Tag Archives: advertising

3 Reasons Streaming Bundles are the Future — Not a Flawed Throwback to Cable

Media companies face some challenges but bundling is a solution—not a problem.

I thought about this when reading this recent Deadline op-ed which argued that streaming bundles replicate the flaws of cable again.

A cozy family scene in a modern living room, with a family of four (parents and two children) sitting on a comfortable sofa and watching a western mov copy

As streaming bundles proliferate, competition among them will drive innovation and affordability. I think bundles can be outrageously accretive and we’re just at the beginning. Although there are many more, three reasons they are superior come to mind for me: personalization, bundle innovation and advertising realignment.

Personalization increases engagement with smaller libraries

Machine learning and AI enable bundles with smaller libraries to create more engagement. By tailoring recommendations to user preferences, smaller libraries can bubble up the most relevant content from deep in their catalog, ensuring viewers needs are met without as many options under the surface. In the old cable model, we had access to hundreds of channels but only tuned in to a handful and only a fraction of the media cos’ libraries could even air at a time. When streamers begin (actually, truly) relying on personalized homepages and merchandising, they will be able to cater to viewers’ interests with less content. And even start green lighting against those signals. That means I could meet my family’s needs by subbing to a sports, movies and kids bundle with less total content — but as much (or more) viewing hours for me as a consumer. Why would people pay less wallet-share for this?

Innovative bundles cater to consumers (and contribute $$$)

As media companies rushed DTC, they began foregoing other windows to consolidate audience. This is only the beginning of streaming; media cos will inevitably evolve to find windows again. If bundles proliferate, they can begin to cater to different consumer needs, each supporting a new window. Consumer needs can span interest, price point and even cross-industry businesses– hardly any of these are fully explored. Niche bundles are already a thing (Shudder, Crunchyroll, Hallmark) and many more are obvious: kids, sports, news, short form. That’s without any real innovation yet. For instance, a “low-latency live + gambling” bundle could command a window for some sports. What other industries outside of streaming could be integrated into a bundle? Health tech, GenAI, consumer products, gaming… Niche bundles offer a way to monetize underrepresented audience segments while spreading risk across a diverse portfolio of content, ensuring more stable revenue streams for media companies.

Streaming advertising will eventually re-align with viewership

It may take more time, but advertising dollars will come back to TV as the marketplace becomes more efficient. The piece makes an argument that TV was bloated with ads in the late 2010s and Google/Facebook have captured ad demand. Advertising dollars follow viewership, and while viewing habits have shifted, the total audience remains constant — eyeballs don’t disappear, they go somewhere. Indeed, people are watching less linear TV… but that viewing has shifted to streaming TV. Some leisure time has gone toward gaming and social media; but streaming TV + linear TV still commands the majority of entertainment time spent across all age groups. Even though ads are being bought through Goog/FB/Amazon, this doesn’t mean viewership resides on Google search and facebook.com. Amazon is a great example where their ad growth is in Prime Video… which is a bundle that’s ad-supported. These are platforms that ultimately sell (or will sell) those CTV eyeballs. For competition and consumers’-sake, expect them to optimize frequency, encourage dynamic creative and innovate new formats. As market efficiency returns to TV advertising, those dollars will return to media companies.

The Google/Facebook Digital Ad Duopoly by the Numbers – 2017 Advertising Revenue by Company

Digital ad revenue by company 2017People keep saying that Google and Facebook get 90% of digital ad spending… though still a concerning stat, this is somewhat of a distortion. The rumor started with Mary Meeker’s Internet Trends report and has been paraphrased and rounded up. The real stat is that the duopoly gets about 90% of digital spending growth. So, as advertisers and agencies spend more on digital ads, Google and Facebook are gobbling up most of the new money. That doesn’t really make them a monopoly… it just means they’re doing a great job at keeping other companies from growing in a white-hot space.

eMarketer released some reports giving us real insight into their dominance. Turns out, the duopoly has about 63.1% of the spending. Again, this should still be concerning to you if you work in advertising for anyone but Google and Facebook… but it paints a slightly more optimistic picture.

Check out their data below. Since I’m mostly concerned with market share, I’ve compiled that nicely here:

  • Google 42.17% (YouTube 4.67%)
  • Facebook 20.93% (Instagram 3.71%)
  • Microsoft 4.34% (Linkedin 0.98%)
  • Verizon 4.34%
  • Amazon 1.99%
  • Twitter 1.46%
  • Yelp 0.87%
  • Snap 0.77%
  • IAC 0.54%

Here are my observations:

  • Google has twice the market share of Facebook – When we say the word “duopoly” or call out 90% of growth and 60% of market share, we’re missing the fact that Google has more than twice the market share of Facebook. Put another way, Google has more market share than Facebook and all the other significant digital ad companies combined.
  • Instagram vs. YouTube – By the same token, Facebook has one asset that’s whooping Google: Instagram. Without much of a video product, Instagram is still only $800M behind YouTube in terms of net revenue and the eMarketer predictions have Instagram surpassing YouTube next year.
  • Photo finish for 3rd – I’m really interested in who has the best chance of eating away at the duopoly and it’s a photo-finish for third place with Microsoft and Verizon holding 4.34% of the market each. But they might not really be competitors because AOL/Verizon actually reps a lot of Microsoft’s inventory and why wouldn’t they partner to take down the Goliaths? It would be interesting if these two could start to chip away at either.
  • Snapchat is slightly better off than they look – I’m bullish on Snap because I like a good underdog. eMarketer points out that while they only have .08% of the overall digital ad market, they have more than 1% of mobile and a lot more teens than Facebook and Instagram.
  • And Amazon is lurking at 2% and they just started trying.
  • Apple isn’t on this chart.

Development and Advertising Creative via Crowdsourcing and Committee

I’ve searched all the parks in all the cities and found no statues of committees.

– British writer, G.K. Chesterton

Boy this is a GREAT quote cited by copyranter Mark Duffy on Digiday. Duffy is focusing on creative agencies in the post, explaining why a new trend of “crowdsourcing” creative work is a horrible idea.

On the digital entertainment side of media, there are examples of the same trend (that are frequently also labelled as “innovation”). For instance, Amazon, for a long time, has used crowdsourcing to determine which movies and shows it would produce. And that’s a big, obvious example. On less consumer-facing level at digital platforms and in development, I’ve experienced many teams more or less “internally” crowdsourcing their development process by allowing too many people with disparate tastes, areas of expertise and business goals to give creative notes on a project. Inevitably, projects get watered-down, regress toward the mean and join the internet “sameness” crap-trap… And it’ll only get worse as digital content gets more closely controlled by distributors.

Duffy explains some of the cons of this approach in advertising, and internal crowdsourcing is a problem in digital entertainment for the same reasons. But that G.K. Chesterton quote says it all for me.

Here’s the awkward Publicis video explaining their new creative tool: