Media Mogul Barry Diller is making headlines with his investment in Aereo, a new media company that will provide remote DVR storage and streaming of broadcast content. Aereo announced that it has raised $20.5 million in Series A funding led by Diller’s IAC. Diller also has a board seat.
Aereo plans to provide up to 40 hours of DVR space for $12 per month with the content being streamed to internet enabled devices (smart phones, tablets, web enabled TVs, etc.). For starters, Aereo in intends to offer the service to consumers in the New York City DMA starting in mid March. Initial reports of the technology are that it involves an array of tiny antennas, each dedicated to a single customer, feeding the hard drive (DVR) storage. It seems that the company is taking this tact in order to make the claim that they are an antenna rental service and not a multichannel service provider. In doing so, Aereo hopes to avoid the need to negotiate and pay retransmission consent fees and capture the “cord cutting” segment of the market with a product that would complement a consumer’s ability to receive cable programming via the likes of Netflix and Hulu+.
In the mean time, cable operators are reacting to declining subscriber numbers by starting to test and deploy lower cost packages that that have been stripped of expensive sports programming. Broadcasters are still talking about mobile digital broadcast services without much to show for it in the market. Both the cable ops and the broadcasters continue to arm wrestle over retransmission consent fees with the FCC almost a year into the process of a proposed notice of rulemaking on retransmission consent – but that’s another blog entry.
For now the initial news is out about Aereo’s plans have been announced. It is more than likely that New York area broadcasters are huddling with their attorneys this morning on the news to explore their options. One just has to wonder if the next headline will be “Broadcasters Attempt to Shoot Down Aereo with Cease and Desist Orders”.
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Friday, January 20, 2012
Miami Retrans Spat Takes Unexpected Turn
In an almost unheard of turn of events, a broadcaster who has withheld their signal in the Miami DMA is permitting DirecTV to air its coverage of this weekend’s NFC Championship game between the New York Giants and the San Francisco 49ers. Fox affiliate WSVN is permitting the satcaster to carry the game as a one time exception while they continue to hammer out a retransmission consent agreement.
Typically, broadcasters leverage their carriage of marquee programming and events in order to gain higher retrans payments. It seems that this time snowbirds in high-rises are causing WSVN to think twice. The typical tact is to encourage viewers to switch providers in order to continue to see their programming. The rub in the Miami market is that many of the people who would be most interested in the game (retirees and folks from the northeast who are in FL to escape the cold and snow back home) are in high rise condo buildings. Many of these buildings have exclusive contracts with DirecTV to provide video to the buildings. For these viewers, antennas and alternate providers are out of the question.
Putting aside the usual “he said, she said” stuff that is tossed around during retrans black-outs, you have to give WSVN credit for permitting carriage of the game. In taking the high road, perhaps they put more pressure on DirecTV; painting themselves as the ones who care more about the viewers. On the other hand, aside from the upcoming Republican Primary and general election, the game is likely one of their more lucrative ad sales opportunities for the year. Why would they not want to have the maximum number of viewers? Either way you slice it, it saves a lot of retirees the trouble of calling their kids back north to ask how cold it is, and while they are on the phone to also ask how to hook up a digital antenna with a DirecTV box and a DVD player.
Typically, broadcasters leverage their carriage of marquee programming and events in order to gain higher retrans payments. It seems that this time snowbirds in high-rises are causing WSVN to think twice. The typical tact is to encourage viewers to switch providers in order to continue to see their programming. The rub in the Miami market is that many of the people who would be most interested in the game (retirees and folks from the northeast who are in FL to escape the cold and snow back home) are in high rise condo buildings. Many of these buildings have exclusive contracts with DirecTV to provide video to the buildings. For these viewers, antennas and alternate providers are out of the question.
Putting aside the usual “he said, she said” stuff that is tossed around during retrans black-outs, you have to give WSVN credit for permitting carriage of the game. In taking the high road, perhaps they put more pressure on DirecTV; painting themselves as the ones who care more about the viewers. On the other hand, aside from the upcoming Republican Primary and general election, the game is likely one of their more lucrative ad sales opportunities for the year. Why would they not want to have the maximum number of viewers? Either way you slice it, it saves a lot of retirees the trouble of calling their kids back north to ask how cold it is, and while they are on the phone to also ask how to hook up a digital antenna with a DirecTV box and a DVD player.
Friday, June 3, 2011
Viacom Strategy: More for Less?
Philippe Dauman and Les Moonves have both captured trade press recently with statements that their respective companies (Viacom / MTV Networks and CBS, Inc) continue to grow affiliate fees and retransmission consent revenues. Perhaps most interesting is Dauman’s comments made at Nomura Securities U.S. Media Summit conference in New York this week in which he is quoted as unapologetically saying that the increases in revenues to large media companies like his own will have the effect of squeezing smaller independent networks out of the game, while smaller networks affiliates with larger entities will continue to survive. Likewise, Moonves has said that as retransmission consent revenues for CBS and other broadcasters rise, smaller players will likely face extinction.
While Dauman may be right to thump his chest at a financially focused media summit, publically bragging about growth while suppressing independent voices might not play well inside the beltway. A groundswell of small cable operators and independent cable networks has formed in the last few years to focus lawmakers on just these issues; the increases in retransmission consent payments and the leverage used by large programming conglomerates to tie carriage of marginal “emerging” networks to that of larger, more established and popular services. Dauman effectively confirmed what groups like the American Cable Association (ACA) and the small independent networks have been talking about for the past few years; forced tying in order to drive smaller independent voices out of the market is a core strategy for companies like MTV Networks. It’s curious that Dauman asserts that there is no interest on the distributors’ part for new independent nets, but there seems to be room for equally uninteresting programming services that large companies like his thrust on the market.
Curiously, the FCC has basically sat on the sidelines during recent retransmission consent and programming spats. They’ve consistently focused on the issue of whether parties are negotiating in good faith and have purposefully refused to get involved in the rate setting aspect of the negotiations – insisting that retrans rates are better set in the market. Now the head of MTV Networks has all but said that they will force carriage of more new networks (while at the same time making content available on the internet – but that’s a different entry) tying them to flagship brands, and the head of CBS said that he will continue to push for increased retrans fees while at the same time squeezing independents out of the market, and everyone’s OK with it. One would think that this would be a bipartisan issue, uniting those on the left concerned with protecting independent voices and those on the right concerned with the dominance of the so called “mainstream media”. I would suggest that the next time cable operators are called to testify on rate increases (as is almost certain to happen during the reelection cycle) that Misters Dauman and Moonves be invited to the party too.
While Dauman may be right to thump his chest at a financially focused media summit, publically bragging about growth while suppressing independent voices might not play well inside the beltway. A groundswell of small cable operators and independent cable networks has formed in the last few years to focus lawmakers on just these issues; the increases in retransmission consent payments and the leverage used by large programming conglomerates to tie carriage of marginal “emerging” networks to that of larger, more established and popular services. Dauman effectively confirmed what groups like the American Cable Association (ACA) and the small independent networks have been talking about for the past few years; forced tying in order to drive smaller independent voices out of the market is a core strategy for companies like MTV Networks. It’s curious that Dauman asserts that there is no interest on the distributors’ part for new independent nets, but there seems to be room for equally uninteresting programming services that large companies like his thrust on the market.
Curiously, the FCC has basically sat on the sidelines during recent retransmission consent and programming spats. They’ve consistently focused on the issue of whether parties are negotiating in good faith and have purposefully refused to get involved in the rate setting aspect of the negotiations – insisting that retrans rates are better set in the market. Now the head of MTV Networks has all but said that they will force carriage of more new networks (while at the same time making content available on the internet – but that’s a different entry) tying them to flagship brands, and the head of CBS said that he will continue to push for increased retrans fees while at the same time squeezing independents out of the market, and everyone’s OK with it. One would think that this would be a bipartisan issue, uniting those on the left concerned with protecting independent voices and those on the right concerned with the dominance of the so called “mainstream media”. I would suggest that the next time cable operators are called to testify on rate increases (as is almost certain to happen during the reelection cycle) that Misters Dauman and Moonves be invited to the party too.
