Is the consumer the broadcaster of tomorrow?

It’s an interesting thought that might force telcos to rethink how networks are built; will the increasingly influential trend of consumer created content demand greater upload speeds?

Download will of course always be more important than upload, we will always consume more content than we create, but with video messaging, social media and remote working becoming increasingly important aspects of our daily lives it is worth asking whether the upload metric, often ignored by the vast majority, will need some love in the future.

At IBC in Amsterdam this year, the opening keynote was made by YouTube. This is hardly unusual, it is one of the architects of the OTT revolution, though the focus on content creators was much more apparent than in previous years. Cécile Frot-Coutaz, the head of YouTube’s EMEA business, claimed the number of YouTube channels which generate more than $100,000 per annum has increased 30% from 2017 to 2018. The creation of content is becoming increasingly fragmented and straying outside the norms.

And this is not only visible on YouTube. Snapchat is a platform which was primarily designed to offer a platform for consumer content creation. In January, Facebook said there are now 500 million daily active users of the Stories feature on Instagram. Even the way we communicate is becoming more visual, with more consumers opting to video chat on the go.

Nexmo claims a 175% increase in regular live video usage in the last three years, with millennials leading the charge. 25% of young people use video chat on a daily basis. These trends will only increase as more banks, retail and healthcare companies offer live video services, and more of our lives revolve around the smartphone.

The video trends which we have discussed to great lengths over the last few years have primarily focused on the consumer downloading content. It is a one-way street of information, though this is not necessarily going to be the same in years to come. The big question is whether telcos are deploying networks which can compensate for the slight twist of strain. It is a nuance, but often the biggest challenges emerge from nuance.

A few weeks ago, the New England Patriots opened their Super Bowl LIII against the Pittsburgh Steelers. Over the course of this game, 11.58 TB of data traversed across the wifi network. The peak spike for the network was during the Super Bowl LIII banner reveal, with 34,982 concurrent users and 23.24 Gbps network utilisation. The breakdown of download and upload has not been revealed, though the team prepared themselves for an increase in sharing.

“The home opener for a Super Bowl champion is special,” said Fred Kirsch, VP of Content for the New England Patriots and Kraft Sports Productions.

“The team unveils its championship banner and every fan in the stadium wants to capture that moment along with all the other festivities leading up to it. We’ve been lucky enough to have done this before and saw huge spikes in social sharing during this game so our IT department, along with Extreme Networks, made sure we were prepared.

“Man, are we glad we did. At more than one terabyte, social sharing volume during the Super Bowl LIII banner unveiling at Gillette Stadium represents the highest data throughput rate of any moment during any sporting event.”

It might be a trend which irritates some technophobes and traditionalists, but social media is a genre for sharing. It started with the written word, users simply penning their thoughts, moved into sharing of existing content, and now it is increasingly becoming defined by the user creating and sharing their own content.

This creates a new dynamic and a new consideration for those who are deploying networks. Experience is often defined by download speed or latency, however there are will be an increasing number of people who will pay attention to the upload speeds moving forward.

Another interesting element for the upload speed metric will be the fast-developing gaming ecosystem. Download speeds are all well and good, but if you are playing a game which requires you to interact with other players online, uploads speeds are just as important. They do not need to be as high as download speeds, but there do need to be continued improvements to ensure connectivity meets the demands of gaming performance.

For example, Xbox currently suggests a consistent 3 Mbps download and 0.5 Mbps upload speeds for minimally acceptable performance. PS4 suggests 3 Mbps download and 1 Mbps upload, as does Nintendo Switch. For PC gaming, download speeds are suggested at 3-6 Mbps, while upload speeds are 0.75–1 Mbps.

These speeds might be achievable in the home, but with the cloud gaming segment growing, these titles can be taken onto multiple screens and onto different networks. Will upload speeds offer a consistent and reliable experience on the mobile networks which are so consistently put under strain.

All of these factors don’t even take into account the increasingly complex or immersive content which will emerge over the next few years. Or the more advanced cameras which smartphone manufacturers are putting on their devices. More tech means more data which needs to be uploaded.

We are all narcissists deep down, craving for attention. Social media is allowing us to do this by sharing video content of our own experiences, and now the networks will have to deliver on the promise.

AT&T reportedly considering TV U-turn

A report is suggesting AT&T is mulling over the prospect of selling its DirecTV assets as pressure mounts on the management team.

With the Elliott Management vultures circling overhead and an investor lawsuit hitting the New York District Court, AT&T is reportedly considering its options. Wall Street Journal sources are suggesting a divestment could be on the cards, a humbling move for AT&T executives who are seeing their diversification strategy crumble before their very eyes.

Although the sale of DirecTV is still a slim possibility, some executives might believe this is the best way in which to save their jobs. To demonstrate the scale of this potential outcome, cast your mind back to May 2018, a critical point during the AT&T defence of its Time Warner acquisition.

While the Department of Justice was looking for means to block the acquisition, for a brief moment, a concession was offered to the team; divest DirecTV assets and we’ll OK the Time Warner deal. This was almost immediately shot down by CEO Randall Stephenson, the purpose of Time Warner was to bolster the DirecTV offering.

This is the conundrum which the executive team is facing. The long-term business plan is sound; a purchase of an excellent content creation business to marry the delivery platform could create a notable share of the entertainment segment. However, the short-term threats might well force the team into a re-think.

Last week, a coalition of investors filed a lawsuit, naming a series of AT&T executives as defendants, accusing the telco of misleading executives over the performance of DirecTV. As the success of the DirecTV acquisition was being used to justify the Time Warner acquisition, the investors seemingly feeling violated, believing the gains were exaggerated or at least the longevity of the gains.

Perhaps more worryingly however was the emergence of Elliott Management. This vulture fund specialises in seeking undervalued businesses and introducing radical changes to increase dividends and share price. More often that not, when Elliott Management gets its claws into a business, executives usually find themselves heading towards the exit and a major restructure of the strategy is put in place.

If the sources are to be believed, this might well be a move towards appeasing the criticism before the HR department starts drafting emails.

What is worth noting, is this might well turn into nothing. Rumours of this magnitude might well be true, but the idea of discussing a divestment and then actioning these ambitions are two very different points of consideration. One question which remains unanswered is who would buy the assets?

AT&T is not going to be selling the business for pennies on the pound, therefore the potential purchaser will have to have a considerable bank account. It is also less clear whether this is a complete divestment or just the satellite assets. If it is just the ‘traditional’ content business, with the streaming side attached, this looks much less attractive to a potential investor.

One option could be a sale to Dish, a rival satellite TV provider. A merger of the two entities has been quashed by competition authorities in the past, though as there is now much larger variety of content options for the consumer it might be a possibility. That said, considering Dish is working through the $5 billion acquisition of the Boost prepaid mobile brand, it might not have the appetite for another large transaction.

Although this is a move which many AT&T executives will struggle to stomach, perhaps survival instincts have kicked-in.

The acquisition of DirecTV and Time Warner was supposed to be a means of diversifying the business, chasing the ever-increasing dollars which are being spent on digital entertainment by consumers and digital advertising by corporates. This was supposed to be a move to future-proof the business and drive growth opportunities.

Without DirecTV, the entertainment unit looks quite hollow. The AT&T business will look much more like a traditional telco, one which is built around the decreasingly profitable and increasingly commoditised business of connectivity. Many companies are looking to leverage their relationship with customers with additional services, and for AT&T, this was supposed to be video.

What is worth noting, is the divestment looks unlikely at the moment. It might happen, but it might well be more sensible for a spin-off and partial divestment. This would recover funds, partially satisfying the vultures at Elliott Management, while also keeping some skin in the game. It would also allow for the appointment of a new management team, perhaps one which is more aligned with content as opposed to the current set-up which is primarily focused on telco.

However, the ability of Elliott Management to cause chaos in a business when it has outlined its intentions should not be underestimated. This is a firm which has a track-record in getting its own way and raising support from other investors. Above all else, the AT&T management team should be very concerned about their future at the telco.

IBC 2019: Interactive takes centre stage as VR shuffles to side lines

Every couple of years there seems to be a massive resurgence for the promise of virtual reality before it is cast to the shadows. This year, interactive content took the limelight from VR.

This is not to say VR and augmented reality wasn’t present at IBC in Amsterdam. Throughout the exhibition halls you could see plenty of headsets and software to build the immersive environment, but on the conference stage it was barely mentioned.

The main stage is the business-end of almost every conference; it a technology or company isn’t a headliner, the ‘also-ran’ category list has gotten a bit longer. This is the conundrum which VR and AR has found itself in; there are some interesting technologies and discussions going on, but the most important people are talking about something else.

AR is progressing very quickly from the pale imitation which captured the imagination through the Pokémon Go app, but the illusive business case continues to frustrate. That said, an important trend which was evident through several sessions was interactive content.

This is an area which looks genuinely exciting. Everything from ‘Bandersnatch’ on Netflix, through to personalisation of sports content (selecting a commentator or parallel content) or Celebrity Big Brother, where users can select the camera they want to view and create their own viewing experience and story to follow. This is the next stage of content, and it is immediately more realistic than some of the blue-sky thinking ideas which are scattered throughout the exhibition halls.

Of course, this should not really be that much of a surprise. The idea of interactive or supplementary content being built into platforms is just one step along from how many younger generations consume content today. It isn’t a single point of consumption, its multiple screens, complimentary experiences and a variety of simultaneous touch-points.

Research from YuMe and Nielsen suggests the trend for adults who use their smartphone or laptop while watching TV content is increasing each year. For 2018, 187.3 million US adults admitted to using multiple screens simultaneously, up 6.4% from the year before. Users want more ways to engage with content and building interactive opportunities into content platforms is certainly one way to apply this trend in the real-world.

IBC 2019: is 4K anything more than hype?

While some people are still unsure whether there is any value in downloading content in HD over SD, the 4K and 8K hype is continuing to build; but is there any point in it?

For the ‘man on the street’, technology often looks like another language. Acronyms are a speciality of the TMT industry, and each day there seems to be another buzzword to keep track of. And when you look the development of the content world, paying particular attention to 4K and 8K, you have to wonder what the point actually is.

Mike Zink, VP of Technology at Warner Bros, summed up the point pretty simply. Having just been to IFA in Berlin, Zink commented that almost every stand had an 8K TV on it. It is a product which is increasingly getting pushed onto consumers, but there is very little 8K content to actually justify the expenditure on the new technology.

Some analysts and commentators might suggest that it is a sensible decision for the consumer to purchase a product which is laden with future-proofed technology, however we think it is simply a ruse to bleed as many dollars out of already strained wallets.

And when you look at the numbers, the market penetration of 4K (we’re not even going to look at 8K right now) is steadily creeping up, but it is not as high as you would expect.

Maria Rua Aguete of IHS Markit estimates market penetration of 4K TVs across Europe is 46%. North America exceeds this percentage, though penetration drops to 42% when you look at China and further down to 19% in Japan. The consumer is being subjected to an assault of 8K messaging, though the 4K evolution is still a work in progress.

Another challenge which the industry faces is a lack of 4K content. In Europe, there is 4K content, though it is one of the few areas where the expenditure is partially justified by experience.

Without the content, is there any point in a 4K TV purchase? And if the market penetration does not increase, will the content creators be swaying into the additional expense of creating 4K content? It is a chicken and egg situation, where those who have been convinced to purchase a 4K TV are ending up in a suspect position.

Perhaps this is a reality check which some in the industry will welcome. The telcos, for instance, which be scratching their heads to figure out how they deliver the desired consumer experience. The increased consumption of video is already placing strain on the network, and 4K/8K would certainly make the creaks louder.

This is perhaps something which the content industry is missing. There is an expectation the infrastructure will be there to deliver the experience, though this might not always be the case.

The telcos are under some pretty severe pressure at the moment. Not only do they have to worry about the deployment of 5G networks, a pretty expensive job to say the least, there are demands on the home broadband side as well. If more consumers are expecting 4K content in their living room, they might end up a bit disappointed.

Trends in the connectivity world are heading the right direction, ‘fibre-first’ is a mentality which is being championed by a huge number of telcos, but are these trends moving fast enough?

If you are thinking about buying a 4K/8K TV right now, it might not be worth the extra investment. Not only is the supporting content thin on the ground, but you should also seriously consider whether you have a broadband connection which can underpin the desired experience.

NBC’s opportunity to cut through the streaming noise with Olympics

With NBCUniversal set to launch its own streaming service in 2020 the risk of content fragmentation is becoming more apparent, but this only underlines the importance of a niche.

Although many of these streaming services might think they are doing something innovative or novel, in reality they are copycatting Netflix. The big issue is that Netflix is already moving onto the bigger and better. Original content is the new frontier, though NBCUniversal might have stumbled across another unique selling point.

“Peacock will be the go-to place for both the timely and timeless – from can’t-miss Olympic moments and the 2020 election, to classic fan favourites like The Office,” said Bonnie Hammer, Chairman of Direct-to-Consumer and Digital Enterprises business unit.

The Olympics, and live streaming sport on the whole, is an area which the streaming giants have largely ignored to date. Amazon has dabbled with tennis, NFL and has a few English Premier League games for the 2019/20 season, while Twitter (admittedly not a streaming service) has got a partnership in place with the PGA Tour. YouTube has toyed with some live events, but never nailed it. It’s a bit sporadic, rather than a coherent assault.

With the Tokyo 2020 Olympics, NBCUniversal has a great opportunity to carve a niche and create a unique position in streaming ecosystem.

Through the NBC Olympic channel, the company has produced every Summer Olympics since Seoul in 1988 and every Winter Olympics since Salt Lake City in 2002. It has all media rights on all platforms to all Olympic Games through to 2032, paying $7.75 billion (US rights) in 2014.

This is a major attraction for consumers around the world and could form the central cog of a new type of streaming service if the team plays its cards right. Olympics coverage averaged 27.5 million viewers across all platforms, with streaming growing particularly. Nearly more than 2.71 billion minutes of coverage was streaming from the Rio Olympics, more than double the previous two events combined.

This is what the new streaming challengers need to understand; they cannot replicate the success of Netflix.

Disruptors to a fast-evolving ecosystem often try to do this and it fails due to the rapidly changing landscape. Netflix found success in being a content aggregator, bringing together titles from a variety of different sources. This model is dead. It cannot be replicated.

The creation of Peacock is another sign of content fragmentation. From next year onwards, Netflix viewers will no-longer be able to view titles such as ‘The Office’, ‘Parks and Recreation’, ‘Brooklyn Nine-nine’ and ‘30 Rock’. This is a consequence of each of the newly emerging platforms. When HBO Max emerged, Netflix lost ‘Friends’, ‘The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air’ and ‘Pretty Little Liars’. With Disney+, all Marvel content will be removed from the Netflix library.

This is a dangerous position for any challengers. The Netflix model is dead because everyone wants to home their content exclusively. The value to the consumer of the aggregator model which drove Netflix in the early years is dwindling away as the content landscape becomes increasingly fragmented.

This is the importance of original content for the streaming services; it allows the creation of a selling-point beyond price. Admittedly, the Netflix original content will not appeal to everyone, but it has big enough budgets to create the breadth and depth, so each show does not have to be a catch-all, mass market product. Anyone who thinks they can compete with Netflix on original content will have to spend a lot of money to do so.

With coverage of the 2020 Election and the Tokyo Olympics on the NBCUniversal streaming platform, there is a notable opportunity to create a proposition which can cut through the noise.

Another very interesting opportunity for NBCUniversal is a fast-emerging trend in the content world; interactivity. This was a notable theme at IBC 2019, and sports presents an opportunity like few other genres.

Viewers could personalise their experience through the selection of different cameras or commentators. Value add content can be generated for months prior to the live-streaming of the event. Technologies such as virtual and augmented reality have a natural home in the sports ecosystem. Partnerships can be developed for additional monetization. There are endless troves of data points to engage every niche of viewer. The opportunity to build a more complete story all the way through the year is very evident.

The question is how aggressive NBCUniversal will be. Will it expand into other sports and live events? Will it look to drive engagement outside of the US market? These are unknowns and will largely be dependent on the delivery of the Tokyo Olympics, though it has a very good opportunity.

AT&T sued for massaging DirecTV figures

If there is a headache in the shape of activist investor Elliott Management already, AT&T executives will be reaching for the aspirin once again as investors sue over suspect figures.

Filed in the US District Court for Southern New York, Melvin Gross is the man leading a coalition of investors to sue AT&T, suggesting the management team misled investors over the performance of its DirecTV video products. The massaged figures might be viewed as an attempt to save face (as well as jobs), though the lawsuit also suggests executives were attempting to justify the incredibly expensive acquisition of Time Warner through nefarious means.

“Moreover, several of the Executive Defendants had strong personal interests in promoting the success of DirecTV Now in order to persuade the market of the logic behind the Time Warner Acquisition,” the filing states.

“The failure of DirecTV Now, prior to the closing of the Acquisition, could have jeopardized the transaction, a result that would have been disastrous for the Defendants.”

Through a combination of fake email addresses and additional charges for customers without consent, practises which were allegedly encouraged by managers, AT&T is effectively accused of fraud. Investors are also suggesting the executive team presented misleading numbers down the omission of promotional numbers. 500,000 net adds disappeared once a three month for $10 deal disappeared, though this risk was apparently not appropriately communicated.

By hyping the performance of DirecTV Now, investors might be encouraged to double-down on momentum in the content unit, funding another monstrous acquisition. However, as the lawsuit states, investors might not be buoyed to spend $108.7 billion (including debt) should the 2014, $67.1 billion DirecTV purchase be viewed as a failure.

This is somewhat of a conspiracy theory, though the DirecTV Now numbers were not anywhere near as attractive during the financial earnings call once AT&T was committed to the Time Warner transaction. As you can see from the table below, the timing is a bit suspicious:

Period Net adds (loss in brackets)
Q2 2019 (168,000)
Q1 2019 (83,000)
Q4 2018 (267,000)
Q3 2018 49,000
Q2 2018 342,000
Q1 2018 312,000
Q4 2017 368,000
Q3 2017 296,000

The Time Warner acquisition was first announced in October 2016 and closed in June 2018. In the financial earnings call following the closure of the transaction (Q3 2018), the DirecTV gains started to crumble away.

With the aggressive expansion and success the AT&T executive team was suggesting up-to Q2 2018, investors will of course have been enthusiastic about adding to the momentum. On the other side, you can see why some are reasonably irked by the reality of the situation. It does appear the fact many of these gains were either irresponsibly attributed or unlikely to be anything more than short-term gain.

Although DirecTV is the focal point of the lawsuit, the Time Warner acquisition is the central cog which the saga flows around.

The content strategy from AT&T is relatively simple. The DirecTV acquisition offered a mobile-friendly content delivery model, and the Time Warner purchase offered a horde of content allowing the telco to compound gains. Both, theoretically, work independently, but the combination is more attractive if you have a bank account big enough to fund the expansion.

However, as the lawsuit suggests, investors might be a bit sheepish in giving the greenlight to a $108 billion acquisition if the ROI from the $67 billion purchase are not living up to the original promise. The AT&T theory and business model is theoretically sound, though if the lawsuit is successful, heads may roll due to the route the management team took to get to the finish line.

The content bet from AT&T is already looking suspect, and this lawsuit will not help the situation.

Alongside this filing, the management team is also under attack from Elliott Management, the vulture fund which specialises in restructuring businesses, promoting a shift towards a utilitised business model and realising short/mid-term gains through increased dividends and share price increases.

The activist investor has taken a $3.2 billion stake in AT&T and has recently sent a letter to shareholders attacking the AT&T strategy and competency of the management team. The content business has come under-fire, with Elliott Management pushing for divestments and a more stringent focus on traditional connectivity products. It’s a strategy which could force the telco down the utilitisation path, something which is unlikely to benefit the business in the long-term.

The emergence of this lawsuit certainly aids the Elliott Management case, however we think the timing is more coincidental. Some might suggest the vulture fund is behind the lawsuit, but we think it is more a case of pleasant timing.

For the AT&T management team, this is a potential disaster. Not only do these executives have an aggressive activist investor calling for their heads, they have now been named in the lawsuit, with the complainants suggesting they encouraged under-handed tactics to directly mislead the market. This is turning into a very uncomfortable month for the AT&T management team.

IBC 2019: Are the nuances of the content world being understood by telcos?

The traditional telco business model is being commoditised, this is not new news, but with more telcos seeking to drive value through content, do they understand the nuances of consumer behaviour?

Once again at IBC in Amsterdam, it is an OTT which is grabbing attention. This should come as little surprise considering the disruption which this fraternity is thrusting on the world of telecoms, media and technology, though here it is more than gratuitous. Cécile Frot-Coutaz, the head of YouTube’s EMEA business, outlined why these companies are leading the way; a fundamental and intrinsic understanding of today’s consumer and the consumer-driven market trends.

This is perhaps why the telcos and traditional media companies are struggling to adapt to a world dominated by millennials, generation Z and digital natives. They appreciate society is changing but have perhaps not correctly balanced the formula to fit cohesively and efficiently into the new paradigm.

This conundrum is most relevant in the content world. Telcos need to factor this complex and nuanced segment into the business model, but how, where, why and when is a tricky question. Many telcos want to do something completely new and very drastic, but the simplest ideas are often the best ones; how can connectivity be used to augment and enhance the fast-growing, fascinating, complicated and profitable content space?

From our perspective, telcos need to diversify, but the best way to do that is figure how connectivity can enhance growing businesses and segments. This might sound like an obvious statement, however the evidence is the nuances are being missed.

Take AT&T for example. This is a company which desperately wants to diversify to take advantage of the digital economy. One way in which it feels it can do this is through the acquisition of Time Warner, a $107 billion bet to own content, create a streaming platform and drive another avenue of engagement with the consumer. Sounds sensible enough, but why take such a risk when there are opportunities closer to home.

Another strategy is more evident in Europe where telcos are attempting to create partnerships with the streaming giants to embed the distribution of these services through their own platforms. See Sky’s integration of Netflix or Vodafone’s work with Amazon Prime. Again, it is a perfectly reasonable approach, but does this future-proof the business against the trends of tomorrow?

These are two approaches which will attract plaudits, but we would like to take the strategy closer to home once again.

During her presentation, Frot-Coutaz pointed to several trends which could define the content world of tomorrow, and it is a perfect opportunity for the telcos to add value.

Firstly, let’s have a look at the consumer of today and tomorrow. Millennials and Generation Z have fundamentally changed the way in which the media world operates, and content is consumed. Not only is it increasingly mobile-driven, but there are new channels emerging every single day. Technology is second-nature to these consumers, and this is shaping the world of tomorrow.

Another interesting point from Frot-Coutaz is the fragmentation of content. One of the objectives of YouTube is not only to own content channels, but to empower the increasing number of content creators who are emerging in the digital world. If the content creators make more money, so does YouTube.

Frot-Coutaz claims that the number of YouTube channels which generate more than $100,000 per annum has increased 30% from 2017 to 2018. These trends are highly likely to continue, further fragmenting the content landscape.

This is where owning content or embedding popular streaming services into platforms becomes problematic. Consumer trends suggest the variety of channels through which the user is consuming content is increasing not decreasing. Embedding Netflix into a platform is an attractive move, but it is only attractive to those who have an interest in Netflix. If connectivity solutions can be offered to consumers to simplify and enhance the consumption of content, agnostic of the platform, there is a catch-all opportunity.

Although Netflix and Amazon Prime might be the content platforms on everyone’s lips for the moment, the number of ways in which consumers engage content is gathering significant momentum. There are new challengers in the streaming world (Disney+ or Apple TV), traditional social media (Facebook or Twitter), challenger social media (Tik Tok) AVOD channels (YouTube), traditional conversational websites (Reddit), messaging platforms and who knows what else in the 5G era. What about the VR/AR platforms which could potentially emerge soon enough?

This is a nuance, not a drastic change in thinking, but it is an important one to understand. Do telcos want to be the owner of content, the distributor or the delivery model. Admittedly, the delivery model is not the sexiest in comparison, but it might hold the most value in the long-run.

Another way to think about this taking the example of Killing Eve, the BBC spy thriller. Is there more long-term value in the eyes of the consumer in owning the content, owning the distribution channel or owning the connectivity services which fuel consumption and engagement through all channels?

The best means of differentiation have always been the ones which are closest to home. If you look at the likes of Google, Microsoft and Amazon, these are future-proofed companies because they are taking their current services and creating contextual relevance. There might be examples which undermine this point, but the general claim holds strong.

At Google, the team diversified their business through the acquisition of Android. This evolution took Google from the PC screen and onto mobile, but it is an extension of the advertising business model in a different context. The same could be said about YouTube. A video platform is drastically different from a search engine, but the underlying business model is the same; identifying the needs of the consumer and serving relevant commercial content.

