The Resilient Advertiser-Support Video Content Model

             Changes in the rates for Netflix and other video content show a major nudge (make that push) toward a cheaper advertiser-supported option.  Just now, Netflix has raised its ad-free plans to $11.99-22.99 monthly, but kept its newly offered ad-supported plan at $6.99. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/netflix-price-increase-2023/.  Apparently, the company can accrue higher revenues and profits by combining monthly subscriber payments with advertising revenues.  I expect the number of advertising minutes to creep up incrementally, but who counts?

            The more things change, the more they remain the same.  Not too long ago, pundits touted the pay per view, and all you can eat pricing models, often with no advertising.  HBO considered ad free a competitive advantage underscoring its premium status. Now, the new HBO, called Max, offers an ad-supported option, for $9.99 compared to the $15.99-19.99 ad-free option. https://www.cabletv.com/hbo-max.

            The ad-support model comes at a time when consumers appear inclined to trim their monthly video content expenditures.  Increasingly, cable subscribers have “cut the cord,” no longer willing to pay an average $112.70 monthly for an array of content, much of which they do not watch. https://cordcuttersnews.com/the-average-cable-tv-bill-from-comcast-spectrum-more-is-now-112-70-a-month-just-for-tv-in-2023/. Why pay a cable operator $9.42 or more a month for ESPN channels (https://www.sportico.com/business/media/2023/sports-tv-cable-bundle-license-to-print-money-1234734446/) if you don’t care about sports programming?

            The resiliency of the advertiser supported pricing model presents consumers with a mixed bag.  On one hand, advertising interferes with the flow of programming, especially long form content, such as movies.  While Max currently emphasizes that it will interrupt programming with comparatively fewer minutes, it will join the bandwagon of incrementally more and more ads.  I recently watched programming on Amazon’s Freevee, https://www.amazon.com/gp/video/splash/freevee_findus and YoutubeTV.  It seemed that viewers face a sequence of 5 minute content blocs followed by 5 minutes of advertising.  A two hour movie extends well beyond three hours. 

            On the other hand, while you have to tolerate interruptions, you do not have to consume the products and services advertised.  You are not a complete “free rider,” as you still pay for a subscription, but there are growing out of pocket savings compared to the ever increasing ad free option.

            Content vendors will do more with less as they reduce programming expenses.  Another economic fact of life comes to mind: you get what you pay for.  Expect a speedy decline in the value proposition from streaming video.

 

 

 

Verizon’s “Free” Mobile Streaming Service and the Many Questions About Sponsored Data

           When one of the two mega-wireless carriers in the U.S. announces a mobile streaming service, the FCC soon will have to confront head on what carriers can and cannot do by way of advertiser supported data consumption. 

           At first impression, what’s not to like about Verizon’s Go90 gambit? See http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/08/business/media/verizon-to-offer-free-mobile-tv-with-an-eye-on-millennials.html?emc=eta1&_r=0. The smartphone surely has the capability of offering a competitive alternative to other screens in the video marketplace including television sets and PC monitors.  If a third party wants to subsidize my consumption of “must see” video, well thank you very much!  I am a classic free rider likely to consume the video content without necessarily paying for the advertised products and services. 

           In class I regularly make references to beer, one of the essential food groups for my students.  Most get the economic concept of free ridership when I explain how much I enjoy the Clydesdale advertisements for AB Inbev Budweiser, without having to buy the beer.

            Free rider opportunities notwithstanding, there is a closer question whether sponsored data constitutes permissible price discrimination.  Bear in mind that carriers like Verizon and Comcast can absorb the cost of content carriage, or receive advertising revenues making it possible for consumers to watch content without seeing their often skimpy data allocation evaporate.  Netflix has not banked on competitors having the same zero cost of content delivery.

            So would Netflix have a legitimate (and lawful) complaint about how sponsored data violates the FCC’s Open Internet Order?  In the Internet Service Provider tilting the competitive marketplace for information, communications and entertainment (“ICE”) by taking the cost of content carriage out of the consumer’s cost calculation?

            I part with my network neutrality true believers on this issue, because not all price and quality of service discrimination violates the Communications Act of 1934.  The practice has to be “unfair” and the discrimination has to be “harmful.”  I can envision plenty of instances where sponsored data enhances consumer welfare, particularly free riders distributed throughout the range of incomes.

           

 

New Video Streaming Options and Network Neutrality

           Over the last few weeks, several video streaming options have arrived.  See, e.g., http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/business/media/streaming-tv-cord-cutting-guide.html?_r=0.  These new services raise two key pocketbook issues:

            1)         Can consumers reduce their total out of pocket costs by cutting, or shaving the cable television cord? and

            2)         Can incumbent broadband access providers retaliate by raising the costs of both content providers’ and end users, despite the FCC’s 2015 Open Internet Order?

            Cord Cutter/Shaver Empowerment?

            Many press accounts suggest that consumers can save money by terminating their cable subscription, or migrating to cheaper programming tiers.  If one can tolerate the loss of access to some live sporting events, from networks such as ESPN, then a significant savings accrues even factoring in a Netflix and Hulu subscription.  Cord cutting/shaving works best for consumers who can receive broadcast networks off air without having to install rooftop antennas.

            However, the cost savings equation also has to factor the cost of broadband access and the near certainty that last mile providers, like Comcast, will increase rates for “naked” broadband services, i.e., subscriptions that do not bundle video and/or telephone service with broadband access.  Despite the theoretical argument that platform operators/intermediaries controlling a doubled-sided market cannot gouge, the possibility exists that cable modem service providers can simultaneously raise broadband rates for downstream retail subscribers and extract higher prices and surcharges from upstream content distributors.

            The Specialized Network Exemption from Neutrality

            Another more ambiguous, but potentially harmful issue arises with the proliferation of streaming options: what flexibility and exemption from absolute neutrality can Internet Service Providers (“ISPs”) can achieve?

            This issue will start the process for the many ad hoc FCC "interpretations" that will occur going forward.  Predictably the Commission will have two conflicting issues in play.  On one hand, the 2015 Open Internet Order recognizes a specialized network option for traffic such as VoIP.  I believe the Commission will recognize that the low latency requirements of IPTV also qualifies for a conditional exemption from absolute neutrality.  But on the other hand, the Order explicitly states that the specialized network exemption shall not provide a loop hole for evading the overarching requirement for neutrality.

            The 2015 Open Internet Order generally prohibits paid prioritization and establishes a “no-unreasonable interference/disadvantage” standard for ISP treatment of upstream traffic, like that flowing from content sources.  This probably means that the FCC will want to make sure that specialized routing arrangements are technically necessary on quality of service grounds and not simply a construct to favor traffic of affiliates, or surcharge payers.  Sponsored data arrangements also fit into this category.

            Does an ISP simply partition generic bandwidth and call it a specialized network, or does the ISPs really and truly do something by way of dedicated, management?  Bear in mind that some way, somehow the FCC has avoided having to examine the functions and services performed by proxy server/CDN companies like Akamai.  Does an ISP simply have to show it operates like Akamai, but extends the value added, specialized features for the link downstream to end users?

            Stay tuned.