Thursday, March 3, 2011
FCC Votes to Open Retrans NPRM
In a unanimous vote this afternoon, the FCC agreed to open a Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) related to the issue of Retransmission Consent. Recently a hot button topic as a result of several high profile disputes, the FCC’s concern with retransmission consent comes on the heels of a congressional hearing on the matter. While commissioners differ on the degree of actions that should be taken, all agree that adherence to the seven good faith standards in the rules are paramount.
To be sure, no new rules were adopted at this meeting; this was merely a vote to look into the matter and to hear from all of the concerned stakeholders; broadcasters, MVPDs and consumers. More than one commissioner warned that no parties to any negotiation should read into the NPRM any likely outcome, nor should anyone use the NPRM as a delaying tactic in their negotiations. The standards of good faith negotiation still stand. After all, the commission could go through the process and decide to do nothing – kind of like looking at the desert tray and just ordering coffee.
What does it mean for the industry? This is one more chance for all interested parties to go on record. If you are a broadcaster, the process works fine as a vast majority of retransmission consent negotiations are completed quietly and without incident. If you are a cable operator, the process is broken and the smaller a cable operator you are the worse it is broken. No doubt the ACA will be prepared to show that smaller cable operators pay a disproportionate higher rate as the result of MFN’s and weaker relative market leverage. The commissioners even specified that they want to hear from organizations that represent consumers too.
Make no mistake, retransmission consent will not be going away – that will require an act of congress. It is expected that the main focus of the commission will be to find a way to keep the signals available to consumer while cable ops and broadcasters hash out their deals and to find away to prevent consumers from being “held hostage” by the process.
In a related note, Comcast and Sinclair announced a “multiyear agreement-in-principle” for the carriage of 36 stations in 22 markets.
To be sure, no new rules were adopted at this meeting; this was merely a vote to look into the matter and to hear from all of the concerned stakeholders; broadcasters, MVPDs and consumers. More than one commissioner warned that no parties to any negotiation should read into the NPRM any likely outcome, nor should anyone use the NPRM as a delaying tactic in their negotiations. The standards of good faith negotiation still stand. After all, the commission could go through the process and decide to do nothing – kind of like looking at the desert tray and just ordering coffee.
What does it mean for the industry? This is one more chance for all interested parties to go on record. If you are a broadcaster, the process works fine as a vast majority of retransmission consent negotiations are completed quietly and without incident. If you are a cable operator, the process is broken and the smaller a cable operator you are the worse it is broken. No doubt the ACA will be prepared to show that smaller cable operators pay a disproportionate higher rate as the result of MFN’s and weaker relative market leverage. The commissioners even specified that they want to hear from organizations that represent consumers too.
Make no mistake, retransmission consent will not be going away – that will require an act of congress. It is expected that the main focus of the commission will be to find a way to keep the signals available to consumer while cable ops and broadcasters hash out their deals and to find away to prevent consumers from being “held hostage” by the process.
In a related note, Comcast and Sinclair announced a “multiyear agreement-in-principle” for the carriage of 36 stations in 22 markets.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Online Video Upstart Smacked Down
Online video provider ivi raised more than a few eyebrows last year when it launched an internet based service that streamed the linear feeds of local broadcasters to subscribers. Auguring that they fit the definition of a “cable system”, ivi claimed that simply by paying a compulsory copyright license fee they were able to receive and retransmit broadcast signals without the permission of the station owners and that because they were an internet service they were able to do so without the permission of the broadcasters or paying additional fees for retransmission consent.
U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald begged to differ, ruling that ivi is not a cable system as defined by law. Furthermore the judge found that ivi could not selectively determine which regulations applied to them and which did not. In short, they could not be a “cable system” only when it was convenient. She further commented that taken to its extreme, ivi’s argument is absurd and would make anyone with a computer, TV antenna and internet connection a “cable system”
In a statement, ivi CEO Todd Weaver insists that Buchwald’s ruling is incorrect and vowed to appeal the decision. For now, ivi subscribers have seen their service taken down pending the next steps in the process. While an appeal is certainly likely, it is almost certain that this marks the beginning of the end of the road for ivi. While they may be able to proceed with a modified business model that provides for payments to the broadcasters they carry, they will certainly not continue operation as a “pseudo cable system”. With the courts placing control back in the hands of the content owners, chances are that ivi will be lucky to be remembered as a footnote in the history of over the top video.
U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald begged to differ, ruling that ivi is not a cable system as defined by law. Furthermore the judge found that ivi could not selectively determine which regulations applied to them and which did not. In short, they could not be a “cable system” only when it was convenient. She further commented that taken to its extreme, ivi’s argument is absurd and would make anyone with a computer, TV antenna and internet connection a “cable system”
In a statement, ivi CEO Todd Weaver insists that Buchwald’s ruling is incorrect and vowed to appeal the decision. For now, ivi subscribers have seen their service taken down pending the next steps in the process. While an appeal is certainly likely, it is almost certain that this marks the beginning of the end of the road for ivi. While they may be able to proceed with a modified business model that provides for payments to the broadcasters they carry, they will certainly not continue operation as a “pseudo cable system”. With the courts placing control back in the hands of the content owners, chances are that ivi will be lucky to be remembered as a footnote in the history of over the top video.
Friday, February 11, 2011
Retrans Spat Goes Upstream: Crazy Like a Fox?
The next time you tune into your local Fox station and its not there, it may not be because your local cable operator was unable to reach an agreement for retransmission consent of its signal. News broke this week that Fox network has been in discussions with its affiliate group to obtain cash for carriage of network programming on their stations. Apparently the talks are not going well and Fox Network is starting to talk to the affiliate stations directly to reach deals. The affiliate board is accusing the network of taking a “divide and conquer” approach. Meanwhile, Fox asserts that they are just trying to get a deal done before they have to pursue “different distribution channels”. Things are getting contentious and now the negotiations are starting to play out publicly as if this was a battle between the stations and a local cable operator.
It seems that the proverbial shoe is on the other foot and the affiliates are none to happy about it. With most of the affiliates having retransmission consent deals in place with local cable operators and the two national satellite providers, the last thing they need is the network asking for a piece of the action that hasn’t been budgeted for. All this comes at a time when a deal between Fox and Time Warner Cable provides a workaround for the big MSO to get the network programming for up to a year should they encounter an impasse with a local Fox affiliate - lending credence to the “different distribution channels” threat.
To be sure, Fox COO Chase Carey has not been shy in saying that the network will pursue these kinds of retrans revenue sharing arrangements, so it should have come as no surprise to the affiliates. All the same this comes off as another instance where a broadcaster makes the spurious argument that they need subscriber revenues to flow back to them in order to “preserve free broadcast TV” all because they are seeing viewership continue to migrate to cable networks and more time spent online, undermining their advertising based business model.
Yes, this is a private business negotiation, but with TV a seemingly American birthright anything that results in viewers being deprived of network programming inevitably becomes a public policy issue. With retransmission consent having such a high profile, and the FCC slated to take it up at its March meeting, one wonders whether this is the wisest time for Fox to be pursuing this so aggressively. In the end, the affiliates will come to an agreement because they need the programming and Fox can’t pull the plug on a wholesale basis without the risk of being called in front of House and Senate panels to answer for its actions. Inevitably it all flows back to the consumer in the form of higher cable and satellite rates, putting even more pressure on consumers who are on the verge of “cord cutting”.
At this point, the rest of the “Big 4” are sitting back to see how this develops. While there are still a lot of unknowns as far as how this will play out, one thing is for certain, if this proves successful for Fox, watch for the rest to follow suit.
It seems that the proverbial shoe is on the other foot and the affiliates are none to happy about it. With most of the affiliates having retransmission consent deals in place with local cable operators and the two national satellite providers, the last thing they need is the network asking for a piece of the action that hasn’t been budgeted for. All this comes at a time when a deal between Fox and Time Warner Cable provides a workaround for the big MSO to get the network programming for up to a year should they encounter an impasse with a local Fox affiliate - lending credence to the “different distribution channels” threat.
To be sure, Fox COO Chase Carey has not been shy in saying that the network will pursue these kinds of retrans revenue sharing arrangements, so it should have come as no surprise to the affiliates. All the same this comes off as another instance where a broadcaster makes the spurious argument that they need subscriber revenues to flow back to them in order to “preserve free broadcast TV” all because they are seeing viewership continue to migrate to cable networks and more time spent online, undermining their advertising based business model.
Yes, this is a private business negotiation, but with TV a seemingly American birthright anything that results in viewers being deprived of network programming inevitably becomes a public policy issue. With retransmission consent having such a high profile, and the FCC slated to take it up at its March meeting, one wonders whether this is the wisest time for Fox to be pursuing this so aggressively. In the end, the affiliates will come to an agreement because they need the programming and Fox can’t pull the plug on a wholesale basis without the risk of being called in front of House and Senate panels to answer for its actions. Inevitably it all flows back to the consumer in the form of higher cable and satellite rates, putting even more pressure on consumers who are on the verge of “cord cutting”.
At this point, the rest of the “Big 4” are sitting back to see how this develops. While there are still a lot of unknowns as far as how this will play out, one thing is for certain, if this proves successful for Fox, watch for the rest to follow suit.
Friday, January 7, 2011
DISH Enables TV Everywhere to Android Devices
While Comcast was making noise in advance of CES with a VOD iPad app, DISH Network had their own announcement as the satcaster unveiled its Android app that enables Google enabled Smartphone users to access DISH programming. A former professional gambler, DISH CEO Charlie Ergen has undoubtedly raised the stakes in the TV Everywhere game. While the Comcast model will provide roughly 3000 hours of VOD content plus some streaming networks, the DISH service goes one better and allows customers access to their entire line-up of channels and all of their DVR content via a Sling enabled set top box, allowing for ultimate flexibility.
At a time when cord cutting has become a primary concern among multichannel providers, operators are looking to TV Everywhere as part of the solution to deal with the estimated quarter million video subscribers lost by the industry in the second and third quarters of 2010. While the multichannel sector as a whole as seen subscriber losses, Verizon, AT&T and DirecTV have seen gains. DISH is down about 50k subs in 2 and 3Q while Comcast is down over half a million video subscribers in the same period.
Comcast’s iPad VOD and streaming app will not launch until later this year, so the jury is still out as to whether its streaming to tablets will be enough of a silver bullet to hold on to subscribers or whether digital customers will continue to vote with their feet (and wallets) that they see better value in getting a limited amount of programming for less, or even free, from on-line options like of Netflix and Hulu.
At a time when cord cutting has become a primary concern among multichannel providers, operators are looking to TV Everywhere as part of the solution to deal with the estimated quarter million video subscribers lost by the industry in the second and third quarters of 2010. While the multichannel sector as a whole as seen subscriber losses, Verizon, AT&T and DirecTV have seen gains. DISH is down about 50k subs in 2 and 3Q while Comcast is down over half a million video subscribers in the same period.
Comcast’s iPad VOD and streaming app will not launch until later this year, so the jury is still out as to whether its streaming to tablets will be enough of a silver bullet to hold on to subscribers or whether digital customers will continue to vote with their feet (and wallets) that they see better value in getting a limited amount of programming for less, or even free, from on-line options like of Netflix and Hulu.
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Comcast Announces iPAD Video App
Comcast CEO Brian Roberts got a jump on everyone at CES with an announcement on the eve of the 2011 show. It seems that Comcast will be making nearly 3000 hours of VOD content available for streaming on iPADs later this year with enhancements that will include the ability for users to tap into their social networks. In doing so, Comcast is the first cable MSO to truly take the concept of "TV Everywhere" to heart. Until now, MSOs that have launched so called "TV Everywhere" services have made their VOD content available on their branded websites in an effort to thwart other online video providers like Hulu and Netflix that have been chipping away at their subsription revenue by enabling cord cutting (more on that some other time). This move eliminates the inherent limitation of having a "TV Everywhere" product limited to home PCs and laptops and is an effort to shore up their Xfinity digital subscriber base among iPAD users; those who are aguably the early adopters who are the most prone to being cord-cutters.
Although limited to the iPAD device for now, this app is a great start to the "unleashing" or unteathering of TV Everwhere. For now Comcast is working where the content rights allow them, but I expect that a smartphone app is not too far down the road, of course, programmer rights permitting.
Although limited to the iPAD device for now, this app is a great start to the "unleashing" or unteathering of TV Everwhere. For now Comcast is working where the content rights allow them, but I expect that a smartphone app is not too far down the road, of course, programmer rights permitting.
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Fox Network Is Letting Time Warner Cable Do What?
Winter Solstice has come and gone. As the hours of darkness shorten, the coldest days of winter are still to come. Somehow the impending gloom of winter sets just the right mood for the ongoing retransmission consent and content licensing tussles that come around this time of year.
Time Warner Cable is shaking things up with Smith Broadcasting and Sinclair. You may remember a while back, it was Sinclair who was involved in very nasty and public negotiations with Mediacom. The big issue between Time Warner Cable and Sinclair is that Sinclair is tying retransmission consent for their CW stations to retransmission consent for their Fox affiliated stations. While the concept of tying is nothing new in the content distribution world (most cable network groups require carriage of multiple services by cable operators, much like the way studios license packages of movies to broadcasters or premium services) it somehow takes on a different flavor when it is coming from the broadcasters. Time Warner would rather have the option of not carrying the CW stations or forcing them to elect must carry status with no payment required.
What make the negotiations different this time around is that Time Warner Cable has a card up their sleeve - apparent rights from Fox to carry network programming via an "insurance feed" or “cooling off feed” for up to a year. Understandably, this has left many local Fox affiliates feeling a bit confused and thrown under the bus. It is a surprising development in that it is the first time that a broadcast network has given these kinds of rights to cable operators. Just as curious is that the provision of a “cooling off” feed was not mentioned by either Time Warner Cable CEO Glenn Britt or Fox Broadcasting COO Chase Carey as part of their testimony during last month’s hearing on retransmission consent. Surely pointing to this as an example of a creative market based solution would have gained points with lawmakers who were grilling them that day.
To be sure, it’s not perfect. The deal allows Time Warner to get the national programming from the local stations feed for a reported 70 cents per subscriber per month, as long as the local affiliate OK's it. Truth be told, it is mainly the network programming that people are tuning in for anyway. The arrangement still allows the local station to deny access to its local news programming and syndicated fare. The 70 cents would then be split between Fox and the local affiliate. The big "gotcha", of course, is that the local affiliate still has the option of saying no and blocking the feed. All the same, it is something. Nonetheless, Sincliar is reportedly not interested in the option. Apparently they are not too thrilled about their take of the 70 cents.
While the local affiliate still holds the cards, it does give the network some political cover. The larger question is whether other broadcast groups will offer similar rights to other cable operators, telephone companies or satellite distributors. As the arrangement stands now, it is not a game changer, but there is a potential that the playing field could shift subtlely with broadcast affiliates left questioning where the allegiances of the network suits really lie. Does it get any colder than that?
Time Warner Cable is shaking things up with Smith Broadcasting and Sinclair. You may remember a while back, it was Sinclair who was involved in very nasty and public negotiations with Mediacom. The big issue between Time Warner Cable and Sinclair is that Sinclair is tying retransmission consent for their CW stations to retransmission consent for their Fox affiliated stations. While the concept of tying is nothing new in the content distribution world (most cable network groups require carriage of multiple services by cable operators, much like the way studios license packages of movies to broadcasters or premium services) it somehow takes on a different flavor when it is coming from the broadcasters. Time Warner would rather have the option of not carrying the CW stations or forcing them to elect must carry status with no payment required.
What make the negotiations different this time around is that Time Warner Cable has a card up their sleeve - apparent rights from Fox to carry network programming via an "insurance feed" or “cooling off feed” for up to a year. Understandably, this has left many local Fox affiliates feeling a bit confused and thrown under the bus. It is a surprising development in that it is the first time that a broadcast network has given these kinds of rights to cable operators. Just as curious is that the provision of a “cooling off” feed was not mentioned by either Time Warner Cable CEO Glenn Britt or Fox Broadcasting COO Chase Carey as part of their testimony during last month’s hearing on retransmission consent. Surely pointing to this as an example of a creative market based solution would have gained points with lawmakers who were grilling them that day.
To be sure, it’s not perfect. The deal allows Time Warner to get the national programming from the local stations feed for a reported 70 cents per subscriber per month, as long as the local affiliate OK's it. Truth be told, it is mainly the network programming that people are tuning in for anyway. The arrangement still allows the local station to deny access to its local news programming and syndicated fare. The 70 cents would then be split between Fox and the local affiliate. The big "gotcha", of course, is that the local affiliate still has the option of saying no and blocking the feed. All the same, it is something. Nonetheless, Sincliar is reportedly not interested in the option. Apparently they are not too thrilled about their take of the 70 cents.
While the local affiliate still holds the cards, it does give the network some political cover. The larger question is whether other broadcast groups will offer similar rights to other cable operators, telephone companies or satellite distributors. As the arrangement stands now, it is not a game changer, but there is a potential that the playing field could shift subtlely with broadcast affiliates left questioning where the allegiances of the network suits really lie. Does it get any colder than that?
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Sweeney: ABC – Google TV Deal “Not Close”
In an interview with Reuters, Disney TV chief Anne Sweeney said that although they are in discussions with Google and have seen several demonstrations, ABC is "not close" to doing a deal to provide its content to the Google TV platform. This comes on the heels of both CBS and NBC blocking their content from Google TV.
Sweeney mentioned that piracy is one of the primary concerns, going so far as to say that it was unacceptable to ABC that the Google search platform present pirate sites when consumers search for ABC content on the web. Further, Sweeney indicated that ABC's web strategy is to provide limited programming from current seasons with wider access to prior season programming in order to drive value to the programming that is being shown on the broadcast network - moving the content through windows in a similar fashion as feature films.
In an age of instant Internet gratification and with the lesson of Napster fresh in their memories, it is little wonder that piracy is an issue for the broadcasters. They are being pressured by affiliates and cable operators who are telling them that putting content on the Internet lessens its value. Meanwhile, Gen X, Y and Millennial consumers are accustomed to having content served up at their convenience at a time and place and on the device of their choosing. They are less concerned with how it gets to them and not even remotely concerned with the content owners' business model.
Network executive like Sweeney are paid to follow the money. They are not going to jeopardize broadcast and cable dollars for digital pennies. Meanwhile, a significant portion of the Internet generation believes that content wants to be free; an attitude that undermines the business model of the content owners.
For now it looks like Google TV is on the market with only a limited amount of content. Absent providing "one stop shopping" with a line-up of content that more closely mirrors that of cable and satellite providers, Google TV is destined to be a niche curiosity product. Major content owners will not give away their product cheaply and will continue to demand assurances of security. Until Google can address the "fear of Napsterization", the big players will take meeting but won't be signing any deals soon.
Sweeney mentioned that piracy is one of the primary concerns, going so far as to say that it was unacceptable to ABC that the Google search platform present pirate sites when consumers search for ABC content on the web. Further, Sweeney indicated that ABC's web strategy is to provide limited programming from current seasons with wider access to prior season programming in order to drive value to the programming that is being shown on the broadcast network - moving the content through windows in a similar fashion as feature films.
In an age of instant Internet gratification and with the lesson of Napster fresh in their memories, it is little wonder that piracy is an issue for the broadcasters. They are being pressured by affiliates and cable operators who are telling them that putting content on the Internet lessens its value. Meanwhile, Gen X, Y and Millennial consumers are accustomed to having content served up at their convenience at a time and place and on the device of their choosing. They are less concerned with how it gets to them and not even remotely concerned with the content owners' business model.
Network executive like Sweeney are paid to follow the money. They are not going to jeopardize broadcast and cable dollars for digital pennies. Meanwhile, a significant portion of the Internet generation believes that content wants to be free; an attitude that undermines the business model of the content owners.
For now it looks like Google TV is on the market with only a limited amount of content. Absent providing "one stop shopping" with a line-up of content that more closely mirrors that of cable and satellite providers, Google TV is destined to be a niche curiosity product. Major content owners will not give away their product cheaply and will continue to demand assurances of security. Until Google can address the "fear of Napsterization", the big players will take meeting but won't be signing any deals soon.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Retrans Recap
So, the Retransmission Consent hearings are over (for now) and all of the usual suspects got to have their say on the issue. Keeping to the script, the MSOs asked for some changes in the regime, arguing that Retransmission Consent is another in the long litany of special privileges that broadcasters enjoy. Broadcasters insisted that they need a dual revenue stream to compete. Small programmers argued that the tying involved in many Retransmission Consent agreements makes it difficult for them to gain carriage. For the most part, the hearing was predictable and civil. It was, however, suprising to hear Jay Rockefeller (D WV) rant on the record about the polarizing nature of Fox News and MSNBC and his wish that the FCC could somehow make them go away. It was no suprise either that several Senators suggested the popular notion that the time may have come for the industry to consider a la carte pricing models. Other than that there was not much newsworthy that came of it as John Kerry (D MA) tried to keep the hearing focused on finding a solution to keep broadcast signals on cable systems during retransmission consent negotiations.
It's always easy to tell who benefits the most from the status quo - it's the guy who defends it the most vigorously. That was the role that Chase Carey from Fox played. Carey insisted that taking away the ability to deny carriage strips him of his leverage and eliminates any incentive for a cable operator to get a deal done. He also pointed fingers at Cablevision as the party that used it subscribers to win political gain. Well, there was a hearing after all.
More than a few eyebrows were raised by the fact that different cable providers in the same market can be charged different rates by the same broadcaster for the same signal. In an effort to bring a modicum of transparency to the process, it was suggested that the numbers involved no longer be subject to confidentiality (gasp!).
More than once the lawmakers suggested (or threatened) that if "the market" can't figure things out on their own, then Washington will get involved. With that stance it won't be a suprise that there will be more high profile retransmission consent disputes that result in temporary drops of broadcast feeds. For now it is hard to see what the appetite inside the beltway is for taking another swipe at cable regulation given the much larger problems that the country faces. One thing is for sure, once the ball gets rolling it may be a matter of "being careful what you wish for". Washington is a sausage factory. You can start out with the best of intentions, but along the way it inevitably gets ground up and flavoered beyond all recognition. But for now Retransmission Consent is like the weather, everyone talks about it but nobody does anything about it.
It's always easy to tell who benefits the most from the status quo - it's the guy who defends it the most vigorously. That was the role that Chase Carey from Fox played. Carey insisted that taking away the ability to deny carriage strips him of his leverage and eliminates any incentive for a cable operator to get a deal done. He also pointed fingers at Cablevision as the party that used it subscribers to win political gain. Well, there was a hearing after all.
