Mobile Opportunities Preliminary results from Peru

1

Mobile OpportunitiesPreliminary results from Peru

Roxana Barrantes

IEP Instituto de Estudios Peruanos

2

Table of contents

1. D and E SEC Groups: our sample and ENAHO.

2. Characteristics of selected locations

3. Users and Non - users

4. Users

5. Non users

6. Concluding remarks


3

1. D and E SEC Groups: our sample and ENAHO

4

1. D and E SEC: Peru vs SampleNumber of family members

5.4 5.0

1

17

4.2 4

1

13

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

Mean Median Min Max

ENAHO

SAMPLE

Literacy (1=Literate)

0.620.49

0

10.96 1

0

1

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

Mean Median Min MaxIEP Instituto de Estudios Peruanos

Age

46.8 45

14

98

42.0 40

18

70

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

Mean Median Min Max

Sex (1=Male)

0.78

1

0

1

0.83

1.0

0

1

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

Mean Median Min Max

5

Sample• D and S socioeconomic groups, according to

SISFOH.• Urban poor• Three cities:

– Trujillo– Puno-Juliaca– Metropolitan Lima

• 1200 surveys• Randomly selected households• Randomly selected individuals within the

household.

6

1. D and E SEC: Peru vs Sample


Education: ENAHO and sample

7

22

20

19

22

2

4

2

2

5

13

12

20

31

4

7

4

4

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

sin nivel

primaria incompleta

primaria completa

secundaria incompleta

secundaria completa

superior no universitaria incompleta

superior no universitaria completa

superior universitaria incompleta

superior universitaria completa

Le

ve

l

% of total

7

1. D and E SEC: Peru vs Sample


Walls material

42

10

3739

14

44

01020304050

Brick, block, stone,gravel, cement or

concrete

Wood Adobe

Sewage

50

15 16

36 40

16

0102030405060

Conected to publicnetwork

Cesspit Doesn’t have sewage

%

8

2. Characteristics of selected locations

9

Population in selected locations

Trujillo – La Libertad Pop. 765 171

Puno – Juliaca Pop. 441 382

Lima 6 954 583


10

Peru and selected locations


11

Urban poor in Peru

% of Urban Poor

2% 3% 1%5% 4%

2% 3% 3% 3% 4% 5% 4% 4%

20%

4%1%

3% 4%8%

4% 4% 3% 2% 4%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

Am

azo

na

s

An

cash

Ap

urí

ma

c

Are

qu

ipa

Aya

cuch

o

Ca

jam

arc

a

Cu

sco

Hu

an

cave

lica

Hu

an

uco Ica

Jun

in

La

lib

ert

ad

La

mb

aye

qu

e

Lim

a

Lo

reto

Ma

dre

de

Mo

qu

eg

ua

Pa

sco

Piu

ra

Pu

no

Sa

n m

art

in

Ta

cna

Tu

mb

es

Uca

yali

100% = total of urban poor households of Peru


12

Description of telecom indicators

Source: OSIPTEL

Fixed and mobile density 2006

26

2

10

2 2 41 2

8 58 7

17

4 37

25

2 38

5 59

5

18

7

42

11 11

18

29

35

19

27 27

57

9

22

44

11

1916

9

49

33

17

32

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

%

13

3. Users and Non - users

14

During the past three months have you usedused a mobile phone to make or receive calls?

N % N % N %Lima D 102 49,0% 106 51,0% 208 100%

E 90 43,7% 116 56,3% 206 100%Total 192 46,4% 222 53,6% 414 100%

Trujillo D 99 47,6% 109 52,4% 208 100%E 109 54,5% 91 45,5% 200 100%Total 208 51,0% 200 49,0% 408 100%

Puno-Juliaca D 177 83,1% 36 16,9% 213 100%E 178 83,2% 36 16,8% 214 100%Total 355 83,1% 72 16,9% 427 100%

