25Nov/150

[CR] TV & VIDEO Forum

By Alexandre Jolin

 DSC_1361

Introduction by Florence Leborgne

The central question is: Will internet replace TV? More and more users are switching from their television sets to connected devices to watch TV, including their personal portable devices. This trend is at its most prevalent amongst the youngest viewers. Will this disruptive behaviour amongst 16 to 35 year olds become the status quo?

In terms of supply, TV programmes share their screen time with the Internet and its new forms of video content, such as UGC, professional and semi-professional shorts and VoD movies.

Of course, the traditional TV market is feeling the effects of this behaviour. Cord-cutting and cord-shaving are growing in the United States: 10% of TV households in the US are cord-cutters, 7% are cord-shavers and 3% are cord-nevers. Most of them are young people in the workforce who have never subscribed to a multichannel pay-TV service. In Europe, the situation is more mixed, and it is still impossible to say whether cord-cutting is becoming a trend, based on subscriber statistics.

We can, however, confirm that video on demand (VoD) is hugely popular across the board. Consumers still appear to be willing to pay to access the content they want. This willingness to pay is also contingent on price points which, for VoD, vary between 10 and 15 USD a month, compared to an average 60 USD for classic multi-channel cable, satellite or IPTV pay-TV plans.

SVOD services are also contributing more and more to financing TV productions, and becoming key actors in the rights market. In 2014, Netflix spent more than HBO on programming rights.

22726627059_976c3ffe79_b

Even if the approach to marketing the content is completely different, the channels run by YouTubers are attracting as many if not more viewers than most pay-TV services. Moreover, we are seeing a sector of professional and semi-professional content produced specifically for distribution on social media sites emerge.

For now, the revenue generated by on-demand channels, SVOD and video advertising is still a far cry from the revenue generated by traditional linear TV.

But what does the future hold for television? Several models are emerging: syndicated offerings such as Hulu and Freeview Play, online multi-channel platforms such as Molotov TV, multi-channel networks that make it possible to target viewers who are still interested in TV content, but have abandoned classic distribution channels.

Interview – Olivier Huart

OTT services appear poised to oust traditional media in all areas. Should we be afraid of these new entrants, or instead welcome their arrival, and the innovation momentum they are setting off?

"OTT and live TV are bound to complement one another for several more years to come.” Live TV is still by far the most popular mass medium around the globe, including France. Even in the United States people still watch an average 4 hours and 30 minutes of live TV a day, compared to an average 30 minutes of OTT video.

Plus OTT video’s share of screentime far outweighs its market share in terms of value. Linear TV channels account for 96% of spending on TV production in France. Some content also remains fully the dominion of live television, namely sport. To paraphrase Mark Twain (or Steve jobs): "Reports of linear TV's death are greatly exaggerated".

Despite the massive popularity of mobile devices in everyday life, TV is still the device of choice for watching video content: 75% of the content viewed on Netflix is watched on a television. Smartphones, meanwhile, are tending to be used as a controller, a remote control for multi-screen platforms.

From an economic standpoint, there are clear advantages to using alternatives to broadcasting to distribute video content. The terrestrial TV network covers more than 97% of the population in France. Internet connection speeds still do not make it possible to deliver programmes in HD with the same high picture quality as broadcasting networks. Plus TDF was one of the first broadcasters worldwide to conduct trials on 4K UHD broadcasting. But additional spectrum resources will be required. This transition to UHD also depends a great deal on the willingness of channels wanting to monetise this new value proposition.

The future will be a mosaic of solutions, and less and less of a monolithic model. And consumers are the central ingredient. Seventy percent of them want a package that includes live TV and on-demand content they can play on multiple devices. So traditional channels have three paths available to them:

  • create proprietary applications, such as myTF1;
  • pool the content belonging to several channels onto a single platform, as with Freeview Play;
  • have live TV viewers foot the bill for the transition to the open Web.

