nScreenMedia OTT multiscreen media analysis

Programmers treat vMVPDs as MVPDs at their peril

Sling TV on Windows 10

TV providers and industry analysts have woken up to the viability of vMVPDs. However, the business model for vMVPDs is fundamentally different from traditional pay TV, and programmers cannot expect to treat them the same.

Analysts optimistic for the future of vMVPDs

ABI research says that services that deliver packages of live linear channels over the Internet, such as Sling TV in the US and TVPlayer in the UK, have a bright future. The company estimates that by the end of 2018 as many as 400 million people could be using vMVPD services.~

In markets such as the US, the consumer proposition for vMVPDs can be compelling. For $20 a month, Sling TV provides many popular cable channels that typically require $60 or $80 a month to obtain from traditional pay TV. Of course, the consumer must be willing to live without some channels they may currently use. However, with potential savings of $500 or more a year, that’s a trade many are prepared to make.

vMVPD business constraints not the same as traditional pay TV

Though the business looks essentially the same as pay TV to a consumer, vMVPDs operate under a very different set of business constraints. Content license fees are the biggest cost faced by any TV provider, whether traditional or virtual. However, they constrain a vMVPD far more than a traditional operator.

Traditional pay TV operators like Comcast and DirecTV have been facing escalatingComcast ARPU versus programming costs license fee costs for years. Comcast, for example, has seen the cost of content as a percentage of average revenue per subscriber increase from 47% in 2014 to 58% today.

According to nScreenMedia estimates, the cost of content license fees for one of the most popular vMVPD services in the US, YouTube TV, equals or even exceeds the $40 monthly subscription cost.

Another difference between pay TV and vMVPDs is the length of the consumer contract. Pay TV operators typically get consumers to sign up to multi-year agreements. Most vMVPDs can’t do that and must live with just 1-month commitment.

vMVPDs can’t absorb content fee increases

As programmers have demanded huge license fee increases for their content, traditional pay TV providers have absorbed some of that increase. For example, between 2013 and 2017, license fees paid by Comcast increased an average of 9% a year while ARPU increased only 3%. That is why their margins have eroded so quickly.

With no margin and no long-term customer commitments, YouTube TV and Sling TV are in no position to absorb big increases in content license fees.* They would be forced to increase subscription fees the full amount to cover the increased costs, or cut channels provided by the service to save money. Both courses of action will result in a reduction in subscribers.

In other words, demanding big increases in fees from vMVPDs could result in less license fee revenue for some, and possibly for all.

Tricky situation for programmers

Pay TV subscribers that have jumped to vMVPD services have already resolved to live without some channels to save money. They can likely do this because they have been spending more time with services like Netflix and less with pay TV. If vMVPDs start to increase prices or cut channels, some customers could decide they can live without their TV channels completely and become TV cutters, not just cord-cutters.

Simply put, TV programmers cannot expect to continue to raise prices on vMVPDs as they have done with traditional pay TV operators. If they do, they could end up with less revenue, not more.

Why it matters

TV programmers have been able to win large license fee increases from traditional pay TV operators.

Operators have absorbed some of the increase and accepted lower margins, to cushion the blow to subscribers.

vMVPD operators have no margins to absorb any increase and will raise prices or cut channels to compensate.

Programmer fee increases to vMVPDs could result in less revenue, not more.

~It is not clear to me how ABI thinks there will be 400M subscribers to vMVPDs by the end of this year. The US is the region with the most deployments, and there are currently no more than 6 million subscribers.

*Twitter user RT7951 reminded me I should have mentioned that AT&T may be in the same situation as Comcast with DirecTV Now and the as-yet unlaunched non-sports vMVPD. In other words, it can withstand some content license fee increases because it can offset the increase against other services. 


(2) Comments

  1. Every scenario here results in LESS revenue for content licensors. They are writing their own eulogy by the beasts they are creating with vmvpds. Keep them alive and continue to convert traditional subs to lower value subs.

    How you can argue that they must treat vmvpds different from tradtional mvpds defies any logic whatsoever. The content is the content and to enable the same content at materially lower margins on a vmvpd cuts their own throats over the long haul.

    Gravity exists in one place but not another?

    • Of course, programmers can demand high license fee increases of vMVPDs if they want to (and I think it highly likely they will.) It will be self-defeating though. Just as continuing to demand huge license fee increases from MVPDs is ultimately self-defeating. Gravity exists in both places. It’s just vMVPDs have nothing in reserve to play the game.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.