The Two Faces of RIM

At the risk of turning this weblog into the "BlackBerry channel," I wanted to add a couple of additional thoughts to my post on Research in Motion's recent earnings and strategy announcement (link).  There was an interesting divergence in the press and analyst comments about Thorsten Heins' statement that RIM would refocus on enterprise customers.  Commentators in the US and Canada generally responded to it fairly well, while those in Europe and other parts of the world were a lot more negative.

I think that's because there are really two BlackBerry customer bases, one in North America, and one in the rest of the world.  I wrote about this a year and a half ago (link), but I didn't think about how it related to RIM's earnings situation, and neither did a lot of other people.

To summarize, in North America, where RIM first came to prominence, its products tend to be seen as business tools.  They were first adopted by businesspeople who had a strong need for up-to-the-minute communication, including Wall Street traders and government officials.  As a result, RIM's image and core customer base in North America has always focused on business professionals.  The reality was more mixed; RIM did reach some non-professional users in North America, aided by operator marketing campaigns that included a memorable T-Mobile TV ad that praised the benefits of a BlackBerry flip phone designed to prevent "butt-dialing" (link).  But the most popular smartphones for non-business consumers in North America tended to be the Sidekick, and later iPhone and various Android models.

The situation was different in the rest of the world.  BlackBerry came to market there later, and people in many countries were not as enamored of real-time e-mail as they were in the US and Canada.  In those countries, BlackBerry generally caught on as a low-cost youth messaging phone, aided by RIM's BlackBerry Instant Messenger service, which lets consumers see when their texts have been read.  The relatively low parts cost of a BlackBerry compared to other smartphones also helped RIM reach consumer-friendly price points.  In some countries, BlackBerry established a strong network effect among young people.  If everyone else in your social group has BlackBerry Messenger, you'll be completely left out if you don't use it as well.

As in North America, there are exceptions.  You can find business users of the BlackBerry anywhere in the world.  But I think it's fair to say that the average person in North America tends to see BlackBerry as a professional business product, while the average person in the rest of the world tends to see BlackBerry as a youth consumer product.

This explains the differing reactions to RIM's announcement.  Observers in North America (including me) tended to view it as a long overdue refocusing on RIM's first and most loyal customers.  Observers in other parts of the world tended to view it as a thick-headed betrayal of RIM's fastest-growing customer group.

Some of the reactions outside North America were very acerbic.  My favorite came from Andrew Orlowski of the Register (link), who noted the irony that RIM had made its announcement "with the English rioting season fast approaching."  Yes, he was that upset.

So which group is right?  I think they both are; it just depends on which face of RIM you see around you.  Both sides of RIM have a core of loyal customers, but both sides also have risks.  In North America, I think business users are largely saturated with smartphones, and this is where RIM's business has been losing the most share.  On the other hand, these customers produce the highest gross margins when happy, and they are not being targeted heavily by other smartphone companies.  In the rest of the world, RIM's base is younger and growing faster than its North American business base, but it's hard to picture BB Messenger competing successfully in the long term against social messaging through sites like Facebook.  RIM might be able to maintain BBM as a standard by licensing it to other phone companies, but that would destroy the differentiation of the company's hardware, leaving it to compete on raw price against Android licensees like Samsung and China, Inc.  I'd rather walk on razor blades.

So I can easily make a case for focusing on either one market or the other, with the idea being that if you work very hard you can at least hang onto part of your current base, giving you a foundation to grow from in the future.  But it's not clear that RIM is ready to make that sort of apocalyptic choice.  Instead, it sounds a lot like a company that wants to ride two horses at once.

A small group of observers said Heins' comments about enterprise had been taken out of context, and that it was important to listen to all of RIM's conference call, something that many people apparently didn't do at the time (including me, I am ashamed to say).   So I went back and reviewed the full transcript of RIM's call (link), and here's what I think I read:


"We plan to refocus on the enterprise business and capitalize on our leading position in this segment." 

RIM did definitely say that it's re-dedicating itself to serving enterprise customers.  But I am not clear on whether that means serving IT managers or individual business users (or both).  As I mentioned in my previous post, that is a big difference.  Individual business-oriented users are a segment; they will not go away.  And anyone who thinks those users all want to play games and listen to music on their smartphones is out of touch with reality.  But IT as a major channel for smartphone sales is waning.  Although focusing on IT might be a good tactic to preserve some short-term revenue, it's not a long-term strategy for the whole company.


