.Airtel in their offering. Due to fewer well-differentiated pricing plans. Per Minute Billing plans As the average call duration increases. As can be seen from the table. Eventually. if we aggregate the total time spent on the phone and a person manages to talk the exact same amount on his phone without missing “seconds” in every minute that he talks. Verizon has a very clear differentiation of its products – local vs. the multiplicity at same price points will not lead to cannibalization. The call charges in per-second billing plans are at an 18% mark-up over the call charges in per-minute billing. There are clear price points with separate target segments for each price point. since then the “seconds lost” in the call will get divided by total number of minutes and hence will be very small. which leads to confusion amongst users and cannibalization among individual plans. we compared the per-second billing plan recently introduced by Airtel with the per-minute plan of same rental. what stands out in comparison to the Indian mobile operators is the manner in which the product line is positioned. Per Second Billing Plans Newest introduction to Airtel’s portfolio is the recently launched per second billing as a follow-up to Docomo’s introduction of this plan to Indian markets. To explore this. Though Airtel has a product line similar to that of AT&T. a consumer will be better off in a per second billing scenario if and only if. as in. This will be true if average call size is long. AT&T and Verizon. Exhibit 3 shows the results of the comparison. the consumer pays extra for each second that he spends on phone over and above 50 seconds. which is similar to the product line of Docomo. Exhibit 3: Per Second Billing vs. then the analysis put forth will hold. Due to this clear positioning. To illustrate how multiple products at similar price points need not always lead to cannibalization between the products (as of Indian telecom operators). we compare them with the product lines of two major US players. there is a possibility of cannibalization in the offerings of Indian telecom operators. he talks less than 50 seconds in every minute that he would have been traditionally billed for. the chances of plans cannibalizing each other are minimal as each plan targets a different segment. there is no clear positioning of the price plans at same price. each plan is clearly positioned by the segment of users it is aimed at. However. . The question is if such a plan is actually cheaper for the consumers at all.

Per Minute Billing. for local to local usage (shown in Exhibit 4). Conclusions We find that service providers give customers an incentive to talk to other users on same network by providing a lower call rate. using this strategy to increase their customer base. we see that Per second plan is expensive for greater usage while in STD usage. Local Usage Exhibit 5: Per Second Billing vs. the per-second plan is always more expensive than the per minute. Apart from this. Per Minute Billing.Exhibit 4: Per Second Billing vs. The persecond plans are thus economical only if the user consistently talks lesser than 50 seconds perminute. and though they seem to provide users specific benefits. but are expensive for longer call durations. they actually are more alike than different and hence confusing. as shown in Exhibit 5. The product line of most of established service providers. which will be similar to Airtel exhibits . the plans with different rentals do not differ much from each other. STD Usage On comparing the two plans for usage amount up to 500 minutes.

significant crowding and cannibalization among different plans at same price points as there is no clear positioning of these plans. whereas Docomo has clearly differentiated price plans. We find that these plans are beneficial to the customer only as long as the average duration per call is less than 50 seconds. the customers actually end up paying more. which have supposedly changed the face of Indian telecom industry. and for longer calls. . the per-second billing plans. are not beneficial for the costumers as are hailed to be. In addition.

/:.9.70 902 94 39073.9 30 897:./ 5. 574/:.35.894/110703930947.0-908:-8.930 %4805.98..894.7-07    4..908147$%.574/:.7039072841903/41:8.9:70  /110703.424  0.99073802070.943..47$%5430. 7.20309474794. 4.0..20 57.:8.0 82.0 .7.0 90 5705.700./110703930947 42-339080949703/8 14:7/1107039:8.3800. 70..05.98..5430438...8   .8 .054398  -9790 8!74/:.7.9.98 147 /1107039 :8./039 %0809703/8.078:84.7 /1107039..3/ 903 .89574/:.930 790.:807..99009702003/8410.7.438/079057..9 9057.909703/8.0.05430 4.425.38         4.3841 9080 94 8:-8.90894790 54308  070.424 .3..054398/1107339072841.930.05.0147 574/:.8.2030947.88433-994110738 980.4:943 790 %.8948... 574/:.078% %...3/'07431475489433  !74/:..0574.9 .7488 574/:.7-078 3 :2-.384194807.9 30 9 3/./078.0479407.47/394.90/57. 5.98 ...08 .8 4.07.

894/110703930947..3/30 $%..8948..2030947 $%.

.3/30 .

