Acision's MAVAM México, 3rd Edition, was released on May 2012, bringing new data about the mobile value added services (VAS) in the market. Some key findings: - Mexico has the largest SMS market in Latin America and the Caribbean - Messaging service sales (SMS and MMS) in Mexico show year-on-year growth rate of 32% in US Dollars (26% in Mexican Pesos), generating $601 million USD in Q3 2011 - Over Q3 2011, revenues from value added services (VAS) in Mexico represented $1,047 million USD - 38% above the figure for the same period the previous year. - VAS represents 31% of sales from the services rendered by operators during the same period – on average 6% higher than other Latin America and Caribbean regions. - 57% of value added services (VAS) sales are generated from SMS and MMS alone - 98% of mobile subscribers used SMS services over Q4 2011 - 25% of users consider that SMS services will be more important in the future.

1. MAVAM Mexico
3rd Edition
Grupo Convergencia | Convergencialatina | Convergencia Research
Avenida Belgrano 680 – Piso 9 (C1092AAT) - Buenos Aires, Argentina
T. + 54 11 4345-3036
info@convergencialatina.com | wwww.convergencialatina.com | research@convergencia.com

2. Editorial
As the global leader in mobile messaging with more than one one-third of the global
SMS infrastructure market (as calculated by Informa Telecoms & Media in 2011),
Acision launches the third edition of MAVAM Mexico with the special theme
¨Messaging”. This edition continues to demonstrate Acision’s commitment to
providing a tool that analysis the trends associated with the consumption of mobile
VAS and messaging across the Mexican mobile market during Quarter 4 of 2011
Mexican
and how this impacts operators.
Net sales of SMS and MMS during the third quarter of 2011 reached $601 million
USD, representing 57% of VAS sales for Mobile Operators. Although SMS and
messaging stands for a major proportion of mobile VAS today, we have used this
MAVAM research to better understand the reasons that motivate or inhibit the use
of messaging, with the results represented in this report.
We also demonstrate that opportunities based on SMS go beyon the basic
beyond
service as we know it today with value added, personalized messaging providing
value-added,
Oliveira Vancrei an enriched user experience through services such as group messaging, auto
auto-
reply / auto
auto-signature and parental control.
Acision We also expect IP Messaging services to be a priority for operators in 2012, as
VP regional Latin America they seek to deliver new innovative services to compete w with ‘OTT’ messaging
services. IP Messaging, such as is RCS e, is key to delivering services that have
RCS-e,
the same user experience, reach and reliability that users have become
accustomed to with SMS, while leveraging the capabilities of broadband IP
network and delivering services such as IM, group chat, file transfer and video
and
sharing. Operators will also begin to adopt cloud based services, which will
cloud-based
become a prominent delivery model in 2012, also means that these innovations
will be brought to market faste
faster.
With this in mind, this edition of MAVAM has researched the potential demand for
new messaging services that enrich and expand the use of messaging, how users
use messaging services and looks at business models for paying for each service
and driving up operator revenue.
We hope you enjoy reading!
|2|

3. Index
1. Introduction....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4
1.1. Value Added Services worldwide ............................................................................................................................................................... 5
1.2. Value Added services in Latin America ...................................................................................................................................................... 9
1.3. Value Added Services (VAS) in Mexico ................................................................................................................................................... 12
2. MAVAM (Acision Monitor for Mobile VAS) ...................................................................................................................................................... 16
3. Messaging Services (Special Issue) ............................................................................................................................................................... 17
3.1. SMS ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 18
3.1.1. Future importance of SMS ................................................................................................................................................................ 19
3.1.2. Deterrents to broader SMS use......................................................................................................................................................... 20
3.1.3. New SMS– and MMS– based products ............................................................................................................................................. 21
3.2. MMS ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 27
3.2.1. MMS Scenarios ................................................................................................................................................................................ 29
3.2.2. Deterrents and incentives to broader MMS use ................................................................................................................................. 30
3.3. Instant Messaging.................................................................................................................................................................................... 32
3.3.1. Opportunities and deterrents for wider IM use ................................................................................................................................... 33
3.4. Advantages of SMS service over instant messaging ................................................................................................................................ 37
3.5. Advantages of IM services over SMS....................................................................................................................................................... 38
3.5.1. Service preference per recipient........................................................................................................................................................ 39
3.5.2. Preference of service depending on the circumstances..................................................................................................................... 40
3.5.3. Service Reliability and Speed............................................................................................................................................................ 42
3.6. Use of messaging services to send Christmas and New Year’s greetings ................................................................................................ 43
3.7. Advertising messages via SMS for discounts and purchases ................................................................................................................... 45
4. MAVAM Mexico .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 47
4.1. Entertainment .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 47
4.1.1. Types of Files (Images, Music, Games, Ringtones and Videos) ........................................................................................................ 47
4.1.2. Mobile TV and Video......................................................................................................................................................................... 47
4.2. E-mail ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 48
4.3. Mobile Internet ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 48
4.3.1. Deterrents to the Use of Mobile Internet ............................................................................................................................................ 51
4.4. Social Networks ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 52
4.5. Mobile Marketing ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 55
4.6. Mobile Banking and Money ...................................................................................................................................................................... 56
4.7. GPS and Maps ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 57
5. Conclusions .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 58
6. Glossary ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 59
7. Technical File ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 63
8. Team .............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 64
|3|