More than a few eyebrows were raised by the fact that different cable providers in the same market can be charged different rates by the same broadcaster for the same signal. In an effort to bring a modicum of transparency to the process, it was suggested that the numbers involved no longer be subject to confidentiality (gasp!).
More than once the lawmakers suggested (or threatened) that if "the market" can't figure things out on their own, then Washington will get involved. With that stance it won't be a suprise that there will be more high profile retransmission consent disputes that result in temporary drops of broadcast feeds. For now it is hard to see what the appetite inside the beltway is for taking another swipe at cable regulation given the much larger problems that the country faces. One thing is for sure, once the ball gets rolling it may be a matter of "being careful what you wish for". Washington is a sausage factory. You can start out with the best of intentions, but along the way it inevitably gets ground up and flavoered beyond all recognition. But for now Retransmission Consent is like the weather, everyone talks about it but nobody does anything about it.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Cablevision vs. FOX: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly
October is winding down, trees are ablaze in orange and red, football season is in full swing while baseball season has boiled down to two teams, but it seems like everyone’s attention is held by the animosity and accusations that are being flung like so much mess in the primate house. No, I’m not talking about the waning days of highly contentious mid-term elections; I’m talking about the very public dispute between Fox and Cablevision.
It’s a week after local Fox stations going dark on Cablevision systems and the rhetoric is getting even hotter. Politicians ranging from NJ Governor Chris Christie and MA Senator John Kerry have weighed in. Meanwhile, Cablevision subscribers have been without the post season play of their beloved New York Yankees and may soon miss out on the World Series. I don’t think this is what Washington had in mind when the retrans rules were written. They expected reasonable people to come to a business agreement. Instead, what they are seeing are media moguls tussling over money while the consumer is held hostage.
Now the latest developments have both sides crying foul and hitting the press with both guns blazing; Cablevision accusing Fox of not negotiating in good faith by making “take it or leave it” offers and Fox accusing Cablevision of asking for preferential treatment (don’t get me started on MFNs) and manipulating the whole process to bring about a political resolution and a change in the law. Cablevision is making hay of Fox’s refusal to submit to binding arbitration. There was even a point where Cablevision subscribers were denied access to Fox programming on the internet. Now Fox is threatening to sue Cablevision, asserting that the MSOs phone reps are telling subscribers they can get their favorite Fox programming by accessing pirate websites. While there may be a grain of truth to each of the accusations, the amplification of the distortions makes each side’s argument look like signs at a Tea Party rally. There seems to be no end to the lengths that both parties will go to make their respective points. Jimmy Dolan even suggested a meeting be held with himself, FOX CEO Chase Carey and the FCC to hammer out a deal.
So there you have it. Another carriage dispute made very public as the cable and broadcast industry both air some very dirty laundry. Who’s right? Who’s wrong? How long will it go on? Who knows? Programming deals are never easy, and retrans deals are probably the toughest of all. While there may be something for the cable guys to gain by making the process political theater, in the short them the only thing to be had is consumer disgust. In the mean time Dolan watching continues to be one of the industry’s favorite spectator sports.
It’s a week after local Fox stations going dark on Cablevision systems and the rhetoric is getting even hotter. Politicians ranging from NJ Governor Chris Christie and MA Senator John Kerry have weighed in. Meanwhile, Cablevision subscribers have been without the post season play of their beloved New York Yankees and may soon miss out on the World Series. I don’t think this is what Washington had in mind when the retrans rules were written. They expected reasonable people to come to a business agreement. Instead, what they are seeing are media moguls tussling over money while the consumer is held hostage.
Now the latest developments have both sides crying foul and hitting the press with both guns blazing; Cablevision accusing Fox of not negotiating in good faith by making “take it or leave it” offers and Fox accusing Cablevision of asking for preferential treatment (don’t get me started on MFNs) and manipulating the whole process to bring about a political resolution and a change in the law. Cablevision is making hay of Fox’s refusal to submit to binding arbitration. There was even a point where Cablevision subscribers were denied access to Fox programming on the internet. Now Fox is threatening to sue Cablevision, asserting that the MSOs phone reps are telling subscribers they can get their favorite Fox programming by accessing pirate websites. While there may be a grain of truth to each of the accusations, the amplification of the distortions makes each side’s argument look like signs at a Tea Party rally. There seems to be no end to the lengths that both parties will go to make their respective points. Jimmy Dolan even suggested a meeting be held with himself, FOX CEO Chase Carey and the FCC to hammer out a deal.
So there you have it. Another carriage dispute made very public as the cable and broadcast industry both air some very dirty laundry. Who’s right? Who’s wrong? How long will it go on? Who knows? Programming deals are never easy, and retrans deals are probably the toughest of all. While there may be something for the cable guys to gain by making the process political theater, in the short them the only thing to be had is consumer disgust. In the mean time Dolan watching continues to be one of the industry’s favorite spectator sports.
Friday, September 24, 2010
Programmers Seek Increases, Higher Cable Rates to Follow
An adage in investigative journalism was made popular during the heyday of the Watergate investigation; “Follow the Money”. Nowadays it seems you can follow the money spent for your cable or satellite service right back to the big media companies. Bob Iger at Disney is pointing to ABC Network taking a higher share of its broadcast affiliates retransmission consent fees, while Chase Carey over at Fox is telling his investors that National Geographic Channel and FX network should be receiving higher license fees from cable operators. Meanwhile, independent programmers like Hallmark Channel are seeing themselves dropped from line-up as providers like AT&T seek ways to reduce programming costs.
Guess what going to happen to your cable bill as ABC, FOX and others continue to demand increases in their license fees? That’s right; those increases are going to be passed directly on to the consumer. Anyone who thinks different or is of the belief that cable operators should absorb the increases should refer back to their Business 101 textbook. After all, Comcast, Time Warner Cable and all the rest have investors to answer to as well. With programming costs being one of the biggest line-items that cable operators have to deal with, what else would you expect?
Meanwhile cable operators seem to be whistling past the graveyard while they are losing subscribers and insisting that cord-cutting has nothing to do with it. All the while they are rolling out their own “TV Everywhere” services, providing a collection of video to their customers in a “walled garden” fashion.
Where does that leave the multichannel industry? Is cable dying a slow death, choking on ever increasing fees and programmer demands to carry a plethora of new channels that seem to come about with every contract renewal while customers are warming to the idea of program-by-program a la carte on line? Recent reports suggest that the industry is at the precipice of a long, slow decline. This isn’t the first time that the cable industry has seemingly stood at the edge of the abyss. No doubt the cable industry will find a way to survive this too.
Guess what going to happen to your cable bill as ABC, FOX and others continue to demand increases in their license fees? That’s right; those increases are going to be passed directly on to the consumer. Anyone who thinks different or is of the belief that cable operators should absorb the increases should refer back to their Business 101 textbook. After all, Comcast, Time Warner Cable and all the rest have investors to answer to as well. With programming costs being one of the biggest line-items that cable operators have to deal with, what else would you expect?
Meanwhile cable operators seem to be whistling past the graveyard while they are losing subscribers and insisting that cord-cutting has nothing to do with it. All the while they are rolling out their own “TV Everywhere” services, providing a collection of video to their customers in a “walled garden” fashion.
Where does that leave the multichannel industry? Is cable dying a slow death, choking on ever increasing fees and programmer demands to carry a plethora of new channels that seem to come about with every contract renewal while customers are warming to the idea of program-by-program a la carte on line? Recent reports suggest that the industry is at the precipice of a long, slow decline. This isn’t the first time that the cable industry has seemingly stood at the edge of the abyss. No doubt the cable industry will find a way to survive this too.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Is Ivi DOA?