"Other products competing in the bring-your-own-device segment is to create a compelling consumer offering. We believe that BlackBerry cannot succeed if we try to be everybody's darling and all things to all people. Therefore, we plan to build on our strengths to go after targeted consumer segments, and we will seek strong partnerships to deliver those consumer features and content that are not central to the BlackBerry valuable position, for example, media consumption applications."

So RIM did say that it's backing away from some investments on the consumer side.  But that does not mean it is abandoning its young users.  I think Heins is hinting that RIM will focus on messaging phones and use software licensing to give those phones media playback and gaming features.  Outsourcing is a typical tactic that tech companies use when in financial trouble.  Sometimes outsourcing actually does save you money, and sometimes you find that licensing and integrating the third party software costs you about the same as building it yourself.  So I don't know how well that will work out for RIM, but it doesn't necessarily mean they are dumping the consumer market.


"Another key area where we will be making significant change is in our services business. Here, I'm referring specifically to the consumer-oriented, value-added services business that we have attempted to build over the past 2.5 years through numerous various acquisitions....The heavy ongoing investment required to continue this initiative does not make sense given RIM's current market position and our relative strength. As a result, we will be looking at ways to scale back these activities and refocus resources on developing an integrated services offering that leverages RIM's strength, such as BBM, security and manageability."

This is the place where Heins definitely signaled cuts.  It sounds ominous for Gist and Tungle and the other mobile web startups RIM bought in the last couple of years.  I hope they're not all being thrown out, since I believe they could help to differentiate RIM's products, but recent acquisitions are often at risk in corporate restructurings because they are not viewed as part of the "core product offering."  (Just look at what happened to Palm.)  Besides, they do not usually have big revenue forecasts attached to them, so they can be cut without forcing a drop in the corporate earnings forecast.


Reading RIM's comments closely, it sounds like they're saying they want to preserve both their business user base in North America and their youth messaging base in the rest of the world.  That's sensible from a revenue preservation standpoint, but it means that RIM will continue to be serving two masters with very different needs.  Compare that to Apple, which basically makes one smartphone at a time.  It will be hard to cut a lot of engineering cost at RIM, and it will be very difficult to create products that please both North America and the rest of the world, especially if RIM tries to add some significant new differentiators.  Features that please its North American core are not likely to also please the international market, and price points that would be acceptable in North America will likely be too high for the rest of the world.  The danger is that RIM will be like an army fighting on two fronts, with its forces below critical mass on both sides.

For RIM, this is yet another layer of challenge and uncertainty on top of what was already a very challenging situation.  Although customers may be glad to hear that RIM's not abandoning either group, to me the two faces of RIM make its situation even more daunting.

9 comments:

ct said...

From a North American perspective, the problem I see with RIM's strategy of refocusing on the enterprise is that many corporate professionals -- the purposed RIM target market -- have now become so fond of Android and iOS products that they intend to keep them regardless of what the CIO wants to do with RIM.

TDC_123 said...

This dilemma seems true also in Nokia's case where it seems at present their Lumia range has support from At&t and appears to be doing well but major carriers in Europe seem reluctant to support it, Nokia always had a big following internationally but were dismal in the US, now with Nokia focusing on US they seem their support in other parts of the world seems to be shaky and this is where they actually expect to get their revenue from but it seems to be lagging hence the recent profit warning. Would be interesting to see how RIM handles their balance maybe focus less marketing overseas and leave that to carriers and in US focus their attention on enterprise

Rob said...

I suspect you may have missed the reference with respect to 'with the English rioting season fast approaching'. This isn't a measure of anger (though clearly Andrew thinks the move is idiotic). It's an toungue-in-cheek reference to last summer's riots which were partially blamed on BBM; And so a reference to the core youth market. It is given in a typically reverential "El Reg" manner.

After the riots, we had a brief outburst of politicians railing against BBM and demanding the ability to shut it down to stop riots.

Viktor Haag said...

Andrew Orlowski's acerbicly negative op-eds on RIM are nothing new. I've been following the Register for 10 years, and he's always been snarky about RIM. Remember "Lawsuits In Motion"?

Elia said...

I usually agree strongly with you but I'm struggling with this post. RIM is missing the boat not because they need to focus on either consumers or enterprise but because they don't see the connection between the two groups. RIM's value-add is their focus on communication. In fact I would argue that neither the consumer they sell to nor the enterprises they sell to are even market segments. They are use cases that are not distinct from each other. I bet that if you and I sat down and discussed the things RIM could do to differentiate itself from Apple, Amazon and Microsoft, we would find that the capabilities stretch over the line between consumers and enterprises. To me, RIM attempting to distance itself from the consumers it serves further indicates how lost RIM is. They don't even understand why people -- both consumers and enterprises -- adopt their products.