4. 1. Introduction
Mobile phone penetration in Latin America exceeded 100% in the third quarter of 2011, although there are still
some countries like Mexico, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Cuba, and Peru –among others– which have not yet reached that
figure. The fact that there is more than one line per person is the consequence of some users owning two phone
devices, M2M lines, mobile broadband access (USB modem), and lines which are hardly used or which are not
used at all but are registered as active lines.
Smartphones and the expansion of Mobile Internet have caused the market to grow and has driven an increase in
the postpaid customer base. Social networks are the top applications for this stage of Mobile Internet.
In addition, number portability will be introduced in the leading markets in 2012 and the mobile virtual network
operators (MVNOs) business will be developed. Colombia is the country with the highest number of operating
MVNOs, generally focused on broadband services. The entry of mobile virtual network operators in Brazil,
Argentina, Mexico and Chile, among other countries, is expected by 2012. These operators are targeted at specific
niches, and it is assessed that their potential is about 2% of the market. The highest expectations are in Virgin
Mobile, which aims at becoming the first regional mobile virtual network operator focused on the 14-to-34-year-old
target.
New spectrum assignments in several countries, meant to foster the entry of new players to increase competition,
are encouraging the entry of mobile virtual network operators.
Said factors make it possible to forecast higher competition in 2012, focused on mobile broadband, driving massive
use of social networks among prepaid customers, and on creating new applications and businesses.
|4|

5. 1.1. Value Added Services worldwide
To understand the value added services (VAS) business worldwide, we analyzed VAS evolution for the world’s
biggest mobile carriers in various regions of the world. We compared the 3Q values for 2010 and 2011, except for
China Mobile, whose data only allows us to compare changes between 1H 2010 and 1H 2011.
The companies evaluated are:
AT&T - United States
China Mobile – China*
Orange - France
NTT Docomo - Japan
Verizon – United States
Vodafone
Vodafone United Kingdom
Vodafone Germany
Chart 1
Vodafone India
Operators analyzed
*
China Mobile 1H 2010 x 1H 2011
|5|

6. Chart 2
Change in share of voice service revenue vs. value added service (VAS) revenue. Between the
second and third quarter 2011. Except China Mobile, comparing 1H 2010 with 1H 2011
Voice Service VAS Service
20%
16%
15%
10%
6%
5%
5% 4% 3%
2% 2% 3% 3%
0%
-1% 0% -1%
-3% -3% -3%
-5% -4%
-10%
AT&T United States France Telecom France NTT Docomo
Vodafone United Kingdom Telecom Italy Verizon
Vodafone Germany Vodafone India
Source: Convergencia Research based on carriers’ published financial reports.
VAS continues to grow its share of total revenue among the carriers surveyed, independent of country. Positive
changes in voice service revenue contributions are normally explained by specific events, such as regulatory
measures (reduced interconnection fees – See MAVAM Brazil 9th Edition2) competition or seasonal effect.
In more advanced countries, the increase in VAS uptake is mainly based on Mobile Internet revenues driven by the
increasing number of smartphones. In countries where there is still room to grow the number of connections, SMS
still plays a major role in VAS growth.
2
http://www.acision.com/News-and-Events/Press-Releases/Brazil/2011/MAVAM-9th-Edition.aspx
|6|

7. Chart 3
VAS share of total ARPU. 3Q 2011. Except China Mobile, comparing 1H 2010 with 1H 2011
100%
80%
VAS % over total ARPU
60%
40%
54%
46%
43%
40%
39%
35%
20%
32%
30%
16%
0%
Source: Convergencia Research based on carriers’ corresponding financial reports – 3Q 2011
It is interesting to compare the operations of Vodafone UK, Germany and India.
In the UK, Vodafone’s VAS represents 46% of service sales and this share is almost identical to its main
competitor.
In the UK, which has a significant number of smartphones, Vodafone’s Mobile Internet service sales have grown
around 3% quarterly/per quarter, while messaging (SMS and MMS) growth is around 2%. However, in Germany
messaging revenues are also growing at 2%, while mobile Internet revenues are growing at 6%.
In contrast, India, which has mobile penetration of around 70% of the population, SMS grows at around 43% and
mobile Internet at just 2%, mainly because 3G networks were only recently launched (See MAVAM Brazil 9th
Edition).
In the US, both Verizon and AT&T present similar figures to Vodafone, with VAS growth of no more than 5% per
quarter and voice revenues declining by 1 to 3%, depending on the carrier - although in this market VAS
contribution (40%) is lower that the European countries where Vodafone operates. In Japan, voice and data growth
rates for NTT Docomo are similar to the USA, but the main difference is that VAS (contributing 54% of revenues) is
NTT Docomo’s main source of income, instead of voice revenues, on which other carriers depend.
|7|

8. At China Mobile, whose figures only allow for a six-monthly comparison, the number of subscribers grew 11.3%
annually between the first semester of 2010 and 2011 to 617 million lines, in a country where 75% penetration still
offers room for post-paid plan growth. As new users are usually “low usage clients” and the “one client with several
chips” is becoming more commonplace, total ARPU dropped 3% in the first half of 2011, year on year.
China Mobile has 35 million 3G subscribers (5% of its customer base). At the end of the first half of 2011, VAS
represented 32.2% of carrier revenues, up 18% year-on-year compared with 5% for voice services, in local
currency. Of the VAS, the contribution made by SMS has dropped almost 1 percentage point, while revenue for
voice services, Mobile Internet and “other VAS” rose between 0.5 and 1 percentage point.
Chart 4
Mobile penetration vs. VAS contribution to ARPU. 3Q 2011. China Mobile 1H 2010 x 1H 2011
160%
VAS % 3Q 11
140% Penetration / 100 inhabitants
120%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Source: Convergencia Research based on carriers’ corresponding financial reports and penetration data from various sources.
|8|

