Narrative: Disrupting TV
Each narrative page (like this) has a page describing and evaluating the narrative, followed by all the posts on the site tagged with that narrative. Scroll down beyond the introduction to see the posts.
YouTube TV Reviews Suggest Nice User Interface, Features, Limited Content (Apr 5, 2017)
It looks like the embargo on reviews of YouTube TV lifted this morning and a slew of those reviews have now emerged. On balance, the reviews seem positive about the user interface and features (notably the DVR), but note limitations across content, including the complete absence of Turner and Viacom channels, geographies (the service is only available in five cities to start, due to local broadcast rights), and devices (only Chromecast and Google Cast-enabled TVs, no Apple TV or Roku). I’ll link back here to my first take on YouTube TV following the launch event, because my overall sense of this service hasn’t changed. But it does seem as though the app does better on some key concepts than the other offerings already out there, notably that DVR feature and the way it taps into favorite shows and sports teams. As you’d expect from a brand that’s always stood for ease of use and discovery in video consumption, it’s good at those things. But those limitations are going to mean it’s not a viable competitor in the vast majority of the country for now. The limitations are, in fact, probably a good thing in that they’ll allow YouTube TV to avoid some of the scaling issues suffered by DirecTV Now when it launched last fall, but it’s going to need to find a way to go national sooner rather than later, which means working out those complicated local affiliate rights which have bedeviled everyone else in this business too.
via Business Insider (more reviews on Techmeme)
AT&T Is Bundling HBO for Free With Unlimited Wireless Plan – Variety (Apr 5, 2017)
AT&T hasn’t bought Time Warner yet, but that’s not stopping it from doing deals involving Time Warner properties, including this new promotion with HBO. AT&T had already been using HBO as a lure for driving DirecTV Now subscriptions, as it’s bundled the channel first at a discounted rate and then free for subscribers. But now AT&T is also giving away HBO for free to its higher-tier unlimited wireless data customers. Though the merger hasn’t closed yet, there’s a good chance that future prospect has been part of the companies’ closer relationship on this side recently, and it’s easy to imagine more of this kind of thing should the deal go through. It’s never made sense that AT&T would seek to limit distribution of Time Warner content following the merger because that would be counter-productive for the content business even if it benefited wireless subscriber numbers. But zero rating and bundle discounts make a lot more sense, as they lock customers into a much higher total spend and likely lower churn at a fairly low customer acquisition cost, and of course once TW is part of AT&T the cash cost of deals like this will be minimal. And AT&T’s real goal with the merger isn’t so much synergies from owning content and distribution as it is simply owning content, because that’s where the real value is long term.
via Variety
NFL and Amazon Reach One-Year Streaming Deal for About $50 Million – WSJ (Apr 4, 2017)
This is an interesting outcome to this bidding process, with perhaps the most interesting part being the price to be paid by Amazon, which is five times what Twitter paid for the equivalent rights last year. I had wondered if the NFL was going to let the winning broadcaster sell more of its own ads, which would have justified a higher price, but as that doesn’t seem to be the case it looks more likely that the higher price was the result of a bidding war. If I recall correctly, Twitter was said not to have been the highest bidder last time around, so it’s possible both that Amazon (and possibly others) bid more and that the NFL decided to go with the higher bidder this time. From Amazon’s perspective, the deal certainly fits with two existing initiatives: its increasing focus on TV and in particular live TV, and its slow but steady push into advertising. The big issue Amazon has with TV at this point is that its efforts are spread over two very different brands and channels, namely Twitch and Prime. At some point, the aggregation strategy that’s served its Channels business well will likely make sense in live TV too. But broadcasting live TV is a great opportunity to market Amazon hardware products to a captive video audience as well.
via WSJ
Roku Offers Guarantees to TV Advertisers – Multichannel (Apr 3, 2017)
Roku is going to start selling the ability to target specific demographics with advertising, and therefore claims to be replicating the traditional TV ad buying model more closely than most other online platforms. Roku already sells some ads for certain channels on its devices, and this is part of an effort to beef up that part of its business. It appears that part of what will enable Roku to do this is a two-year-old partnership with Nielsen to measure demographics and match them with Nielsen’s own. A big barrier to content owners putting more content onto online platforms has been the inability to measure and monetize audiences, so if this new offering is successful, it should help alleviate those fears, on Roku devices at least. But of course this also raises issues around privacy and tracking, and it will be very interesting to see how Apple and Amazon play in this space, especially given that Apple is generally data- and tracking-averse when it comes to user behavior, especially at a granular level.
