During a recent conversation with an MNO (who is considering deploying an AgriVAS) they expressed concerns over how an Agriculture partner (NGO) would financially sustain its self in the long run (after potential start-up funding would run out). The MNO made it clear they are not in a position to provide on-going funding. I feel this sharing of costs and revenues is a large component to determining the overall business case.
In the broader picture, we know that there are various B2C and B2B revenue streams to tap into for overall AgriVAS financial sustainability (including the cost incurred by all partners). To address this MNO's specific concern, we need to dig a bit deeper into how the revenue and costs are shared amongst the partners, starting with 2, a main Ag partner and the MNO. There are many ways to slice the pie (for a primer, please see chapter 5 of the GSMA AgriVAS Toolkit: http://gsmworld.com/documents/mAgriReport_101111_final.pdf).
I see the logical division is for the MNO to bear the cost of service delivery on the technical side and marketing and distribution to consumers. They'd receive the benefits from subscription and call revenue as well as the indirect benefits (ARAPU, churn and market penetration).
On the other side, I see the Ag partner bearing the cost of sourcing and managing agriculture content, staffing and managing a helpline and marketing and sales to their farming communities. They can cover their costs and sustain themselves from B2B sales revenue (to contract farming organizations) and the alternative revenue streams (advertising, market research, etc.).
Further details would need to be worked out to ensure both parties are properly motivated to meet service level expectations. But I feel this model may provide a good start. Thoughts?
Also, what is "BOOT" and "BOO"? I'm not familiar with these terms.
Thank you!
Thanks to csshabong for this reply (which I am reposting due to a technical problem):
Boo means Build, Own Operate and BOOT means build, own, operate, transfer.
Bangladesh case is the grameen phone network, which is even used by people residing across the border areas in neighbouring India.
During a recent conversation with an MNO (who is considering deploying an AgriVAS) they expressed concerns over how an Agriculture partner (NGO) would financially sustain its self in the long run (after potential start-up funding would run out). The MNO made it clear they are not in a position to provide on-going funding. I feel this sharing of costs and revenues is a large component to determining the overall business case.
In the broader picture, we know that there are various B2C and B2B revenue streams to tap into for overall AgriVAS financial sustainability (including the cost incurred by all partners). To address this MNO's specific concern, we need to dig a bit deeper into how the revenue and costs are shared amongst the partners, starting with 2, a main Ag partner and the MNO. There are many ways to slice the pie (for a primer, please see chapter 5 of the GSMA AgriVAS Toolkit: http://gsmworld.com/documents/mAgriReport_101111_final.pdf).
I see the logical division is for the MNO to bear the cost of service delivery on the technical side and marketing and distribution to consumers. They'd receive the benefits from subscription and call revenue as well as the indirect benefits (ARAPU, churn and market penetration).
On the other side, I see the Ag partner bearing the cost of sourcing and managing agriculture content, staffing and managing a helpline and marketing and sales to their farming communities. They can cover their costs and sustain themselves from B2B sales revenue (to contract farming organizations) and the alternative revenue streams (advertising, market research, etc.).
Further details would need to be worked out to ensure both parties are properly motivated to meet service level expectations. But I feel this model may provide a good start. Thoughts?