Yes No TotalCities Sectors


15

Gender


Men Women Total

Users 370 385 755No users 200 294 494Total 489 760 1249

User's Gender

49%51%

Men

Women

16

Age

Non-users

Users


0.0

2.0

4.0

6D

ensity

0 20 40 60 80edad_us

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4D

ensity

0 20 40 60 80edad_nous

AGET test

Group Obs Mean

Non users 494 36.36Users 755 31.28combined 1249 33.29diff 5.07Ho: diff = 0Ha: diff != 0 Pr(| T| > | t| ) = 0.0000

17

Education


Users, non-users and education

1%

1%

6%

37%

6%

9%

6%

6%

7%

1%

3%

5%

3%

3%

15%

3%

6%

27%

3%

1%

1%

3%

2%

2%

7%

3%

8%

4%

2%

9%

1%

9%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

ningún nivel/ alfabet

1er grado/ transición

2do grado

3er grado

4to grado

5to grado

6to grado

1ero de media

2do de media

3ro de media

4to de media

5to de media

sup. no universitaria

sup. no universitaria

sup. universitaria in

sup. universitaria co

Le

ve

l

%

EDUCATIONT test

Group Obs Mean

Non users 494 8.73Users 755 11.1combined 1249 10.36diff -2.36Ho: diff = 0Ha: diff != 0 Pr(| T| > | t| ) = 0.0000

18

Family members

FAMILY MEMBERST test

Group Obs Mean


Users, non-users and family members

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

1 3 5 7 9 11

Number of members

%


19

Literacy


Users and Literacy

99%

1%

Literate

Illiterate

Non users and Literacy

93%

7%

LITERACYT test

Group Obs Mean


20

4. Users


21

Reasons for callingMobile telephone use (for calling) during the last week 563From the total (1249), the % is: 45.08%From the total of users (755), the % is: 74.57%

Calls N °

% of the ones that use the mobile phone to

call% of the total of

users% of the total of

interviewees

To workplace or for business 214 38.0% 28.3% 17.1%Friends 318 56.5% 42.1% 25.5%In-country Relatives 466 82.8% 61.7% 37.3%Relatives living outside of the country 12 2.1% 1.6% 1.0%Emergencies 30 5.3% 4.0% 2.4%


22

Higher impact perceived by Independent workers

Found better job or business opportunitiesOccupation N °

Employee 38Laborer 33Independent worker 106Comission worker 3House worker 6Unpaid worker in family business 9Employer 2Farmer 2Other 1Total 200

Saved time at workOccupation N °



23


Communication with more suppliers Occupation N °


Communication with more clients Occupation N °



24


Communication with work colleagues Occupation N °



25

Pre paid dominates among mobile subscribers

Type of plan

96%

2%

1%

1%

P repaid P ostpaid P ostpaid (control) Do not know


26

Reasons to choose Pre paid

Why do you have a pre-paid mobile plan instead of a Postpaid plan? Freq. %

It is cheaper 149 32.96I can control my mobile phone expenditure better 153 33.85It is simpler to get it this way 96 21.24I didn’t choose it 51 11.28Other 3 0.66Total 452 100


27

Recharge card valueCard amount N° %

10 103 23.8420 251 58.130 58 13.4340 4 0.9350 2 0.46120 1 0.23Do not know 7 1.62Did not answer 6 1.39Total 432 10020 said they had not recharged yet


Card recharge amount

24%

58%

13%

1% 0% 0%0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

10 20 30 40 50 120

Amount (S/.)

