Lazard Capital Markets’ Barton Crockett seems to think so in a thought experiment this morning. Asked to envision a change that could reshape the long-term prospects for media — part of Lazard’s Imagine That collection of analyst essays — he says that it “could be good for content-owning conglomerates” if consumers began to use the Internet to just subscribe to the channels that they want. To be sure, the analyst doesn’t see things changing soon; he says that the current system of pay TV bundling is “resilient, and not crumbling.” Still, he challenges the conventional wisdom that media giants would find themselves on a toboggan ride to financial ruin if consumers escaped from a system that requires them to pay for channels that they don’t want. Crockett bases his conclusion on two assumptions: Consumers would continue to spend $78B a year on pay TV. And, in a post-bundle world, content creators could collect all of that instead of settling for the $32B in program fees that they currently receive from distributors. Actors or producers wouldn’t try to appeal directly to consumers, cutting out Big Media companies, because they need someone who will “write big checks, and take care of the administrative hassles of marketing and distribution,” he says. “Anyone can make a singing competition, but networks like Fox and NBC can make them popular by touting them to large audiences, and investing large sums for the highest profile judges and best production values.”
Crockett taps his effort from this summer to estimate who’d gain and lose the most cash flow if networks had to fend for themselves in the market. Whipping together financial data with a survey of consumer loyalty to different channels, he says the biggest winners would include A&E (+$3.0B), Viacom (+$2.4B), Scripps Networks (+1.9B), and CBS (+$1.9B, not including Showtime). He sees one big loser: Disney (-$3.4B). Mind you, that’s just a calculation for the program fees. But the analyst says that ad sales likely would be unchanged. Even though each channel would reach fewer households, “the remaining viewers would likely be more loyal, so engagement could be increased.”


All of these analyses from “finance experts” and “media experts” about cord-cutting almost always neglect the real underlying issue: Advertising.
Part of the motivation for the “a la cart” plan versus the “hard wired” plan is that audiences — otherwise known as consumers — are eager to watch what they want WITHOUT the burden of 20 minutes of commercials shoved at them. Whether by dvr shifting or vod streaming with minimal commercials it’s all leading to the same place. The billions that advertisers have been paying for decades to capture their consumers via tv advertising are largely wasted in this changing climate (CORD OR NO CORD). They know it and the big money is quickly leaking out of the broadcast AND ad supported cable (In terms of advertising, they are the same.) The increasingly depressed ratings of nearly all the ad supported networks, bcast and cable, is hastening this process.
The loss of subscribers is nothing compared to the loss of ad dollars as relates to the health and life of the Television ecosystem. The billions of dollars from advertising is the grease that makes the big media companies work. It’s what pays for everything — all the content development and marketing for sure. But also for the layers upon layers of executives that “manage” content within the big media companies from every angle. Ad dollars pay for writers, directors, actors and all of the thousands of crew required for tv production. Ad dollars pay for the CEO’s salaries and everyone else on the payroll. It pays the real estate taxes on acres of studio real estate, insurance and all operating needs.
Ad dollars is the fat the tv industry has been living off of for generations. As tv advertising is rendered more and more ineffective, the dollars will leave. And take with them the current ecosystem and all of the jobs it created. Something else will replace it, but it won’t be the big fat, indulgent system so many have enjoyed for so long.
This is a great comment and I completely agree. I truly sense that we are in twilight of the current system. The money is still great, but I am holding on to it dearly, because the writing is on the wall. I agree – the ecosystem will be replaced, but it will be a fraction of what it was….
All you need do is look at the recent election, where a campaign based on TV ads lost out to one based on motivating voters by personal contact. That’s the canary in the coal mine – TV ads are pricey and ineffective compared with online advertising and social media (personal contact) marketing.
Companies are shifting their ad dollars to where they will get better return on investment. Online advertising is far more accountable than TV – they don’t click, you don’t pay – so although that form of advertising will also support some content, it will be a trickle of money, not the firehose that the TV biz is used to.
“Actors or producers wouldn’t try to appeal directly to consumers, cutting out Big Media companies, because they need someone who will “write big checks, and take care of the administrative hassles of marketing and distribution,”
I will be proving this statement wrong next year.
Los Angeles will be the proverbial straw that breaks the back and brings with it limited ala carte. The Lakers and Dodgers alone will command around $10 per month per subscriber to pay television providers from 100% of subscribers. The dirty litle secret though is only about 22% of subscribers actually want the product! So around 80% of pay tv subscribers will be paying $120/year for soemthing they have no interest in.
Seems like a recipe for government intervention, along these lines, ala carte choice for channels over say $3 month? In LA, sports only channels will be over $20/month when you include ESPN and The Fox channels, again viewed by only a small minority of total pay tv customers.
Analysts should keep in mind that when you’re talking about technological innovation, you often face the “tipping point” effect, where symptoms are not a smooth, continuous line leading to an effect, but rather are muted and hard to read until the effect occurs, seemingly out of the blue, with no time to react. We all know where media is headed, ao the question is, who will reorganize themselves to survive?
It’s true that creators are inhibited from going directly to consumers by the need to market their wares in an increasingly crowded and noisy environment. Fortunately for them, digital media is also changing marketing techniques so that pricey stuff like TV ads are being replaced by online ads, which have far greater accounability (if they’re ineffective, you don’t pay) and social media marketing (hire some kid out of college at cheap rates).
dig it sffan–
great point that the elections provide very telling anecdotal evidence.
I would argue though that “muted and hard to read” was 10 years ago, but directionally we’re in agreement.
I can’t wait to these pay days shrink…
Discovery Communications Chief Executive David Zaslav $52million
Viacom – Philippe Dauman – $43 million (85 million in 2011)
Time Warner – Jeff Bewkes $25.9 million
Let the dollars go to the televisions shows that work.
Ala Carte all the way. Cut the cord.
Seconded!
I also want the “V-Chip” Law AMENDED so that it INCLUDES COMMERCIALS. That way parents won’t have to cringe in fear every time a show their children watch goes to a commercial break, knowing is someone tries to sneak in a Commercial for an “ED Pill” or a similar “Adult Product”, the offending ad will be blocked.