Since the rich typically spend a greater percentage on luxury goods, and the poor a greater percentage on basic goods, it is obvious that the poor will spend relatively more on actionable information as opposed to pure information.

Examples of pure and actionable information are not independent of a person, naturally, given that information is personal. The price of fish at a particular market along the Kerala coast is actionable information to a fisherman out at sea because it affects his decision where to land his catch. The busy stock analyst catching up with the latest political news while commuting to work is consuming pure information, and he is willing to pay for it even though he will not take any immediate action on it. But getting news on his cell phone is a luxury that the fisherman would not be willing to pay for.

The bottom line: though the technology is universal, the needs and capabilities of different parts of the world are diverse. That is, there are different markets. And what works in one market may not work in another: a tautology, no doubt, but often forgotten in the haste to transport a solution from the developed world to the emerging markets of the developing world.

For instance, online advertising, search, etc work in the United States and other rich countries to support free or subsidised services. But in the poor countries, the services may not be supportable unless of course the market in the poor countries is defined only in terms of the small percentage of rich people in those countries.

... contd.