So there is another start-up with a great idea. It goes like this, “Let’s be disruptive and pull TV signals off-air, stream them on the internet and charge a fee to subscribers to watch them.” Seattle based Ivi thinks they have a solid business case and an iron-clad legal argument that permits them to do this. However, broadcasters and other content owners think differently and have quickly slapped them with Cease and Desist letters.
Here’s the crux of the matter, Ivi argues that proposed payment to the Copyright Royalty Tribunal (CRT) obviate the need to pay stations directly or to even have an agreement in place with the broadcasters. However, it seems that Ivi’s logic is a bit clouded. They are leaning on payment to the CRT arguing that they are operating just as any other cable operator, but are ignoring retransmission consent saying that they are not a cable operator. Seemingly, Ivi wants it both ways.
For a start-up with less than $1 million in financing, it looks like Ivi will be spending all of their seed money on lawyers. They’ve already countersued the broadcasters and rights holders that have taken action against them; asking the local district court in Seattle to issue a declaratory ruling in their favor.
It seems to me that if you could lean on payments to the CRT to avoid negotiating retransmission consent, the cable guys would have done so long ago and live internet streaming of broadcast TV would be the norm. Along with the rest of the industry, I’ll be keeping an eye on this. For now it seems that the cards are stacked against Ivi.
Here’s the crux of the matter, Ivi argues that proposed payment to the Copyright Royalty Tribunal (CRT) obviate the need to pay stations directly or to even have an agreement in place with the broadcasters. However, it seems that Ivi’s logic is a bit clouded. They are leaning on payment to the CRT arguing that they are operating just as any other cable operator, but are ignoring retransmission consent saying that they are not a cable operator. Seemingly, Ivi wants it both ways.
For a start-up with less than $1 million in financing, it looks like Ivi will be spending all of their seed money on lawyers. They’ve already countersued the broadcasters and rights holders that have taken action against them; asking the local district court in Seattle to issue a declaratory ruling in their favor.
It seems to me that if you could lean on payments to the CRT to avoid negotiating retransmission consent, the cable guys would have done so long ago and live internet streaming of broadcast TV would be the norm. Along with the rest of the industry, I’ll be keeping an eye on this. For now it seems that the cards are stacked against Ivi.
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
CableLabs 3D Specs Paves One More Lane on the Road to Mass Adoption
Multichannel video providers have been dabbling in 3D programming for the past few months in order to prove the technology, test the waters with their consumers and enhance the perception that they are keeping up with new technologies. All of the 3D programming aired to date has been event driven content. With the adoption of 3D specs, CableLabs has taken the first step in paving the way for mass adoption of 3DTV.
In a way, as with HDTV 3D is a “chicken and egg” proposition. Is it that readily available 3D content will drive purchases of sets, or will content providers wait until there is a “critical mass” of 3D sets in homes before making the content available? ESPN and Discovery (who were both early movers in the HD) have already made their bets. As with any new technology, multiple specs lead to consumer confusion, which results in the delaying of a purchasing decision. Now that CableLabs has written 3DTV specs, it seems that there is one more lane of certainty on the road to mass adoption of 3DTV.
As is always the case on cable systems, it comes down to bandwidth. Fortunately, the move to all digital, switched digital, and ultimately IPTV systems will alleviate bandwidth problems for cable operators. The other pieces that still need to be understood are consumer appetite and elasticity of demand, programmer willingness to create content, the carriage/distribution deal and how operators will charge to recover the costs of 3DTV programming. Hey, we’re just getting started, folks!
In a way, as with HDTV 3D is a “chicken and egg” proposition. Is it that readily available 3D content will drive purchases of sets, or will content providers wait until there is a “critical mass” of 3D sets in homes before making the content available? ESPN and Discovery (who were both early movers in the HD) have already made their bets. As with any new technology, multiple specs lead to consumer confusion, which results in the delaying of a purchasing decision. Now that CableLabs has written 3DTV specs, it seems that there is one more lane of certainty on the road to mass adoption of 3DTV.
As is always the case on cable systems, it comes down to bandwidth. Fortunately, the move to all digital, switched digital, and ultimately IPTV systems will alleviate bandwidth problems for cable operators. The other pieces that still need to be understood are consumer appetite and elasticity of demand, programmer willingness to create content, the carriage/distribution deal and how operators will charge to recover the costs of 3DTV programming. Hey, we’re just getting started, folks!
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Comcast - CBS Deal Completed Above the Fray
The announcement is out that Comcast and CBS have entered into a 10 year distribution deal that covers retransmission consent of CBS O&O stations as well as carriage of Showtime, Smithsonian Channel and the CBS College Sports Network and On Demand and online rights for certain CBS owned programming. This deal is notable for several reasons
First off is the term of the deal. Rather than keep the term to 3 years in order to mirror the usual retransmission consent election cycle, the deal has a 10 year term which is rather long by industry standards. As noted by CBS CEO Les Moonves, “There is a lot of flexibility built in”. I certainly hope so given the speed at which things change in the industry.
Secondly, the agreement encompasses more than just retransmission consent. Comcast was smart to tackle all of the networks at once. Strategically, it allowed them the ability to do some good old fashioned “horse trading”. As any negotiator and chess player knows, the more pieces you have to move around on the board, the better deal you are able to craft. There is no word whether CBS College Sports will be moved from the poorly penetrated Comcast sports tier to a more penetrated “digital basic” or “expanded basic”. Of course, it doesn’t hurt that Comcast is the largest player in the game either.
Lastly, the agreement was hammered out behind closed doors. Unlike recent negotiations between other cable operators and broadcasters, there were no public theatrics or threats of pulling the stations off the cable systems. Not that I expect this to change the very public way in which Time Warner Cable and The Walt Dinsey Co. are engaging over ESPN and ABC. To be sure, Comcast has traditionally handled their negotiations without high public drama. Even more so lately as the last thing that Comcast needs is a high profile struggle with a broadcaster at the same time that their deal to acquire GE’s NBC-Universal is under review. Perhaps CBS knew that and played it to their advantage.
As if to underline the nature of Comcast’s negotiation style, there was little chest thumping by CBS. While neither party disclosed the financial terms of the deal, there was no grand statement by CBS that the deal is proof that the "marketplace works". That pronouncement will be left to the NAB. However Moonves did say that Comcast negotiated in good faith and “kept their word” – just what Comcast needs the regulators to hear.
First off is the term of the deal. Rather than keep the term to 3 years in order to mirror the usual retransmission consent election cycle, the deal has a 10 year term which is rather long by industry standards. As noted by CBS CEO Les Moonves, “There is a lot of flexibility built in”. I certainly hope so given the speed at which things change in the industry.
Secondly, the agreement encompasses more than just retransmission consent. Comcast was smart to tackle all of the networks at once. Strategically, it allowed them the ability to do some good old fashioned “horse trading”. As any negotiator and chess player knows, the more pieces you have to move around on the board, the better deal you are able to craft. There is no word whether CBS College Sports will be moved from the poorly penetrated Comcast sports tier to a more penetrated “digital basic” or “expanded basic”. Of course, it doesn’t hurt that Comcast is the largest player in the game either.
Lastly, the agreement was hammered out behind closed doors. Unlike recent negotiations between other cable operators and broadcasters, there were no public theatrics or threats of pulling the stations off the cable systems. Not that I expect this to change the very public way in which Time Warner Cable and The Walt Dinsey Co. are engaging over ESPN and ABC. To be sure, Comcast has traditionally handled their negotiations without high public drama. Even more so lately as the last thing that Comcast needs is a high profile struggle with a broadcaster at the same time that their deal to acquire GE’s NBC-Universal is under review. Perhaps CBS knew that and played it to their advantage.
