Bell ushers in new era with CTV deal
So Bell has purchased CTV. Not really that big a deal under normal circumstances, except when you realize why they did it...
You know what sort of worries me about this kind of acquisition? It's clearly an attempt to own (control) content.
When they say marginalized what they really mean is service providers being nothing more than dumb pipes - providing connectivity to the internet and nothing more. As customers dump their televisions and access content online, that's basically all the carrier has left to offer, connectivity.
The problem with connectivity is that one would expect, over time, for it to decline in cost (unless the market gets monopolized).
So how do you make money off customers who are living on the Web? The answer... you get in to the content business. You charge them, I don't know, 99 cents to watch Survivor on their iPad or computer (and charge them another 99 cents in data costs associated with downloading the episode).
It's a very smart play by Bell. The worry long-term however, is that content will become exclusive to a carrier. So for instance, if you want to watch CTV news, you won't be able to access it if you are on the Rogers network. Or if you want to read the Globe and Mail, only Bell internet subscribers will be able to do so.
Now, I don't think this will ultimately happen, but what you could see is different prices to access content depending on the provider you are with. So if you are a Bell subscriber, maybe Survivor costs you 99 cents, but if you are a Rogers customer (accessing the content off the Bell network), perhaps it costs $1.99. This assumes Bell had exclusivity for broadcasting Survivor on the Web (it's just a hypothetical example).
It seems a bit weird when you first think about it, but it makes sense. Let's say Bell beefs up it's online offering... so you get internet connectivity PLUS access to exclusive or discount-priced online content that you can't get with Rogers. How does Rogers combat that? Without content, they'll have to charge less for internet connectivity and hope customers stay with them for that reason.
This then would cause Bell to lower it's data connectivity charges. Over time, you basically get data connectivity costs going lower and lower and lower. So you'll have people no longer subscribing to television, you'll have data costs going down and down... so what will bring customers to you over the competitor? Access to content.
The good news is that I can foresee a future where basically 'all you can eat' internet connectivity is basically free (or maybe something like 25 bucks for 400 gigs a month). Bell's move definitely suggests that data packet transfer (ie. internet connectivity) is not where the money is going to be in the long run. It's going to be about content and various methods of monetizing access to that content.
The thing that will be even more interesting though is the impact someone like Google will have. In my opinion, Google has the ability to wipe everyone off the map because they are perfectly positioned to be that Uber-online-content provider. Just like if you want to buy a book you go to Amazon, I can see if you want to watch a tv show you will go to Google. Except unlike Amazon (which just acts as a clearing house), I expect Google will use it's dominance to drive down content costs, perhaps even driving content costs to zero and embedding the traditional 'commercial' revenue model to the online viewing experience.
Google would become almost like a world-wide content provider. So instead of Rogers and Bell in Ontario, Shaw in BC, Comcast in the US, Sky in the UK.... it's just Google (and service providers, you guessed it, go back to just providing connectivity). Whether you are in Australia, India, Europe... you would get access to content from around the world through Google. Gives a whole new meaning to the term 'Google Earth'.
Either way, it's going to be a wild ride as all these companies try to figure out ways to get you to give them money in a new era where everyone is living on the Web.
I think Google will the one to watch because they seem to have the most flexibility to simply innovate and worry about revenue models after the fact, while everyone else only innovates if there is an immediate opportunity to make money or in response to an immediate competitive threat.
The question for PR folks is whether we are ready for a truly Internet-based, Global village where audiences have mobile access to media-rich content and video is king?
Will your traditional one-to-two page news release even be used in five years from now or instead will we be using video news releases where PR folks or CEOs announce the news through videos?
Will PR folks have to hire models or charismatic personalities to read the news releases to maximize viewers' interest?
Will finely crafted messages evolve from the written word to the spoken word, and as such adopt a different style?
Will video news releases also include a video FAQ?
Instead of customer quotes in a news release will we be seeing customers provided quotes in the video news release?
If you don't leverage video will you lose access and mind-share to a world wide audience?
The times are changing and it will be interesting to see how PR changes with them!
So Bell has purchased CTV. Not really that big a deal under normal circumstances, except when you realize why they did it...
Driving convergence this time, the Internet-enabled mobile devices such as smart phones and computer tablets are threatening home television’s lock on viewers. Bell, like its rivals, wants to offer more content to its subscribers, however they receive the signal. Viewers are increasingly interested in watching their favourite shows on their phones while they ride the bus or sit in the park, and the cable and phone companies that have served as middle men between viewers and broadcasters were in danger of being marginalized.
You know what sort of worries me about this kind of acquisition? It's clearly an attempt to own (control) content.
When they say marginalized what they really mean is service providers being nothing more than dumb pipes - providing connectivity to the internet and nothing more. As customers dump their televisions and access content online, that's basically all the carrier has left to offer, connectivity.
The problem with connectivity is that one would expect, over time, for it to decline in cost (unless the market gets monopolized).
So how do you make money off customers who are living on the Web? The answer... you get in to the content business. You charge them, I don't know, 99 cents to watch Survivor on their iPad or computer (and charge them another 99 cents in data costs associated with downloading the episode).
It's a very smart play by Bell. The worry long-term however, is that content will become exclusive to a carrier. So for instance, if you want to watch CTV news, you won't be able to access it if you are on the Rogers network. Or if you want to read the Globe and Mail, only Bell internet subscribers will be able to do so.
Now, I don't think this will ultimately happen, but what you could see is different prices to access content depending on the provider you are with. So if you are a Bell subscriber, maybe Survivor costs you 99 cents, but if you are a Rogers customer (accessing the content off the Bell network), perhaps it costs $1.99. This assumes Bell had exclusivity for broadcasting Survivor on the Web (it's just a hypothetical example).
It seems a bit weird when you first think about it, but it makes sense. Let's say Bell beefs up it's online offering... so you get internet connectivity PLUS access to exclusive or discount-priced online content that you can't get with Rogers. How does Rogers combat that? Without content, they'll have to charge less for internet connectivity and hope customers stay with them for that reason.
This then would cause Bell to lower it's data connectivity charges. Over time, you basically get data connectivity costs going lower and lower and lower. So you'll have people no longer subscribing to television, you'll have data costs going down and down... so what will bring customers to you over the competitor? Access to content.
The good news is that I can foresee a future where basically 'all you can eat' internet connectivity is basically free (or maybe something like 25 bucks for 400 gigs a month). Bell's move definitely suggests that data packet transfer (ie. internet connectivity) is not where the money is going to be in the long run. It's going to be about content and various methods of monetizing access to that content.
The thing that will be even more interesting though is the impact someone like Google will have. In my opinion, Google has the ability to wipe everyone off the map because they are perfectly positioned to be that Uber-online-content provider. Just like if you want to buy a book you go to Amazon, I can see if you want to watch a tv show you will go to Google. Except unlike Amazon (which just acts as a clearing house), I expect Google will use it's dominance to drive down content costs, perhaps even driving content costs to zero and embedding the traditional 'commercial' revenue model to the online viewing experience.
Google would become almost like a world-wide content provider. So instead of Rogers and Bell in Ontario, Shaw in BC, Comcast in the US, Sky in the UK.... it's just Google (and service providers, you guessed it, go back to just providing connectivity). Whether you are in Australia, India, Europe... you would get access to content from around the world through Google. Gives a whole new meaning to the term 'Google Earth'.
Either way, it's going to be a wild ride as all these companies try to figure out ways to get you to give them money in a new era where everyone is living on the Web.
I think Google will the one to watch because they seem to have the most flexibility to simply innovate and worry about revenue models after the fact, while everyone else only innovates if there is an immediate opportunity to make money or in response to an immediate competitive threat.
The question for PR folks is whether we are ready for a truly Internet-based, Global village where audiences have mobile access to media-rich content and video is king?
Will your traditional one-to-two page news release even be used in five years from now or instead will we be using video news releases where PR folks or CEOs announce the news through videos?
Will PR folks have to hire models or charismatic personalities to read the news releases to maximize viewers' interest?
Will finely crafted messages evolve from the written word to the spoken word, and as such adopt a different style?
Will video news releases also include a video FAQ?
Instead of customer quotes in a news release will we be seeing customers provided quotes in the video news release?
If you don't leverage video will you lose access and mind-share to a world wide audience?
The times are changing and it will be interesting to see how PR changes with them!
Comments
Post a Comment