Michael Mace said...

Thanks for the interesting comments, everyone!


ct wrote:

>>many corporate professionals -- the purposed RIM target market -- have now become so fond of Android and iOS products that they intend to keep them regardless of what the CIO wants to do with RIM.

No question; RIM's user loyalty is much lower than it is for iPhone and Android. But when you're rescuing a company, you have to start somewhere. It's not like RIM has some other pool of customers in North America.


TDC_123 wrote:

>>This dilemma seems true also in Nokia's case where it seems at present their Lumia range has support from At&t and appears to be doing well but major carriers in Europe seem reluctant to support it,

For many years, operators in Europe felt forced to carry whatever Nokia told them to carry. So I can understand why they'd be reluctant to help Nokia now.

But I think the bottom line for any smartphone company is that unless you get very lucky and run into an operator who has a special need for you (Verizon with Android), the best way to approach with operators is with some user demand on your side. Otherwise if they carry you at all, they'll sell you on price.

The thing that surprises me is that Microsoft's supposedly not spending much on marketing to create demand for Windows Phone.


Rob wrote:

>>I suspect you may have missed the reference with respect to 'with the English rioting season fast approaching'. This isn't a measure of anger (though clearly Andrew thinks the move is idiotic). It's an toungue-in-cheek reference to last summer's riots which were partially blamed on BBM

Oh, dang, I forgot all about that. Thanks very much for the correction.

Yet another example of how different the market is in various countries. In the US, the only reason you'd consider shutting down BlackBerry service would be to stop a run on the stock market. And you'd target the e-mail, not messaging.


Viktor Haag wrote:

>>Andrew Orlowski's acerbicly negative op-eds on RIM are nothing new. I've been following the Register for 10 years, and he's always been snarky about RIM.

He's always been snarky about almost everything. That's why I like reading his stuff.


Elia wrote:

>>I usually agree strongly with you but I'm struggling with this post.

Cool. I usually learn more from the disagreements anyway.


>>RIM's value-add is their focus on communication.

I agree with you about that.


>> In fact I would argue that neither the consumer they sell to nor the enterprises they sell to are even market segments. They are use cases that are not distinct from each other.

I disagree with you on that, considering that those groups go for different price points, and one emphasizes e-mail while the other emphasizes text messaging. Also, many of the other differentiators RIM could add are more or less market specific. For example, a really robust meeting scheduler and parking-finding app is a lot more relevant to a sales rep than a college student (to whom the idea of scheduling anything is a sign of selling out and/or oncoming senility).


>> I bet that if you and I sat down and discussed the things RIM could do to differentiate itself from Apple, Amazon and Microsoft, we would find that the capabilities stretch over the line between consumers and enterprises.

The issue isn't which features they would use, it's which features would actually drive purchase. And remember, I am not drawing the line at consumers vs. enterprise, I'm saying businesspeople vs. teenage messaging customers. I think there's a world of difference between them. But I'd be glad to have that conversation. Sounds like fun.

Blackberry smartphone spy said...

All that remains is to hope that current situation with double faceness of RIM won't affect RIM its future launch of a new generation of BlackBerry 10 smartphones. Otherwise, it will be hard to imagine.

Anonymous said...

Mike,

Interesting thoughts, as always.

My own (untutored) view is that RIM will try to keep the non-US markets satisfied with a series of low-to-mid range devices which, at best, include some mild incremental improvements. Probably they will try to ramp up the marketing efforts with some stylistic makeovers too.

Personally, I think that RIM will find it difficult to make much headway.

Why? Well, for most North American consumers, a smartphone is largely a fashion statement and, in this niche, Apple have positioned themselves very well. Apple may not have the 'best' device (whatever that means) but no self-respecting housewife would be caught dead with anything other than a iPhone (just as, a few years ago, all the housewives had to have Motorola flip phones). Further, I think it's only a matter of time before that kind of marketing effort succeeds in the non-North American markets.

Disclosure: It pains me to say that because, you see, I'm a PC guy and I'm getting a little tired of the smugness that emanates from the Apple-ites.

Cheers.

harry fall said...

nice blog keep this:
we24support-foursquare
we24support-jimdo
we24support-sosblog
we24support-crunchbase
we24support-tumblr

we24support@1 888 399 9656
we24support