Interesting you use the word 'exploitation.'
Reading message boards, one would conclude if anything, INSP, is second to none in the ability to get the value 'wrung dry' from 'opportunities'.
In my opinion, All things being equal, as a consumer I'd go for the quicker, easier to use version. As a carrier, I'd go for a platform that gives me more for my money, as well as gives me seamless integration of services, better tracking of revenues, lower overall operating costs, and the potential for increased revenues.
It is my understanding of the business model that what INSP is providing to carriers is not something the carriers could not eventually produce themselves. The drawback to the carriers is the costs. Just setting up the system is quite expensive let alone operating the system. In a tough market, it would tend to make INSP even more relevant.
The highlights of the INSP model is that they are able to do it more inexpensively because they can amortize the costs across many carriers, have the technology to credit the carriers (and themselves) when services are used, support all platforms and devices. Another plus is that carriers are paying INSP mainly when they, themselves, are making money.
Merchants are paying INSP, when they too, are making money, advertisers are paying INSP primarily when the adds are viewed (the carriers get paid also- INSP has the ability to track which ads are being viewed and who to credit). |
