Thursday, March 08, 2007

Tom Evslin Nails Skype Potential

Skype and Paypal were always supposed to go together. Call, Query, Buy. Simple. But, and this is a very big but, what if people actually wanted to pay you in order to phone you and tell you things? What if, you had your own 1890/1900 number? Tom puts his finger on it when he says that this is a straight forward "dis-intermediation play". In this case, the telemarketing companies, or business intelligence agencies. If customers publish their own "lures" in the form of tags, or "attention streams", and then they can alter their "presence" to reflect the fact that, hey, for the right reason, and the right amount of money, I'm gonna let you interrupt me, then the world of direct marketing just does a spin on its head. Welcome to Telemarketing 2.0. (OK: Caveat: it may not take off, or may have limited take up within the Skype customer base because it doesn't break out into any phoneline, anywhere. How long before the advertising funded Mobile Phone companies hop onto this bandwagon?)

Technorati technorati tags: , , , , ,

2 comments:

eyeaim said...

Hi, Paul,

Maybe Telemarketing 2003 is more appropriate? because that's the year we locked the entire concept into US patent system.

When we filed our patent for the C2C revenue model in 2003, we included “Pay-U” as an option in addition to the “Free” and “U-Pay” options. Skype missed that piece of goodie so far, but I doubt that they will play catch up after knowing that there is a string attached to the whole concept.

What is good in a “Pay-U” call? Well, it serves the demand side just as “U-Pay” scheme serves the supply side. A market place should serve both sides to achieve balance. If you price yourself at $20 per minute, and nobody calls you, why don’t you go out and look for “Pay-U” users on the same subject? You might find a $6 customer, so you don’t get paid $20, but $6 is better than $0 while your time is slipping away between your fingers.

We expected all IM players to make their moves towards monetization with C2C fee flows, but we will claim our IP rights based on the patent that we applied for as earlier as in 2003 and granted since 2004, and for those who are curious about what we are hoping to achieve, here is our mission satement:

IM, Instant Money! ™

Paul Sweeney said...

Hi there. Spoke with a friend of mine in the area of IPR, and he said that a lot of the pre-paid credit card models are already giving loyalty credit to other partner services; so any bespoke mechanism around IM credit transfer becomes an implementation restriction and not a commercial engagement requirement for credit transfer’s terms and conditions. Still, it might be interesting to see ones supermarket loyalty points becoming exchangeable,and tradeable from IM to IM.

Get your twitter mosaic here.