Round table – Ingredients of an OTT-only success story

François Abbé – Mesclado: moderator / Britta Schewe – gretegrote Interproduktion UG / Luc Reder – producer Page & Images

DSC_1504

 

Luc Reder: Page & Images produces chiefly television documentaries, institutional films and transmedia storytelling systems. For now, the producers are still taking a wait-and-see attitude. “OTT models are seen as not lucrative enough compared to linear TV channels”. A lot of people are working on these avenues, but few on what we are putting out.

Production costs for video content dropped significantly when we made the transition from an analogue to a digital production chain.

Britta Schewe: I began working on the Internet before going to work for VIACOM and Deutsch Telekom, before realising that the Internet was a more dynamic sector. The keys to success on the Web are the same as on TV. “On both the internet and on television, you need to be able to produce attractive content and know how to reach your audience".

Luc Reder: The economic equation of TV production is still very much tied to the TV screen. Some of the content we are seeing on the Internet is either experimental or just what’s in fashion. Web documentaries, for instance, are tending to disappear. On the other hand, we are seeing a growing maturity in the production of video content for the Web.

Britta Schewe: The future of OTT distribution as a whole is hard to predict. I think that some TV channels will disappear. “The more a television channel bases its programming grid on purchasing broadcasting rights, especially to American shows, the greater its chances of going off the air.” “In the future, in-house production will be the dominant business model for channels.” Content is still king!

The issue of content discovery is key to successful online distribution.

Keynote Speaker – Nicolas Weil – AKAMAI TECHNOLOGIES

Our message is one of inverting yield curves between linear TV and on-demand services, mainly on the open internet. Every day, Akamai delivers 30% of the world’s internet traffic. Akamai believes in fully OTT channels, but picture quality is a crucial criterion. As the number of available 4K services grows, the bandwidth needed to receive these programmes increases dramatically.

The user experience is the central consideration, especially on mobile devices. Lag time affects usage. “50% of users are lost if a video does not launch within 10 seconds.” Only around 10% of households in Europe are able to receive video content in 4K over the open internet.

As the datarates required for online video increase exponentially, the investments that ISPs need to make in content delivery networks are becoming far too high. So the logic that governs CDN needs to be extended to users’ devices. There are several technical solutions that address this: Peer-Assisted Delivery (P2P), Store and Play Later and Multicasting.

Round table – From live TV to OTT: an inexorable shift for veteran players

Moderator: Eric Scherer – Director of Future Media – Groupe France Télévisions / Matthias Buechs: Director of Online – RTL Interactive / Roux Joubert: General Manager Platform – BBC Digital / Richard Lucquet: Verizon onCue – Director, Business Development Technology, Partnership & Licensing.

22498344813_72a54fac84_k

Eric Scherer: The road to OTT will be slippery for broadcasters. Linear TV start to show decreasing aspects. Cord-cutting appears to be real. Among young people in the US, 65% of video consumption happened on demand and mostly online. The online traffic on CBS news has shifted from 6% on mobile devices in 2011 to 60% in 2015. SVOD is surging everywhere but its growth remains lower in France and Germany.

The consumer is now at the centre of a new demand side driven economic paradigm. Consumers are now involved in the editorial process. They can help to fund the production of content with crowdfunding solution or even deciding of the deprogramming of a TV Show.

New internet players aren't only distributors. They tend to become producers & content creators including the creation of new format and story-telling schemes.

Matthias Buechs:Television is highly under pressure in Germany but still profitable. Amazon is the dangerous competitor as the service doesn't need to be profitable by itself. Video sharing platforms are competitors in terms of time consumption but not yet on consumer spent market.

Roux Joubert: The BBC has always been an innovator. Last year, it has been the first broadcaster to stop airing a linear TV channel to transfer it on Internet on an on demand format. It also provides pre-TV programs on BBC i>Player and broadcasted content available until 30 days after being aired.

Richard Lucquet: "Millennials are spending more time using their mobile devices than sleeping" on a daily base. To reach that audience, Verizon launched the go90 application, a service melting the best of TV and of online content on just one platform including social features. Verizon is planning than go90 could generate as much revenues as Fios TV within 5 years. "Internet is alive because of video".

22489311354_08e458af39_b

Sumrise

7Feb/140

Cord-cutting: can Netflix revive the cable industry?