9. 1.2. Value Added services in Latin America
The third quarter of 2011 ended with 607 million mobile telephone lines (including 10.5 million trunking3 lines) in
1
Latin America and the Caribbean . The number of lines brings regional penetration up to 104% –taking into account
trunking lines and 102% without them – although some countries4 have yet to achieve this level of mobile
subscriptions. South America5 and Mexico represent 89% of these lines (540.4 million). The remainder are in
Central America6 (41.7 million) and the Caribbean7 (24.6 million).
During the quarter through September 30, 2011, total sales for mobile operators in the countries researched were
23,397 billion dollars (without trunking services revenues), up 17% year on year. Convergencia Research
estimates that 2011 should end with sales 14% up on 2010 to 91,500 billion dollars.
89% of regional revenues are generated in South America and Mexico (17,138 million US dollars and 3,753 million
US dollars respectively) and the remaining 11% is split between Central America (1,446 million US dollars) and the
Caribbean (1,061 million US dollars).
Voice revenues were up 11% between 3Q 2010 and 3Q 2011 to 15,967 billion dollars.
Revenues from device sales rose to 2,052 billion dollars, 20% up on the 1,716 billion dollars registered last year.
Value Added Services (VAS) continue to show the most robust growth. During the third quarter of 2011 they
generated 5,378 billion dollars, 40% up year on year. This means that VAS now represent 25% of service revenues
(voice + VAS), compared with 21% previously.
3
Trunking or Specialized Mobile Service (SME for its initials in Portuguese) is a service of terrestrial mobile telecommunications of collective
interest that uses the radio system, mainly, to perform delivery operations or other forms of telecommunications. Sourse: Annex to resolution
No. 404 of May 5, 2005 (Anatel).
4
Bolivia, Paraguay, Perú, Venezuela, Guyana y Guyana Francesa, México, Belice, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras y Nicaragua, Antillas
Francesas, Bonaire, Cuba, Curazao, Haití, Islas Turcas y Caicos, Montserrat, Puerto Rico, República Dominicana y Santa Lucía.
5
Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Columbia, Ecuador, Guiana, French Guiana, Paraguay, Peru, Suriname, Uruguay and Venezuela.
6
Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama.
7
Anguilla, Antigua and Barbados, French Antilles, Aruba, Bahamas, Barbados, Bermuda, Bonaire, Cuba, Curacao, Dominica, Granada, Haiti,
Cayman Islands, Turks and Caicos Islands, British Virgin Islands, Jamaica, Montserrat, Porto Rico, Dominican Republic, Saint Kitts and Neves,
Saint Vicente and the Grenadines, Santa Lucia, Trinidad and Tobago.
|9|

10. Chart 5
Mobile telephony revenue growth in Latin America by service type. 3Q 2010 x 3Q 2011
USD 25,000 3Q 10 3Q 11 Variation 45%
40%
USD 23,397
40%
USD 20,000 USD 20,006
35%
Revenues in USD Million
30%
USD 15,000
USD 15,967
25%
USD 14,439 20%
20%
USD 5,378
17%
USD 10,000
USD 3,851
15%
USD 2,052
11%
USD 1,716
USD 5,000 10%
5%
USD 0 0%
Total Mobile Voice Service VAS Terminals
Phone Service
Chart 6
Mobile telephony sales by revenue source. 3Q 2010 x 3Q 2011
USD 25,000
USD 144 USD 23,397
USD 840 USD 543
USD 1,527 USD 337
USD 20,006
USD 20,000
Revenues in USD Million
USD 15,000
USD 10,000
USD 5,000
USD 0
3Q10 Voice Serv. Terminals Internet Messaging Other VAS 3Q11
Voice Serv. Terminals Internet Messaging Other VAS
Of the value added services, SMS and MMS have a 51% market share, with Mobile Internet at 38% and other VAS
representing 11%. Other VAS revenue flows include, for example, mobile marketing, revenue sharing for content
and application downloads and mobile banking solutions.
| 10 |

11. Mobile Internet revenues have risen 69%, driven by the growth of smartphones, which now represent around 10%
of all cell phones in Latin America.
Brazil is the biggest Mobile Internet market by revenue and users, although Central America and countries with low
levels of fixed line broadband penetration also drive significant volumes.
Text and multimedia messaging services have seen sales rise by 25%, mainly because there are still countries with
very low usage levels and there are still opportunities to increase usage through devices and other commercial
tactics, such as changing pricing plans.
The other VAS’s have seen revenues rise by 31%, based on new mobile businesses like mobile payments, mobile
marketing and application downloads, among others.
Chart 7
VAS Revenue Shares. Through 3Q 2011.
Voice Serv. VAS SMS + MMS Internet Other VAS
USD 2,052
38%
USD 15,967 USD 5,378
75% 25%
USD 2,714
51%
USD 613
11%
| 11 |

12. 1.3. Value Added Services (VAS) in Mexico
As of the end of the third quarter of 2011, there were 97,062 million mobile phone lines in Mexico (including
trunking operator Nextel’s 3.6 million lines), which represent an 88.7% penetration over population8.
Mobile subscribers in Mexico grew by 9.9% from the third quarter of 2010 to the third quarter of 2011. Mobile
service customers in Latin America and the Caribbean increased by 11.4% over the same period, mainly as a
consequence of an increase in the number of users in Brazil and Peru; both markets grew by 19% and 14%,
respectively.
Mexico is the second largest mobile market in Latin America and the Caribbean as to number of customers,
representing a 16% share in the region. Nevertheless, while Latin America exceeded 100% penetration by the end
of 2011, Convergencia Research believes that Mexico will reach that figure by the first quarter of 2013, providing
that the growth rate remains constant.
Chart 8
Evolution of the total mobile phone lines in Mexico (without trunking). 2008 vs. 2012 (estimate).
120,000
103,227
Number of mobile lines - in millions
100,000 92,222 93,463 94,704
88,001 90,266
79,555
80,000 74,425
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
2008 2009 2010 1Q11 2Q11 3Q11 4Q11e 4Q12e
Irrespective of Nextel’s trunking, the market share is split among Telcel (72.8%), Movistar (22.0%), and Iusacell
(5.3%). As compared to 2010, Iusacell’s market share grew by almost one percentage point.
8
Source: Convergencia Research based on the information disclosed in Telcel, Movistar and Nextel’s balance sheets, the number of mobile
phone lines reported by COFETEL (Federal Telecommunications Committee) and the population published by the INEGI (National Bureau of
Statistics and Geography)
| 12 |

13. Chart 9
Subscribers per operator. 3Q 2011 (in thousands of lines)
Movistar
20,516
22%
Iusacell
4,945
5%
Telcel
68,002
73%
Telcel has an ARPU equal to USD $ 13 ($MEX 154), which is 65% above its competitors’ ARPUs. Movistar has an
ARPU equal to USD 8 ($MEX 93), while Iusacell just reached USD 11 ($MEX 140). The three operators’ ARPUs
dropped in respect of 2010. Movistar was the operator with the highest ARPU drop (-17% in US Dollars and -21%
in Mexican Pesos); Iusacell suffered a 5% drop in US Dollars and 9% in Mexican Pesos; Telcel reported a 2%
ARPU drop in US Dollars and 6% drop in Mexican Pesos.
Chart 10
Total ARPU per operator. 3Q 2011
ARPU in USD ARPU in $ Mex
USD 14 $180
USD 13
$154 $160
USD 12 USD 11
$140
$140
USD 10
$120
ARPU in $ Mex
ARPU in USD
USD 8 USD 8
$93 $100
USD 6 $80
$60
USD 4
$40
USD 2
$20
USD 0 $0
Telcel Movistar Iusacell
| 13 |

14. The mobile industry sales from July to September 2011 reached USD 3,753 million dollars (mdd9) ($ 46,008 million
pesos - mdp10), which is 5% higher than the figure for the same quarter of 2010. The revenues from Voice and VAS
services reached USD 3,382 mdd ($ 41,458 mdp) in the period, which is 4% higher than it was in the third quarter
of 2010 in US Dollars and 1% lower in $MEX, as figures are affected by exchange rates11. The remaining USD 371
mdd ($ 4,549 mdp) pertain to the sale of devices.
Chart 11
Mobile Phone Service. Variation per type of income. 3Q 2010 vs. 3Q 2011
(in US Dollars) (in Mexican Pesos)
3Q 10 3Q 11 Variation 3Q 10 3Q 11 Variation
USD 4,000 45% 32%
38% $50,000 35%
40%
USD 3,753
Revenues in Million USD
USD 3,500
Revenues in Million $ Mex
35% $45,000 30%
$46,008
$45,770
USD 3,573
USD 3,000 30% $40,000 25%
USD 2,500 25% $35,000 20%
USD 1,047
18% 13%
USD 2,499
20% $30,000 15%
$32,014
USD 2,334
USD 2,000
$28,620
USD 758
$12,839
15% $25,000 10%
USD 1,500
USD 371
10%
$9,713
USD 316
5% $20,000 1% 5%
5%
$4,549
$15,000 0%
$4,043
USD 1,000
0% $10,000 -5%
USD 500 -7% -11%
-5% $5,000 -10%
USD 0 -10%
$0 -15%
Total Mobile Voice VAS Terminals
Total Mobile Voice VAS Terminals
Phone Service
Phone Service
Service
Service
The growth of services is the consequence of the increase in sales of Value Added Services (VAS), which grew by
38% in US Dollars (+32% in $MEX), while the revenues from voice services dropped by 7% in US Dollars (-11% in
$MEX). This variation derives from the drop in the termination rate implemented in May 2011.
The revenues from the sale of terminals (handsets) grew by 18% in USD and by 13% in $MEX, as compared to the
third quarter of 2010.
VAS generated sales for USD $1,047 mdd ($ 12,839 mdp) in the third quarter of 2011, representing 31% of the
revenues from services.
Within the VAS category, the messaging service sales (SMS and MMS) represent 57% (USD $601 mdd and $
7,367 mdp), below the record set at 60% in the third quarter of 2010. In spite of the drop in the total market share,
the messaging services sales show a year-over-year growth rate of 32% in US Dollars and 26% in Mexican Pesos.
9
Million US Dollars.
10
Million Mexican Pesos.
11
The average US Dollar value was equal to $MEX 12.8 in 3Q 2010 and to $MEX 12.3 in 3Q 2011, with a slight revaluation of $MEX as
compared between these two periods.
| 14 |

15. Mobile Internet sales grew by 70% in USD (63% in Mexican Pesos), and they reached a volume of USD 257 mdd
in the quarter, representing 25% of the revenues from VAS.
The other revenues from VAS12 were USD 189 mdd ($ 2,316 mdp), which grew by 25% in US Dollars (20% in
$MEX). Their contribution to the total VAS dropped from 20% to 18% between the third quarter of 2011 and the
same period of 2010.
Chart 12
Income Distribution per Type. 3Q 2011 (in million USD)
Voice Serv. VAS SMS + MMS Internet Other VAS
USD 257
25%
USD 2,334 USD 1,047
69% 31% USD 601 USD 189
57% 18%
Vivo retains top spot in VAS as a percentage contribution to total revenues (23%). VAS represents 18% of service
sales to both TIM and Oi.
12
The other VAS comprise revenues from mobile marketing, the revenue share of contents and application downloading, and mobile banking
solutions, among others.
| 15 |

16. 2. MAVAM (Acision Monitor for Mobile VAS)
The MAVAM Acision study aims to analyze the evolution of value added services in Latin America. It has been
carried out in Brazil since 2009. The study was then carried out in Mexico in 2010 and Argentina in 2011.
This edition of MAVAM Mexico has been prepared on the basis of the following methodological characteristics:
a) 800 interviews were made to people contacted on the Web (Computer Aided Web Interviewing –CAWI-).
b) The geographic area covered by the sample comprises all of Mexico’s regions. The sample considers the
number of inhabitants, the economic status and Internet penetration by geographic region (it is a Web-based
interview), in order to improve local representativeness.
c) The survey was made on the Web (CAWI), pursuant to the rates applicable to the socio-economic level, age and
gender, which preserve the proportions of Mexican population.
Since the number of Internet users (about 41.3 million) is lower than the number of mobile users (about 98
million), and given the fact that the sample represents people who are more familiar with technology, the values
obtained in some cases may not be extrapolated to the market aggregate; instead, such values are considered
for reference and orientation purposes. These cases are explained throughout the study.
d) The services analyzed in this edition include:
Messaging Mobile Internet
• SMS • Social Networks
• MMS • Location services (GPS)
• E-mail • Payments and mobile banking
• Instant messaging • Mobile Marketing
Entertainment This MAVAM Mexico edition was performed by
• Music Convergencia Research, in March 2012.
• Pictures
Sampling participation pursuant to the
• Games geographic residence in Mexico:
• Ringtones
Residence %
• TV Mexico City 48%
Rest of the country 52%
• Video
| 16 |

17. 3. Messaging Services (Special Issue)
The globalization of mobile phone services is also means the globalization of SMS services. It can be
acknowledged that almost every mobile phone in the world is SMS-enabled. However, as evidenced in other
editions of MAVAM, the frequency of use of SMS differs from one country to another.
The expansion of the range of smartphones and instant messaging solutions on mobile phones pose a challenge to
the traditional use of text messages for communicating among people. Therefore, new solutions and products are
analyzed in this edition of MAVAM so as to understand how users engage with mobile messaging services and
services can be adopted to enrich the traditional SMS experience and generate new revenues for operators.
The SMS services features researched in this edition are:
1. Auto-signature: this function makes it possible to set up a signature or a greeting at the end of the drafted
messages (for instance: “I am on holiday”, “I am busy right now / I am not at the office.”)
2. White lists / black lists personalization: it enables the creation of contact lists so as to define who may and who
may not send messages to the user.
3. Automatic forwarding to another phone: it makes it possible to automatically forward the messages received to
another telephone number (for example, to your personal / professional telephone number)
4. Automatic forwarding to an e-mail account: this function makes it possible to automatically forward the messages
received to an e-mail account to have a back-up copy or read them on a desktop PC.
5. Groups Messaging (Distribution lists): provides for the possibility of exchanging messages with a group of
contacts whose recipients may also answer to the entire group.
6. Receipt notification: to receive a confirmation of receipt of the messages sent.
7. Searches: possibility to search through saved messages.
8. Reminders: to receive scheduled appointment reminders.
9. Receiving party pays: possibility of sending messages paid for by recipients.
10. Storage services: being able to store every message at a cloud storage service provided by the operator.
11. Multiple SIM cards: possibility to send messages from any other device (tablets, dongles, USB modems, etc.)
12. Alias: configuration of names or nicknames in a user’s origin number.
13. SMS Beeper (Nick Name alias): possibility to receive text messages or calls without revealing the phone
number, but through a nickname: people send their SMS to a call center (for instance: 12345) starting with the
nickname and following with the message.
| 17 |

18. A comparison is also made between the features that users regard as being the most important in instant
messaging and in an SMS service, as well as the occasions in which users prefer one form of communication over
the other.
Although the analysis is focused on the messaging habits among people, it is important to mention that, in the
future of SMS, communications among machines and the usage models play an essential role as a new B2C
(Business to consumer) communication channel, such as for instance, inquiries via SMS for banking services,
governmental procedures, etc.
3.1. SMS
Over the fourth quarter of 2011, 98% of the users questioned for MAVAM used the SMS short messages services,
almost three percentage points over the previous edition of MAVAM (with data pertaining to the first quarter of
2011).
Chart 13
SMS use Basis: total sample (1Q 2011: 798 cases; 4Q 2011: 800 cases)
98.3%
100% 95.5%
80%
Percentage of cases
60%
1Q 2011
4Q 2011
40%
20%
2.5% 1.1% 2.0% 0.6%
0%
I sent text messages over I have not sent any SMS I do not make use
the last 3 months over the last 3 months of the service
SMS use is global, not only because it reaches a penetration higher than 90%, but also because its use does not
depend on gender, age, social class or type of payment schedule. It is noted that, irrespective of the particular
features, use exceeds 95% in all cases. 59%13 of users send more than one SMS a day.
13
Figures are not comparable to the previous edition of MAVAM, due to the fact that the question has been asked in a different way.
| 18 |

19. Chart 14
SMS sending frequency (Only users who send SMS: 786 cases)
More than one 59%
I send one per day in average 23%
Very f ew, I hardly use it 18%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Percentage of cases
3.1.1. Future importance of SMS
54% of the users questioned consider that, in the future, SMS will be as important for their communications as they
are today; 25% consider that SMS will be more important than today.
Chart 15
How important do you think SMS will be in the future compared to the present time? (Total sample:
800 cases)
60%
54%
50%
40%
Percentage of cases
30%
25%
20% 18%
10%
3%
0%
More important Equally important Less important I don't know
| 19 |

