Why SVOD is the catalyst for a TV evolution
Streaming services have been getting a lot of headlines of late. OMD’s Jeremy Gavin looks at what impact such services will have on evolving the television as a medium.
The Netflix beast is a product of its environment.
For decades, the US population has grown accustomed to the idea of paying for television.
At its peak, the cable TV industry in America had achieved 89 per cent American household penetration.
This willingness to pay for access to content on top of the growing expectation that people should have control over what they watch created environmental conditions that contributed to the evolution of how TV is defined in the US.
It gave rise to Netflix and SVOD. But SVOD is a gluttonous beast.
One that must compete for the resources of content and subscribers to sustain itself. Resources that the US has been able to supply.
But the Australian media landscape is a very different ecosystem.
While it is easy to succumb to the fear that SVODs will kill off traditional TV, there is reason to believe that SVOD platforms will starve due to fragmented content and limited subscribers.
But could this new environmental pressure spur Australia’s own TV evolution?
It’s pretty easy to succumb to the doomsday hype of the international Netflix giant coming down under.
We’ve seen partnerships. We’ve seen consolidation of exclusive content. We’ve seen our local media powerhouses do whatever it takes to ensure that they can snatch a seat on the SVOD bandwagon as it rolls into Australia.
But does this coming SVOD revolution mark the death of TV and the advertising backbone that has sustained it?
Is the looming SVOD shadow over the TV industry being cast by a mountain or a molehill? Excuse the blatant optimism, but I am inclined to say the latter.
Subscription video services have a monetization model devoid of creativity.
They rely on subscriptions and subscriptions alone to bring in the mullah. It makes it easy to balance the books and has the potential to be quite lucrative in a market like the US where there is a whopping 115 million households that will potentially buy the product.
In comparison, Australia will only have nine million households to market to by 2016.
This means that the maximum revenue potential for the entire SVOD market is roughly $1.1b (based on a $10p/m subscription) in Australia.
However, even in America the penetration of SVOD services only sits at around 35 per cent.
A number that is starting to plateau year on year. Assuming that Australia can match that level of penetration that would set a more realistic revenue potential at $385m. That’s a pretty small pool of resources to be sharing, especially when TV ad revenue brought in $3.5 billion in agency billings alone in 2014.
On the topic of limited resources, by the time March comes along we are going to have four major players in the SVOD space (Stan, Presto, Quickflix and NetFlix).
All of them with their own suite of secured and exclusive content. But, none of which will have the seemingly all-encompassing selection of their US counterparts.
This fragmentation will simply force interested customers to choose between subpar offerings.
One of the scariest figures for the Australian media networks is the 200,000 Netflix subscribers that already exist in Australia through VPN services, and this is all off the back of a $0 marketing budget.
However, when Netflix starts restricting these Australian accounts from accessing the American service they are going to have 200,000 disgruntled past customers who will blame the Australian SVOD movement for enforcing the perceived tyranny of content rights that has made Australia one of the biggest pirating countries in the world.
So no, I don’t think the SVOD beast is going to mark the extinction of TV.
The fragmented content subscriptions that are appearing don’t seem financially viable in the Australian market.
Already we have seen evidence that Stan is contributing to the declining audience figures of Nine’s Gallipoli.
Since the show has been available on Stan, the free to air viewing audience has dropped by 52 per cent compared to its debut.
If this decline continues across other properties, the networks simply won’t have a financial incentive to let SVOD services become the norm. Especially when their more profitable ad supported model is being cannibalized.
I am glad that the TV industry is getting scared.
This invasion of innovation and technology will hopefully spur the industry to evolve.
The SVOD infrastructure seems like the perfect foundation for a new ad funded model that blends the programmatic, targeting and measurement benefits of digital advertising with traditional television.
With a web-augmented and data fueled TV and ad experience the TV industry could have something financially viable on their hands. They could give people the tailored and on-demand content that they desire.
They could banish the Nielsen family and create a robust and reliable TV measurement model.
They could continue to sell us that precious ad space.
If the networks use this opportunity to evolve, the arrival of SVOD services could be the best thing to happen to Australian TV since Kerri-Anne Kennerley.