via Multichannel
Apple wants to sell HBO, Showtime and Starz in a single bundle – Recode (Apr 3, 2017)
Apple has been reported to be working on some kind of subscription TV service for years now, and yet nothing has ever come to fruition. Meanwhile, Amazon has gone ahead and quietly built a fairly interesting set of TV service components under the Amazon Channels banner. That set of components includes the big premium channels mentioned here (HBO, Showtime, and Starz, as well as Cinemax), but also lots of more niche channels including several targeting particular genres or international content. If Apple wanted to build a similar service, I’m sure the pay TV providers would be amenable, and the big sticking point would probably be pricing for such a bundle: Amazon charges the same rates for the three channels as Apple does on a standalone basis at the moment, with the exception of Showtime ($9/month vs. Apple’s $11/month), but Apple would want to provide some kind of bundle discount. To take a step back for a minute from this specific offer, it’s worth thinking about trends in online video at the moment. Whereas one of the big trends we’ve seen so far is one of disaggregation, with these premium channels and others offering standalone apps and services, people want aggregation, both for the price and convenience benefits of bundling, but also having a single user interface for consuming this TV content. With its new TV app, Apple has such a user interface, and I’d expect it to try to add more and more channels into that interface over time. Beyond Apple, I suspect this kind of aggregation will be a big theme this year across providers.
via Recode
Verizon Said to Be Planning Online TV Package for Summer Launch – Bloomberg (Mar 30, 2017)
It feels like we’re starting to reach something of a tipping point with pay TV providers readying stripped-down streaming versions of their services, with DISH and DirecTV/AT&T already in the market, and Comcast and now Verizon said to be prepping their own versions. It sounds like Verizon’s is going to be much like what we’ve seen so far, in other words a poor substitute for traditional pay TV and most likely something focused on a subset of mostly cable channels for a much smaller monthly fee. What I’m still far more interested in is one of these services that actually offers a more classic channel lineup including broadcast networks but uses the far lower cost of delivery to price it more aggressively. For now, these services are of limited utility for those looking to move to more modern interfaces but keep many of the channels they’re used to.
via Bloomberg
Spotify Debuts ‘Traffic Jams’, A Show With a Familiar Concept – Variety (Mar 29, 2017)
It’s impossible not to see this new Spotify show as, to put it charitably, inspired by Carpool Karaoke, especially given the role the standalone version will play in Apple Music. But kudos to Spotify for finding a new angle on the concept and making it distinctive. It’s also interesting to see hip hop as the focus here – where Carpool Karaoke crosses all genres, this show will be much narrower and therefore find a smaller but potentially more engaged and passionate audience. It’s important to note that hip hop has been a big part of the rise of streaming service, and Apple has heavily leant on hip hop in building its music service, especially when it comes to exclusives and Beats 1. I’m curious to see how each of these shows does on its respective service, especially given that James Corden, arguably the element that makes the original version of Carpool Karaoke work, won’t be a permanent feature in the Apple version.
via Variety
Comcast reportedly planning streaming TV service just for its internet customers – The Verge (Mar 28, 2017)
Yet more evidence here that Comcast is readying a bigger launch of streaming TV, beyond last week’s report that it’s been signing deals for national streaming delivery of content. This streaming service is designed specifically for Comcast broadband customers who don’t also take its pay TV service, and has been offered as a sort of test in a few markets already. But it sounds like it’s gearing up for a big expansion, and that makes sense: Comcast has 2.2 million households which take broadband but not pay TV, so that’s the obvious target market for this service. But having launched this Stream service more broadly within its own footprint, it could eventually take it nationwide too, given those deals it’s been signing. I’ve been saying for a while now that I think there’s something of a game of chicken underway among the major pay TV providers about which will take a true pay TV replacement national first. Comcast was always a strong candidate, and it’s looking ever more likely that it will indeed be the one to go first.
via The Verge
AMC plans ad-free streaming service for cable subscribers – sources – Reuters (Mar 24, 2017)
This is an interesting wrinkle on the theme of premium TV channels going direct to consumer. In this case, AMC Networks is talking about going through the pay TV companies rather than around them, which would ensure high-quality distribution but would also limit it to those audiences already paying for traditional TV services, whereas its stated target is the millennials who famously don’t pay for those services. The price being talked about also seems very high: the AMC network is pretty cheap for pay TV distributors – one recent figure I saw suggested under 50 cents per month – so charging $5-7 just to take out ads seems steep. As a company, AMC makes a little over half its revenue from fees, and the rest mostly from ads, so charging ten times as much as it charges distributors just to remove ads doesn’t feel quite right. But it’s good to see the traditional cable networks experimenting with a variety of models as they try to stem the tide of both cord cutting and cord shaving, even if this doesn’t feel like it’s quite going to hit the spot.
via Reuters
Netflix: The Monster That’s Eating Hollywood – WSJ (Mar 24, 2017)
The headline here is indicative of the language used by some TV execs in the article, but that rhetoric feels pretty overblown, along with the suggestions that Netflix is somehow singlehandedly doubling the fees actors ask for or squeezing other players out of the business. Yes, both Amazon and Netflix are raising prices for acquisitions of indie movies at Sundance, but no, they’re not having that dramatic effect on the entire industry, not least because they’re still just a fraction of the size of the industry as a whole. The reality is that competition has been intensifying for years because the industry is getting tighter in an age of shrinking audiences and higher standards, and Netflix and Amazon aren’t to blame. Having said all that, the article is likely indicative of a souring of relationships between Netflix and traditional media companies, and if that continues we’ll likely see more content pulled from Netflix and other SVOD services, which just validates Netflix’s massive investment in original content which no-one can take away.
via WSJ