Florence Le Borgne-Bachschmidt

 

Florence Le Borgne
Head of the TV & Digital content Practice, IDATE.

 

In summer 2013, the American media made a steady diet of the record drop in pay-TV subscribers in the United States between mid-2012 and mid-2013 (-911,000 subscribers) – giving credence to the cord-cutting scare, whereby pay-TV customers were cancelling their regular plans en masse and turning instead to SVoD services, offering chiefly films and TV series for a very affordable price of less than $10/month.

Still no massive change in the American market

It is true that the second quarter of 2013 was marked not only by another drop in cable TV customer numbers (-159,000 for Comcast and -93,000 for Time Warner Cable, the market’s top two players), but this is not in itself an isolated event as American cablecos have been losing subscribers since 2001. What was exceptional was the drop in customer numbers for the country’s two satellite pay-TV providers, Dish TV and DirecTV, which lost 78,000 and 84,000 subscribers, respectively. If, at the same time, the two IPTV plans continued to enjoy an upswing in customers (+140,000 subscribers for FiOS TV and +231,000 for U-Verse), it was not enough to offset the loses being posted by the main broadcasting networks.

So third quarter results were eagerly awaited. The figures released on 30 September 2013 revealed that satellite subscriptions were back on the up, and IPTV customer numbers had increased slightly. Meanwhile, cable continued to lose customers but in a way that was consistent with third quarter results in previous years.

Video ARPU continues to rise

It should also be mentioned that while cable TV subscriber numbers have decreased, average per user revenue (ARPU) has increased. For Comcast, video ARPU has been rising steadily, standing at $161.07/month in Q3 2013 – which is $10 more than in Q3 2012 and $22 more than in Q3 2011. Charter Communications’ total video revenue rose by 7.4% over the past 12 months, despite a 3.3% decrease in its video subscriber base. While Time Warner Cable saw its video revenue shrink by 4.4% between Q3 2012 and Q3 2013, the decrease is smaller than the 6.1% drop in subscriber numbers during that time.

Equally noteworthy is that cable TV subscribers are also watching premium content supplied by vendors other than their traditional pay-TV provider.

A strategy of alliances with European cable companies

In the UK, where American-born Netflix is also present, it is just as hard to measure the company’s impact on pay-TV subscriptions. Market leader, Sky Digital, reported a slight increase in TV subscribers (+203,000 subscribers) between the time Netflix launched and Q3 2013, whereas cableco Virgin Media reported a slight decrease (-10,000 subscribers) in its pay-TV customers during that time, but an overall increase in paying customers (+200,000).

It seems unlikely that the partnership between Netflix and Virgin Media will drive existing Virgin customers to cancel their pay-TV plans. In fact, for an extra £5.99 a month, Virgin subscribers with a TiVo (i.e. 49% of them) have been able to access Netflix directly on their TV set since mid-November 2013.

Also present on Swedish pay-TV provider ComHem customers’ TiVo since 20 January 2014, Netflix could actually prove an incentive to sign up for a cable pay-TV plan.

22Jan/140

Cutting the Cord: Common Trends Across the Atlantic

Published in COMMUNICATIONS & STRATEGIES No. 92, 4th Quarter 2013


Joint Interview between Gilles FONTAINE, IDATE and Eli NOAM, Columbia Business School

Summary of this issue: "Video cord-cutting" refers to the process of switching from traditional cable, IPTV, or a satellite video subscription to video services accessed through a broadband connection, so called over-the-top (OTT) video. The impact of cord cutting will probably differ among countries, depending on the level of roll-out of digital cable, fibre optic networks, and/or IPTV, on the tariffs of legacy video services, on the quality of broadband access and on national players’ strategies.
Regulation will play a key role in this new environment, as a strict enforcement of net neutrality could prevent network operators from leveraging their access to customer base to market their own video services.

Eli NOAM
Columbia Business School, 
New York, USA
 Exclusive:

 Joint interview with

 Gilles FONTAINE, IDATE,
 Montpellier, France
 
 Eli NOAM, Columbia Business School
 New York, USA
 

C&S: How would you define cord-cutting, from a US or European perspective?

