Category: streaming content

Where is this all heading?

I’ve been watching with deep interest the progress of various video platforms as they emerge and develop, from YouTube and Netflix to Twitter and DirecTV Now. Here’s a brief rundown of a few of them from eMarketer that should give you an appreciation for the current state of flux, as well as the huge potential for coming disruption in the marketplace.

It seems that first we had simple websites that provided a platform, notably YouTube and Vimeo. Then we saw the TV Everywhere approach from HBO Now, as well as non-cable providers like Netflix, Hulu and Amazon. There’s a move to applications that can provide video content, from sports leagues to Twitter and Facebook. But it is such a tangled web that there is no clear indication as to where it will all shake out.

I suspect that a combination of advertising strength with high-demand content will drive this initially. Those platforms with which advertisers are comfortable (YouTube, Facebook, etc.), and content that is both timely and popular (primarily sports), will be the leaders in the transition that is currently underway. This is a chapter that is very much being written, and companies will rise and fall depending on their ability to forecast and anticipate the trends. But this much continues to be clear: Those who control the rights to this content (sports, awards) will control much of the destiny, and those who must pay for licensing  those rights will face increased price pressure in the coming days (witness ESPN’s effect on Disney stock).

Discuss…

That didn’t take long…

emerge JPEG logo - from Sulmonetti

As I mentioned in my most recent post, the merging of entertainment with devices really signaled the arrival of the digital era, epitomized by the iPod and iPhone. Now, this article just landed, detailing how Sony and the Playstation have been working on getting back into the streaming media mix.

As Variety reports, HBO Now will now be available on the Playstation. I’d be very interested to hear more about the financial arrangement behind this, but if you’re going to be in the console game, you’re going to need content.

This is what e-merge is all about!

When I first devised the concept of e-merge Media (back in 2003!), my thought was that the landscape of entertainment would be forever changed by the adoption of digital media. We see it on our mobile devices everyday, and now there is increasing convergence of media devices with entertainment. Apple was the first with its wildly popular merging of iTunes with the iPod and, eventually, iPhone.

Today, we are seeing Amazon, initially a online retailer, using music again to promote a tech device. In this case, its Echo. It already has experience with the Kindle and ebooks, but this now puts it squarely in competition with Apple, Spotify and Pandora. But this poses a larger question…

Will it become necessary for device makers to create (or own) the content it provides? Microsoft tried it with the Xbox, and Sony tried it with the Playstation, but each has had varying degrees of success, and the outlook is still hazy.

I will be watching very carefully to see what happens with Verizon and Yahoo! I will also see what develops with AT&T and DirecTV. Now that Netflix is enjoying success with its original programming, and previous suppliers becoming reluctant to sell to a direct competitor, will the it become a takeover target for a television manufacturer or wireless provider?

I am very excited about the prospects of this merging of entertainment with technology… and I humbly (or not) say that i saw it coming way back in 2003.

All hail e-merge Media!

The shake-and-bake state of the media landscape…

Increasingly, the means of digital content distribution are being revised, altered and shuffled. As this article reports, cable providers are facing reductions in subscribers, and the outlook is not good. So what does this indicate?

It seems that, with every passing day, there is another video platform, phone app, or HDMI plug-in device that promise to wean you off of the exorbitant cable fees that you pay every month. First, it was telecoms, then it was Netflix, Hulu and Amazon, then it was the Roku stick and Chromecast. We are seeing a rapid fragmentation of how we receive video content, and that bodes ill for the traditional distributors.

A few things have transpired recently that hammer this point home. AT&T acquiring DirecTV, ESPN being a drag on Disney stock, Netflix and others producing more original content, and Twitter getting into a content deal with the NBA. This doesn’t even take into consideration the growing popularity of live-streaming, altered-reality gaming, and real virtual reality. As old-timers like myself become less important to the subscriber bases of legacy providers, and advertisers scramble to reach the youth demographic, money and eyeballs will migrate to new means of content delivery.

This is just the end of the beginning, if that. Things are moving very fast in this segment of the media, and a new, transformational technology is likely just around the corner. For now, I’ll go back to my DirecTV and watch some reruns…

One look at the future of digital media… on the sports page!

