Commentary

TV's Make Or Break Year

by Alex Weprin , Staff Writer, June 4, 2019

In the wake of the upfronts, where fall schedules were rolled out with the pomp and circumstance of red carpets, it’s easy to forget just how dramatically the TV business has changed over the past few years.

Streaming was still an experiment for Netflix and Hulu several years ago, while YouTube was still best known for being the platform of video pirates.

The cable bundle seemed strong -- even if, in the words of then-Fox COO Chase Carey, it was “fraying at the edges.”

Now, some 70% of households use a streaming service, with virtual multichannel video providers (vMVPDs) among the fastest-growing options.

Meanwhile, just about every big media company, from Disney to WarnerMedia to NBCUniversal and CBS, has some direct-to-consumer offering in the market or is set to launch in the next year.

Think about it: at next year’s Disney upfront, the company will have two services with millions of subscribers (most likely): Disney+ and ESPN+. NBCUniversal will have launched or will be about to launch its offering, which will be free to cable subscribers -- gotta support the bundle while you can -- and WarnerMedia will have officially rolled out its upcoming service.

At the same time, millions more Americans will be getting their cable channels through vMVPDs like YouTube TV and Hulu with Live TV.

It is a whole new world of TV, and it has kind of sneaked up on the industry. True, most households still get their TV the old-fashioned way: through a cable or satellite company. But as more people become comfortable with streaming alternatives, with their easy sign-up and cancellation processes, the lack of rental fees, and a proliferation of compelling options, the future now not only appears to be inevitable, but closer than ever before.

Look no further than ESPN. Long the glue that held the linear TV bundle together, ESPN chief Jimmy Pitaro said at an industry conference last month that the company planned to negotiate for enhanced ESPN+ streaming rights as it renews TV agreements.

The bundle is still lucrative. But the company needs to invest in the future when that cash flow slows to a trickle.

Meanwhile, the new streaming giants of Netflix, Hulu (now owned by Disney) and YouTube plot expansions of their own, while technology leaders like Apple and Amazon salivate at their chance for a piece of the pie.

It’s all shaping up to be a pivotal year, and the big media companies that have long relied on the bundle to fuel their growth test the direct-to-consumer waters while waiting, and hoping, for the new streaming bundles to catch on with consumers and keep that legacy business model alive.

cable tv, digital, digital content, live streaming, ott, streaming, tv, video

2 comments about "TV's Make Or Break Year".

Check to receive email when comments are posted.

Ed Papazian from Media Dynamics Inc, June 4, 2019 at 11:28 a.m.
Alex, there's nothing "pivotal" about 2019, nor any impending year. It's not "make or break" for TV, either. Things are slowly evolving, but let's remember that "linear TV" is losing only 2-3% of its viewing time annually and when it comes to profit margins the broadcast TV networks, most major market TV stations and many basic cable channels---as well as the cable systems, themselves---are still doing fine. This would be true even if 100% of all TV homes had streaming services as these, for the most part, are not competing with TV's bread and butter---sports and news---- nor do they offer the wide variety of fare that TV presents to audiences at all times of day---not just in primetime. Meanwhile, "linear TV" and allied movie making interests are invading the streaming turf, making it a whole new ball game. As I said, things are slowly evolving in ways that we can't really anticipate---but this simply isn't the year when it all gets settled once and for all.
Reply

Gini Resnick from SBG, June 17, 2019 at 4:40 p.m.

The concept of attribution isn’t new and though the broadcast industry may appear behind, in reality, the smartest and most strategic of broadcast marketers, regardless of who they work for, have always striven to show impact and proof of performance through some form of attribution. Layering in data science allows for some advancement for mass media but inherently broadcast wasn’t designed to only sell one item to one person. It was designed to sell millions of items to millions of people. And therefore the concept of attribution for broadcasters is different and the approach, though it can be compartmentalized or seen as “siloed” it is oftentimes purposefully so done. It is important to understand the possibilities before landing on any one solution. And Joe was right that we are learning from the digital attribution capabilities that have evolved over the past several years. It is only natural to take a now proven concept and leverage it for growth potential in a cornerstone industry like broadcasting.

Overall, however, one of the greatest takeaways I had from the meeting was the fact that right now, there are dozens of various definitions for the term attribution and we all have a bit of a different understanding of how it works, what the best approaches are and where to go next. To take the conversation to the next level, we first need to define the many variations and determine use cases for the various industries. Each industry and organization defines its success metrics differently so the appropriate attribution solution will vary.

In my mind, and I work primarily in digital marketing, true attribution can connect the dots from stimulus to capture to sale and reengagement. To do this, data systems have to talk to each other and that is the most difficult barrier to cross. Unless advertisers share their data with their media partners, relying on their expertise to leverage the data and harness its power for better campaigns, media providers can only ever tell their own side of the story. To provide clear and transparent attribution, there must be a shift toward the consultative partner with transparency in reporting and trust in the relationship. In many cases, that is not possible which creates a systemic breakdown of the foundational pieces of an attribution model. We aren’t behind though. We are constantly testing and refining and while 5-7 years ago, there was no possibility of ever truly answering the famous Wanamaker question, today it is getting more and more possible to show the proof of what that marketing spend is doing, regardless of where it’s spent. It is exciting to see so many different groups coming together to get us closer to that answer.