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

9 .90/ 57./ 94 .9.38.709 8020398 147 0.0 54398 300/ 349 ..33-.70 902 9 90574/:.7098  %0 6:08943 8 1 8:..-0 .0723:909..900....943 3 90 4110738 41 3/../943.0/50780.424  :0 94 1007 0 /1107039.7/1107039.43/8 30. %070..438:207 -0-099074113.70.424 8 3974/:.42 4507.0-00397. .-4. 4907 ..0 .90 4 2:950 574/:.7083507 23:90-3 8.243 3/.0723:909..0.0 80./0/-949.70 232.98 4.3/431 43.8.3/'0743  % % .3 8 ../ 94 .0...38  '0743.0 54398 -:9 2:950 5.80.9 .20.08 41 5.8 1. 57.8 3.5.425.33-..9:.8857. %4 05470 98  0 .20 57..757.1470.98.8  903 90./  .7 5489433  90 2:95.425.43/8489 390.../:7.43/-35..07.438:2078 .38 .324-04507.039:.7098.3 5...8.07 .3.8 0.3 2.3 900. 8 82.039.3 94 3/.3.93085489430/ .3:2-074123:908.43/-3./894.741.8097.90 9.0 /893.-0/147  -9!07$0..0 09.94394790 8547914489070.507147 90 . .7.8 !073:9035..9433.94788902.38 .3/03.0 54398  349 0..3/.98 .75489430/-9080203941:807898 .09/.33-.431:843..0.38.3 90.5.8 41 3/.3/.0.3 900. 5488-9 41 .3418.3..0 5439 2./1107039802039  !07$0.430890/ 40.8.43/9.43/8 .08 90 574/:.90 9..3 0.0790.904:/.3 2.05439  .507843 2..9 308 41 942.144 :594 4.9..3/84:93.5.943./:.0 903 90 80.08949.9090949.9  :0 94 98 .0782.38.47&$5.7 94 90 574/:.43/-38..438:2075.078 % %..943 41 98 5.039 3974/:.80.42 4507.07.3/.43/830.941% % 9070834..0 .:3.784394903/..43/3. 57.989.3-080031742909.9478 0 .7949.9 82.39.7083507 80.70/ 90 507 80.7843 %0.207039.9434198574/:.0-0.3.574/:.9 8.9478  %4 :897.93082.0/-790990507 23:905..  -984890708:984190..43/-35.0. 10.. 80 8 43  83. 2.808 90.3  80.33073 .0.943 %4:790.83 0.50780..43/3!.9 0.943 -09003 90 574/:. 5.425....75489433 419057.3 70.24389:8078.07.7 :54.2057.3.425.9 3041 4..98.790 3 907 411073  9070 8 .05.9208503943905430.80889.70.33-.9 30 .20/ ..38 890.054398 9805.38  90 .7 57.33-.88 5:9 1479 4/  %8 -0 97:0 1 .70.943.24:39438543094:92883 80.908503/8435430 4.98 .0.07.90574/:.0.03.9 57.70.38 00893974/:..07.

4907 . 94 4.8 !073:903 $%&8.3/ .003$%:8.73 90 94 5.0147 4307.:8942078.3 80.3 3.09.0 .0 -9!07 $0.39050723:90 .38.8088079.2030947 - 574.4342.:8.431:83  %0 574/:.-80/ 807.88433-9 %0507 80.9438  43.1.3/ 03.:894207-.0 574.43190:807.43/5.0 3 .0 ...407.43/5.-9!07$0./078 .907:8.0 843 3 -9 08009.17420.3805038.8247005038.90943.90 :8398897.438890399.0 90507 80.702470./3.9 807../078  .24:39:5 94  23:908  147 4.8/4349/11072:.7005038.039.  -0 82.0 .38 147:8.&8.80 5. 944907:8078 43 8...7.9 30 41 2489 41 089. -030198  90..43/8507 23:90 -:9.0 574.74/3 ..0 94 9. .709:8 0./0:8078850.9:.79174298 905.014770..80907.39 ./:7.425.9!0780.0 9.43/ 5.43/3.:8438 0 13/ 9.3/94:90800294574..7 94 790 0-98 831.43/ 3.70..8 !073:903 4.38 9/11070397039...3 /1107039 .38.

30/901.8 ..3/1474307..054398.03/:55.0 5.90/ 57..2057.70 .9:.843.990805.14790.890. .38  ...43/ -3 5.423/:897 .98..38.8 90.8.8 4.489:2078.70-0301.3 80.80889.7 /1107039.//943  90 507 80.07.3900.33-.43/8 .943 507.0/:7.943..08:55480/.424 .0/94-0 013/9..754894334190805.70349-0301.0.0.243/11070395.38  3 .9490..:89420743..38  070.0413/.:8942078..89070834.32470   .38..

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful