The challenges of content exploitation in the streaming age
Go to market strategy just got more complicated
Last week marked the 60th anniversary of Europe’s TV programme licensing market in Cannes – MIPTV. Many predicted the content hoarding strategies of SVODs would kill off such events – but matters have turned out rather differently as grand long-term strategies came up against medium term commercial realities.
As the market continues to evolve, with reaggregation and the arrival of FAST channels, content rights owners are facing new strategic headaches around their routes to market. At O&O we help leading content owning companies navigate this complexity; determine their preferred position along the value chain, trade off different routes to market, hedge their position against future market developments, and ultimately develop the optimal content exploitation strategy.
SVOD’s disruption to rights licensing was just the start
Ever since the global dawn of satellite and cable TV in the 1980s, major content owners have been faced with the basic question: should I licence to third parties or set up my own TV channel – most chose to do both.
The early leaders of global SVOD – Netflix and Amazon – looked like they were going to gradually take that choice away from content owners, by increasingly requiring all rights exclusively, while also becoming content owners themselves. This would leave the major traditional content owners no choice but to develop their own global services, powered by their own exclusive content, if they were to avoid disintermediation.
But now, in the fourth round of the fight for the global SVOD market (see our previous article here), the major studios are rethinking this expensive growth-over-profits exclusivity strategy. And with the growth of FAST channels and AVOD outlets globally, the choices are now a whole lot more complex again.
Content owners are facing more strategic questions than ever before
We help content owners of all sizes with their broad strategic thinking as well as these content licensing choices between owned and third-party outlets, and how to window between them.
There is no ‘one size fits all’ approach, and that is before laying on the complexity of the differing competitive dynamics in different territories. It is a complex issue today; even more so when you want to future proof your business. So before developing a content strategy, content owners need to fully understand the markets they operate in, how they are likely to develop, what is driving change, and how competitors and partners might respond.
Many factors are changing the sector, from the emerging ceiling for SVOD stacking and demand for local content, to the end game for FAST channels, or addressable advertising. We consider how the drivers of change will interact, and what potential ‘tipping points’ exist, and provide evidence to support strategic and commercial thinking.
Well thought out suitably nuanced windowing and rights strategies are needed
Even with a well-informed view of this uncertain landscape, there’s a lot to think about when developing a content exploitation strategy involving multiple routes to market. First and foremost, there is a calculation, to establish the ROI of using your content yourself versus licencing to third parties, taking into account your current routes to market, which might include: thematic pay TV channels, SVOD, FAST channels etc.
This sounds straightforward but can be extremely complicated where different routes to market exist in different territories, each facing different competitive dynamics. The potential, or not, for multi-territory licensing deals for some or all content also means that the ROI calculation for different territories is not independent. Then there are two follow up questions:
Could a hybrid approach produce the best ROI, and if so what is the optimal mix of exploitation windows?
Is there a case to maximise the ROI by setting up new routes to market – whether as stand alone, or as part of a mixed strategy (e.g. an SVOD service, or FAST channels)?
Answering these questions is again complicated by territorial differences, varying content appeal, and differences in the existing routes to market.
When we look at short to medium term ROI, we focus on two areas
Our approach draws on our experience of from across our four complementary practice areas – strategy, commercial, investment, and policy. We use market data, proprietary datasets, and bespoke consumer research to inform our modelling, strategic thinking, and game theory. We offer an evidence-based view of how best to monetise content. Crucially, this includes an assessment of:
The appeal of owned and operated services: the strength of the content in question and its ability to support the desired positioning and value adding power – through extra subs, reduced churn, or premium ads – of any current or future owned and operated services (e.g. B2B or D2C)
The appeal of licensing content to third parties: the current and expected future terms for content licensing on different outlets, again reflecting its potential role in adding value to partner services. This can, in turn, be influenced by rivals’ decisions to licence content or develop their own outlets.
Even once the route to market strategy is established, content owners need a much more detailed understanding of how to optimise their offer and the specific value of their content to different buyers. These commercial issues include devising the specific content offer for each route to market, understanding the cost, the carriage terms, and the optimal price for any D2C services. In doing so, they need to consider the potential role of third-party content, including sports rights – as Amazon has found, sports rights in particular might change the game.
Longer term factors may conflict with immediate commercial incentives
Over and above these questions, there is the long-term strategic issue: no matter what the short to medium term ROI, is it better to be bigger in channels and D2C at one end of the value chain, or better to be mostly about content creation and licensing at the other end? Or do you need a balance between the two?
This short and long-term thinking often happens in isolation, but our work can help to bring it together – an external perspective of how the two align can be invaluable.
When supporting clients in developing their strategic direction, we consider factors such as the overall strength of their brand with consumers and advertisers, the quality of their content and the associated likelihood it might win the battle for consumers, and the cost of doing so versus the rewards. We might also look at the client’s own track record in producing valuable content, that platforms and channels want to buy.
O&O can help with both short- and long-term strategy and commercialisation
With all this complexity, it’s worth betting on MIPTV (and MIPCOM) being around for some time to come. Whether you are there or not, O&O can help you develop your content strategy, with clear objectives, an understanding of your optimal routes to market (and variations by territory), and a well-designed and optimally priced service.
We have recently helped major content providers rationalise their channel portfolio, decide to launch FAST channels, launch and shut SVOD and AVOD services in different markets, and grow or shrink their third-party licensing activities – all through a thorough assessment of the questions above. If these challenges sound familiar, we would love to be involved in helping you find a solution.