Pay TV Pandemonium: Cable, Satellite and Telco Get Shotgunned
To borrow a line from a recent client study conducted by The Carmel Group, “If the prior video industry changes described above were sorted, they would each be no more than mere silver bullets, whereas the current TV revolution is comparable to a shotgun blast, in that huge numbers and hugely powerful sets of stakeholders are being directly and significantly affected at every turn during this crisis of change.”
What we were writing about was a comparison of prior video industry transitions, seven in particular: 1) radio, to B & W TV, to 2) color TV, to 3) cable TV, to 4) satellite TV, to 5) an analog-to-digital transition, to 6) bundled services, and to 7) telco subscription TV.
And to be clear, the current transition or set of changes we talked about there, and that we talk about here in the form of “pandemonium” is none other than the Internet and Over-The-Top distributors and their ability to slowly or quickly replace the world of pay TV video distribution that we take for granted today. And it will.
Because, as noted in a prior “Mixed Signals” column from four weeks ago entitled “New Plays For Old Stakeholders,” huge tectonic plates are in the process of shifting the video world as we once knew it. Indeed, the Genie is out of the bottle, in the form of consumers being introduced to and demanding that all-important driver-trend, choice.
Yet, when we think about the shotgun analogy, it’s important to note that the content owners and the pay TV operators are not facing hundreds of tiny pellets approaching their corporate bodies at hundreds of miles per hour. And even if they were, those corpus corporata have such deep pockets and so much to lose, that you can bet the really smart folks who run those places are going to proceed with great caution and prudence to keep that serious damage from ever happening. Indeed, witness some of Jeff Bewkes’ recent comments on behalf of one of the biggest Pay TV and content duos, Time Warner.
But what I question is how much real control they can ultimately exert over that ultimate change.
Which is to say there are now so many video choices, both from the programming production and the programming distribution sides, that unless the traditionalists take risks to completely alter their business models in light of this change, they may have no choice but to go the way of the bow and arrow themselves.
Noted one well-known and experienced and really smart executive among the 50 recently interviewed for this and other articles, “Five to ten years from now, the players making the most money will be different from those of today.”
And that is the most interesting balancing act. Put another way, how do you shore up and hang onto the great deal you have, while also looking ahead toward — and trying to control — the future that you also may not have? It’s almost as scary (and pandemonium producing) as facing a real shotgun, and not knowing whether it’s loaded (or not), or who’s pulling the trigger (or not).
Jimmy Schaeffler is chairman and CSO of Carmel-by-the-Sea-based consultancy The Carmel Group.
Maxkiv commented:
So move to a “content choice” model and let the subscribers pay-by-the-drink, that way you do away from the assinine assumptions made behind “bundling” content and move to a more secular video distribution model. The bonus in doing this - better use of band-width which is a precious commodity (put them on switched digital demand video). Quality may not be the absolute best, but this will be forgiven by the demographic that wants to view their content anytime, anywhere.
John Ovrutsky commented:
Some very good points by Jimmy S here. As digital video has proliferated to many devices, content owners have to both protect their rights and figure out with distributors the right business models. Even today You Tube/Google is reportedly discussing a purchase of Next New Networks; embedding them (Google) more firmly in the non user gen video content biz. Authentication of subscription is critical.
TV will be Everywhere. As content and technology continue to propel us into a continued series of rapid changes, the right subscription models will prevail.
News Hound commented:
What’s the operator to do? IMO, invest heavily in network capacity to make sure you’re delivering a superior broadband product. A customer who cuts cable in favor of online video will be even more highly dependent on his broadband connection. So make sure you can deliver the absolute best, rock solid ultra high-speed connection in your market. Then make sure you’re charging a lot more for broadband as a stand-alone product than you are when the customer also takes cable. If you do those two things and worry about your bottom line rather than your top one, what do you care whether the customer takes cable or not? Show me an independent operator who makes money on the cable side; it’s the network owners who are raking in the profits.
If you’re a top 10 operator who’s also a cable network owner, and you’re dumb enough to give your networks’ content away on the web for free, you deserve the business disaster that’s headed your way.
Dubs commented:
What is most interesting about this article is the topic addressing the lack of control the powerful Telco organizations have over the marketplace. Recently, I have run across the statistic that Netflix has nearly 17 million subscribers, placing them just behind âMega Giantsâ Comcast and DirecTV, in terms of subscriber numbers. One can only assume, by the way Netflixâs subscriber base is growing over the past two years that it will surpass both top Telco providers in the next two years.
Only to add to the Telco scare, people only pay 7.99 for unlimited streaming video with Netflix and pay on average 75$ a month for an average cable package. Finally, Netflixâs SAC (Subscriber acquisition cost) is only 20$ in comparison to DirecTVâs 807$…YA itâs a huge difference.
Goosie commented:
So what’s an operator to do?