Jeremy Gavin a digital trader at OMD.
How could Stan’s (alleged) 100,000 subscribers possibly explain a 600,000 person drop in Gallipoli’s audience? Of the (alleged) 100,000, barely any would have watched the series. There is absolutely no evidence it contributed to the drop.
User ID not verified.
35% penetration seems very optimistic. Foxtel has simmered below this figure for years and it has the holy grail of content – sport.and until SVOD appeared hasn’t had to deal with fragmented content..
Foxtels two biggest problems has been Australians reluctance to pay for TV and Robin Hoods pirating the content they want. Both of which the SVODs are going to have to deal with in addition to fragmented content and no sport..
Its going to get messy.
User ID not verified.
Jeremy makes some interesting points, however as a user of Netflix on the beloved VPN route I think we need to look at a few things.
Netflix has no ad’s – it is ad free, there is no targeted ads. HULU (owned by Universal, NewsCorp, Disney) – no ads, Amazon Prime – no ads, Crackle (owned by Sony and legally obtainable in AU) – has targeted ads – but free.
If anything SVOD will only hurt traditional cable (such as Foxtel). The SVOD services are essentially movies/tv on demand – a back catalogue of studio content with some first to air content (ie. house of cards etc). There is no news services (Sky, CNN, BBC etc) or live sport (a tent pole for Foxtel).
The real change will come when studios realise what they are missing out on and cut the cable provider out of the equation and go direct. HBO (TimeWarner) are rolling this out in the US shortly where the end user will be able to go direct to get their fix of Game of Thrones etc for a monthly subscription.
To your point the locked up deals by local AU networks (remember the days of the big WB output deal with 9??) will stem the flow to SVOD initially as international studios will rely on the guaranteed income, however as they use their larger markets as a sandpit to test and learn activities such as cutting cable and traditional TV out – change will come.
SVOD will complement existing media consumption by the consumer, and it is that $8-$10 per month that will be cut out of subscription tv packages – that is what will affect TV, and potentially eye balls on terrestrial tv content – and then ad rates will be affected etc.
Consolidation will come – it is inevitable – and the smaller players will be swallowed up and or fail, and then at some stage TELCO’s will want part of thisg. Telstra and Optus while they have their own internet SVOD type of services (Telstra 50% Owner in Foxtel) are sleeping giants at this stage. When they decide to bundle up the likes of Netflix and HULU as an internet package (TRIPLE/QUAD PLAY) then evolution will come to Australia.
User ID not verified.
Hey Jeremy, great article.
I still love a good torrent though!
User ID not verified.
clem – hulu in the US does carry ads (on paid service). one of the reasons netflix is so popular.
US TV ‘traditional’ viewing declined around 12% in 2014, a decline which will only continue this year.
all the predicted impact of VOD services on traditional TV ad revenue is becoming very real folks…
User ID not verified.
the simple reality is (many) people simply don’t want to want normal TV very often (at least in the US). i’m sure it is the same in australia. Anyone who gets to watch the whole new series of House of Cards this weekend can testify to that. tv business models need to adapt to meet changing habits.
User ID not verified.
Australian Netflix users won’t be disgruntled if (and it’s a big if) Netflix forces them on to the Australian service with limited content. Most will keep their VPN service and switch Netflix regions to watch US, UK and all Netflix global content.
In fact, due to the recent fall in the Australian dollar against the US dollar it actually could make sense to voluntarily switch to the Australian version of Netflix when it launches here since it will a fixed monthly cost in Australian dollars.
User ID not verified.
A nice article from the think with Google team here:
https://www.thinkwithgoogle.com/articles/evolution-of-tv-reaching-audiences-across-screens.html?utm_source=linkedin&utm_medium=paid-media&utm_campaign=ph2-sp-update
User ID not verified.
There are two competing but contradictory forces at work in the Australian TV business. Firstly, for two decades the majority (circa 70%) of households have made it very clear that they prefer free TV to paying for it. Secondly, a whole new generation of viewers, mostly under 30, have also made it clear they will pay (or pirate) stuff if it is not available when they want it. Free TV will be around for a long time. But the fragmentation will increase. No-one predicted the (positive) effect digital multichannelling would have on the networks. It would be a brave evangelist who thought they knew where things will be 10 years from now.