20. 3.1.2. Deterrents to broader SMS use
It is worth analyzing the deterrents to broader SMS use, or why users do not use SMS more frequently. The main
reason for not using SMS is the user’s preference for voice communications. 77.5% of the users questioned state
that talking on the phone is easier and simpler and 45.4% states that voice is faster.
Chart 16
What stops you from using SMS on the mobile phone you use most or from using SMS more
frequently? (Total sample: 800 cases) – Multiple choice
Talking by phone is easier/
78%
it is more practical/simple
Talking by phone is f aster 45%
I don't know if the recipient
20%
received the message
SMS is expensive compared to calling
12%
-comparing the price of the minute-
I don't need to send SMS 10%
I'm not able to chat in group 10%
I don't like to send SMS 7%
I don't know how to do it 1%
My phone doesn't support
1%
sending SMS
Others 14%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Percentage of cases
ABC+ sectors comprise the highest percentage of respondents who prefer voice communication over SMS.
Deterrents to SMS use
Socio-Economic Level
Total
D+ C ABC+
Talking on the phone is easier and simpler 25.6% 32.9% 41.5% 100%
Talking on the phone is more practical 24.1% 32.0% 43.9% 100%
| 20 |

21. 3.1.3. New SMS– and MMS– based products
The solutions and products mostly preferred by users
Users were asked about their willingness to use new products which make it possible to enhance SMS-based
communications and when referencing the list mentioned at the beginning of this chapter. The users questioned
were allowed to choose more than one option.
Acceptance of all the options was above 50%. The three options most required by users were: being able to send
text messages from any other device (87.3%); being able to search through saved messages (83.5%) and being
able to automatically forward the messages received to an e-mail account (79.7%).
The least-mentioned option was the ‘receiving party pays’ possibility, whereby the recipient pays the cost of the
message sent (similar to the reverse-charge system used in voice services).
Chart 17
Which of the following features would you like to have available in the SMS service (text
messages)? (Total sample: 800 cases) – Multiple choice
Multiple SIM 87%
Search 84%
Auto-send to an email account 80%
Reminders 79%
Receipt notif ication 77%
White/black lists personalization 76%
Auto-send to another phone number 74%
Auto-signature 73%
Alias 71%
Distribution list 70%
Use an Alias to received SMSs and
69%
calles instead of the phone number
Cloud message 65%
Paid in the destination 52%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Percentage of cases
| 21 |

22. Most important solutions and products
The users questioned were asked to state the degree of importance for the same list of options.
SMS-sending from different devices was the optioned deemed most important (68.8%). The relevance allocated by
users to the possibility of sending SMS from other devices may be related to the massive adoption of the service as
well as to users being increasingly used to the fact that all the services (voice, data, video) are available on all the
devices at all times. Exploring the possibility of offering this type of solutions constitutes a good business
opportunity for the operators.
The fact of getting receipt notification and reading confirmation for the messages sent ranked second in importance
(67%). In this last case, it is surprising that, even though only 77% of the users questioned stated they might want
to have this feature available (fifth place of the question analyzed in the previous section), it is a highly valued
feature.
The possibility of sending and receiving SMS without revealing the phone number and using an alias or nickname
ranked third in importance (67%). This preference seems to derive from instant messaging services and it shows
how the features of different services increasingly tend to converge. The curious thing in this case is that, even
though this option is considered important, only 68.9% of the users questioned stated it to be of their preference,
thus resulting among the three lowest options for the question posed in the previous section.
| 22 |

23. Chart 18
How do you assess the importance of each of the services you stated you would like to have?
(Only the users who selected the feature mentioned)
Multiple SIM 69% 21% 10%
Receipt notif ication 67% 23% 10%
Use an Alias to received SMSs and
67% 20% 13%
calles instead of the phone number
White/black lists personalization 66% 23% 11%
Reminders 64% 23% 13%
Auto-send to an email account 62% 28% 10%
Search 61% 25% 14%
Cloud message 58% 26% 15%
Distribution list 56% 30% 14%
Paid in the destination 55% 29% 16%
Auto-send to another phone number 55% 31% 15%
Auto-signature 54% 28% 18%
Alias 53% 29% 18%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Percentage of cases
Important / Very important Neutral Not important / Somewhat important
| 23 |

24. Willingness to pay per the product/solution type
When the willingness to pay for any of the new services analyzed is evaluated, the option of sending SMS from
multiple devices also ranks first. 30.9% of the users who chose the feature of being able to send messages from
any other device would be willing to pay for the service; therefore, this is the feature with the highest subscription
intent.
The possibility of automatically forwarding any messages received to an e-mail account ranks second in terms of
willingness to pay for the service (30.5%).
Chart 19
Would you be willing to pay a fair price for each of the services described? (Only those who selected the
mentioned feature) – Multiple choice
Multiple SIM 31%
Auto-send to an email account 30%
Distribution list 26%
Auto-send to another phone number 25%
Use an Alias to received SMSs and
24%
calles instead of the phone number
Cloud message 23%
Paid in the destination 23%
Receipt notif ication 19%
Reminders 19%
White/black lists personalization 19%
Search 14%
Alias 14%
Auto-signature 14%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
Percentage of cases
| 24 |