The telcos are looking to do the same thing, but perhaps there needs to be more of a focus on a proactive evolution of the business rather than reactive. The telcos are playing catch-up on the consumption of video through mobile and a shift to OTT distribution, but the current approach is perhaps too narrowly focused. Focusing on the core business of connectivity delivery is more of a catch-all approach, factoring in future trends and the increasingly fragmented digital society.

This is a very easy statement to make, the complications will be on creating products which encapsulate these trends and offer an opportunity for telcos to grow ARPU. We are sitting very comfortable in the commentary box here as opposed to in the trenches with the product development teams, but the nuances of content are there to be taken advantage of.

IBC 2019: Linear TV isn’t dead just yet

This might sound like a very bold and short-sighted statement, but thanks to the development of IP-based standards, traditional broadcasters might just be able to survive in the digital economy.

This is of course not a statement which suggests business is as usual, there are major restructures and realignments which need to occur to future-proof the business, but linear TV and traditional broadcasters can survive in the cut-throat world of tomorrow.

The change which is being forced onto the world is HbbTV and ATSC 3.0, two new standards for the traditional broadcasters to get behind which offer the opportunity to create the experiences consumers desire and the business model which advertisers demand.

HbbTV, Hybrid Broadcast Broadband TV, and ATSC 3.0 are both standards which aim to take the broadcasting industry into the digital world. Although these standards are not necessarily harmonised, the IP approach effectively forces manufacturers and broadcasters into an era of on-demand content, interactive experiences and hyper-targeted advertising.

Over the last few years, many in the TMT world have been quick to write the obituaries for linear programming, but this is not an area which should be written off so abruptly. There is still a niche for the idea of linear TV, and if executed competently, there will be an audience of Generation Z sitting on the sofa next to the Baby Boomers.

Oliver Botti of the Fincons Group, pointed to two areas where linear TV currently, and will continue to, thrive. Firstly, live sports, and secondly, reality TV programming such as Celebrity Big Brother. With both of these standards, new content, experiences and advertising business models can be enabled to ensure continued relevance.

For sports, additional content can be offered to the consumer alongside the action to offer the viewer more control of their experience. This is something which is becoming increasingly common in the OTT world, though it is yet to genuinely penetrate traditional broadcasting in any meaningful way. The second example Botti highlighted is a very interesting one.

The concept of Celebrity Big Brother is not new to most. Dozens of cameras in a closed environment, following around the lives of prima donnas where at least one will probably make some sort of racist gaff at some point. However, with the new standards, Botti highlighted users can choose which camera is live on their own TV, creating a personalised content experience.

It does sound very creepy, but this is the sort of thing which is likely to appeal to some audiences…

Both of these examples are live content. For some, this experience can not be replicated in an on-demand environment, driving the continued relevance for linear TV. It is a niche, but one which will drive the relevance of traditional broadcasters and the relevance of linear programming for years to come.

Vincent Grivet, Chairman of the HbbTV Association, also highlighted the standards also allow for personalised advertising. This is just as, or perhaps more, important to the survival of traditional broadcasters as without the advertising dollars these businesses will not survive. Advertisers know what they want nowadays mainly because Silicon Valley can offer it. If hyper-targeted advertising is not an option, advertisers will not part with their valuable budgets.

What is worth noting, is that both of these standards rely on the TV manufacturers creating products which allow for success to continue. This is where an issue might arise; currently there is no global harmonisation.

HbbTV has been adopted in Europe, while ATSC 3.0 has been championed in the US and South Korea. China is doing what China does and going down its own separate path, creating a notable amount of fragmentation. This might be a challenge.

Richard Friedel, Executive VP of Technology & Broadcast Strategy of 21st Century Fox, told us that as an engineer he would like to see more harmonisation, but as a pragmatist, he doesn’t see it happening any time soon. All the standards are IP-based, therefore there will be a natural alignment as the industry evolves over the next couple of years, but this does not necessarily mean genuine harmonisation.

This presents a complication for the industry, but let’s not forget that this is a positive step in the right direction. Linear TV might not be attracting the headlines, but if you listen to the right people, it is certainly not dead.

