Cord cutters have always questioned the need for a $100-plus cable bill each month for the 300+ channels they never watch anyway. Many have tuned out of traditional TV altogether.
In the unlikely event that you do get a few minutes to sit in your lazy boy chair and watch TV, streaming services such as Netflix and Amazon Studios have more than enough content to satisfy your taste and for a fraction of the cost of cable or satellite.
The issue however is the increasingly fragmented streaming marketplace, eroding value away for cord cutters that cancel their big cable subscriptions.
A year and a half ago I had written a post titled True Cost of Streaming is Higher Than You Think. In the period since then, my hope was things would improve for the consumer. They usually do as technology evolves over time and more competitors enter the market.
Clearly that has not happened and the problem has become worse. In fact more competitors have entered the market but with the sole intent of fragmenting it even further, with their "original" & "exclusive" programming messages.
Original content has become the weapon-du-jour for these providers trying to persuade consumers into subscribing to their services with the allure of exclusive shows.
Jumping on the bandwagon, Apple too recently announced a $1 Billion war chest for “exclusive” Hollywood programming, an incredibly bold move considering big players that already dominate the space.
Stealing Apple’s thunder, Netflix quickly responded with its own statement announcing they will spend seven times as much next year. TV shows such as Orange is the New Black, Stranger Things and Master of None are already household names.
It's also worth highlighting that Netflix's scripted TV series picked up 92 Emmy nominations this year. This number is impressive on its own, but when compared to the 54 in last year's awards season, it's clear to see their video streaming service is heading straight up to the moon.
What is agonizing for consumers is the endless list of “must watch” TV shows, that are speckled across an incredibly fragmented marketplace. Whether it be Game of Thrones (HBO), House of Cards (Netflix), or The Man in the High Castle (Amazon Studios), the cost of juggling these services can quickly add up for a consumer.
Even a full episode of Carpool Karaoke now requires an Apple Music subscription! Hulu and YouTube would also like you to subscribe, and Facebook of course is waiting in the wings with their new service Watch.
What initially sounded like a great idea for consumers is now looking like a great deal for everyone but the viewer. The appeal of streaming or subscription video on demand (SVOD) services was the ability for consumers to only pay for what they watch. The reality, however, is having to manage multiple subscriptions to experience a degree of choice.
It is relatively easy to break through the $50 barrier in SVOD subscriptions each month before even considering adding sports packages or children's programming.
New Yorker David Berkowitz highlighted the problem perfectly when his three-year-old daughter had to use two separate services to access Finding Dory and Finding Nemo.
Our smartphone usage and slow but steady adoption of voice recognition with devices such as Amazon Echo is also ringing the death knell of our love affair with apps. Ironically our viewing habits are requiring multiple devices and apps. How is this progress?
Possibly the biggest loser in all this is the advertising industry. Digital natives are building virtual walls to guard against intrusive ads. Popup blockers suppress the white noise from web browsers, and SVOD subscriptions promise an ad free experience.
Reaching audiences can thus be challenging for brands, compelling them to force users to watch their ads before a show. This can also backfire when some of these users decide not to align with the brand due to the negative experience they might have attributed to them.
Despite being late to the game, it seems TV providers have awakened from their slumber and evolved to adapt to the new setup. But a fragmented landscape leaves more losers than winners.
In an age where we are attempting to simplify everything and removing friction points from industries, the world of entertainment appears to be clinging on to business models from our analog past. Music service TIDAL tried the same tactic, and we all know how that story ended.
Replacing a cable box with multiple apps to watch shows in the name of progress is just not clever. What do you think?