Facebook: The Attention Engine
If you look at Facebook, the whole setup is built on one simple trick—grab attention and sell it. Back in 2019, they had over 2.4 billion users. Almost all their revenue (about $31.9 billion, or 98.66%) came from advertising. That should tell you everything: users aren’t the paying customers here. Advertisers are.
People scroll, post, comment, and hand over data (sometimes without even realizing it). That endless stream of activity becomes the real “product.” The paying side is the businesses who want their ads in front of those eyeballs. And that’s the whole idea of an asymmetric business model—the ones using the product and the ones paying for it are two different groups.
Google’s Search-Asymmetric Model
Google plays the same game but in a different field. Every search you type in is a little gold nugget of intent. It’s not just the words, but also your behavior, your timing, your patterns. Google’s algorithms scoop all that up, clean it, and turn it into something advertisers will pay a premium for.
And here’s the important bit: it’s not about selling “your data” directly. What gets sold is the refined result—Google packages your search intent into targeted ad slots. So users keep searching for free, and businesses keep paying for visibility. That’s pure asymmetry in action.
Other Asymmetric Models Around Us
The easiest way to spot asymmetry? Look for situations where users and customers aren’t the same people.
- Facebook and Google are the classic ones.
- But not every big platform works this way. Take Netflix—it’s more straightforward. You pay for the subscription, you get the content. In that case, user and customer are the same person.
If you’re curious how complements also shape these kinds of models, check out this piece 👉 Commoditizing Complements: Business Strategy Explained.
Asymmetry, OTTs, and the Telco Dilemma
Now, here’s where things get interesting. Telcos (the traditional carriers) are under pressure from OTT players like WhatsApp, Viber, or Netflix. At first glance, it looks like they’re fighting for the same turf. But they’re not.
OTTs don’t actually compete for telco revenues. Instead, they compete for control of the value chain. Mobile internet is the fuel for the entire digital ecosystem—apps, ads, software, e-commerce—and telcos are the ones supplying that fuel.
The weird part? OTTs don’t have to pay to build or maintain that connectivity. That’s the telco’s burden. Yet OTTs rely on it just as much as drivers rely on gas. This is the heart of the asymmetry: telcos carry the cost, OTTs reap the upside.
Complements in the Digital Ecosystem
Economics 101: a complement is something consumed alongside another thing. Cars and gas. Cheap gas → more driving → more car sales.
In digital markets, it’s the same idea. Affordable mobile broadband means:
- More smartphones sold
- More ads watched
- More apps downloaded
- More e-commerce traffic
So while telcos and OTTs look like competitors, they’re actually complements in many ways. But when you zoom in on the services layer—SMS, calls, etc.—telcos can’t really win. OTTs give those away for free (or close to free), and users flock to them.
That’s why telco “core” services like voice and SMS feel like collateral damage. They’re not failing because of direct competition, but because OTT models reshaped user expectations.
Why Telcos Shouldn’t Try to Copy OTTs
Here’s the hard truth: telcos can’t beat OTT players at their own game. Competing head-on is a dead end. Instead, the smarter move is to look at digital business differently. Success shouldn’t be measured by “how much direct revenue this new product brings,” but by whether it:
- Drives up usage
- Keeps users locked in
- Attracts new subscribers
Look at Amazon’s Kindle—it’s not about how many devices they sell. The real value is in e-book sales and traffic to Amazon’s wider ecosystem. That’s the kind of thinking telcos need.
What Complements Can Telcos Offer?
So, what can telcos actually bring to the table that OTTs can’t? The answer lies in complements that strengthen the core business. For example:
- Identity management APIs (make it easy for apps to plug in secure logins)
- Localization (tailoring services for specific markets)
- Privacy-first solutions (something OTTs struggle with)
- MVNO customization (letting smaller providers ride on telco infrastructure in new ways)
These aren’t shiny consumer apps. They’re back-end strengths that make telcos indispensable, even in a world dominated by OTT platforms.
The True Value of Innovation and the Hidden Cost of Doing Nothing
Here’s where most telcos get tripped up—they run innovation projects through the same old financial tests like DCF (Discounted Cash Flow) or NPV (Net Present Value). That works fine for stable, predictable infrastructure projects. But when markets are moving fast, those tools fail.
The big risk isn’t spending money on an idea that might flop. The real danger is doing nothing.
The Two Costs of Doing Nothing
- Business decay isn’t linear—it’s sudden If telcos just sit tight, their core business (voice, SMS, even some data services) will erode. Commoditization plus OTT disruption equals a slow bleed followed by a cliff.
- Losing the chance to build future capabilities Innovation isn’t just about today’s revenue. It’s about developing new skills, systems, and assets that will be critical a few years from now. Skip those, and you’re unprepared when the market shifts again.
The problem with old financial tools is that they assume stability—that if you don’t invest, the status quo holds. But in telco markets, the status quo is guaranteed to decline. The real value of innovation isn’t just making things slightly better now. It’s about avoiding collapse later and laying the foundation for long-term survival.
Wrapping It Up
Asymmetric business models flip the usual “user = customer” assumption on its head. Facebook and Google make billions this way, and OTT players build entire ecosystems on top of telco infrastructure without paying for the pipes.
For telcos, the lesson is clear: don’t copy OTTs, and don’t underestimate the cost of standing still. The smarter play is to lean into their unique position, build complements that OTTs can’t, and treat innovation as a defense against decline—not just a gamble for short-term profit.