Gilles FONTAINE: Cord-cutting, in Europe, is seen mainly as a USA phenomenon, where consumers would trade-off their pay-TV subscription for over-the-top Internet services. The last years, in Europe, have rather seen the rise of powerful cable and IMPTV operators competing in the pay-TV market with legacy satellite packager.

Eli NOAM: Cord-cutting is the dropping, by consumers, of expensive cable TV subscriptions in favor of online access to TV programs and on-demand films. Drawbacks for consumers are less certain quality (bandwidth), less availability of live programming such as sports, and absence of some channels. Advantages are cost-saving, no need to pay for undesired channels, better search, less advertising, greater choice, more control. In a broader sense, cord-cutting is a transition of TV from a broadcast/cable push model to an individualized pull model. So this is not just about switching to yet another delivery platform. That's the easy part. It is much more fundamental. Looking ahead, one change will be that by going online, TV will move from a slow-moving, highly standardized technology controlled by broadcasters and consumer electronic firms to a system where multiple technical approaches compete with each other and propel video delivery into an internet-rate of change and innovation. And that's just the technology. Equally important changes will take place on the content level, and in the structure of the media industry, in the advertising and business models, and in the policy.

Do you see any evidence that cord-cutting is really happening?

Gilles FONTAINE: Cord-cutting, in Europe, is not happening, or is not happening yet. Several reasons account for this: on the one hand competition is intense in Europe between networks, and is driving Internet access and television prices down, therefore limiting the incentive to "cut the cord". On the other hand, Internet services are far from having the same level of offer as US ones, even if catch-up television is increasingly available throughout Europe. Also, the video-on-demand market is very fragmented, with still limited catalogues and interfaces that could be improved and subscription video on demand is nascent, and mostly pushed by US-bases players, even if some European players have launched first services. Finally, the penetration of connected TVs and connected set-top-boxes is probably also lower in Europe than in the USA.

Eli NOAM: In the short run, there is less cord-cutting than media reports and hype suggest. For a variety of reasons, almost all participants in the media industry have an interest in dramatizing the issue. Broadcasters are making investments in ‘second screen' distribution, partly to be prepared for change, and need to justify them. ISPs are expanding bandwidth to position themselves as providers of mass entertainment options. Telecom companies, similarly, need to upgrade their networks. New providers of bypass service to broadcast and cable, such as Aereo in the US, create buzz to their market-disruptive activities. Media cloud providers such as Amazon or Netflix present new options. And even cable TV operators, who are the ones negatively affected, have an interest in presenting the problem as a crisis, at least to policy makers, in order to gain regulatory relief.

The reality is more modest, at least in the short term, but not insignificant. According to a credible analyst, Craig Moffett, The "pay TV sector" – cable, DBS, and IPTV – lost 316,000 subscribers in a 12 month period mid-2012- mid-2013. Since IPTV has gained subscribers, cable losses must have been larger. That is a loss of about 0.3%. Another estimate for 2012 has the number at 1.08 million. In a 4-year period 2008-2011, anywhere between 3.65 and 4.75 million subscribers were lost. But that was in the midst of the Great Recession, and thus not all can be attributed to cord-cutting.

Do OTT services really challenge telcos and cablecos managed TV and video offers?

Gilles FONTAINE: Many studies seem to show that OTT services propose a better customer experience than the equivalent launched by the telcos or the cablecos. OTT services are Internet natives, customer friendly companies, with a rhythm of innovation that is difficult to compete with. Telcos and cablecos still concentrate on the "linear television model", even if they have developed their own on-demand offers, whereas OTT services specialize in on-demand services. But telcos and cablecos still benefit from a privileged access to the TV set through their TV set-top-box, a competitive advantage which is about to be undermined by low cost solutions to connect the TV set, such as Chromecast from Google.