25. Features that users would be willing to pay
Percentage of Average monthly price
Features
responses the user would pay
Being able to save all the messages at an online storage service provided
22.9 $MEX 14.39
by operator
Crete contact lists to define who may and who may not send me
18.8 $MEX 13.22
messages (White lists and black lists)
Being able to personalize the origin address shown to recipient, with the
14 $MEX 12.45
possibility to configure alias or nicknames
Get receipt notification and reading confirmation of the messages sent 19.4 $MEX 9.96
Being able to exchange messages with a group of contacts, who may, in
26.1 $MEX 9.64
turn, answer the messages to everyone in the group
Being able to automatically forward the messages received to an e-mail
30.5 $MEX 9.5
account
Being able to receive text messages or calls without revealing the phone
23.7 $MEX 9.47
number, but through a nickname
Being able to send messages from any other device – tablets, dongles,
30.9 $MEX 9.36
USB modems, etc.-
Possibility to search through saved messages 14.4 $MEX 9.36
Being able to set up a signature or a salutation which is automatically
13.9 $MEX 8.84
copied at the end of the drafted messages
Being able to send messages to be charged to the recipient 22.8 $MEX 8.12
Receiving scheduled appointment reminders 18.8 $MEX 7.51
Being able to automatically forward the messages received to a different
25 $MEX 7.4
phone number
In all cases, the users who would be willing to pay for the new services state average values which range from
$MEX 7.4 to a maximum of $MEX 14.39 per month. However, there is a wide dispersion and the most frequent
value for every category is $MEX 1.
The option with the highest price average is the possibility of saving and storing SMS online at a server provided by
the operator ($MEX 14.39). The creation of white and black distribution lists ranks second ($MEX 13.22), and the
possibility of personalizing the origin address shown to recipient, being able to set up nicknames ranks third ($MEX
12.45).
The service showing the highest willingness and importance in the previous sections (being able to send messages
from different devices) has an average payment willingness of $MEX 9.36 per month.
| 25 |

26. New features configuration
When it comes to exploring new business opportunities through SMS, an important aspect consists in making
installation easy and in rendering the application a user-friendly service. Therefore, users were questioned about
which would be their preferred ways of making the service available in the subscribers’ devices.
43.8% of the users questioned chose to have the application installed in their cell phones, while 17.4% of users
would rather set the service up via SMS, and 12.9% of users would prefer to do it on the operator’s website.
Chart 20
In your opinion, which would be the best way of setting up the SMS services mentioned?
(Total sample: 800 cases)
Through an app installed
44%
on your cell phone
Sending an SMS 17%
Through the operator's web site 13%
Through a WAP portal 11%
Through an app installed
10%
on your computer
Through a complement installed
4%
in the email manager
Other 1%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Percentage of cases
| 26 |

27. 3.2. MMS
32% of the users questioned used the MMS service over the last three months. Only 24% of users had used the
service in the previous edition of MAVAM.
In this case, it is worth considering that many users just exchange images.
Chart 21
Have you sent any MMS from your mobile phone over the last three months? (Only for users whose
devices are MMS-enabled: Total sample (1Q 2011: 798 cases, 4Q 2011: 800 cases)
1Q 2011 4Q 2011
60%
52%
50% 46%
Percentage of cases
40%
32%
30%
24% 24%
21%
20%
10%
0%
I sent over the I have not sent over I do not make use
last 3 months the last 3 months of the service
| 27 |

28. The image-sending frequency is lower than once per week in 41% of cases (active users represent 28% of the
sample).
Chart 22
How many MMS do you think you send per week from the mobile phone you use most?
(Only users who have sent MMS over the last 3 months: 259 cases)
I send more than one
MMS
28%
I send very f ew
MMS, I hardly send
MMS
41%
I send one MMS in
average
31%
Users’ purchasing power influences the use of MMS. MMS use is higher (43.5%) among users in the ABC+
socioeconomic level than among users in the C (26.3%) and D (21.1%) levels. These results could be related to
the fact that the highest-end devices offer more media-rich features which foster use and image exchange.
Chart 23
MMS users by socioeconomic level
160%
D+ C ABC+
140%
32%
120%
Percentage of cases
100% 50%
43%
80%
25%
60%
56%
40% 26% 24%
20%
21% 23%
0%
I sent MMS over I have not sent any MMS I do not make use
the last 3 months over the last 3 months of the service
The payment schedule also influences on the use of MMS. 51% of users who have hired post-paid plans used
MMS over the last three months. The figure drops to 28% among users who have hired pre-paid plans.
| 28 |

29. 3.2.1. MMS Scenarios
The different scenarios in which MMS are sent (based on the users who used the service) are special occasions.
80% of users choose special dates, such as anniversaries or birthdays to send multimedia messages. Vacation
moments (25%) and meetings with friends (25%) ranked second.
Chart 24
In which scenarios do you send multimedia messages (MMS)? (Only users who have sent MMS over the last 3
months: 259 cases) – Multiple choice
100%
80%
80%
Percentage of cases
60%
40%
25% 25% 24%
20%
9%
0%
On special ocations On holidays When hanging out Because of work Other
(birthays, with f riends duties
aniversaries, etc.)
| 29 |

30. 3.2.2. Deterrents and incentives to broader MMS use
The factors which deter users from using MMS or from using MMS more frequently are: price (39%), the fact of not
knowing whether the recipient has actually recieved the message (25.6%), and general unawareness (16.4% of
users have never even tried to send any multimedia messages).
Chart 25
What stops you from using MMS from the mobile phone you use most or from using MMS more
frequently? (Total basis: 800 cases) – Multiple choice
It is very expensive 39%
I do not have how to conf irm if the
26%
receiver received the message
Never try sending a multimedia message 16%
MMS service does not work well 15%
My cell phone is not set up properly 12%
My phone doesn't support it 9%
Others 12%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Percentage of cases
66.4% of the users questioned state that a price reduction would lead to broader use. 35.9% of users would
increase MMS use were they certain about message delivery. Part of the uncertainty consists in that users are not
sure that the recipient’s handset may be enabled for MMS receipt.
19.6% of users state that they would feel more motivated using MMS if they had targetted package alternatives.
This could show an opportunity to offer packages which may contribute to reduce the price per multimedia
message sent.
| 30 |

31. Chart 26
What would encourage you to start using MMS or to use MMS more frequently? (Total basis: 800
cases) – Multiple choice
Cost per message should be lower
66%
(f or example: it could cost the same as SMS)
Having a receipt notif ication 36%
Operators would have to of f er MMS bundle 20%
Owning a cell phone able to send MMS 18%
Other 4%
I don't know 7%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Percentage of cases
| 31 |

32. 3.3. Instant Messaging
Instant messaging use is growing. Only 19% of the users questioned had used the service in the first quarter of
2011; the percentage grew to 24% in the last quarter of the year.
Chart 27
IM use over the last 3 months. Total sample (1Q 2011: 798 cases; 4Q 2011: 800 cases)
100%
1Q 2011
4Q 2011 81% Instant messaging use is broader at ABC+ levels.
80% 76%
32.8% of the ABC+ users questioned use instant
Percentage of cases
messaging. Only 12.7% of the D+ users questioned
60%
use IM.
40% The age factor influences the use of instant
24% messaging. IM use among users younger than 35
19%
20% years old is higher than 20%.For older mobile users,
IM use figures do not reach 10%. 25-to-34 year olds
0% are the users who use IM services most, with 29%.
Yes No
Chart 28
IM use per age (Total sample: 800 cases)
100%
Yes 94%
92%
No
80% 75%
72% 71%
Percentage of cases
60%
40%
28% 29%
25%
20%
8%
6%
0%
14 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 65
years old years old years old years old years old
| 32 |

33. The mostly used messaging service is Facebook Chat (49.5%), followed by Whatsapp (39.7%), and MSN
Messenger (13.4%). The users questioned had the chance to choose more than one instant messaging service
option.
Chart 29
Messaging services used (Only users who use IM: 194 cases) – Multiple choice
Facebook Chat 49%
WhatsApp 40%
MSN Messenger 13%
BlackBerry Messenger - Ping 12%
eBuddy XMS 11%
Skype Messenger 9%
Google Talk 7%
iMessage 7%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Percentage of cases
3.3.1. Opportunities and deterrents for wider IM use
Not having a data plan is the main deterrent among users who are not using the Instant Messaging service (33%).
Not having an IM-enabled device ranks second (27%). And a little trust in sharing information including contacts,
messages, and location with any company providing the messaging application ranks third (22%).
Among users who used Instant Messaging over the last three months, the three deterrents to increasing IM use
most-widely mentioned are: message loss or delay in receipt (23%), not having a data plan (19%), and the little
trust in sharing information including contacts, messages, and location with any company providing the messaging
application (18%).
| 33 |

34. Chart 30
What stops you from using some instant messaging service or from increasing IM use
frequency from the mobile phone you use most? (Users who do use IM 194 cases; Users who do not use IM: 606
cases) – Multiple choice
I don't have a data bundle to access the 19%
internet 33%
4%
My phone does not support IM
27%
I don't trust sharing my personal data (contacts, 18%
messages, localization, with any company 22%
I usually loose messages or I experience 23%
delays in the reception of the messages 13%
I don't have enough space/capacity in my 11%
phone to install the applications 12%
16%
I don't like the weekly updates
11%
14%
People still contact me and I can't block them I made use of IM services during
6%
the last three months
11%
There're no reasons
1% I didn't make use of IM services
during the last three months
11%
Others
8%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Percentage of cases
In response to the question about mobile phone operator’s providing a new messaging service to compete with IM,
63.4% of Instant Messaging service users’ stated that the main requirement for them to subscribe to a new
operator service is if itworks without interruptions. The image-sharing feature and the possibility of sharing videos
with friends rank second (58.2%). The certainty that the message may be received by the recipient in a few
seconds ranks third (58.2%). The forth requirement stated by users having the ability to access all contacts through
SMS whether they have the new messaging service or not. This demonstrates that SMS interoperability across
services is a key requirement and an opportunity for operators (51.5%).
In response to the same question, users who are not yet using any IM service stated that the main they would
move an operator with a new messaging service is that the cost charged for the service must be reasonable
(51.4%), guarantee that the service worksranks second (49 %) and the speed of message delivery ranks third
(23.7%).
| 34 |

35. Chart 31
Suppose your mobile phone operator offered you a new messaging service, which of the
following factors would be of the essence for you to be sure of using it instead of your current
instant messaging service? (Users who do use IM 194 cases; Users who do not use IM: 606 cases) – Multiple choice
It must be without cost / included in the 69%
contract 54%
63%
Service should always work, without troubles
49%
Able to share f iles, images, videos with my 58%
f riends 42%
It must be sure message is received af ter 53%
seconds 44%
52%
Able to contact all SMS users
38%
51%
Able to contact anyone
46%
49%
Service should be used also in the computer
42%
48%
Able to chat with others in the contact group
31%
Able to see when the other party is typing an 44%
answer 33%
42%
Cost must be reasonable
51%
42%
Able to see the latter conversations
28%
34%
Able to share status and f eelings with f riends
21%
20% I made use of IM services during
Able to share my location
11% the last three months
3% I didn't make use of IM services
Others during the last three months
1%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Percentage of cases
The users questioned were asked about the possibility of using one single messaging service which may make it
possible for them to contact any person (via SMS/MMS/IM/ File transfer / Group chat and video-sharing).
65% of instant messaging service users answered that they are very likely to use it, and 29% of users stated that
they would probably use it. 48% of users out of those who do not yet use Instant Messaging stated that they would
¨very likely use it¨, and 34% stated that they would ¨probably¨ use it.
Among individuals already using IM services, the results show that 94% of users would be willing to use one single
messaging service, and about 82% said they would use one solution among those users who have not yet used
Instant Messaging as their means of communication.
| 35 |