Being an almost-native Los Angeleno, I have adopted the Los Angeles Clippers as my hometown NBA team (sorry, Lakers). But in this LA Times article from the sports section of the newspaper, I was genuinely surprised to read about their negotiations and plans for airing/streaming their games in upcoming seasons. Their contract with Fox Sports has come to an end, and the new landscape of mobile viewing, digital streaming, and augmented screens have made it potentially much more complicated than in days past.

You really should read the article closely for mention of these considerations, but here is an excerpt which exemplifies the nature of what is involved:

Another possibility would be video streaming the game and the analytical data individually. A third alternative would be integrating the data onto the screen as part of the game feed.

What is conspicuously absent is any mention of virtual reality, which in light of recent acquisitions and investments, lead me to believe will be coming sooner than most expect. And if Time Warner’s awful experience with exclusive deals for both the Dodgers and the Lakers is any indication, I would expect all parties to be very sensitive about unnecessarily restricting viewership.

Finally, the quote I found particularly intriguing is this:

The content for the streaming feed would be produced independent of Fox through a third party.

It’s been my opinion that it was just a matter of time before the professional sports leagues and their owners realized that their share of the advertising revenue would increase substantially if they could provide it without the aid of a middle man. With companies like Facebook and Twitter providing live streaming, the necessity of a Fox or Time Warner falls to the wayside. Granted, at this late stage before the start of the 2016-17 season, it probably doesn’t make sense, but it is most certainly on the horizon.

In fact, the bigger question is whether the leagues themselves, or the owners individually, will become the producers and distributors of games and data. This explains much of the recent stock woes of Disney, which owns ESPN. Stay tuned.

AMC’s chief has it right

I’ve been posting about the relative value of content and its place in the financial landscape of streaming media. One revealing interview was on Charlie Rose a few weeks ago with the president of AMC Networks, Josh Sapan. It is well worth a listen, but it also leads into this particular post.

In a recent interview with MultiChannel News, Sapan expounds on the pricing strategy for the likes of AMC, IFC, WeTV, Sundance and BBC America. It is the age-old adage about supply and demand, and said demand it a function of its importance to the other programs out in the programming universe. He puts it simply:

“We take some comfort in that we have shows that are very important to some people,” he added. “If I was a video retailer I would pay a lot of attention to that.”

Pricing to what the market will bear is standard operating procedure for entertainment, and the article also has some interesting numbers that reveal the perceived value of some channels:

“…affiliate fees range from 13 cents per subscriber per month for WeTV to 40 cents per subscriber per month for AMC. That stacks up against monthly charges of more than $6 per month per subscriber for ESPN and $1.60 for TNT.”

As a dedicated “The Walking Dead” fan – and based on the fan chatter in cyberspace – I suspect AMC may be underselling its channel, but I grant that I am biased. Still, it is an important peek into how cable suppliers look at the popularity of a given channel and decide what the market will bear. It also points to the promise and peril of sports programming. As ESPN can really only license a sports program, they will never have the leverage needed to avoid a bidding war over and given league.

And that’s why owning  content is so crucial in the evolving media landscape.

Why original content is so crucial

As reported in Tech Times, the cost of content, original and licensed, at Netflix will exceed $12 billion dollars this year, which is more than 50% of its annual revenue, but a fraction of its $44 billion valuation. It is also the reason why their efforts to build a robust library of original content is so important. The article states:

“Netflix original content production is one of the main reasons viewers subscribe to the service, according to a recent survey, in which the VOD streamer overtook HBO for the first time when consumers were asked which pay TV service produces the best original content.”

 

This demonstrates the stakes in an environment where a streaming service must establish its own bona fides in the original content competition. Like HBO in its early days, or more recently, MTV or TV Land, reruns, music videos and old features can only do so much beyond launching a channel. At some point, the reason for a viewer returning to a channel or service must be something that cannot be found elsewhere.

HBO did that with Oz, Curb Your Enthusiasm, The Sopranos,  and now, Game Of Thrones. Netflix is succeeding with House Of Cards, and the pressure to deliver more hits will only accelerate. And I expect that, as content suppliers leverage their libraries to keep competitors – like Netflix – at bay, the price of even reruns will become out of reach for streaming services.

What is your content tolerance?

There was a time when I would subscribe to HBO solely for seeing “Curb Your Enthusiasm” and “Deadwood,” but today’s crowded field of content providers means that you’ll likely be forking over cash for access to beloved content. You can access HBO through HBO Now, as well as offerings from Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, and now, Fullscreen.

Assuming you’re an aficionado of Bret Easton Ellis or “Electra Woman & Dyna Girl,” and you can afford the $4.99-a-month subscription fee, you may be a Fullscreen customer. But this begs the question: With limited resources, how will you prioritize both your time and money to see certain programs? This will be the question many of us will face as the days of broadcast networks fade away in lieu of subscription fees become the norm. Already, the advent of cord-cutters have viewers getting the bulk of their content from the likes of the aforementioned content distributors.

There is a lot to be learned about how viewing habits are acclimating to this brave new world of media, and the days of channel surfing have given way to ordering from a menu, knowing that even the menu is limited by who owns what. Or will advertising-based content take over subscriptions because of the cost and time limitations?

Content is back to being king!

Media’s love affair with content has been in an ebb and flow for years. But as the means of distribution continue down the path of more choices for less cost, the value of owning content has returned to its throne of supremacy in this digital age. Increasingly, content consumers are choosing their online destination by virtue of where it can get the desired programming.

Once upon a time, the major studios would supply content to the highest bidder, even if that was a direct competitor. Indeed, it was common for Warner Brothers Television and others to supply the spectrum of broadcasters, without regard to who was distributing it. But in this age of Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, etc., owning content takes on greater importance.

That is what makes this Ad Age article particularly enlightening. Clearly, Comcast is pursuing a strategy of owning as much of its content as possible, with its move to acquire DreamWorks Animation.

“Content owners have become increasingly valuable as of late and we could argue Comcast sees potential value in the library of franchises, characters that could be integrated,” said Eric Wold, a B. Riley & Co. analyst covering the entertainment industry.

It is likely that the success of Netflix has been largely a result of its being the sole source of programs like “House Of Cards” and “Orange Is The New Black.” And, apropos of the DreamWorks Animation news, Amazon Studios has been an avid producer of children’s programming.

This is good news for creators, but like everything in entertainment, conditions can change on a moment’s notice, so get while the getting is good, because it may not last. One scenario that I think may be a trend is the sourcing of content via app, as opposed to cable, satellite or SVOD (Subscription Video On Demand).

The king is dead! Long live the king! And then there’s Louis CK…

And when I say king, I mean content… as in, content is king. In the halcyon days of multi-million dollars “overall” deals for show creators in network television, the idea was that major TV studios (WBTV, Twentieth Television, Carsey Werner, Castle Rock, etc.) were keeping folks like David Kelley, Stephen Bochco, Dick Wolf, and Angell, Casey & Lee, under their respective corporate umbrellas. The arrangement would go something like this: They would be guaranteed a few million dollars a year over the course of a few years, and anything they created would first be offered to the studio to develop. If they passed, then the creators could take it to other buyers (usually, but not always). If nothing resulted in a series that particular season, then they could either just sit and create for the next season, or might be placed on another of the studio’s shows to help.

After reading this item from Business Insider, I am increasingly convinced that we might be returning to those days. As network loyalty is becoming a quaint notion, the providers of digital media will simply auction their talents to the highest bidder. But this won’t be just a matter of dollars. As Kevin Spacey and David Fincher have demonstrated with “House Of Cards,” artists are willing to exchange some of the upfront money for a piece of the company or greater creative freedom. I recall some rather upset writers who were forced to acquiesce to the “network suits” of yesteryear.

I guess what I’m saying – and seeing – is the creative path will go one of two ways. One is to follow folks like Louis CK and create your own product and distribute it yourself. But as he’s learning, that path has its own challenges. The other is to ply your wares to the highest bidder, and that bid may be in the way of dollars, creative freedom or a piece of the action.