Eli NOAM: Overall, the extent of video streaming has been quite large. In the evening hours, about two-thirds of internet traffic are video-bits. Netflix alone has added 630,000 streaming subscribers in the US in 3 months in 2013, to a total of 30 million. Thus, while the numbers of cord cutters is not huge yet, as mentioned, a steady loss of subscriptions is to be expected, and it is backed up by surveys in which cable subscribers grumble about staying with expensive subscriptions which they do not fully utilize. This is particularly true for the younger generation. 34% of the Millenials (cohorts born 1980-2000) say that they watch mainly online video and not broadcast TV. For Gen X and for Boomers the numbers drop to 20% and 10%.

With OTT available, the traditional business model of cable companies unravels. In the past, they were able to raise prices and to pass on the raises by channel providers. This becomes more difficult. Similarly, it becomes more difficult to offer only bundled channels ("prix fixe"). Similarly, the ability of channel providers to offer content to viewers directly reduces their bargaining strength considerably. If they want to keep up, they also need to develop expertise in online technology, social networking, and mobile communications.

UK cableco Virgin Media and Sweden cableco recently signed a distribution agreement with Netflix. Do you foresee any revision of the cablecos and telcos triple-play model?

Gilles FONTAINE: Building an IPTV service is not straightforward for a telco: network costs can be high to ensure a homogeneous quality of service. They also face high programming costs and the complexity of negotiating with the media world. On-demand services hardly prove to be profitable, because of the market power of Hollywood studios combined with the strong competition between telcos and cablecos, has for instance led to almost unrecoupable minimal fees to access programs. The situation can be similar for a cableco that would not have the resources to acquire exclusive, attractive content: the recent deal between Virgin Media or Com Hem and Netflix heralds a change of strategy for the smaller telcos and clablecos, which could favor to comfort their Internet access business by offering the best OTT services rather than pushing their own television packages.

Eli NOAM: Overcoming all of these challenges is possible but requires an acceleration of internal processes, major investments, and a willingness to give up some control. There are signs of change in that direction. Comcast, which has just paid $ 39 billion for NBC Universal, thus gaining vertical control from the camera lense to the eyeball, has now announced a trial of a cord-cutting offer to subscribers: if they take a Comcast broadband service (of a quality that is today an upgrade for most customers) they get at basically no additional charge HBO Go (HBO's archive of self-produced shows plus current other shows, available anywhere in the US from most devices), plus the free broadcast channels. The regular monthly price $ 70/ month, compared to a price of $ 135 for a full complement of 200 channels including HBO Go. So the viewer willing to skip regular cable channels saves a lot of money. The data cap for such a service is 300 Gigabytes. This is about 120 hours of HD viewing per month, which is adequate for single viewer but tight for a multi-device, multi-viewer household.

So this shows that cable companies are considering to embrace cord-cutting as an inevitablity. Another development in that direction is the US cable industry's considering to integrate Netflix into its operations. They are holding talks with Netflix to make Netflix an option on their set-top boxes. In such a scenario, Netflix would, in effect, become cable companies' major VOD provider and revenues would be shared. This, together with the cable MSO's own cord-cutting option, would in effect accelerate cord-cutting. However, cable companies would not be entirely bypassed. They would mitigate cord-cutting into channel cutting. Ultimately, cable companies' main asset is their transmission network. Its exploitation will undergo transformation.

TV channels also face another form of cord-cutting, as viewers may directly choose their on-demand programs. How do you see their future role, if any?

Gilles FONTAINE: TV channels, as aggregators, may lose their specific role if on-demand consumption develops significantly. However, they will evolve proposing more and more live events to continue gathering strong audiences at the same time. Moreover, there is still a need of arranging the on-demand catalogues, pushing the right content to the right viewer at the right time and on the right device. TV channels should be able to leverage their linear programming to play their aggregator role in an on-demand market. But they will need to heavily invest in IT and review their trade-off between linear and on-demand distribution.

Eli NOAM: TV channels gain and lose. They gain in bargaining power over cable and other distributors. They can deal directly with users, though more likely they will go through new types of intermediaries such as Apple and Amazon.com. In a profusion of content offerings, strong brands are a valuable way for users to search for content. And if they can identify users or user characteristics they can fine-tune and individualize advertising. The danger for channel providers is that the loss of cable MSOs hold over viewers means that they cannot share in the MSOs pricing power. Furthermore, content providers can disintermediate them by going directly to viewers. Sports leagues, for example, could deliver their events directly and cut out the networks. Most of the channels do not have major operational IT expertise, and this provides an opening for an entire industry of new service providers and video clouds.

