For a while there, it seemed like VoIP prices would keep dropping to the point that Rupert Murdoch’s prediction, namely that all VoIP would be free, was, indeed, coming true. But, based on my examination of monthly subscription VoIP services, prices for IP voice service have, well, stablilized.
The table below shows a round-up of current VoIP prices for selected cable, telco, independent and reseller providers. These prices are, in some cases, lower than they were a year ago — AT&T and Verizon have cut the monthly prices for their VoIP options to be more in line with what Vonage charges.
But the cable guys, the biggest VoIP providers of all, haven’t really cut prices. Even Cablevision, which put its Optimum Voice service inside a very attractive triple-play bundle, effectively reducing the price from $34.95/month to $29.95/month, clearly states this bundled price is a promotional one-year offer.
For more on VoIP pricing changes (and in particular to understand a lot of caveats in the following table), check out this week’s IP Media Monitor (free registration.)
Posted by Cynthia Brumfield at 2:30 PM | Print | Comments (0)
In a bit of synchronicity, two articles this morning underscore the idea that media and entertainment companies don’t need big ticket stars or celebrities to make money. The first is an AP report from the Edinburgh International TV Festival, where a panel discussion focused on how the web and reality TV makes stars out of nobodies. Fueling the rise of instant celebrities are user-generated videos on YouTube and Google Video and other sites, which can deliver the millions of viewers that only TV shows of yesteryear could promise.
The other article, by the New York Times’ Eduardo Porter and Geraldine Fabrikant, takes a serious look at Sumner Redstone’s nasty public break-up with Tom Cruise may have had less to do with the star’s erratic behavior and more to do with just good business sense. Although Hollywood still thinks stars shake the money tree, researchers have shown that there is little correlation between box office receipts and the wattage of the actors.
“There is no statistical correlation between stars and success,” said S. Abraham Ravid, a professor of economics and finance at Rutgers University, who, in a 1999 study of almost 200 films released between 1991 and 1993, found that once one considered other factors influencing the success of a film, a star had no impact on its rate of return. Employing a star had virtually no discernible impact on the box office itself.
Even when stars seem to drive a motion picture’s success, it’s really the quality of the project, and not the star, that is responsible for the profits. Movies make the stars and not the other way around.
“Movies with stars are successful not because of the star, but because the star chooses projects that people tend to like,” said Arthur S. De Vany, a professor emeritus of economics at the University of California, Irvine, who has written extensively about the economics of moviemaking. “It’s a movie that makes a star.”Posted by Cynthia Brumfield at 8:05 AM | Print | Comments (0)
Blogs We Read
