the point of difference: expert commentary on digital, brand, advertising, communication and marketing from one of the world's leading and oldest blogs. Est.2004 Copyright July 2020 Stephen Byrne
12 January 2009
See this is the future of television2: new broadcast business models need airing.
As television audiences and ultimately revenues from traditional advertising continue to erode, free-to-air (FTA)network broadcasters need to move towards new business models, better embrace brand opportunities and adopt increasingly newer technologies.
While in Australia and throughout the rest of the western world, network television is still widely regarded as the best means to deliver the highest number of eyeballs for an advertiser. Increasingly this view is being challenged. First, by the decline in core audience numbers and secondly, from generational abandonment by would-be viewers who can now source their information and entertainment needs from a variety of media sources that sit outside traditional FTA business models.
While the ownership models of FTAs have changed, revenues have remained high and consistent for the past decade and there continues to be increasing aggregation to more whole-of-media models (where media ownership laws permit), there is little change in the way current revenues are realised.
Globally FTA networks are still stuck in a late 1940s model of advertising and sponsorship (worse still are newspapers whose models are more 18th century) barely moving beyond offering air-time to sell soap powders since the first broadcasts in the 1930s.
In 2007 total Australian FTA advertising revenues rose to $3.7 billion, an increase of only 8% from 2006 (ThinkTV/Free TV Advertising Revenues, 2008). Pay or subscription TV with revenues of $275 million, deriving around 92% of revenue from subscription, appears to have also stalled at 27% penetration in Australia despite advertising growth of around 29%. However, this seems unlikely to rise, even with adoption of personal video recorders (PVRs) such as TiVO or Foxtel's IQ.
Against this total Australian internet advertising revenues increased 34.5% to $1.34 billion. According to AdNews online advertising revenues represented the fastest growing media sector, only surpassed by total print media at $4.7billion and total TV revenues.
While FTA’s obviously enjoy a predominant position in Australian and other global media consumption in 2007, the 8% increase in advertising revenue can mainly be attributed to rate card increases.
And while they have sort to extend their brands and access to online advertising dollars through joint ventures with predominately US owned portals. Jointly, the combined media of Nine MSN, Yahoo7 and News Digital media have a market share less than 15% of the total online advertising market.
It is now generally accepted that audiences for FTA are in decline and this is likely to worsen. Between 2001-5 it was 1.4% annually or 5.6% compounded, leading the charge is the 16-39 demographic, who have declined almost 17% in absolute terms across the same period.
The flight from FTA viewing reflects a broadcasting landscape that has become less about centralised technology and more about access viewers or users have and engagement to content via a variety of platforms and devices.
In March 2008 the Boston Consulting Group warned FTA networks were in danger of losing significant revenue because they were not connecting with viewers but in reality there was no significant change throughout 2008.
So rather than fear the move away from traditional models that have changed little since the birth of television, FTA broadcasters may find embracing the brave new world is not the death knell but an opportunity for new business models and revenue streams through better brand and audience engagement. There are four I believe could work.
1. The Social Network model
This model is around a network portal where a consumer can get their information, social and entertainment needs met in one place. This would allow someone to manage, distribute and mix and match media as it is loaded onto a device of choice and share this directly with communities of interest. In the future, a FTA may look a lot more like a cross between FaceBook, Google and YouTube. The Social Network will also enable advertisers to target individuals directly or as a group and more precisely as they will choose to self identify, often on the basis of receiving free content or because they want to know about an advertiser’s product. This makes them both highly valued and a targeted set of eyeballs for an advertiser and enhances revenue opportunities.
2. The Long Tail
FTA networks have been relatively poor in optimising their return from commissioned and original programming. In a long tail scenario, an FTA could both bundle and sell branded programming of any vintage and in any classification via aggregator stores of their own creation or through established outlets such as iTunes, Amazon and Hulu. All of this could be contained within variant pricing models, dependent on the nature and type of of viewer demand.
3. Contextual programming device neutral
In much the same way YouTube is now streaming to a variety of mobile devices and most recently TiVo, contextual programming model derives its income from a pay per view independent of the device. This will enable the FTA networks to maintain control of content as the content it will continue to be stored by the network or its proxy and stream to the chosen device. Further, viewers may choose to receive advertising in exchange for lower content charges. This is way beyond current deals done on offer for mobile television by mobile phone carriers in Australia with the most recent examples, Vodafone’s newly launched Mobile TV or Telstra's BigPond TV.
4. Increased branded merchandising and branded product placement in original network owned programming
US research company PQ Media estimated that Australian companies spent A$137.8 million placing products and brands in TV programs and films in 2005. Australia is the third-biggest product placement market in the world. Against total revenues, contribution for branded merchandising and products this represents less than 0.4% . In 2007 US product placement grew by an estimated 31% with projected spending of $3.79 billion across film and television. In the branded merchandise area, even the lowly SBS network made $48m in 2007 from business interests, including branded merchandise versus $37m from advertising. There are massive and unrealised potential opportunities for FTAs to exploit this area - both in building their own brands (an area they seem to overlook), in network owned production and through product placement opportunities.
While most FTA networks are unlikely to publicly acknowledge their diminishing returns for their advertisers, they urgently need to look at new business models which better identify what and to whom they are delivering and where they can attact new income streams. Up to now FTA network business seems to have ignored the massive changes which have occurred in the rest of media and other sectors, perhaps because their product has continued to be delivered free into low cost devices. So while FTA network owners and shareholders may see some comfort in rising advertising revenues, what does seems inevitable like an inverse version of Moore’s law, is change and like newspapers, some kind of arresting demise.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Hard to disagree with your views here Stephen. I wonder tho' whether you have thought about digital media in public places as another business model for FTA networks to consider. There is some real estate up for grabs in this area.
Product Placement is interesting, but not for Radio as the Commercial Radio industry has it's hands tied. For example, thanks to the "Cash for comments" scandal, the regulations require that a radio commercial must sound like a commercial "to the average listener." This hinders the free use of product placement such as a breakfast DJ saying to his/her colleague, "Pass the Nescafe will you?" - as it may not sound like a "commercial". A lot of potential revenue not being mined as a result (whereas such rules don't apply to TV here)
@MT. the radio example you cite is about the undisclosed relationship between a broadcaster and a brand. There are plenty of examples of integrated content on radio which don't contravene the 'Cash for Comment' rule.
Stephen, I'm hoping that 2009 will be the year that broadcasters wake up and smell the fear.
Stephen,
Thanks for pointing this out to me.
I like the fact that you are asking the questions of commercial TV that need to be asked. My perspective/ analysis/ respinse to your points would be that:
1. Sounds like Joost which seems to have stalled, I think Joost was a neat idea but is held back by the lack of a simple broadband connection to the majority of domestic TVs that you need for this type of 'social viewing'.
Ideally I think you'd want some sort of 2 way video picture in Picture too. I also think this will take some time to catch on as older viewers (to generalise)do not watch/think this way.
2. Long tail. I very much agree with this one but think you need some form of easy to operate micro payments/ electronic purse to make it easy and cheap to operate.
3. Although I see this as kind of inevitable I also find it sad, the serendipity around broadcasting is one of the joys which I think is lost when markets become over segmented and shared national experiences will be diluted.
4. Placement is an interesting one in UK having just been given the thumbs down by UK Gov't culture secretary - problem is it happens anyway; particularly via US imported shows - what happens in Australia?
Tim
Post a Comment