Category: cable television

Et tu, Roku?

First, I apologize for being incommunicado these past many months, but – you know – life interferes sometimes. That being said…

I read this article this summer and have been wanting to comment on it based on a long-standing prediction I’ve had about the place of Roku in the streaming entertainment universe. Roku is akin to Amazon Fire and Google Chromecast in its ability to access the world of OTT (Over The Top) streaming entertainment, offering a simple installation at a reasonable price, especially when compared to traditional cable packages. This may account for the increase in the number of so-called “cord cutters” that are causing tumult in the cable industry.

I’ve been expecting Roku to eventually join the ranks of Amazon and Google in providing their own proprietary entertainment programming, so as to increase its leverage over competitors. Of course, it now has the benefit of being a non-threatening  provider of access to channels like Amazon Prime, Google TV, Netflix, Hulu, and others, but it would certainly be an enticement if there were programs that you could only get from Roku. And with the addition of terrestrial and cable broadcasters to the streaming universe, it is beginning to look a lot like the old “ala carte” future we were anticipating so many years ago. Before long, our entertainment programming costs may rival that of cable subscriptions, but with the difference being that you select what’s in the package.

So, again I reiterate my prediction that Roku will enter the ranks of streaming companies, as opposed to simply being a streaming enabler. Yes, you can get a Roku that will allow you to access the wide range of streaming entertainment providers, but I sincerely believe that the lure of being a producer will be too strong that Roku will have to begin producing its own content. It’s either that or become a acquisition target of a better-financed streaming/media company.

Hello, Disney or Sony?

How sports rule the media world…

I’ve commented on this many times before, but with March Madness almost concluded – and being a graduate of two ACC schools – this article simply reinforces what I’ve been saying time and again. If you need advertisers, and said advertisers don’t want viewers skipping their ads, then sports seem to be the best cure-all for that.

Of course, this is no secret, and the leagues know that. Disney, which owns ESPN, has been feeling the pinch of greater competition and, in turn, higher programming costs. Disney’s stock price peaked in 2015, and pressure from the likes of Facebook, Twitter and even Snapchat has been driving sports programming costs up. Here’s one example of that.

With the advent of so-called “e-sports,” other digital players are seeking out new area’s that will eventually compete with legacy sports. Here, you can read about YouTube’s investment in this new arena, following the lead of singular startups like PewDiePie (which is an incredible story in and of itself). Perhaps we should have seen this coming when watching people play high-stakes poker entered the scene a few years ago.

Granted, the very definition of sports is in flux right now, but it is clear that the drive for viewers that won’t skip commercials are in great demand, and unless we are prepared for a completely ala carte world of consuming content – and that doesn’t seem realistic – we must prepare and predict the future of sports programming.

Two tales of sports domination

As television continues to splinter, with more entrants into the fray on a regular basis (see YouTube TV), what is becoming clear is the struggle of broadcast networks to maintain a hold on their traditional audiences. And the power of popular sports to attract viewers that will sit through advertising is almost unquestionable. There are two recent articles in Ad Age that echo this sentiment.

First, in this article about the IPO of Snapchat (aka, Snap) makes clear that their dependence on sports programming is a paramount concern. The revenue stream depends almost solely on advertisers, and Snapchat has devised a way to make it a preferred source for watching sports.

“In many ways, the NFL is the quintessential example of Snapchat’s dream of becoming the next TV — top media partners producing original content and selling that to advertisers in upfront multimillion-dollar deals.”

For broadcasters, the news just keeps getting worse. As this other article mentions, every traditional broadcast network has seen a decline in viewership, with the sole exception of Fox. And in their case, this is revealed:

“Pull sports out of the mix and Fox’s ratings struggles become even more self-evident.”

So, what does all this mean? It’s not entirely surprising, and with digital platforms like Twitter and Facebook, as well as mobile providers like Verizon, all trying to get a piece of the sports action, it is no wonder that Disney stock is suffering mainly due to ESPN, which must now face higher license fees for sports because of the competitive bidding.

The real winners continue to be the owners, and I expect the players will also get a taste. The question becomes, what sport will emerge as demand for programming grows? UFC? Drone racing? Spelling bees? One can only speculate…

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.

Is this the beginning of the end of programming middleman?

It seems that, with every passing day, the importance of traditional content distributors is on the wane. Nowhere is this more stark than the plight of sports programming. As the stock price of Disney continues to fight the inexorable gravity of ESPN’s fate, these kind of comments are exhibit A for the future of not just sports, but all content on the internet:

“The NFL is constantly looking to serve our fans premium NFL content where and how they want to see it,” said Hans Schroeder, senior VP, media strategy, business development, & sales for the NFL.

With the emphasis  now on OTT distribution and mobile devices, the status of ESPN and DirecTV’s NFL package are being seen as bloat. In the past, broadcast networks and cable stations were essential links to the public, today’s growing number of alternatives make these programming middlemen unnecessary. As stated in this article, the leagues can now turn to multiple distributors, such as PlayStation Vue:

“PlayStation Vue offers more than 100 live TV channels. It has deals with programmers including AMC, CBS, Discovery, Disney, Fox, NBCUniversal, Scripps Networks, Turner Broadcasting and Viacom.”

So, instead of set-top boxes turning to ESPN for sports, they can turn to the leagues themselves and eliminate the middlemen (and its accompanying fees) to provide the same experience with added savings. And I would think that it won’t be long before Warner Brothers Television, Alcon Entertainment, and the other myriad scripted content providers completely bypass the networks and just license their wares directly to OTT services, or other online streaming companies.

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.

The trouble with advertising in the digital age

I was reading this article in the LA Times about how Hulu is integrating product placement into their programming, and then noticed an ad in the sidebar that was most certainly a function of a condition I have. I don’t talk about it, but have spent some time researching it on the web.

This got me thinking about something I’m sure we have all encountered. If you search for anything, you can bet that ads corresponding to your search will pepper every page that you see henceforth. Have toe fungus? You will see dozens of ads for Jublia and the like. Need a bathroom remodel? Every home improvement store and website will inhabit your web life for days to come.

Granted, there is a desperate effort to find ways to make money on the internet. Music succeeded (if you want to call it that) by licensing to legitimate sites like iTunes and Spotify. But ad blocking software is wrecking havoc on the publishing industry, and the DVR is proving problematic for networks (hence, the article mentioned above). It is also lifting the value of live, must-see programs, especially in sports. Just witness the deals that the NFL and NBA have signed recently.

Advertising is a necessary aspect of free programming, but we are very much in a transitional period where the blunt instrument of banner ads will continue to haunt us in our travels from webpage to webpage, until someone can figure out a way to do it better.

Any takers?

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.