User ID not verified.
Nowadays I rarely look at my TV set. I have good-sized screen hooked up to my lap-top and watch iview, SBS On Demand, News24, YouTube, Aljazeera and other overseas streams. Frankly, I couldn’t tell you what ads are screening on free to air networks.
User ID not verified.
I think Jeremy has missed a key point about the disruptive force of SVOD in relation to TV ad revenue.
TV ad revenue at $3.5 billion is at huge risk from SVOD services because the key demographics see value in being able to watch what they want when they want, with no ads. Key demographics are changing their viewing habits – in many cases to places where advertisers cannot find them.
FTA broadcasters customers are media buyers and then advertisers. SVODs customers are viewers. Big difference in approach.
SVOD will devalue the whole advertising market as it reduces eyeballs watching live content (with the exception of sport, news) and it will reduce the valuable demographics watching FTA. The best play the FTA broadcasters have here is making Freeview Plus and catch-up TV work. At least they can talk about the audience that watched it at another time.
SVOD is to FTA as what Uber is to Cabcharge.
User ID not verified.
So you think “They could banish the Nielsen family and create a robust and reliable TV measurement model”.
Surely you mean an SVOD model. I’d also be interested in how you would be planning to determine how many people, and who they are at the other end of the SVOD connection.
You also seem to forget that TV ratings exist to estimate the viewing to the programme that the ad is inserted in. Judging by the SVOD fans, ads are the devil incarnate. So, yes you might end up with stream counts for content that as an agency you can’t capitalise on.
User ID not verified.
It’s almost like someone needs to come up with a linear TV and IPTV hybrid, which mixes traditional ad supported TV stations with IP delivered on-demand ad-free content.
User ID not verified.
Last year, Netflix is reported to have spent $2.7 Billion dollars on programming and is forecasted by industry to possibly spend $5 Billion in 2015. This is what the local players are scared of. Their companies aren’t even worth as much as this, let alone be able to spend it on programming.
http://www.businessinsider.com.....016-2015-2
The key part is they are really big. And have A LOT of money to spend. More than any of our local media owners here could ever dream of. This is why Stan launched a few weeks ago and beat Netflix to the streaming market. They knew it was easier to landgrab share as a first to market pure play streamer, as they knew that once Netflix entered the market it would be hard for them to challenge Netflix if they had launched first. Netflix also has the benefit of being international and likely be able to generate economies of scale for programming product across markets, so in this sense it could be hard for Stan and the incumbents in the future being a local player only.
But what does ‘big’ mean…. Netflix is currently valued at around US$20 Billion. This is more than every major media (NEC, SWM, Foxtel, News Corp, Fairfax, Ten etc) owner in Australia – Combined. (that includes News Corp at US$9.5 Billion which is technically international…).
Ultimately fragmentation is the outcome, but it will be interesting to see how the business end plays out.
User ID not verified.
@Ashley – Some really bad assumptions there.
What if you added up the international value of each of the channels on Foxtel (Viacom / Fox / BBC / HBO / Disney / etc) – They would dwarf Netfix, but the local market still benefits from their investment in programming.
And if you added how much all these ‘small’ Australian small companies invest in local content that would be significantly higher than Netflix invests globally.
Apples and pears buddy.
User ID not verified.
I agree with @I Wonder – People are no longer prepared to watch ad breaks, they either fast forward through them, or jump onto social media when they are on.
I would hate to be selling TV ads. they are on their last legs.
User ID not verified.
Streaming services will mainly replace video stores, which are disappearing anyway.
In the US, telcos cannot set download limits, and the success of streaming services is chewing up their profits, hence the uproar over there about “net neutrality”. The telcos in Australia have no such limitation. The only reason Foxtel has to charge more is because they provide the infrastructure, which subscribers must pay for with Netflix. (Telcos are saying they will allow unlimited streaming – you can bet that won’t last). Its also unlikely that ad-free content will last.
User ID not verified.