Gilles FONTAINE's Biography

Gilles FONTAINE is IDATE's Deputy CEO and is also in charge of IDATE Business Unit dedicated to media and digital content. During its 20 years experience in the Media sector, Gilles Fontaine has become an expert of the media economics and of the impact of Internet on content. He directed numerous studies for both public and private clients, including the EC, governments and local authorities, telcos and TV channels. Recent assignments have included a participation in the future MEDIA programme ex-ante assessment, the analysis of new video internet services economics, a long term forecast project on the future of television. He has also monitored the impact of digitization and online distribution on other media, radio, press and music. Mr. Fontaine holds a degree from the highly reputed French business school, HEC (Ecole des Hautes Etudes Commerciales, 1983) and from the Institut MultiMédias (1984).

g.fontaine@idate.org

Eli NOAM's Biography

Eli NOAM has been Professor of Economics and Finance at the Columbia Business School since 1976. In 1990, after having served for three years as Commissioner with the New York State Public Service Commission, he returned to Columbia. Noam is the Director of CITI. He also served on the White House's President's IT Advisory Council. Besides the over 400 articles in economics, legal, communications, and other journals that Professor Noam has written on subjects such as communications, information, public choice, public finance, and general regulation, he has also authored, edited, and co-edited 28 books. Noam has served on the editorial boards of Columbia University Press as well as of a dozen academic journals, and on corporate and non-profit boards. He was a regular columnist on the new economy for the Financial Times online. He is a member of the Council for Foreign Relations. He received AB, AM, Ph.D. (Economics) and JD degrees, all from Harvard. He was awarded honorary doctorates from the University of Munich (2006) and the University of Marseilles (2008).

Published in COMMUNICATIONS & STRATEGIES No. 92, 4th Quarter 2013

Contact
COMMUNICATIONS & STRATEGIES
Sophie NIGON
Managing Editor
s.nigon@idate.org

17Dec/131

Interview with Craig MOFFETT MoffettNathanson LLC, New York

Published in COMMUNICATIONS & STRATEGIES No. 92, 4th Quarter 2013


Video cord-cutting

Summary of this issue: "Video cord-cutting" refers to the process of switching from traditional cable, IPTV, or a satellite video subscription to video services accessed through a broadband connection, so called over-the-top (OTT) video. The impact of cord cutting will probably differ among countries, depending on the level of roll-out of digital cable, fibre optic networks, and/or IPTV, on the tariffs of legacy video services, on the quality of broadband access and on national players’ strategies.
Regulation will play a key role in this new environment, as a strict enforcement of net neutrality could prevent network operators from leveraging their access to customer base to market their own video services.

Craig MOFFETT
MoffettNathanson LLC, New York
Exclusive:
Interview with Craig MOFFETT
MoffettNathanson LLC, New York

Conducted by Raul KATZ,
CITI (Columbia Institute for Tele Information),
New York

 

C&S: Is cord-cutting affecting equally cable TV and telcos in the US?

Craig MOFFETT:

There's a fundamental difference between the cord-cutting experienced by the cable operators, which is all about video, and that experienced by telcos, which is all about voice. Video is a high bandwidth service and voice is a low bandwidth one.

Low bandwidth services are the easier target, so up to now we've seen much more aggressive cord-cutting in voice than in video. The fact that the cable operators have a more robust physical plant than the phone companies has left the telcos losing share in broadband as well as in voice, making the losses all the more painful for the telcos.

Video is such a high bandwidth service that video cord-cutting is only just beginning. By our estimates, there are now as many as 2 million households that have cut the Pay TV cord in the U.S. That's only about 2% of the market, but it is a growing segment. In these early numbers you can see the beginnings of a bigger problem.

What are the different retention strategies deployed by each type of player to prevent an acceleration of cord-cutting trends?