Apple and Disney belatedly sever corporate ties

Disney CEO Bob Iger has been on the Apple board for eight years but, with the two companies now competing directly in the SVOD market, he has resigned.

Last week Apple officially launched its Apple TV+ subscription video on demand service last week, thus placing it in direct competition with Disney, which is also set to get into the SVOD game with, you guessed it, Disney+. For some reason the two companies left it until the very last minute for Iger to clear off, despite the two competing service having been in development for months.

“On September 10, 2019, Bob Iger resigned from the Board of Directors of Apple Inc,” said the abrupt, unsentimental Apple SEC filing. The Hollywood Reporter got a bit more comment on the matter, with Iger saying how great Apple is and Apple returning the compliment, which is nice. Whether relations will remain so cordial when they’re trying to steal SVOD market share from each other remains to be seen. For some reason Iger is still isted as a board member on the Apple site.

While Iger has been on the Apple board, links between the two companies go a lot further back than that. Apple founder Steve jobs was also the founder of Pixar Animation and thus become one of the largest Disney shareholder when it bought Pixar in 2006. Jobs also joined the Disney board at that time and stayed until his death in 2011.

As companies Apple and Disney have a lot in common. They both position themselves as premium consumer brands and invest heavily in their brand image. They also have a reputation for wanting to control everything around their product offering and image, so it’s not at all surprising that they would want to have their own SVOD services offering only their own stuff rather than rely on third parties for distribution or content.

One other big thing they have in common is a desire to be viewed as wholesome, family companies, which creates the possibility that they will end up producing fairly similar content. Right now Disney is mainly about feature-length movies while Apple seems to be focusing more in TV-style stuff. But that distinction could easily change over the years and, if it does, these two American icons will be fighting for the same wholesome dollar.

IBC 2019: European Broadcasting Union joins FANG regulatory choir

The European Broadcasting Union (EBU) is the latest organization to start singing the praises of greater regulation, transparency and accessibility for the internet giants.

It is starting to become a tune to which we are all accustomed to, and it should come as little surprise the victims of aggressive disruption are calling for greater control, but the EBU has joined the regulatory choir at IBC 2019. Speaking during the conference, Noel Curran, Director General of the EBU, fired the shots across the Atlantic at Silicon Valley.

“Why is there no regulation in terms of data?” Curran stated. “Right now, we have an unregulated social media sector, being dominated by four or five big companies that have unprecedented amount of control.”

Again, this is a familiar story. Momentum has continued to gather behind the technology giants of Silicon Valley, compounding an already incredibly influential position. The broadcasters have been left behind, the telcos are attempting to drive relevance and the politicians are no-longer the most influential people in a country.

To add some context to the situation, one of the reasons ‘traditional’ broadcasters are in such a precarious position right now is a lack of evolution. This is an industry which progressed very little prior to the introduction of the streaming giants. Content might have changed, as has the technology to deliver said content, but the business models and engagement of consumers was stagnant.

The door was open for disruption, and if an industry doesn’t disrupt itself, troublemakers from the outside will do it.

Aside from the technology, the talent and the budgets, the FANG companies can harness the power of insight. As Curran points out above, these companies have a treasure trove of information the ‘traditional’ broadcasters can only dream of accessing. It not only allows the disruptors to create innovative business models through hyper-targeted advertising but enables them to make smarter decisions. FANG companies know their customers intrinsically, and it is fuelling growth.

This is another gripe from the ‘traditional’ broadcasting industry; the likes of Netflix and Amazon are not enthusiastic about sharing the wealth of insight. All3Media CEO Jane Turton confirmed what many of us already knew this week; the FANGs haven’t ever voluntarily or knowingly shared this valuable insight, and this is not changing.

This is the competitive edge Silicon Valley has. Sharing this data might encourage more of the ‘traditional’ broadcasting industry to sympathise with the FANGs, however why would they want to erode their advantage? It isn’t a level-playing field right now, though this is only because the FANGs are more forward-thinking and resourceful when it comes to the digital economy.

Perhaps this is something the ‘traditional’ broadcasting lobby will be pushing for in the future. Access to the data and regulation which forces FANG to play nice. The technology giants will of course resist, and we have already seen how powerful its own lobby can be, but the number of opponents is starting to add-up.