%

28

Low affordability

How cheap or expensive do you think your mobile phone service is? Freq. %

Very cheap 2 0.44Cheap 41 9.07Neither cheap nor expensive (affordable) 249 55.09Expensive 136 30.09Very expensive 21 4.65Does not apply/ Free of charge 3 0.66Total 452 100


29

Strategies to minimize costUse of "call notifications"

26%

67%

7%

Only make calls when the rates are lower (during non-peak hours)

41%

55%

4%

Rent a mobile phone from the street

28%69%

3%

Only use the mobile phone for SMS

13%

82%

5%

Use of the mobile phone just to receive calls

50%

48%

2%

Use of missed calls / beeping

47%

50%

3%

Yes

No

Does not know


30

Gross elasticities: Price

Suppose the monthly cost of using your mobile phone was cut in half. Which of the following statements best describes how you would change your

phone usage? N ° %

I would not change my phone usage (it would stay the same) 170 36.6I would increase my phone usage by some amount, but not double it 212 45.6I would double my usage 73 15.7I would more than double my usage 10 2.2Total 465 100

Suppose the monthly cost of using your phone doubled. Which of the following statements best describes how you would change your phone

usage? N ° %

I would not change my phone usage 96 20.6I would reduce my phone usage by some amount, but not by half 145 31.2I would reduce my phone usage by half 107 23.0I would reduce my phone usage by more than half 74 15.9I would not use my mobile phone 43 9.2Total 465 100


31

Gross elasticities: Income

Suppose that your monthly income doubled. Which of the following statements best describes how you would change your mobile phone usage? N ° %

I would not change my phone usage (it would stay the same) 147 31.6%I would increase my phone usage by some amount, but not double it 225 48.4%I would double my usage 73 15.7%I would more than double my usage 20 4.3%Total 465 100.0%

Suppose your monthly income was cut in half, which if the following statements best describes how you would change your phone usage? N ° %

I would not change my phone usage 89 19.1%I would reduce my phone usage by some amount, but not by half 124 26.7%I would reduce my phone usage by half 92 19.8%I would reduce my phone usage by more than half 90 19.4%I would stop using my phone 70 15.1%Total 465 100.0%


32

Do you have a fixed phone line at home?

TF1. Do you have a fixed phone line (landline) at home?

N % N % N %Lima D 48 23.1% 160 76.9% 208 100%

E 33 16.0% 173 84.0% 206 100%Total 81 19.6% 333 80.4% 414 100%

Trujillo D 60 28.8% 148 71.2% 208 100%E 12 6.0% 188 94.0% 200 100%Total 72 17.6% 336 82.4% 408 100%

Puno-Juliaca D 24 11.3% 189 88.7% 213 100%E 4 1.9% 210 98.1% 214 100%Total 28 6.6% 399 93.4% 427 100%

TotalCities Sectors

Yes No

33

5. Non users


34

Reasons

What is the main reason why you haven’t used a mobile phone service? N ° %

It is too expensive 276 55,9I don’t think having a mobile of my own is necessary 139 28,1There is no coverage where I live 8 1,6None of my contacts has a phone 8 1,6I don’t need to use a telephone because my contacts live nearby 13 2,6I can’t because there is no electricity in my home to charge the phone battery 3 0,6Because I have a land line at home 41 8,3Other 6 1,2Total 494 100


35

Plans to adquire

• 151 out of 494 non users

91.4% of them plans to buy a prepaid mobile phone

Non users planning to adquire a mobile phone

30,6%

47,4%

Yes

No


36

Affordability• In Peru, the monthly

payment to subscribe to a post paid mobile phone currently costs about 38 soles (USD 12). Can you afford to pay this amount?

What is the maximum amount you could pay for this service per month? N ° %

Less than 19 soles 371 75,1%Between 20 and 25 soles 93 18,8%Between 25 and 30 soles 16 3,2%Between 30 and 35 soles 10 2,0%Between 35 and 60 soles 4 0,8%Total 494 100,0%

86%14% Yes

No


37

6. Concluding remarks

38

Final comments

• Mobile phone use is higher than mobile phone subscription.– Important potential market!– Sharing is not widespread.

• Mobile users are, on average, more educated, younger and share household with more members than non users.

39

Final comments

• Affordability is an issue.– 20 soles seems to be “the magic number”.

• Pre paid dominates– Even perceived as less expensive!

More homework to be done in order to present further analysis and policy recommendations!

Documents

Mobile Opportunities Preliminary results from Peru