The surge in sVOD services seems to have reached saturation point, subscriptions are stalling (if not declining), subscriber churn is high and to top it all off the main players are also introducing (limited!) advertising – and who wants to pay to watch adverts?
Broadcasters have been investing heavily in OTT streaming services; securing new content deals, expanding streaming rights, introducing live linear TV streaming, and expanding VOD libraries, all in order to remain relevant to the viewing public. Then there’s the “new” phenomenon that is FAST channels, allowing broadcasters to spin up numerous new genre-focussed channels for easy “lean back” access to all types of content.
So that’s live, on demand, linear and niche content all in one place – sounds good, doesn’t it?
And as these services, often still referred to as BVOD (Broadcaster Video on Demand), generally appear to be gaining traction, it would seem to suggest that reports of the demise of traditional TV have been greatly exaggerated.
In the UK, new streaming service “Freely” developed by the operator behind Freeview and Freesat, is set to launch in 2024. Backed by the BBC, ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5 and UKTV, Freely has pledged to offer viewers the ability to seamlessly browse channels and switch between live and on-demand TV, all with full 7-day guides, pop-up mini guides, related content lists etc.
Could it be that it’s just the way we want to access TV that’s different today, rather than the way we want it served? We want the ability to watch on whatever screen is convenient or to hand, we want to be able to do it wherever we are and we want it to be easy, but we don’t necessarily always know or want to choose precisely what it is we’re going to watch.
So, if broadcasters are providing a solution and viewers are coming back towards free ad supported viewing, what’s the problem?
The problem is the same as it has ever been, the problem is advertising revenue. If a television or video service is free to access, it must have advertising to support it. But in order to effectively sell advertising, there must be effective and reliable audience measurement. Who watched what, when, and who are they.
If media companies can be more precise about who is watching, then advertisers will be more willing to pay higher rates because they will reach more of their most likely customers.
It all sounds obvious, but it’s not quite so easy as it maybe once was. There are now numerous companies attempting to, and claiming to be able to provide consolidated, de-duplicated audience data across all screens: Nielsen, Kantar, iSpot, VideoAmp, Luminate, Comscore the list goes on, even Google are now looking to do their own thing.
But who is best placed to provide this information, how do they get it, how accurate is it, what does it mean and how can it best be used by both advertisers and broadcasters? There’s also the not insignificant matter of how much it will cost?
Add to this the fact that, as they look beyond traditional target demographics and impressions to provide ever more advanced segmentations and outcome-based measurements, each player has a different measurement model providing differing results.
So, what can broadcasters and advertisers do? Measurement is evolving and changing, the advertising opportunities for traditional players appear to be increasing and yet there is still no clear route to follow, or new standard on which to hang their hat.
It would seem that the current battle is not so much for the attention of our eyeballs, but more about how what they’re watching is measured?