The telcos seem to have concluded that they are fighting a losing battle to retain wireline voice customers. The residential voice market as a standalone business is vanishing before our very eyes. Unlike in Europe, bundling wireline and wireless therefore isn't really an option. In the U.S., the telcos have regional wireline footprints but also have national wireless ones. Naturally, they are reluctant to make a compelling integrated offering for fear that it will simply reduce the competitiveness of their wireless businesses outside their footprints.

Cable operators have an advantage in that they've got the best physical plant (at least where there is no fiber-to-the-home alternative). So they've been able to bundle video and broadband, and even voice, as a retention strategy. That has proven very sticky. And by tilting the pricing of their services – higher for broadband and lower for video, at least on the margin – they can make it less and less attractive to leave.

And the cable operators have another advantage. It is easier to defend high bandwidth services than it is to defend narrowband ones. The key is whether the cable operators will be able to begin charging for broadband usage. If they can, defending against high bandwidth video streaming becomes relatively easy. Or rather, it becomes a moot point, since a carrier charging the right price for usage is economically indifferent whether video is delivered via traditional Pay TV or via internet-based OTT (over-the-top) alternatives. The question here is entirely regulatory. Whether they will meet regulatory resistance to their early trials is unclear.

Would any changes in the content arena (e.g. sports content) accelerate the cord-cutting trend?

In many ways, sports programming holds the key to how the ecosystem will evolve in the U.S. Today, sports are exclusively available via the traditional model. Cutting the cord is therefore appealing to a relatively smaller segment of the population. If the most popular sports events were to be made available over the Internet you would suddenly begin to see a much more rapid migration to video over the Internet.

Conversely, if traditional cable and satellite operators are ever able to force the unbundling of sports networks by putting them on a separate tier, they would relieve what is otherwise a tremendous pressure point on the system. In theory, that would slow down cord-cutting. Today, cord-cutting is primarily about cost, not technology. And the biggest driver of cost inflation is sports programming. Taking it out of the basic programming tier would lower the cost to non-sports enthusiasts, reducing their incentive to cut the cord.

Would you see that cord-cutting would trigger additional changes in the content value chain (e.g. backward/forward integration, M&A)?

For distributors, the key question is whether the economic value of the video transport function can be preserved in an over the top model. If it can, the distributors will fare relatively well. Even satellite operators would benefit, since the economic benefit of cord-cutting would be mostly eliminated, which would naturally slow down the migration. Again, the real questions here are regulatory, not technological or economic.

For programmers, the key question is whether cord-cutting will necessitate unbundling. Most consumers think that content bundling is driven by the distributors. It is not. It is driven by the programmers. The programmers sell bundles of cable networks to the cable operators, and their contracts require that those bundles be kept intact.

Cord-cutting is typically assumed to entail a move to unbundling, or a la carte, programming, but that doesn't necessarily have to be the case. One can imagine a model where video is delivered over the Internet in the same unwieldy bundles that are today delivered by cable and satellite operators. If things evolve that way, the implications for the programmers will be relatively modest. On the other hand, if programming is ultimately unbundled as it moves to the Internet then the value chain as we know it will be upended. Value in that model would move further and further upstream, ultimately to the actors and artists, accelerating a migration we've been witnessing in slow motion for years. The value of the media conglomerates would radically decline as their revenues declined and as their costs of content acquisition and production rose. At this point, it is too early to say whether this will happen in video. It already has in music, and the results haven't been pretty.

Biography

Craig MOFFETT is the founder of MoffettNathanson LLC, an independent institutional research firm specializing in the telecommunications, and cable and satellite sectors. Mr. Moffett spent more than ten years at Sanford Bernstein & Co., LLC as a senior research analyst. He was previously the President and founder of the e-commerce business at Sotheby's Holdings. Mr. Moffett spent more than eleven years at The Boston Consulting Group, where he was a Partner and Vice President specializing in telecommunications. He was the leader of BCG's global Telecommunications practice from 1996 to 1999. While at BCG, he led client initiatives in the U.S. local, long distance, and wireless sectors, in both consumer and commercial services, and advised companies outside the U.S. in Europe, Latin America, and Asia. He was the author of more than 20 articles about the telecommunications industry during the 1990s. He published analyses and forecasts

Published in COMMUNICATIONS & STRATEGIES No. 92, 4th Quarter 2013

Contact
COMMUNICATIONS & STRATEGIES
Sophie NIGON
Managing Editor
s.nigon@idate.org

3Dec/130

Interview with Terry DENSON, Verizon Communications, New York

Published in COMMUNICATIONS & STRATEGIES No. 92, 4th Quarter 2013


Video cord-cutting

Summary of this issue: "Video cord-cutting" refers to the process of switching from traditional cable, IPTV, or a satellite video subscription to video services accessed through a broadband connection, so called over-the-top (OTT) video. The impact of cord cutting will probably differ among countries, depending on the level of roll-out of digital cable, fibre optic networks, and/or IPTV, on the tariffs of legacy video services, on the quality of broadband access and on national players’ strategies.
Regulation will play a key role in this new environment, as a strict enforcement of net neutrality could prevent network operators from leveraging their access to customer base to market their own video services.

Terry DENSON, Verizon Communications, New YorkExclusive:
Interview with Terry DENSON
Vice President, Content Strategy & Acquisition
Verizon Communications,
New York

Conducted by Raul KATZ,
CITI (Columbia Institute for Tele Information),
New York

 

C&S: Is the telco voice cord-cutting experience at all applicable to video distribution?

Terry DENSON:

I would not necessarily agree that the voice cord-cutting experience is the salient point. I believe the applicable lesson from the transition of voice from wireline to wireless is that the wireline relationship was literally and figuratively connected to the household while the wireless relationship is personal (e.g., it is common for several, if not all, members of a household to have their own device, which is personal to them). I see a similar opportunity in video distribution: the long term winners will be those distributors who are able to develop and offer video relationships (subscription or otherwise) that are targeted toward individuals (and all of their devices) and not solely the household.

What do you believe are the Telco's key assets in facing cord-cutting (either voice or video)?

Telcos have two key assets that make them well-positioned to establish and maintain market leadership in video: 1) The best bundled broadband product; and 2) the best platform for offering consumers a wider and deeper choice of live, recorded and on-demand content across all devices on a personal basis than any OTT player.

How do you believe Telco's fare relative to cable companies to face current and future video cord-cutting trends?

I believe Telcos are in a better position to prosper (especially those with a material wireless business) because they will be better able to: 1) monetize video traffic over the networks through high speed wireless and wireline networks; and 2) deploy compelling video services based upon those networks that provide more value and choice to customers than an OTT only player.

Do you expect any changes in value creation along the chain as a result of future cord-cutting trends?

I expect two long term changes in value creation: 1) the enhanced value of owning the broadband pipe based upon consumers increased reliance on greater capacity; and 2) the expansion of the video pie based upon the proliferation of video access points on devices and increased personal relationships and subscriptions for video access on those devices.

Biography

Terry DENSON is Vice President, Content Strategy & Acquisition for Verizon Communications. He is responsible for Verizon's content strategies and acquisition across all platforms including FiOS TV, Broadband, Verizon Wireless and Redbox Instant by Verizon (Verizon's joint venture with Redbox). He previously was vice president of Programming and Marketing, a position he was named to in August 2004 when he joined Verizon. In that position, Denson oversaw the creation and implementation of FiOS TV's content packaging, pricing and marketing strategies and video content acquisitions. Prior to joining Verizon, Denson served as vice president of programming for Insight Communications where he led the acquisition of programming, in addition to the development of analog, digital, video-on-demand, high definition TV, Broadband and interactive content strategies. Previously, as director of business development for the Affiliate Sales and Marketing department of MTV Networks, a division of Viacom International, he negotiated affiliation agreements. As general attorney for ABC, he managed numerous content rights and distribution matters. A graduate of Harvard University, Denson holds a J.D. degree from Georgetown University.

Published in COMMUNICATIONS & STRATEGIES No. 92, 4th Quarter 2013

Contact
COMMUNICATIONS & STRATEGIES
Sophie NIGON
Managing Editor
s.nigon@idate.org