As if to underline the nature of Comcast’s negotiation style, there was little chest thumping by CBS. While neither party disclosed the financial terms of the deal, there was no grand statement by CBS that the deal is proof that the "marketplace works". That pronouncement will be left to the NAB. However Moonves did say that Comcast negotiated in good faith and “kept their word” – just what Comcast needs the regulators to hear.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
STARZ Original Programming: Billion Dollar Baby
Reports are that STARZ CEO Chris Albrecht has been tasked with raising $1 Billion of off balance sheet financing for original programming. This is yet another confirmation that original programming will continue to be the tentpole of the premium service business.
In 1975, when HBO launched as the first national premium service, the idea of showing Hollywood titles on a round robin basis made sense. TV viewers had little alternatives other than local broadcast stations and a handful of nascent cable nets. Early VCRs were just starting to come on the market. Fast forward to today and between online viewing, retail and rental; not to mention cable VOD, the consumer has a variety of methods to receive Hollywood titles.
So it is no surprise that premium services continue to stress the importance of original programming, whether it is True Blood on HBO, Dexter and Nurse Jackie on Showtime or the slate of programming that STARZ is looking to produce with the new financing. A large part of the reason STARZ brought Albrecht on broad is as a result of his experience with original programming while he was at HBO.
This latest foray by STARZ is a natural and necessary step in their evolution. Although they have aired some original programming along the way, it was never to the same extent as HBO and Showtime. This is a great opportunity for STARZ to really shine.
In 1975, when HBO launched as the first national premium service, the idea of showing Hollywood titles on a round robin basis made sense. TV viewers had little alternatives other than local broadcast stations and a handful of nascent cable nets. Early VCRs were just starting to come on the market. Fast forward to today and between online viewing, retail and rental; not to mention cable VOD, the consumer has a variety of methods to receive Hollywood titles.
So it is no surprise that premium services continue to stress the importance of original programming, whether it is True Blood on HBO, Dexter and Nurse Jackie on Showtime or the slate of programming that STARZ is looking to produce with the new financing. A large part of the reason STARZ brought Albrecht on broad is as a result of his experience with original programming while he was at HBO.
This latest foray by STARZ is a natural and necessary step in their evolution. Although they have aired some original programming along the way, it was never to the same extent as HBO and Showtime. This is a great opportunity for STARZ to really shine.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Retrans Rhetoric Heating Up
This week sees the formation of the American Television Alliance (ATA), a consortium of multichannel providers with a goal of raising awareness and ultimately changing policy on retransmission consent. Among the “strange bedfellows” in the ATA are Time Warner Cable, Direct TV, Cablevision and AT&T – companies that often compete against each other for multichannel subscribers, and in the case of Cablevision and AT&T, fight over access to and pricing of programming (but that’s for another day). A large part of the argument made by the ATA is that retransmission consent is essentially a consumer issue since any payment made by cable operators to broadcasters are ultimately passed on to the subscriber.
Predictably, the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) scoffed at the ATA’s consumer rights stance, with an NAB spokesman berating it “as credible as BP executives joining Greenpeace”.
The rhetoric on both sides of the issue is just about as predictable as Keith Olbermann and Glenn Beck discussing the economy. Both sides passionately make valid points filtered through their own lenses. There is no doubt that the broadcast business model is changing and that cable operators have long benefitted from the carriage of local broadcast signals. However, cable operators are increasingly coming under pressure to keep rate increases in check and have even renewed an industry conversation on smaller and cheaper programming packages. All of this comes at a time when viewer options are expanding and much of the broadcast programming is finding its way to the web for free (Hulu’s premium aspirations notwithstanding). However, for the broadcasters to paint the formation of the ATA as an effort to do little more than protect the bottom line of the operators is a bit disingenuous given the boasting that NAB member companies have been doing on their quarterly calls about how much retrans dollars are contributing to their profits.
At the end of the day, retransmission consent is a consumer issue. It is one more cost that cable operators need to either absorb or pass along. Very often, these kinds of disputes turn into high profile corporate pissing contests, where the consumer is the one who ultimately gets soaked.
But really, is it wise for either side to be airing their grievances in public? Do viewers really need or want to peek into the “sausage factory”? I don’t think so. At the end of the day, viewers are not interested in the disagreements of corporate behemoths. Don’t ask them to take sides or get involved in the details or you may find they have little appetite for supporting either company in an argument over money. They just want to turn on their TV to get relevant entertainment and information without having to pay a whole lot of money to be advertised to in the process. But on the other hand, they do have a right to know why they might be losing access to their local news broadcast.
There is no doubt that both sides are preparing the battlefield and oiling the guns for upcoming renewals. The heightened rhetoric by both sides will certainly draw increased scrutiny from Washington should any of the negotiations get close to failing or actually fall apart and result in TV stations going dark on cable systems.
As with anything involving legislation, this is very much a matter of being careful what you wish for. The issues of Retransmission Consent and a la carte programming have been raised by legislators and interest groups in the course of the Comcast-NBCU merger hearings. Granted, what Retransmission Consent has turned into may indeed have been an unintended consequence of the 1992 Cable Act (which, by the way, was the result of Congress overriding a presidential veto), but can you really expect that the people who gave you the problem have any idea of how to fix it?
Predictably, the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) scoffed at the ATA’s consumer rights stance, with an NAB spokesman berating it “as credible as BP executives joining Greenpeace”.
The rhetoric on both sides of the issue is just about as predictable as Keith Olbermann and Glenn Beck discussing the economy. Both sides passionately make valid points filtered through their own lenses. There is no doubt that the broadcast business model is changing and that cable operators have long benefitted from the carriage of local broadcast signals. However, cable operators are increasingly coming under pressure to keep rate increases in check and have even renewed an industry conversation on smaller and cheaper programming packages. All of this comes at a time when viewer options are expanding and much of the broadcast programming is finding its way to the web for free (Hulu’s premium aspirations notwithstanding). However, for the broadcasters to paint the formation of the ATA as an effort to do little more than protect the bottom line of the operators is a bit disingenuous given the boasting that NAB member companies have been doing on their quarterly calls about how much retrans dollars are contributing to their profits.
At the end of the day, retransmission consent is a consumer issue. It is one more cost that cable operators need to either absorb or pass along. Very often, these kinds of disputes turn into high profile corporate pissing contests, where the consumer is the one who ultimately gets soaked.
But really, is it wise for either side to be airing their grievances in public? Do viewers really need or want to peek into the “sausage factory”? I don’t think so. At the end of the day, viewers are not interested in the disagreements of corporate behemoths. Don’t ask them to take sides or get involved in the details or you may find they have little appetite for supporting either company in an argument over money. They just want to turn on their TV to get relevant entertainment and information without having to pay a whole lot of money to be advertised to in the process. But on the other hand, they do have a right to know why they might be losing access to their local news broadcast.
There is no doubt that both sides are preparing the battlefield and oiling the guns for upcoming renewals. The heightened rhetoric by both sides will certainly draw increased scrutiny from Washington should any of the negotiations get close to failing or actually fall apart and result in TV stations going dark on cable systems.
As with anything involving legislation, this is very much a matter of being careful what you wish for. The issues of Retransmission Consent and a la carte programming have been raised by legislators and interest groups in the course of the Comcast-NBCU merger hearings. Granted, what Retransmission Consent has turned into may indeed have been an unintended consequence of the 1992 Cable Act (which, by the way, was the result of Congress overriding a presidential veto), but can you really expect that the people who gave you the problem have any idea of how to fix it?
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Is it Time for Cable MSOs to Think Small?
The coverage continues to fly about Time Warner Cable CEO Glenn Britt’s comments about the possibility of smaller packages of cable programming at a lower price. While not going so far as to endorse a la carte carriage of cable services, Britt’s comments does point towards a package of programming made up of 40 or 50 channels. The tricky part will be what gets put in the package and what gets left out.
Industry research shows that the average cable viewer watches only between 10 and 17 networks on their service on a regular basis. However, each individual cable subscriber has a different list of favorite channels. The issue is compounded even more in households where mom, dad and each of the kids all have a different list.
While Glenn Britt should be applauded for moving the conversation forward, we have yet to hear from the content providers (one wonders if Mr. Britt would have made these types of comments before Time Warner Cable was spun off by its parent company). In the final analysis, the cable operators can only do what the programmers will allow. There is an expectation that smaller operators with no programming interests would love to get in on this plan. The stumbling block in the plan is that most of the programmers currently in the large “expanded basic” package likely require broad penetration as a condition of carriage. Even networks with limited appeal like Food Network and Versus could have these kinds of packaging requirements. I ask you, what network owned by a major media company will be the first to step up and permit a cable operator to reduce their distribution by putting them on a lower penetrated tier?
If it is truly a matter of controlling costs, then logic would dictate that the networks with the highest license fees would be the first to go. While some subscribers may be indifferent to the loss of highly priced sports services like ESPN and the local regional sports networks (which are typically owned by cable operators like Comcast and Cox) in return for a reduction of their cable bill, other subscribers will certainly not be happy. Of course, all it would take to derail the plan by Time Warner would be a competitor like Verizon, AT&T, DISH or DirecTV committing to keeping these services on their expanded basic service.
An alternate strategy of placing a bunch of inexpensive and relatively low viewed services like home shopping and religious networks services on a low cost introductory tier and bundling the popular services like Discovery, Disney Channel, Nickelodeon and TNT on a more expensive tier will do nothing to truly address the issue and will further damage the low reputation that cable providers tend to have among the public.
While many cable subscribers intuitively like the idea of a la carte, the average consumer’s concept of how it would likely operate is ill informed at best. Subscribers currently now getting 100 channels for $50, will not be able to simply choose any twenty channels and only pay $10. It’s not going to work that way, as cable networks will need to increase their per subscriber rate as they lose subscribers in order to be kept whole, especially taking into account the resulting loss of advertising dollars.
At the end of the day it’s all about total revenues for the programmers with the operators increasingly feeling like collection agencies for the networks. Something tells me that we haven’t seen the last of this kind of talk. If anything, the operator/programmer relationships will continue to be thorny. Networks continue to insist on wider distribution for their new and emerging services and operators of all sizes continue to find their margins squeezed by an increasingly frugal subscriber base that is beginning to look at other options for video.
Industry research shows that the average cable viewer watches only between 10 and 17 networks on their service on a regular basis. However, each individual cable subscriber has a different list of favorite channels. The issue is compounded even more in households where mom, dad and each of the kids all have a different list.
While Glenn Britt should be applauded for moving the conversation forward, we have yet to hear from the content providers (one wonders if Mr. Britt would have made these types of comments before Time Warner Cable was spun off by its parent company). In the final analysis, the cable operators can only do what the programmers will allow. There is an expectation that smaller operators with no programming interests would love to get in on this plan. The stumbling block in the plan is that most of the programmers currently in the large “expanded basic” package likely require broad penetration as a condition of carriage. Even networks with limited appeal like Food Network and Versus could have these kinds of packaging requirements. I ask you, what network owned by a major media company will be the first to step up and permit a cable operator to reduce their distribution by putting them on a lower penetrated tier?
If it is truly a matter of controlling costs, then logic would dictate that the networks with the highest license fees would be the first to go. While some subscribers may be indifferent to the loss of highly priced sports services like ESPN and the local regional sports networks (which are typically owned by cable operators like Comcast and Cox) in return for a reduction of their cable bill, other subscribers will certainly not be happy. Of course, all it would take to derail the plan by Time Warner would be a competitor like Verizon, AT&T, DISH or DirecTV committing to keeping these services on their expanded basic service.
An alternate strategy of placing a bunch of inexpensive and relatively low viewed services like home shopping and religious networks services on a low cost introductory tier and bundling the popular services like Discovery, Disney Channel, Nickelodeon and TNT on a more expensive tier will do nothing to truly address the issue and will further damage the low reputation that cable providers tend to have among the public.
While many cable subscribers intuitively like the idea of a la carte, the average consumer’s concept of how it would likely operate is ill informed at best. Subscribers currently now getting 100 channels for $50, will not be able to simply choose any twenty channels and only pay $10. It’s not going to work that way, as cable networks will need to increase their per subscriber rate as they lose subscribers in order to be kept whole, especially taking into account the resulting loss of advertising dollars.
At the end of the day it’s all about total revenues for the programmers with the operators increasingly feeling like collection agencies for the networks. Something tells me that we haven’t seen the last of this kind of talk. If anything, the operator/programmer relationships will continue to be thorny. Networks continue to insist on wider distribution for their new and emerging services and operators of all sizes continue to find their margins squeezed by an increasingly frugal subscriber base that is beginning to look at other options for video.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
3D Spaghetti
A recent interview of ESPN’s tech guru Chuck Pagano by TV Technology Editor-in-Chief Tom Butts had me thinking again about 3DTV. For now, ESPN is the only programmer actively involved in 3D on a regular basis. Although Discovery Communications made an announcement earlier this year, their 3D channel is not slated to launch until early 2011.
Pagano likens current efforts to “throwing 3D spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks” admitting that it is largely an experimental endeavor. With 85 events scheduled for 3D in the first 12 months of the grand experiment, it seems that 3D is mirroring the early days of HDTV – limited content designed to test the waters, make sure the technology is stable, and assess consumer interest. In part, the limited schedule also harkens back to the early days of HD when there were just not enough production trucks. The same may be said for other 3D events such as The Masters and TNT’s plans to broadcast the July 4th weekend NASCAR event in 3D. There is also an element of operating less on a strict 3D business plan than putting forth a PR and branding message that the company is keeping on top of new technologies.
At this point, the limited deployment of 3D sets in the market makes for an environment where it is far too early to project whether this iteration of 3DTV will be a winner or not. But one thing is for sure, 3DTV has had more traction than ever before. Producers, distributors, and consumer electronics manufacturers all seem to be puling together this time. Still, it will be a matter of distributors being able to commit enough bandwidth should mass adoption of 3DTV come to pass. For all the commitment being shown by the likes of DirecTV, Comcast, ESPN, SONY, Discovery and IMAX, in the end there is a great deal of hoping that the consumer isn’t on a low carb diet when the 3D Spaghetti comes to the table.
Pagano likens current efforts to “throwing 3D spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks” admitting that it is largely an experimental endeavor. With 85 events scheduled for 3D in the first 12 months of the grand experiment, it seems that 3D is mirroring the early days of HDTV – limited content designed to test the waters, make sure the technology is stable, and assess consumer interest. In part, the limited schedule also harkens back to the early days of HD when there were just not enough production trucks. The same may be said for other 3D events such as The Masters and TNT’s plans to broadcast the July 4th weekend NASCAR event in 3D. There is also an element of operating less on a strict 3D business plan than putting forth a PR and branding message that the company is keeping on top of new technologies.
At this point, the limited deployment of 3D sets in the market makes for an environment where it is far too early to project whether this iteration of 3DTV will be a winner or not. But one thing is for sure, 3DTV has had more traction than ever before. Producers, distributors, and consumer electronics manufacturers all seem to be puling together this time. Still, it will be a matter of distributors being able to commit enough bandwidth should mass adoption of 3DTV come to pass. For all the commitment being shown by the likes of DirecTV, Comcast, ESPN, SONY, Discovery and IMAX, in the end there is a great deal of hoping that the consumer isn’t on a low carb diet when the 3D Spaghetti comes to the table.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
